For centuries, historians and archaeologists have puzzled over the many mysteries of Stonehenge , the prehistoric monument that Neolithic builders toiled over for an estimated 1, years. While many modern scholars now agree that it served as a sacred burial ground, they have yet to explain how a civilization without modern technology-or even the wheel-produced the mighty circle of upright megalithic stones. How did the workers who broke ground on Stonehenge as early as 5, years ago transport these 4-ton boulders over such a great distance? Here are some theories. To demonstrate his concept, he created a prototypical cradle made from willow and alder saplings.
Geo A balance approach to Archaeology would suggest you have a 'selection' of tools to judge the date of a site.
Very stonehenge dating methods agree, remarkable phrase
Carbon dating is good but is not an absolute guarantee of accuracy as the carbon levels of the past is still 'speculation' and we have already seen in the last 50 years several 'corrections' which have placed objects older than originally believed.
Astroacheaology is another science that can be used to date sites as alignments we all accept are important, were you are wrong is in your assumption that our ancestor 'were not accurate' Dendrochronology is another good science that could add to the debate but as substantial pieces of wood need to survive most prehistoric site would be impossible to estimate.
My new science of landscape dating will probably be the most accurate once I have completed the algorithm of ground water reduction over the last 10, years, hopefully in the next few years. And anthropology has a role to play by tracing DNA lines, languages and concepts such as social design and tool making.
Opinion stonehenge dating methods consider, that
Consequently, the most intelligent approach to dating will the combination of all these methods to create a 'conceptional date', which does not rely on any one science, so when we find flaw in these 'branches' we do not have to start again as in most archaeological dating methods.
This is why my trilogy is unique as it places all these elements into dating the past, which has resulted in showing the existing dating system is quite frankly wrong! These lies are perpetuated by academics is because they're trying to protect their occupation as so called 'experts'.
So back to your point - I'm happy with the estimations with the realisation that its not exact, but that does not matter as carbon dating evidence on the site and finally, the ground water level dates I have obtained show roughly the same date range.
I'm not going over old ground again with your other comments I have a busy life!! They only move because the earth spins on it's axis and that fixed ecliptic moves relative to the stars because the earth's axis wobbles which we call 'procession', so yes the "gradual decrease in the obliquity of the elliptic' does happen, but that is due to the procession - school bell has just rung and I have nothing further to add on this matter!!
Happy Solstice Day.
Mar 17, Another absolute dating method is thermoluminescence, which dates the last time an item was heated. It is the only method that can be used to date rocks, pottery and minerals for dates that are approximately between to 10, years old.
Another obvious example showing that precession is not considered a factor in calculating solar declinations is to look at the change in azimuth of the rising sun at solstice since BCwhich you now knowbut even the mistaken figure would do and compare it with the present day azimuth.
However if you take into account the much smaller but important rate of obliquity of the ecliptic i. We don't the level of accuracy of the builders unless we know their intentionswhen we do we see that sometimes they relatively accurate but nothing like as accurate as suggesterd Thom merely accurate enough for the job.
If a putative alignment is off by a week from a possible solstice alignment we might see it as a possible but if it is 2 weeks off we have to decide if tht was ever the intention. If you still don't understand that precession is not included in solar and lunar archaoastronomical calculations then there is little hope.
The change of solstice position has changed by just over a degree in yearsprecession is changing at a rate 7O times faster than that. If you were aware of the basic archaeoastro formula for calculating declination then you might not have got into the pickle with adding refraction to azimuths and realised that alt was also importantbut more importantly there is no place for precession. Look at the formula and point out where it is used, similarly look at the formula and notice how obliquity fits.
