Saturday 20 July 2013

Non Completion Theory of Stonehenge and Finding the Missing Stones.

The non-completion theory of Stonehenge is fully explored in the EH Research Report Series 32-20 12


I have tried to condense the relevant bits below but please download the full report from the link above.

In brief there is no evidence for stones 17, 18 and 24 of the Sarsen Circle.

The parch marks I photographed 19/7/13 - see - show marks consistent with holes for 17, 18, 19 and 20, so they suggest that these stones were actually erected.


Breaking Stonehenge: evidence for stone-breaking and the removal of stones
Although a large number of stones survive at Stonehenge, the monument is nowhere near complete. This has led many authors, including john Wood (1747), William Hinders Petrie (1880), Paul Ashbee (1998) and Christopher Tilley eta!. (2007) to question whether the monument was ever finished. The non-completion theory is in part based on the use of what have been perceived as small and inadequate stones in the monument (e.g Stones Il and 22), but it also relies on limited evidence for the removal of stones and slighting of the monument (Ashbee 1998). It is certainly true that there is no documentary evidence for the removal of stones or deliberate slighting unlike Avebury, but it is questionable whether we would expect such documents for a site located well away from medieval settlement. The current project has, however revealed physical evidence for stone-breaking and the removal of stones. This evidence is presented below in relation to the main structural elements, and its implications for the non-completion theory are explored in the discussion.....
The Sarsen Circle envisaged by Petrie (1880) was composed of 30 uprights and 30 lintels. Sixteen uprights survive complete, the majority of which are located on the NE half of the monument, and one upright is broken (Stone Il). Two uprights lie complete on the ground (Stones 12 and 14) and a further six uprights are represented by broken fragments (8, 9, 15, 19, 25 and 26). Five uprights are not present at Stonehenge, although they were speculatively numbered by Petrie (Stones 13, 17, 18, 20 and 24). Of the 30 lintels, six survive in place (Lintels IGL 102, 105, 107, 122 and 130) and two are represented by fragments on the ground (Lintels 120 and 127); 22 are not present on the site.....
It is therefore pertinent to ask if there is any evidence that the missing uprights (Stones 13, 17, 18, 20 and 24) were ever present at Stonehenge? In summary, there ¡s certainly good circumstantial evidence that all of these stones may have been present. The presence of fallen Lintel 120 can be taken to suggest that Stone 20 was once present and erect, Hawley excavated a stone hole for the missing Stone 13 and, within its backfill, there was evidence that a stone had been broken up.....
The surviving tenons on the uprights may provide another means of considering whether lintels and missing uprights were once present. In order to achieve an accurate alignment, one of these elements has to be manufactured first, so the location of the other element can be accurately determined......
If this is correct then the presence of a tenon would indicate that a lintel once existed on the upright1 Notably, tenons are present on the tops of Stones 16, 19 and 23, which are adjacent to the three missing uprights and, by implication following Atkinson’s argument, these stones must have been present to support the lintels. This argument also has significant implications for the missing lintels as the only locations where tenons are not present are the damaged/missing tops of Stones 5 (S side only), 8, 9 (NE side only, 11, 15 (NW side only), 21(SE side only), 25 and 26. The surviving tenons may therefore indicate that 18 of the 22 missing lintels were once present.....
Incomplete or imperfect and damaged: the non-completion theory re-considered Ever since John Wood (1747) wondered why so many of the lintels were missing from Stonehenge, and how any would-be stone robber might have removed them without damaging the uprights, successive authors have questioned whether Stonehenge was eve finished. After accurately surveying the monument, William Flinders Petrie invigorated the debate, stating:
"The evidence for non-completion of the outer sarsens, is in the very much smaller Stone 11.,,. Again Nos. 21 and 23 are both defective in size compared with the rest; these show that 11 was no single freak, but was the result of not having better material. If the builders ran so short as to have to use such a stone as 11, is it not very probably that they had not enough to finish the circle?’ (Petrie 1880, 16)
This issue is still hotly debated; Christopher Tilley eta!. (2007) argue that the monument was not completed, while Anthony Johnson (2008, 146) argues for a finished monument This debate was also considered by David Field and Trevor Pearson following their surve of Stonehenge (2010, 62-66). Analysis of the laser-scan data has revealed significant new evidence that informs, rather than solves, this debate. Key aspects of the non-completion theory are reviewed. These are:
• The presence and use of ‘inadequate’ stones (e.g Stones Il and 21).
• The absence of approximately one third of the Sarsen Circle on the SW side of the monument and the absence of the majority of the lintels.
• The absence of documentary evidence for the removal of stones or slighting of the monument.
The use of inadequate stones, particularly on the SW half of the monument, is central to the non-completion theory. ......
In conclusion, this study provides evidence that 27 of 30 uprights of the Sarsen Circle were certainly erected, and the presence of tenons on adjacent uprihts may indicate that all were present along with at least 26 of the 30 lintels. There is certainly no convincing evidence that the circle remained incomplete, and in the light of the significant degree of demonstrable stone robbing it is possible that a complete Sarsen Circle once existed. It is, however clear that the Sarsen Circle was never a perfectly symmetrical circle of regular pillar and lintels. Its SW half was not as well constructed as the surviving NE halt the stones were smaller less regularly shaped and their exterior surfaces were left coarsely dressed or entirely unworked.


