| Review your Reply |
drolaf
Joined:
12-11-2015
Messages: 990
from west yorkshire
 OFF-Line
|  New Message Posted!2025-07-13 00:03
Unification theory extension/update of #21
6 heavyweights of professional archaeology are the authors of a 2024 paper on the sources of the stones of Stonehenge. The premise is that stones were brought from NE Scotland and Wales to Stonehenge, as ‘a monument of island-wide unification’. This is based on a speculation that the altar stone was brought south and placed in position after the sarsen circle and trilithons were erected c 2500-2000 BC in the period when people of Steppe origins were migrating across Britain. The paper sees stones movement as an attempt to unify indigenous inhabitants to stem a flow of immigrants, an attempt that failed.
If the altar stone was an early central feature, this theory is invalid. Or unification was seen as a good thing for other reasons.
The full paper can be found here it’s a good read
https://journals.uclpress.co.uk/ai/article/id/3293/
|
AdamT
Joined:
11-07-2025
Messages: 10
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2025-07-11 12:40
Thank you Andy B,
That is extremely kind of you.
Best wishes,
Adam
|
Andy B
Joined:
13-02-2001
Messages: 12540
from Surrey, UK
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2025-07-11 09:27
Newly published, the author is in touch so I've asked if he'd like to post in our forum:
Transcendent: STONEHENGE Paperback – 3 July 2025
by Adam M Titley
Stonehenge has a potential different story to those we have been told. This book looks beyond the stones and the existing narrative that they exist within. Following 20 years of research I began to see an ancient relic lost within the Neolithic and Bronze Age layers. The scale and proportion started to make sense within its setting, however the complexity of its coding became profoundly more complicated. Who were these ancient master stone builders? Where did they ‘attain’ knowledge of complex geometry? ‘Why’ and ‘when’ did they build a seismic structure on Salisbury Plain? What was ‘their’ reality that appears to be deeply coded so that we too might see ‘the machine’ through their eyes?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0FGVRCVXV/megalithicmyst0a
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 2403
from UK
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2025-06-27 06:58
”PS would you be interested in someone other than yourself developing this thread into a popular book Jon M or do you want first dibs at it? (not me - it would drive me more nuts than usual!)”
It'd be really great if someone else wanted to do it Andy. I would be seen to be biased, so can't do it. There's only about 50 theories all in, but if the writer reads all the theories in detail (rather than just the quick summaries here), they'll pretty quickly realise which one (or ones) has the supporting evidence. So they'd be left with a real quandry on what to say about it (or them). The risk of incurring the wrath of people with other theories would be very high, so I'm really not sure who would have enough clout to be able to do that (other than, maybe, someone like Greg Jenner and/or Alice Roberts)
Eventually the theories will get incorporated in the 4th edition. But looking at what's stacked up to be done, I think the 4th will be at least 400 pages. It's a costly (and very unprofitable) task, so it'll be quite a few years before that gets done.
|
drolaf
Joined:
12-11-2015
Messages: 990
from west yorkshire
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2025-06-27 00:28
maybe Sem could make a cartoon of the stonehenge bat and ball game ?
|
Andy B
Joined:
13-02-2001
Messages: 12540
from Surrey, UK
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2025-06-26 23:34
Time to relive what sounds to me like an ancient parallel to the game 'Mornington Crescent'  over to DrO:
Posted 21-06-2023 at 10:27 Stonehenge was built for a ball game called ‘bunxpt’. The ball was made of cowgut twine wound onto a stone core. The batter stands in the centre and 30 bowlers stand outside. A bowler throws a ball through a gap in the stones and the batter has to try to anticipate it and hit it out. The bowlers then have to anticipate which gap it will come out from. If it is caught, the catcher becomes the batter. If the batter hits a stone, he/she has to drink a beer, climb up and run round the top of the stones. If the batter hits the ball over the top of the stones, he/she has to drink a beer, climb up and run round the top of the stones 3 times, and make cups of tea for everyone.
