BBC Focus Magazine

[Shadowwolf]

After 10 years of archaeological investigations, researchers have concluded that Stonehenge was built as a monument to unify the peoples of Britain, after a long period of conflict and regional difference between eastern and western Britain.

Its stones are thought to have symbolized the ancestors of different groups of earliest farming communities in Britain, with some stones coming from southern England and others from west Wales.

The teams, from the universities of Sheffield, Manchester, Southampton, Bournemouth and University College London, all working on the Stonehenge Riverside Project (SRP), explored not just Stonehenge and its landscape but also the wider social and economic context of the monument's main stages of construction around 3,000 BC and 2,500 BC.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120622163722.htm

[M Paul Lloyd]

At the risk of sounding like the total sceptic here I do wonder if their is not just a ha'peth o' sociopolitical chicanery in all of this given the current talk of an independent Scotland and possible break-up of the Euro-zone?

How very convenient to apparently find justification for some ancient legend and one that is almost Arthurian in concept that supports national unity.

[Shadowwolf]

I think that would assume a level of government conspiracy with academia that has little or no foundation, when coincidence would probably fit better. Besides, as the UK is not Europe's biggest cheerleader we would essentially have the researchers colluding with two parties to fabricate a fiction that suits them both.

I don't know if it's actually why it was built but it's a reasonable hypotheses I think.

[M Paul Lloyd]

I grant you that on closer examination it does appear less 'contrived' than I first assumed.
I therefore stand corrected.
I may beg their indulgence for an extract for my own little potted history.
stonehenge-a-brief-chronology-2010-update-t3.html

Although I do rather wonder at the timing, but yes it would help explain why it, amongst a plethora of Wood Henge's this one alone would be built from such colossal stones and to such a high degree o precision with others from such far flung parts of Pembrokeshire.

It certainly would have been a true wonder of its age and folk would likely have travelled a very long way just to glimpse it, and I can see a fair trade in 'guided tours' going on.
Yes I bet it was a right little money spinner.

Goodness knows I was well impressed when I first saw it some................ forty years ago....

I seem to recall parking on the roadside and giving £4 to a bloke in a shed to gain full access.

[Lateralman]

Did stonehenge have a roof? Was it a fancy barn?

[Lateralman]

Then again, if it had a roof, perhaps it was a big house belonging to Mr and Mrs Henge King and Queen of the druids.

[M Paul Lloyd]

Just one problem there Lateral, contrary to popular myth the Druids were a woodland religous order and had nothing at all to do with Stonehenge. All the 'marking the solstice' malarky is a 20th century invention.

[Lateralman]

I guess it would be a tad disappointing Mr Lloyd if it turned out to be nothing more than a rich mans folly.
Seriously though I was thinking about how some tribes go to great extremes to protect their grain as in those days food equated to survival and after all there were all sorts of rituals going on to ensure a good harvest I would imagine.

[M Paul Lloyd]

Possibly Lateral, indeed many of the features of Stonehenge suggest that it was a focal point for pilgrims (of unkown religous persuasion) given that it would have been accessed via a very grand processional way and would have had a profound impact on anyone more used to simple wooden buildings.

Mind you it was not always as it appears today with many early phases having a number of alternative arrangements so its purpose may also have evolved over time?

You might find this interesting?
stonehenge-a-brief-chronology-2010-update-t3.html

[Lateralman]

Mr Lloyd, I must have missed this. You are Mr Henge! Well if anyone knows, it had a roof or not it would be you. I had a quick scan of the information. Personally, I cannot see people going to all that trouble in the freezing weather to erect such a structure without sticking a roof on top of it. After all, it wasn’t that big and they had a great deal of wood. Could it have belonged to an unknown powerful tribal leader? Could there be lost evidence of many other round wooden structures within the surrounding area as his or her tribe would have to be located nearby and have to be housed somewhere. Here I go again...

[Lateralman]

If there was a King or Queen and Stonehenge was their castle there may have been successive generations of them and each of the giant stones are headstones marking the location their graves.

The surrounding gaps would have provided a 360% view of the terrain and easily defended at each portal by the Kings best warriors when under attack from enemies. This building may have paved the way for castle building throughout England in fact it may be England’s first castle.

Perhaps the centre originally housed a fire and the stones we see now erected in the middle put there later for the last of the tribal members to place offerings on to continue to worship long lost rulers.

Therefore, the last King of Stonehenge lived in a roofed stone building surrounded by his ancestors.

Fairytale or not?

Has anyone looked underneath one of these stones? Hang on I will be back just as soon as I have done a little more digging around.

[M Paul Lloyd]

Fairytale or not?

Definitley Fairytale. Verging on utter cobblers as usual.