  1. Tim, where is the "the significant degree of demonstrable stone robbing" documented?
    The stone robbing at Stonehenge refers to bluestones not sarsens. There are certainly no accounts similar to the destruction at Avebury happening at Stonehenge.
    Please enlighten.

    1. I'm only quoting, but there is physical evidence for the breaking off of edges and corners. The evidence for removal of whole stones and their destinations seems not to exist.

  2. Tim

    You ask the question - is it complete?

    What makes you believe it was a circle of symmetrical proportions in the first place? If it was a temple to the sun then you could be correct as it would represented by a circle. But if it was a temple to the dead it would represent the moon and therefore of 'crescent moon' design and it would facing the winter sunset.

    And that is Stonehenge, a crescent moon facing SW!

    This can be seen from archaeological sketches of holes 8, 9 and 13 excavated by Hawley (section C13) which are too small and in the wrong position to take the full sized Sarsens. What you have in these holes (including 17, 18, 19 in your picture) is the probably that a later society (like the druids) altering the design of Stonehenge to fit their solar fixation adding holes that fitted smaller stones without the lintels - like stone 11 probably utilising the bluestones taken from the Aubrey Holes to fill the gaps in the original design.

    Because these were smaller and far more shallow than the other Sarsens they were easy targets for stone robbers and souvenir hunters with the other missing Bluestones & lintels.


    PS. the correct design can be seen on my latest blog at:

  3. RJL,
    Stones 12, 14 & 19 certainly join S-21 as being irregular in shape. They would have looked less-finished than the ones in the NE. S-16 is necessarily 'perfect', as I suspect -15 was. This is for obvious solar-axis reasons - and a couple that are less obvious.

    Though there is no historical record of Sarsen Stone-Robbing (why would there be?) it seems clear that it occurred simply by looking at the remnants of S-8, -15 & -19. The robbers no doubt found the already-fallen Stones to be easy prey, as there's no evidence that any uprights were attacked. The Bluestones were far easier to destroy, as evidenced by the large missing number of them.

    S-14 exists nearly intact, the Hole for -13 is recorded, as is that of S-20. This leaves S-17 & -18 as being ambiguous until now, thanks to Tim's remarkable observation. The parchmarks closely follow the arc of the Circle, showing that 'Something' was there.

    This is compelling evidence that the Circle was complete. If by some chance these 2 are found to be Treasure Holes or what-not, the remaining physical evidence is enough to show that even at its most disheveled, Stonehenge was Not intended to be a Crescent.

    As strongly theorized by the Laser Scan Team last year, it's clear that the Stones were intended to be viewed from the Avenue, where any of several known imperfections in the rear would be obscured.

    This morphed & modified Stonehenge was a very different place than originally intended 800-odd years before, when the focus was certainly on 'The Dead'. While a number of those concepts were retained in the Stone Phase, the sophisticated layering of belief's and representations indicate that they had moved well beyond any single idea.

    The Moon is now known to have been an important component woven into the Stonehenge Matrix - and may have had something to do with the Ancestors. But the fact remains that the Stones were Not erected as a Crescent. Additionally, there's no site-evidence to suggest that a Crescent-Shape reflected the Moon. Even the mid-period Q&R Bluestones are thought to have been intended as a Circle around the Trilithons, and there's evidence to support this.