[ PS would you be interested in someone other than yourself developing this thread into a popular book Jon M or do you want first dibs at it? (not me - it would drive me more nuts than usual!) ]
[ This message was edited by: Andy B on 2025-06-26 23:38 ]
|
STOCKDALE
Joined:
11-11-2015
Messages: 1062
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2025-06-16 10:36
Hi Richard and Jon M. I will pursue this further on my own HSMF thread as this thread is specifically about Stonehenge theories. But I would briefly add that I agree with Richard's theory about measurements 'Origin' and 'Practice'.
I certainly do believe there was an ancient measurement of 12" and that there was an interaction with the HSMF of 14.142" or √2 x 10".
How to get the HSMF?
Create a square of 10" sides and the diagonals will always be 14.142" (The HSMF).
As regards Stonehenge I believe the rectangle set up with the 4 Station Stones and its diagonals create two 5:12:13 triangles and that these lengths are 5 x18.6 HSMF, 12 x 18.6 HSMF and 13 x 18.6 HSMF.
Intriguingly the perimeter of this Station Stones rectangle is very close to 24.5 x 365.25 inches (from the 12" foot) as highlighted by the Heath brothers.
[ This message was edited by: STOCKDALE on 2025-06-17 22:30 ]
|
Orpbit
Joined:
24-06-2012
Messages: 1670
from Shropshire
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2025-06-15 23:26
jonm, sorry, the starting point from my perspective is celestial observation which was also implied in my comment to Kris about the stats issue. I like your addition of "fear". There may well be other starting points in different contexts.
In terms of ancient metrology and my "family" of measures, the "Origin" (of the 12-inch foot) is not astronomical, nor is it "body parts". What followed is "Practice", i.e. an agreed use of a measure for the specific purposes of rationalising celestial observations, including construction of ritual/scientific monuments. "Scientific" includes geometry and maths.
Where stats really comes into its own and which routes from correlation to causality is well illustrated in Peter Harris' and Thomas Gough's book re the HSMF. But this doesn't prove, imho, that other measures didn't have astronomical/calendrical functions, just that the HSMF, probability-wise, is real based on the significant amount of data presented and argued.
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 2403
from UK
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2025-06-15 17:45
Difficult to tell Richard
Myth & Legend also good candidates, but they have to originate with something else so might not be the initial starter points? Curiosity and/or Fear might be good primary start points and there definitely others. I'm not sure if it's all that important to be honest so haven't devoted any resources to developing it (apart from telling Rob and Richard where the most likely locations are for this or that sequence). On the other hand, and this is a bit of a concern, there's a surprising number of archaeos who appear to be concerned about misappropriation of narratives of the past. However, this hasn't produced any substantive argument to date. I found Kenny and Gordon's argument quite convincing, but that was a long time ago and I haven't seen anything more recently that adds to, or develops, that train of thought. For the time-being, I think it's best to view it as not all that important.
Jon
|
Orpbit
Joined:
24-06-2012
Messages: 1670
from Shropshire
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2025-06-15 12:49
jonm, I can echo that with my latest posts - 14th/15th June - on Michell's Fold lunar standstill thread . How long before...? But the sequence would probably be much like most cultures, Myth, Legend, Curiosity, Ritual and Science (including counting and metrology) with the latter two running side by side.
Drolaf, they were also extremely good at brewing, so they were equally as good at keeping things on the level so that the blood didn't pond on the brain...and 'circles' came quite naturally via that route too...but that's just a myth or perhaps legendary!
https://www.ranker.com/list/favorite-drinks-of-historical-royals/setareh-janda?ref=listed_on&pos=7 (scroll down to No. 3)
https://www.seanpoage.com/2022/01/01/dark-age-feasting-festivities/
https://www.historyisnowmagazine.com/blog/2022/11/12/what-alcohol-did-the-vikings-drink-the-importance-of-alcohol-in-viking-culture
Cheers
|