Nov 25, Chlorine dating might help the debate by obtaining large numbers of dates on Preseli outcrops (to give a mean date of oldest exposed surfaces). Dates on monoliths at Stonehenge could be useful if obtained for undressed and undamaged surfaces, but even these would be . Dec 19, We can now date Stonehenge by a very simple method - the Avenue alignment. But why has archaeologist kept this method secret for so long? The Post Glacial Flooding Hypothesis: Astroarchaeology Dating of Stonehenge. Feb 19, Stonehenge's outer ring consists of sarsen sandstone slabs that hail from local quarries, but its inner ring is made up of smaller rocks called bluestones that scientists have traced to the.
Does it really matter? Isn't this like counting angels on a pinhead?
Pity, stonehenge dating methods consider, what your
All driven by belief! It was only a matter of time, Geo, before I heard from you! But why so belligerent? After all, aren't we all seeking to know the truth? The facts and not the fantasies? Perhaps you can explain how dating a piece of antler stuck in a rock or buried in the ground says anything about Stonehenge. Without first believing the antler was a tool used to dig the ditch or etch the rocks. Or why the star alignments of these sites are important. Without first believing prehistoric people had the knowledge and ability to build accurately with megaliths.
That would be a start Kostas. Read the literature then ,if you see anything I have said on the subject that is demonstrably wrongrefute it.
As for prehistoric people building monuments your evidence free beliefs and ignorance on the matter precludes any sensible discussion. Geo, You don't get it. I am not disputing anything you are disputing with Robert.
I just don't think any of this is very relevant when discussing Prehistory. I also don't read the Bible. Does that make me immoral? I sense your avoidance to engage! True of all 'true believers'. There is nothing to engage withyou don't know anything about the subject and hence can't actually contribute to the discussion. Read the literature then you might be capable of contributing something worthwhile.
RJlyesthe change in obliquityas I have been telling you for some time is just over a degree in six millenniaone of the reasons that any attempt at dating the alignment is fraught with problems. The solstice alignment at Stonehenge is usually considered to be taken from the centre of the monumentnot the Altar stonecontinuing down the centre of the avenue resultingas any decent archaeoastronomy text will explainin the Heel Stone not being actually being involved in the alignment.
The sun has always set to the left of the heel Stone and will do for some time. The actual alignment of the Avenue is closer to If you believed that the precession was involved in lunar and solar archaeoastronomy it is easier to understand why you might imagine that it would have a use in dating but when you realise how little the sun or moon change in relation to their extremes it is hardly surprising that dating is almost meaningless.
Sep 21, The radiocarbon date is said to be the most accurate yet and means the ring's original bluestones were put up years later than previously thought. The dating is the major finding . New methods are now available to learn a great deal from the cremated bones. The cremations are required by law to be reburied within two years. The Stonehenge Cursus. Excavations are now in progress at the east end of the Stonehenge Cursus, a long (3 km) enclosure, dating to around 3,BC - years older than the first stage of Stonehenge. Stonehenge, prehistoric stone circle monument, cemetery, and archaeological site located on Salisbury Plain, about 8 miles (13 km) north of Salisbury, Wiltshire, England. It was built in six stages between and BCE, during the transition from the Neolithic Period to the Bronze Age.
You have seen how little the change is at solsticeas seen from Stonehengeat little over a degree in 6 milleniawho is to say when the alignment was set with any accuracy?
At the solstice BC the sun rise on the horizon as seen from the centre of Stonehenge at an Azimuth of At the solstice of BC the sun rises on the horizon as seen from the centre of Stonehenge at an Azimuth of At the solstice of AD the sun rises on the horizon as seen from the centre of Stonehenge at an Azimuth of Geo Just a quick comment on your figures that may or may not be correct - I will check when I'm less busy - are from the centre of Stonehenge.
I have measure them from the Altar Stone as I believe this was the 'observation point' had hence this unique stone was used as it is different in structure to the plain bog standard Sarsen stones. What's your point Geo?
You have stated that you did not believe the monument was aligned to the Summer solstice and therefore archaeologists couldn't calculate a date of construction for the Avenue. Have you change you mind yet again? RJLas ususala distinct lack of actual quotes.