    Ultimately, Stonehenge was Sun-Based. The Moon, while an important aspect of their thinking, (notwithstanding the demonstration of High and Low Standstill), was virtually allegorical.

    ND Wiseman

    1. Parchmarks do not a circle make and cannot be accepted as 'compelling evidence that the Circle was complete.'

      I am puzzled why there wouldn't there be any evidence of stone robbing at Stonehenge? It is well documented for the bluestones.

      The real clue is in the direction that the monument was meant to viewed from, as Mr Wiseman correctly says from the Avenue. From here not only are 'imperfections obscured' but also the back of the sarsen circle - the SW sector; only SH16 was required to mark the axis - as is today.

      Further, a crescent would have mirrored the earlier bluestone arrangement of the Q&R holes.

      quod erat demonstrandum

    2. NDW

      Stone 14 is only in the approximate position to the 'perceived' stone hole 14 which has never been excavated so Stone 14 could quite possibly be stone 15 as the current 15 is tiny!

      Stone hole 13 is recorded - as being too small for the standard Sarsen stone which are on average 2m wide - according to Hawley Drawing SH13 is only 1.25m wide page 195 of Stonehenge in its Landscape cleal et al and did not sit on the bottom of the hole but on flints - clearly a much smaller stone such as stone 11. Stone hole 20 I never disputed and is part of the Crescent shape.

      Therefore to claim " This is compelling evidence that the Circle was complete" is a weak argument not supported by the archaeology or logic!

      As for the claim "As strongly theorized by the Laser Scan Team last year, it's clear that the Stones were intended to be viewed from the Avenue, where any of several known imperfections in the rear would be obscured." is just pure nonsense. The stones were faced towards the centre and the rear left rough - this clearly is due to one or both of two reasons:

      1. The inward facing sides were painted

      2. Acoustics were used on this site and needed a smooth surface

      Both aspects are discussed and analysed in my forthcoming book 'Dawn of the Lost Civilisation' next June.

      The only society that linked this monument to the Sun was the druids and the Romans some thousands of years after it fell into ruin. This is clearly shown by the Heel stone being pushed over to meet their Sun rise in the year nil (plus or minus 400 years) as when constructed the sun rose almost 1 degree north of heel stone than today - a very amateurish attempt (like the smaller stones in the SW quadrant) to make the original crescent scape round and a solar temple.


  4. Celtic Bear

    You are quite right with your assumption that the Q&R holes was part of the 'Original' (before the sarsens) construction.

    They were a crescent moon shape and faced the mid-summer setting moon in the direction of the Preseli mountains - where they obtained the bluestones.

    The original construction would have the Bluestone arrangement within the Aubrey Holes, surrounded by a moat and the Q & R holes are the supports for the excarnation slabs - hence the Y and Z holes for the wooden fence that would have enclosed the site to stop wild land animals feeding on the corpses. Once defleshed the bones would be transported to the surrounding Long Barrows for their final voyage to the afterlife.


  5. TCB,
    I agree that the Parchmarks aren't definitive proof, but they Are 'Compelling'.

    Re: Stone-Robbing. One thing I overlooked mentioning is the Lintels. Very few of these survive - even for a clean row of Standers like those in the North. Of the 35 potential Lintels only 13 remain - 9 in-place and 4 fallen. It seems to me that this is more circumstantial evidence that the Big Boys were just too hefty to muscle. 11-foot, 4-ton Lintels were still a lot of work, but easier than 20-foot/24-ton blocks. The big ones they did break up were probably already fallen. (complete conjecture, I'll grant).

    But it is also conjectured that mighty S-55 came a-tumblin down during a rare but moderate earthquake a thousand-odd years ago. (L-156 yanked deep-seated S-56 so hard by the tenon that it set in motion this Stone's famous tilt). Other poorly seated/crafted Stones in 'the rear' may also have fallen victim to this event, making them easy prey for looters.

    Again, S-12, -14, -15 & -19 are all present, albeit in various stages of ruin. If we CGI these stones back into place - well - the Circle looks funny. But, as -13's Hole is there, this would have left only S-17 & -18 out, and there's a number of good theories why they would have.
    I leave broken, punky S-11 out of the mix because it is almost exactly on the Due South line and must have had some significance that we'll never know about. (I call it 'The Turnstile').

