operation stonehenge: what lies beneath

[tony heath]

The theory that Stonehenge was used for human sacrifice seems weak and sensationalist, surely human sacrifice was never normal at the Stones

 

[ringo]

When was this theory of splendid isolation current? As long as I've known the landscape around stonehenge has been recognised as important - the cursus, avenue and other features. This programme was right up its own arse. Did it discuss what techniques were being used and how? Lots of film of helicopters and trailers being pulled round fields with no explanation of what they were actually doing. And speculation presented as fact.

Landscape archaeology was the big new thing already when I was an archaeology student 20 years ago. New to the programme maker probably, but definitely the first time this much of the landscape has been surveyed so comprehensively with all the new kit available.

 

[DotCommunist]

given the length of time it was there its possible


good progs them. I especially enjoyed them overlaying the ground with ghost-cgi so you could see beneath

 

[ringo]

The theory that Stonehenge was used for human sacrifice seems weak and sensationalist, surely human sacrifice was never normal at the Stones

Did they say it was normal? I think they suggested it was a likely use at one point in particular. Given what it looks like I'd be surprised if someone hadn't thought of sacrificing someone there at some point in the past.

 

[hot air baboon]

...the bit about the glacial "pathway" being scoured into the ground that just happen to be astronomically aligned was on a different ( & actually slightly better ) Channel 4 doc. earlier this year - they put it forward as being a major reason for the positioning of the henge ( a sign from the gods etc ) ....iirc they also had alot of stuff about how the ritual gatherings were mass events that brought in tribes from all over Britain ( or whatever they called it at the time )...( ...and distances in kilometers irritate me ... )

 

[SpookyFrank]

If you really want to confound archaeologists of the future, dig down 2 metres into your garden and bury something that seems to have no rational purpose, and that won't degrade/decompse easily once buried. A ceramic figure speared through the heart with a miniature flint spearpoint or something. Now that could really fuck with peoples heads.

Something with no rational purpose...how about an ipad?

 

[story]

I think that sometimes English Heritage deliberately holds back some information about sacred sites. There are some suggestions (and observational evidence) that indicates certain alignments for some sites that are not made general knowledge, presumably to mitigate against hippies gathering to celebrate or observe on those days.

A friend of mine noticed a particular alignment at a site, and when she went back to check it the following equinox, an archeologist was there making measurements. When my friend asked about it, the archeologist said that the alignment was recognised by the scholars, but theres nothing in the literature about it, and no plans to make it known.

Another friend of mine, an astronomer, says he has noticed over twenty years of studying the site that there appears to be a Venus thing going on at a major henge. Again, there's nothing in the literature against which he can check his observations.

 

[story]

The theory that Stonehenge was used for human sacrifice seems weak and sensationalist, surely human sacrifice was never normal at the Stones

While I agree that it was sensationalist speculation, I think they weren't suggesting that it wasn't normal at all for there to be human sacrifice there, but that those particular remains may represent a rare sacrificial event.

But you can imagine the producers going "Come on! there must be something here we can use! Just throw in a may have and a possible and were good to go!"

 

[ringo]

I think that sometimes English Heritage deliberately holds back some information about sacred sites.

This is in reality just conspiracy. There's a lot of stuff not yet published because there's no funds or it goes in a PHD unpublished or nobody has got round to it yet. Its like wondering why this landscape study hasn't been done before. Archaeology is still a relatively young and very underfunded discipline with new techniques being developed all the time. There's still a lot of very obvious stuff to do.

 

[Sirena]

While I agree that it was sensationalist speculation, I think they weren't suggesting that it wasn't normal at all for there to be human sacrifice there, but that those particular remains may represent a rare sacrificial event.

But you can imagine the producers going "Come on! there must be something here we can use! Just throw in a may have and a possible and were good to go!"

I think it was more likely that the body of a great hero was brought back from the battlefield and given a full ceremonial burial at Stonehenge.

 

[story]

I think it was more likely that the body of a great hero was brought back from the battlefield and given a full ceremonial burial at Stonehenge.

Not saying I disagree, but if he was so great a chieftain why was he buried in the ditch rather than a barrow of his own, or somewhere within the circle? And why no grave goods? Or have I got that wrong?

 

[neonwilderness]

While I agree that it was sensationalist speculation, I think they weren't suggesting that it wasn't normal at all for there to be human sacrifice there, but that those particular remains may represent a rare sacrificial event.