Absolute dating methods (ANT)
Where did I say that I did not believe the monument was aligned to the summer solstice? Give one example of where I have changed my mind. I said that dating Stonehenge using astronomy would never be considered an option by archaeaoastronomersthis was made clear by the efforts before RC dating e.
You replied to this that you would "check" the figures and have failed to do so. Geo Can we then conclude from your reply, that you do feel that the Avenue was constructed in line with the Summer Solstice and by find that alignment you will agree that this is the probably date of construction?
Moreover, if I can prove the information you have submitted is clearly 'wrong' and the true date is MUCH earlier than what you have presented as correct - will you then concede that my calculations are 'in the balance of probability' accurate? We can't possibly know if this was the case or even if observation took place. The difference between where the Altar stone lies and the centre is approx 2m.
RJL. Some suggest that it has always been recumbent but not necessarily in it's present position Burl others suggests that it may have stood in WA or as a pair in WA Cleal et al or simply was erect in a choice of positions North.
The difference between using the Altar stone and the centre of the monument as a putative observers position ,as pointed out earlieris negligible in relation to the solstice alignment. Possibly the reason for the Freeman's using the Altar stone is that it fits in with their unlikely winter solstice sun rise theory which involves the small notch in stone 58 which would not work if viewed from the centre.
Geo I respect the freeman's view on Stonehenge although I do not support external viewing position outstanding for such matters such as the station stones as you know. However, the fact they are different should be a indication that they had a 'special purpose' - so to associate them with other 'standing stones' would be flawed logic as they are clearly supposed to be recumbent.
Clearly, both have been deliberately 'buried' in particular spots for a clear reason, sadly Atkinson's excavation notes for the Altar Stone in he 50's have mysteriously vanished and even more interesting for conspiracy theorists like myself not even mentioned in the cleal et al bible.
The evidence shows that the The Slaughter stone is sarsen ,and one that has been extensively dressed. Hawley ,Atkinson and Burl all believed it to have been originally erectCleal considered the Burl argument as convincing.
Hey manhearing you all talk is wicked Stonhenge is a bookof numberIt contains the source theory of the origin of the mile. You will all soon relise the undisputable truth. Anon Sounds like a song to be - it certanly "make me wonder"! Look forward to seeing the theory - good luck on the ebook RJL.
Wednesday, 19 December Astroarchaeology Dating of Stonehenge. In Neolithic period it was further adapted to incorporate a Sarsen stone monument, for the same purposes. Now if the Sun, Moon and planets rise and set in the exact same place year after year, then astroarchaeology would only be good for connecting these monuments to certain rituals such as the midsummer solstice celebrations and little else.
Stonehenge dating methods
In astronomy, axial precession is a gravity-induced, slow and continuous change in the orientation of an astronomical body's rotational axis. In particular, it refers to the gradual shift in the orientation of Earth's axis of rotation, which, like a wobbling top, traces out a pair of cones joined at their apices in a cycle of approximately 26, years.
This alters the view of space from earth as the stars revolve around the polar star and this polar star position will gradually change over this 26, period, eventually going back to the original position. The ecliptic is the apparent path of the Sun on the celestial sphere as seen from the Earth's center, and also the plane of this path, which is essentially coplanar with the orbit of the Earth around the Sun.
The path of the Sun is not normally noticeable from the Earth's surface because the Earth rotates, carrying the observer through the cycle of sunrise and sunset, obscuring the apparent position of the Sun against the background stars.
Put simply, the ecliptic is the plane of Earth's orbit around the Sun.
This plane goes through the 12 zodiac constellations - hence there importance to astronomy and astrology for so do the sun, planets and the moon. Most of the bodies of the Solar System orbit the Sun in nearly the same plane. This is likely due to the way in which the Solar System formed from a proto-planetary disk. Probably the closest current representation of the disk is known as the invariable plane of the Solar System. Because of this, most Solar System bodies appear very close to the ecliptic in the sky.