    Stone-16 is about as important to the Neolithic/Stonehenge scheme of things as anything standing 'out front'. I'd be happy to detail why I think that in another venue. But sufficient here is that because of their location on the Axis, it is felt that S-15 may have been equally important and just as heavily worked. Unlike the nearby others, S-16 is Not a chinzy Stone.

    The thinking about the so-called Bluestone Crescent has developed in recent years to establish that is was probably either a completed or at least an intended circuit around the pre-existing Trilithons. As a portion of this circuit is impinged on by the NE Sarsen Circle it is felt that the bigger Stones replaced the smaller - possibly before they finished the double-ring. Evidence is scant in the West & South as so much of the chalk underbed is disturbed, but there are remnants of at least 2 sets of Q&R's in the SW quadrant, more or less in the arc later occupied by the Outer Bluestone Circle.

    We all have our pet theories and I applaud all efforts. But clearly the Sarsen Circle was never intended to be a Crescent.

    Best Wishes,
    ND Wiseman

  6. RJL

    Be advised: If you come to a Stonehenge-specific site, you need to bring your A-Game. Some of these incredibly well-informed people are not as gentle as I.

    Alrighty then, let's discuss this, shall we?
    (Hopefully Tim will indulge …)

    Just about every fallen Sarsen ― including the Slaughter Stone ― has its bottom-end straddling, or very near its Hole. Stone-14, are all laying at the foot of where they stood. S-9, -12, -14, -55, & -59 are all right where they should be. S-8 & -15 are remnants it's true, but the broken bits can be extrapolated to show where their Holes are located.

    Stone-13 existed and it had a Hole. Was it truncated like S-11? Very possibly, as Roz Cleal says. But it was there nonetheless.

    There is clear evidence that the quality of workmanship in the Sarsen Circle falls off dramatically the further back you go. This also helps explain why so many are missing in the back. Externally, it was intended to be viewed from the North East. If not, what's the Avenue for?
    This isn't a real argument anymore.

    It's true that the faces of the extant Stones are more carefully crafted on the interior. And yes, it has been shown that acoustics may have played a role. But there are several other viable, complementary explanations why this would be true.

    I have heard the 'Paint' supposition. Fair enough. Maybe they painted it. Garlands and wind-chimes hanging from the Lintels too. There's any number of nooks and crannies salted among the Stones where Skulls or other Relics may have been positioned. Why did they raise Stone-60 with that big gaping maw in the outside-bottom? Why is the South Trilithon so different from all the others? What's with all those Axe-Carvings on Cardinal-Specific Stones?
    We'll never know any of this ― paint or acoustics included. But trying to arbitrate those points without some pretty hefty evidence seems a little …

    The Heelstone sits like it does, leaning in at 20-odd degrees, because after 4,500 years Big Stones Lean. A number of Stones at Stonehenge have been straightened for this reason over the past hundred years or so.
    Additionally, the Heelstone is not in its original location, having been moved a few feet south-east from the 'S-97' position.

    Did the Bluestones originally come from another Circle(s) in Preseli? Could be. There are a few peculiarities in both the makeup and shaping of some of them which may indicate an even deeper previous use than is presently suggested.
    But the 'Crescent' as described by a previous generation didn't point to Preseli, and the midsummer setting Moon occurs in the WSW. From Stonehenge Preseli is in the NNW.

    The Y&Z Holes were dug hundreds of years after the Monument's completion, and in fact, the 2 rings are themselves separated by about 100 years. If they were graves, where's the bodies?

    Excarnation had been out of style for about 700 years by the time the Monument's 5th phase was 'finished'. Even Cremation had gone the way of high buttoned shoes.

    That Stonehenge was not about the Sun is like saying Americans don't like war or money.
    The Moon was certainly a component in the system, but not the Major one. Yearly Cycles, the rising & setting position of both Solstices; Equinoxes, Earth Fertility, Life, Death, Afterlife, how the Cosmos itself is ruled by the Sun, how East was the paramount Cardinal, how the Monument's very location is determined by it … on and on.

    All this and much more is what Stonehenge was, and it was almost entirely based on the Sun. (Just as all major Religions still are to this day.)