Wasn't it common for scarifies to be buried under buildings? Maybe this was the same kind of thing?

 

[tony heath]

Wasn't it common for scarifies to be buried under buildings? Maybe this was the same kind of thing?

The archaeologist was quite emphatic about it being a human sacrifice, but it seemed so odd the way she said it, as if to spook.

 

[DotCommunist]

sexes the program up, bit of the old human sacrifice. Didn't work on me, once you've seen an aztec documentary you've had a gutfull of human sacrifice

 

[hot air baboon]

....surely human sacrifice was never normal at the Stones....

...Altamont...?

( bit dubious about Brian Jones aswell tbh....

 

[story]

This is in reality just conspiracy. There's a lot of stuff not yet published because there's no funds or it goes in a PHD unpublished or nobody has got round to it yet. Its like wondering why this landscape study hasn't been done before. Archaeology is still a relatively young and very underfunded discipline with new techniques being developed all the time. There's still a lot of very obvious stuff to do.

Well personally I don't care very much either way. I don't feel paranoid about it, only curious and mildly puzzled.

You're right in what you say about it being underfunded and so forth. But I do also think some archeologists are pretty hidebound in their outlook, and very cautious about adopting new findings into the whole picture. Rightly so: mistakes are often taken as gospel, and hard to correct later. But I've had occasion to communicate with one well known archeologist about a hearth found just above the chippings layer at Stonehenge. I made a couple of suggestions about its possible provenance and I was shut down without any recourse for further discussion. It struck me as a stubborn approach to new ideas. (And no, my idea wasn't farfetched nonsense.)

As for whether there is a policy of keeping hordes of hippies from gathering at sites: I think that's fairly well established in precedent.

Wasn't it common for scarifies to be buried under buildings? Maybe this was the same kind of thing?

Where? What buildings? When? Be more specific please


One of the singular things about Avebury henge, for instance, is that the site appears to be oddly clean. No remains, no dwellings, no midden heaps, no evidence (so far) of feasting or offerings. Anything of that sort seems to be very localised, and in places (presumably) dedicated to such activity (e.g. The Sanctuary). A huge important place, in use for a long time, but peculiarly lacking in evidence of burials, habitation etc. Stonehenge is very close by, less than two days away by foot. I doubt they'd be radically different in use and significance to the people of the time.

 

[neonwilderness]

Where? What buildings? When? Be more specific please

I can't find a specific reference just now (I might have been thinking of a different period), but it does get a brief mention on Wikipedia (I know that's not definitive ):
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice

Human sacrifice has been practiced on a number of different occasions and in many different cultures. The various rationales behind human sacrifice are the same that motivate religious sacrifice in general. Human sacrifice is intended to bring good fortune and to pacify the gods, for example in the context of the dedication of a completed building like a temple or bridge. There is a Chinese legend that there are thousands of people entombed in the Great Wall of China.

 

[Voley]

I thought the human sacrifice element was too speculative, too. Could have been an execution of an enemy or an important burial as Sirena says. I enjoyed these programmes though, for all their faults.

 

[ringo]

You're right in what you say about it being underfunded and so forth. But I do also think some archeologists are pretty hidebound in their outlook, and very cautious about adopting new findings into the whole picture. Rightly so: mistakes are often taken as gospel, and hard to correct later. But I've had occasion to communicate with one well known archeologist about a hearth found just above the chippings layer at Stonehenge. I made a couple of suggestions about its possible provenance and I was shut down without any recourse for further discussion. It struck me as a stubborn approach to new ideas. (And no, my idea wasn't farfetched nonsense.)

I can only guess that your suggestion either didn't fit in with the stratigraphic evidence, or more likely didn't fit in with current archaeological theory. Theory is a bit of a double edged sword. Interpretations of archaeology have in the main followed on from, but sometimes a few years behind, philosophical and social theory.

In the 60's the big thing was processual archaeology - the process by which the artefacts or remains were laid down was studied in minute detail for the first time. For example a large scatter of flint or bone fragments could be plotted in situ and then pieced back together to determine how a piece of flint was knapped into an axe or a carcass was butchered to use the meat, hide and bone. This allowed archaeologists to identify for the first time a snapshot in time for an individual person in the past, one person making a stone tool or slaughtering a sheep, and this was very exciting.

There then followed post-processual, and various other theoretical ideas, all of which revealed something new to us.