[Lateralman]

Okay Mr Lloyd explain this. I looked on wiki and read no mention of it being a roofed building or early ancient castle and yet it appears to have been surrounded by a ditch, as if it once had a moat or a sharpened stave protection ring like the Romans used to place around their encampments, which may have been for defence. The gaps between the stones may have had wicker lattice doors, which could have been removed to allow further defence from whatever direction an attacking enemy was coming from.

The occupiers may even have been trying to protect themselves from wild beasts.

The inner wooden postholes might have been new wooden round homes built later by a new king trying to establish himself on the same spot after some great battle or catastrophe when the roof of first building burnt down.

Originally the whole area was wooded to a great distance therefore earlier on it could hardly have been used as a place of worship for the midwinter solstice as the rising sun from such a low angle may have not been visible over the tops of so many trees.

The axe and dagger carvings onto the great stones may lend credence to this thought.

[Lateralman]

That any ancient civilisation may place the burial of their dead above protecting themselves is a load of cobblers, as they have to establish themselves first.

[M Paul Lloyd]

The ditch predates the stones Lateral............My opinion of Wikipedia is.............. irrelevant but if you read my article on the subject you should get an idea of how it evolved, over thousands of years, from a simple clearing, through a burial ground and at some point had a small wooden structure at its centre before the introduction of bluestones from Pembrokeshire long before the giant stones we see today were put in place, but for all the archeological work that has been carried out on the site no evidence of actual human occupation has ever been found. It was, it seems, intended and continued to be a sacred place, not a dwelling of any kind.

[Lateralman]

Okay I will look at that again.
They were probably dealing with a lot of trade from overseas and had to make an impression. A beach hut built out of driftwood wouldn’t do that.
They may have all been wiped out or taken as slaves therefore leaving no evidence of human occupation.

[Lateralman]

They may have tossed their dead into the river or put them on raised platforms for wild animals to dispose of.

After all, we are talking about a long period most artefacts avidly collected if they held any religious significance.

In addition, these ancient monuments must have influenced any early castle building architects wandering about after that period. Perhaps you will find some of the missing stones built into nearby castle walls, included by blokes such as Merlin, because of their imaginary 'place of worship' magical properties.

[Lateralman]

Hey Mr Lloyd, if any of the missing stones from Stonehenge were found to be built into a nearby castle, then I have just realised that could reveal that the castle was once known as Camelot!

To located nearby appear to be good contenders.

[M Paul Lloyd]

Okay I will look at that again.
They were probably dealing with a lot of trade from overseas and had to make an impression. A beach hut built out of driftwood wouldn’t do that.
They may have all been wiped out or taken as slaves therefore leaving no evidence of human occupation.

Evidence for human occupation is more subtle than that Lateral, the site has no evidence of fire hearths, middens, store pits or post holes beyond the one small wooden structure mentioned previously.

They may have tossed their dead into the river or put them on raised platforms for wild animals to dispose of.

After all, we are talking about a long period most artefacts avidly collected if they held any religious significance.

They may have, but any amount of burials in the immediate vicinity does not signify occupation, so I don't quite see your point

In addition, these ancient monuments must have influenced any early castle building architects wandering about after that period. Perhaps you will find some of the missing stones built into nearby castle walls, included by blokes such as Merlin, because of their imaginary 'place of worship' magical properties.

Well first of all Merlin, or Idris if you prefer, is an entirely ficticous charector but yes some of the missing stones may well have been robbed out for building material but despite extensive efforts none have actually been identified, truth is the stonemason concerned probably broke them up on site thus rendering them almost unidentifiable?

Hey Mr Lloyd, if any of the missing stones from Stonehenge were found to be built into a nearby castle, then I have just realised that could reveal that the castle was once known as Camelot!

To located nearby appear to be good contenders.

Again Camelot is not a real place, yes I accept that a Romano Briton called Artur or similar may have rallied local chieftains in an effort to maintain law and order in the face of Anglo-Saxon imigration but the legend far outstrips the evidence so lets not get carried away. ok??

[Lateralman]

Perhaps the folks that lived in the prehistoric fort we know as Stonehenge were very tidy people and dumped all their waste in the river along with the dead.

Anyway, it just seems to me to be an awful lot of trouble to go to for the building of a place of worship and sacrifice. Those lads back in those days would have had a tough enough time just feeding their families never mind a large population.

You have Old Sarum the Bronze Age fort located six miles away used for defence so obviously they were defending themselves against something.

No on second thoughts I tell you what happened, someone obviously blew a big horn trumpet that woke up all the farming folks in Britain, upon which they dropped everything and rushed down from the hills to see what the hell, was going on. Then they arrived some big geezer cracked a whip and made them build a big circular place so he could chop all their heads off at sunrise, thus unifying us all on wooden spikes.

How does that explanation sound?