The ecliptic is well defined by the motion of the Sun. So the sun, moon and planets go around this imaginary line in the sky, known as the Ecliptic and where this line crosses the horizon dictates where the heavenly bodies rises and sets. This alignment gave them a date of BC - which is clearly wrong!! So where did they go wrong? So if we repeat this experiment with an observation from either the centre of the altar stone how will that change things? Well the angle from the Altar stone to the bell-barrow is Using the cybersky 5 software package - this gives us a date of AD!!
So unless the three post holes found in the excavation of Amesbury 15 are poles for a raised platform or high fence - this barrow is not the alignment to the winter solstice. But there is lost barrow Amesbury 10 that does fit the bill. The interesting ct about this barrow is the shape and structure. Recent geological surveys have suggested that there are stones under the ground that may have surround the barrow.
This barrow is Strangely, yes we can!! Currently, the sun rises just above the Heel stone on the Summer solstice Cybersky 5 calculates that the sunrise on the summer solstice was The centre of the Avenue is Sadly not the exact same date but within 10 years, which may reflect the construction time between phases - although more accurate than anyone to date has obtained.
RJL Additional Information To stop an impossible debate on statistics remember lies, damned lies and statistics!! I thought I show some empirical evidence anyone can play at home via Google earth - the contributors agree that the sun sets by.
Inside the ditch it is also possible to discern the slight shadows of 24 postholes encircling the the central area, 25 metres in diameter.
Confirm. agree stonehenge dating methods all charm!
Near the centre are more dark areas indicating pits, and a large shadow suggesting that a mound was constructed there, perhaps in a later phase of the monument's use. The henge probably dates to around BC, contemporary with Stonehenge. History is set to be rewritten after an archaeology team led by the University of Birmingham and the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Archaeological Prospection and Virtual Archaeology in Austria discovered a major ceremonial monument less than one kilometre away from the iconic Stonehenge.
The new henge was uncovered this week, just two weeks into a three-year international study that forms part of the multi-million Euro international Stonehenge Hidden Landscapes Project. The project aims to map 14 square kilometres of the Stonehenge Landscape using the latest geophysical imaging techniques, to recreate visually the iconic prehistoric monument and its surroundings and transform how we understand this unique landscape and its monuments.
The project, which is supported by the landowner, the National Trust, and facilitated by English Heritage, has brought together the most sophisticated geophysics team ever to be engaged in a single archaeological project in Britain.
European partners include teams from Austria, Germany, Norway and Sweden. We will now map this monument using an array of technologies that will allow us to view this new discovery, and the landscape around it, in three dimensions. This marks a new departure for archaeologists and how they investigate the past.
We aim to cover large areas around Stonehenge and we expect this to be the first of many significant discoveries. The discovery is all the more remarkable given how much research there has been in the vicinity of Stonehenge, and emphasises the importance of continuing research within and around the World Heritage Site.
Its location, a short distance from Stonehenge, and the fact that the two monuments were inter-visible, raises exciting new questions about the complex sacred landscape that existed around Stonehenge when the sarsen and bluestone monument was constructed. In a major new discovery was made by the Stonehenge Riverside Project in the Stonehenge landscape.
Evidence for a second stone circle was found close to the River Avon, linked to Stonehenge itself by the Stonehenge Avenue. The circle is just under 10m in diameter and was surrounded by a henge - a ditch with an external bank - with an entrance to the east. Excavations in established that this outer henge was built around BC but arrowheads from the stone circle indicate that it is likely to be much earlier, dating to around BC.
Nine stone holes were identified, part of a circle of probably twenty-five standing stones. Only the northeast quadrant of the circle, and a small past of its west side, were excavated.
Six stoneholes A-F were found in the northeast quadrant and three I-K were found in the western trench. Stoneholes G and H are putative stone sockets lying between the excavated ones; their positions are extrapolated from the known stones.