This is great, by applying these theories we learn a lot more. The trouble is if you just apply one way of thinking to interpretation you'll probably miss as much as you observe. Its seems that each of these methodologies are processes we have to go through to get to the next stage of understanding. We then have to go back and look at the old sites and re-evaluate the evidence using our new knowledge and get more info. Maybe in 50 years time the same archaeologist will think your theory about the hearth is more likely to be correct.

Its not an exact science, we don't really know. The old cliche that gets rolled out ad nauseum still holds true - "The past is another country". That's the exciting bit

 

[ringo]

One of the singular things about Avebury henge, for instance, is that the site appears to be oddly clean. No remains, no dwellings, no midden heaps, no evidence (so far) of feasting or offerings. Anything of that sort seems to be very localised, and in places (presumably) dedicated to such activity (e.g. The Sanctuary). A huge important place, in use for a long time, but peculiarly lacking in evidence of burials, habitation etc. Stonehenge is very close by, less than two days away by foot. I doubt they'd be radically different in use and significance to the people of the time.

I think one of the big problems is that our most famous henge isn't really a henge. There must be a reason why Stonehenge has its ditch outside the bank, like a defensive structure does, instead of on the inside, like most henges do.

I liked the bit about the causeway following on from the marks left by glacial movement. Reuse of ritual/religious/culturally important places is a constant theme in archaeology, like the Roman temples built on the sites of pagan places of worship/importance. I reckon it all stems from people trying to understand their world and applying religious structures to natural phenomena they couldn't otherwise understand. Religion = power and control = structured society.

 

[tony heath]

I really enjoyed the part about making the boat and how the trilithons were cut to fit together perfectly. I once heard a good argument that Stonehenge was possibly built by the Phoenicians as a symbol of their technical superiority over the indigenous people who could only build fairy rings.

 

[ringo]

I once heard a good argument that Stonehenge was possibly built by the Phoenicians as a symbol of their technical superiority over the indigenous people who could only build fairy rings.

That theory was first put forward in 1740: http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/eng/str/

It's almost an argument for the kind of theoretical conservatism story was complaining about. If you just allow any old theory to be published, without rigorous academic structure or peer review, then theories like this can take hold and lead to Von Daniken's alien henge building nonsense

 

[story]

I can't find a specific reference just now (I might have been thinking of a different period), but it does get a brief mention on Wikipedia (I know that's not definitive ):
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice

Well yes, there are loads of examples of human remains being buried within the buildings of the living. Catal Huyuk is a notable example. But I'm not aware of there being much to indicate a culture of burying the dead at ritual sites like Stonehenge, Callanish, Avebury etc. It's thought that some sites (The Sanctuary and possibly Stonehenge) may have been associated with rituals pertaining to the dead, but so far as I know, the peoples who lived on these isles tended to bury their dead in barrows or cairns.

 

[story]

I thought the human sacrifice element was too speculative, too. Could have been an execution of an enemy or an important burial as Sirena says. I enjoyed these programmes though, for all their faults.

Oh yes, the ritual execution of an enemy. That makes sense. In fact that makes more sense to me than a human sacrifice for the crops or a famine or whatever. Presumably if you're going to sacrifice a beast or an animal to the gods, you'd do it out in the landscape somewhere, where the falling blood could penetrate the land or whatever, y'know, where the problem is, rather than in the place of worship and ritual.

Bringing a vanquished enemy to be executed into a place of gathering and myth making and powerbrokering makes sense to me.

I think that if there was a tradition of sacrificing to the gods at the henge itself, we'd have evidence of more than one.

And why bury the bones of a sacrifice under the temple? Sacrificial victims presumably do not belong to the living but to the gods to whom they were sacrificed, so why preserve them in the temple in a ritual manner?

 

[story]

I can only guess that your suggestion either didn't fit in with the stratigraphic evidence, or more likely didn't fit in with current archaeological theory. Theory is a bit of a double edged sword. Interpretations of archaeology have in the main followed on from, but sometimes a few years behind, philosophical and social theory.

In the 60's the big thing was processual archaeology - the process by which the artefacts or remains were laid down was studied in minute detail for the first time. For example a large scatter of flint or bone fragments could be plotted in situ and then pieced back together to determine how a piece of flint was knapped into an axe or a carcass was butchered to use the meat, hide and bone. This allowed archaeologists to identify for the first time a snapshot in time for an individual person in the past, one person making a stone tool or slaughtering a sheep, and this was very exciting.