    I understand an Author's desire to pitch a book. Believe me, I know. I also understand that once having published it's important to keep the information relevant. There are some imperfections in your suppositions and a one-way evidential trail is a non-starter.

    I wish you the very best of fortune,

  7. Thanks guys - I'm learning a lot and questioning and answering even more stuff.

  8. Neil

    More wishful thinking than archaeological evidence!

    "Just about every fallen Sarsen ― including the Slaughter Stone ― has its bottom-end straddling"

    The Slaughter Stone was never ever erect!! "Stonehenge etc" fig 168 cleal et al clearly shows the chalk was removed and the stone laid on top (why would you do this for a standing stone?) If you wish to know the reason -see my latest blog. As for fallen stones being near there holes - just more wishful thinking. If the footing of these fallen stones fits the holes then I would accept this fact, but the footings do not - so we are guessing!!

    13 and 11 do not fit the circle theory - circle theorists need a dam good explanation to justify the claim. "There is clear evidence that the quality of workmanship in the Sarsen Circle falls off dramatically the further back you go." is more nonsense - clearly the workmanship at when the temple was originally built is of the highest order - what went wrong is later on probably in the late Bronze age when they tried to alter the original structure with smaller stones like 11 & 13.

    Moreover, the idea that "the Heelstone is not in its original location, having been moved a few feet south-east from the 'S-97' position" is just wrong! As the Heel stone is moated (same book fig 156) in its current position like the north and south station stones as they were originally used as direction pointers - Avebury, Durrington and Old Sarum.

    You moon directions are based on 2012 and not on the original structures construction date of 8500BCE the Y&Z hole and excarnation dating are also faulty as the current monument construction date which are based on last evidence in the hole rather than when the hole was first cut - hence the need to write the book to correct this poor speculative archaeology you take as fact.

    The fact which is irrefutable is that the holes for the crescent moon structure exists and are archaeology proven to exist and more importantly are of constant size as one would expect of a completed structure - the round temple idea is just guesswork and conjecture as we have seen - one is scientific the other sadly nonsense!

    You do well to read my book and its free on Kindle - as I'm here to educate not speculate.



  9. RJL,
    (I am being roundly scolded by my colleagues for continued participation in this nonsense, but call me a soft touch.)

    The Slaughter Stone fell forward toward the Circle. Sometime before 500 years ago and after 1250 AD, it was 'Slighted' - similar to what the superstitious people of Avebury did to that Monument. Just by looking at it you can see that they tried to bury it. There is also some ambiguous evidence that they tried to fire it for breaking. (A common practice with Sarsen) Its Hole is under the NE end. The other 2 Stones are unaccounted for.

    Though the Ditch of the Heelstone predates the Avenue it was not dug until well after they moved the Stone from the 97 position.
    Notice how the late Avenue is built to accommodate this older feature. Ditches were not 'Moats' - especially in chalk. They saw water when it rained. The End.

    It has been shown that punky Stone-11 is Original. It is centered & spaced right between S-10 and S-12.
    This concludes that discussion.

    The quality of the Workmanship falls off ...
    Though the Lintels remained absolutely level, the Stones that held them were less-perfect that those of the NE.
    This is common knowledge.

    The Precession of the Equinox is inexorable, this is true. But the difference between then & now is only about a degree & a half. You are suggesting that the Moon has somehow changed its orbital plane and location.

    8500 BCE? Seriously?

    The North Barrow has existed since before the Ditch & Bank were constructed. The original purpose is not known before it was incorporated into the Monument.
    The South Barrow came much later, and sits atop a wooden structure from the early Post Period. 2 Aubreys are obscured by it, while those of the North Barrow were dug into it.
    There is little doubt that these 'Barrows' represent the Moon at High & Low Standstill.

    There are many who believe that the only potentially 'Missing Stones' were S-17 & -18.
    With these new photos from Tim that supposition is undergoing a review. I have little doubt that a more comprehensive examination will follow shortly.

    While alternative theories about Stonehenge are interesting and welcome, the more successful have their basis in actual fact.
    Dating, component timing and a little logic are usually involved.
    Your idea has none of these.

    Stonehenge evolved over a long period of time through a cultural morphing process that led it to the ruins we see today. Though it eventually came to incorporate a number of concepts, it maintained its reliance on the important movements of the Sun throughout its life.