Radiocarbon and other scientific dating methods rarely give the only information available on the chronology of a site. The Bayesian method allows other information to. Dec 11, Evolutionary Dating Methods and Stonehenge Stonehenge has been the subject of study, tourism, speculation, occult lore, the A, and so on for a very long time. The consensus is that it was built thousands of years before the time of Christ. But this dating is based on the common practice of evolutionary thinking, which is to reject records. The carbon-dating process that dated Stonehenge to about B.C. was conducted by the technique's godfather, Willard Libby. The University of Chicago .
The centres of Stoneholes A-F are spaced at an average distance of 1. However, Stoneholes J and K are more widely spaced. Given the arrangement and curvature of the known stones, the maximum number of stones in the circle was It may, of course, have contained fewer.
The dimensions of the holes are too wide and too shallow for them to have held wooden posts. They compare exactly with the dimensions of the bluestones in the inner oval at Stonehenge. The stones were extracted whole and were not broken up as was the practice in the Medieval period.
As a result, only two bluestone fragments were found, both of spotted dolerite. The bluestone circle was succeeded by a henge, comprising a circular ditch Little trace of the henge bank remains except where it was pushed back into the ditch on its north side. The henge had at least one entrance - this was on its east side where the northern ditch terminal contained a special deposit of antlers, an antler pick, cattle bones and stone and flint tools as well as a burnt organic container.
We found the riverside end of the Stonehenge Avenue previously only traced to a spot m to the north. It consisted of two parallel ditches, These formerly held upright posts, forming a small palisade on either side.
The Avenue was traced to within a few metres of the henge ditch and presumably terminated at or close to the outer bank of the henge. It and the henge may have been built at the same time given their proximity and symmetrical positioning. After the ditch had fully silted up, its northeastern quadrant was re-cut.
A fourth posthole on the west side of the ditch contained tiny fragments of clay metalworking moulds. The next phase of activity was during the Medieval period, specifically within the 13th century, when a complex series of east-west and north-south ditches were dug and filled. Ditches and pits continued to be dug into the post-Medieval period. Although there was no evidence for domestic occupation during the Neolithic, the riverside was inhabited during the Mesolithic BC and during the Bronze Age BC.
Until radiocarbon dates on antler picks give us firm dates for construction and dismantling of the stone circle, our best dating evidence is from the two arrowheads found in the stonehole packing deposits. These stone sockets are the 56 Aubrey Holes that form the outermost ring. Around BC the bluestones were re-arranged in the centre of Stonehenge and numbered about 80 stones. Where did the extra 24 or so stones come from?
We think we know the answer! Just published, in the archaeological journal Antiquityare two studies arising from recent work by the Stonehenge Riverside Project. The first uses the latest radiocarbon dates from cremation burials - of which there may have been - to suggest that the site served as a cemetery for a ruling dynasty from around BC.
For some years members of the growing dynasty were buried in and around the outer ditch and Aubrey Holes - which now seem to be where the bluestones originally stood. The second study relates to the Stonehenge Cursus, now dated from a radiocarbon date from an antler to the mid 4th Millennium - so it was constructed hundreds of years before the first phase of Stonehenge. The Stonehenge Riverside Project has now completed its seventh year of a ten-year programme. During August-September there were 50 archaeologists working on site.
It is partly funded by the National Geographic. There were excavations in various locations in the landscape around Stonehenge, each designed to answer a specific question. A series of trenches were opened along the Avenue. It was not clear from his poorly published accounts whether a series of gulleys parallel to the banks of the Avenue were natural periglacial features or not - perhaps an earlier Avenue.
The new trench may also uncover evidence for rows of standing stones along the Avenue's banks. Other trenches have been opened at the 'elbow' of the Avenue, where it swings east; and another at the far end of the Avenue where it meets the River Avon in West Amesbury on private land. The Project was given a special licence to remove a group of cremated human remains from Aubrey Hole 7, just inside the bank which encircles Stonehenge.