There then followed post-processual, and various other theoretical ideas, all of which revealed something new to us.

This is great, by applying these theories we learn a lot more. The trouble is if you just apply one way of thinking to interpretation you'll probably miss as much as you observe. Its seems that each of these methodologies are processes we have to go through to get to the next stage of understanding. We then have to go back and look at the old sites and re-evaluate the evidence using our new knowledge and get more info. Maybe in 50 years time the same archaeologist will think your theory about the hearth is more likely to be correct.

Its not an exact science, we don't really know. The old cliche that gets rolled out ad nauseum still holds true - "The past is another country". That's the exciting bit

My idea doesn't fit with current archeological theory. It was just a hypotheses, and I was interested in finding out what he thought of it, maybe have a brief discussion about it. But he just shut me down. No discussion, just "No, it can't be, that's not possible." It annoyed me.

And yes, the process you outline is exactly the problem, at least in this case.

As you say, it is exciting to think about that other country, and the people who lived there; and that's exactly why I wanted to have the conversation with someone who knows far more than I do. As things stand, I still think my theory is a good one, because I've not had a chance to discuss it and find out why I might be wrong! And as you say, it's possible - it is actually possible - that an interested lay person like me might have something new and interesting to add to the conversation.

 

[story]

I think one of the big problems is that our most famous henge isn't really a henge. There must be a reason why Stonehenge has its ditch outside the bank, like a defensive structure does, instead of on the inside, like most henges do.

I liked the bit about the causeway following on from the marks left by glacial movement. Reuse of ritual/religious/culturally important places is a constant theme in archaeology, like the Roman temples built on the sites of pagan places of worship/importance. I reckon it all stems from people trying to understand their world and applying religious structures to natural phenomena they couldn't otherwise understand. Religion = power and control = structured society.

That is indeed an interesting puzzle. The recent-ish thinking about how Woodhenge and Stonehenge are respectively the domain of the living and the dead could have something to do with it? Like a yin-yang thing, one being the mirror or counterpart of the other? Maybe the ditch being on the outside of Stonehenge makes it kind of inside out, so that from within the stones, the ditch is indeed on the "inside" of the rest of the land, the land of the living. A bit like the wall that kept that little enclave of West Germany separated from East Germany… So the land beyond the Stones is actually within an enclosure, from the point of view of the spirits of the dead that are contained within Stonehenge?

just thinking aloud here!

 

[Cid]

I thought the human sacrifice element was too speculative, too. Could have been an execution of an enemy or an important burial as Sirena says. I enjoyed these programmes though, for all their faults.

Same, just watching it... 'the only burial of this type at stonehenge', surely entirely possible that chief x took three arrows etc.

 

[tony heath]

The Professor who claimed he was sacrificed came across to me as sensationalist, as if she wanted to scare, I felt it was unnecessary and it's left me with uneasy feelings about her motives nearly a week later. Why mention human sacrifice?

 

[ringo]

The Professor who claimed he was sacrificed came across to me as sensationalist, as if she wanted to scare, I felt it was unnecessary and it's left me with uneasy feelings about her motives nearly a week later. Why mention human sacrifice?

Academics can be very ambitious. A good theory can get you a book/TV interviews which advance your career. Or maybe she's just very excited about her idea?

 

[ringo]

That is indeed an interesting puzzle. The recent-ish thinking about how Woodhenge and Stonehenge are respectively the domain of the living and the dead could have something to do with it? Like a yin-yang thing, one being the mirror or counterpart of the other? Maybe the ditch being on the outside of Stonehenge makes it kind of inside out, so that from within the stones, the ditch is indeed on the "inside" of the rest of the land, the land of the living. A bit like the wall that kept that little enclave of West Germany separated from East Germany… So the land beyond the Stones is actually within an enclosure, from the point of view of the spirits of the dead that are contained within Stonehenge?

just thinking aloud here!

All of that is possible. I think one factor which makes it so difficult is the enormous period of time these monuments were built/used over. We have this idea that change was very slow and that people believed the same thing and performed the same rituals consistently over that time.

We used to believe there were quite distinct stone age, bronze age, iron age etc eras, but the more we find out the more we realise those distinctions are blurred to the point of not really being very useful, now being thought of as a hindrance. Look at how many national or regional traditions actually don't go back that far, or have only been important intermittently. If they believed different things at different times as travel/trade/religions/invasions became more or less widespread then working out the relationships between different monuments becomes almost impossible.