  10. Neil

    You have no 'real' evidence that it was up in 1250 AD and if you was serious in burying the stone the pit would have been much much deeper - it is a poor archaeological excuse for something that is not understand and that is bad science!

    Why would you bury just one Stone? - or are there more under the surface?? If this was a recent thing why did they bury it making sure it did not disturb the two AH's on each side - or is that more coincidence??

    Do you and you colleagues lack any form of practical logic - Neil think man, it does not make sense!! People do not spend weeks and months digging out a hole in a particular spot without a very good reason - would you?? If you did not like it, burn it and hit it with hammers - its far quicker and easier to light a fire than burrowing into chalk.

    "Though the Ditch of the Heel stone pre-dates the Avenue" what is you archaeological evidence for that claim?? - its nonsense you cant date a moat by its contents (as they float away!) but you can date a dry moat but that's the disused date NOT the construction date as in the Stonehenge moat/ditches.

    "Notice how the late Avenue is built to accommodate this older feature. Ditches were not 'Moats' - especially in chalk. They saw water when it rained. The End."

    Again ask yourself the question - why did the avenue stop were it did - no natural reason today. Why when they carried on did the ditches stop (was there something missing what had changed?) - why did it have a moat on both sides one deeper than the other? - why dig ditches at all?? Roman dug ditches around settlements, Normans dug ditches around castles and guess what Neil they filled with water and they called them moats - its no rocket science my friend, its common sense!!

    In fact one of my blogs shows that EH now supports my 'mad' hypothesis (don't tell you colleagues schhh!)

    'Palaohydrology of the Kennet, swallowhead springs & the Sitting of Silbury Hill' is examined in an article by Steve Marshall showing that groundwater in this region was 5m higher than today - so Silbury was a man made island!!

    When you dig ditches into chalk with high ground water levels they fill with water - and as you go further back in history the higher the ground water levels and guess what date it would have been when the groundwater was 30m above todays and on the shoreline of Stonehenge - 8500 BC.

    I also did a degree course in Hydrology - did any of your colleagues??

    But wait that can't be accepted because we would need good collaborating scientific evidence for that date to be credible otherwise its just speculation (which would make me as bad as you and your colleagues on stone 11 and 13!) - yet would you believe it? We do have the post holes in the car park and there dates are 7500BC to 8500 BC - but these are not evidence as they are 'totem poles' from the lost north american tribe of 'sitting bullshiter' and at least 50m away (miles in archaeology terms) from the main site so can not be in anyway associated - can they?


  11. Except - Post Hole 9580

    It was going so right until this dig then 'EH buried the truth' Carbon dating on three layers from 7000BC to 8000BC - this tribe had a great ability to remember where these 'totem poles' were erected, especially as normal wood only last 50 to 100 years max once cut down in the natural. BUT then the archaeologist found something that could not be there in the pit between layers - a bluestone fragment.

    Why don't you and your colleagues get together and come up with a reason not including the insulting word 'anomaly' - try totem poles were knocked into place by bluestone hammers from Preseli or something just as farcical as 'totem poles', I need a good laugh!

    With the best will in the world Neil - this is not my blog so sorry to Tim for taken up so much space. Neil if you really want to know the truth about Stonehenge and not the rubbish they churn out at University (I know because I studied Archaeology at MOL, UCL and Birkbeck over the last ten years - and learnt about unqualified nonsense you have quoted here!) then come to my blog 'read' the information in full then question it.

    But be warned I get 6500 hits per month so you will be well read by some very cleaver people - so you need to back-up this speculation with facts.



  12. RJL
    The Car-Park Posts or 'Totems' are probably 8500 Years Before Present - Not 'BCE'. This does in no way date Stonehenge, nor can a corollary between them be drawn from the scanty evidence. They were really big pine posts that were probably in excess of 20 feet out of the ground. They may align to the Equinox Sunrise, but they may not.
    They were there before the Cursus and may have been erected by the same people who used Vaspasian's Camp.
    There is no known connection between those posts or the Cursus with Stonehenge. There are millennia between all three.

    Post Hole 9580 is not classed as being either associated with, or erected in the same period as the others. Could well have had a big old Bluestone to bang that bad puppy in there.

    The area must certainly have been considered Sacred for all this stuff having gone on in it for such a long time.

    OK - here's the deal, Bob ...
    You don't know me. I don't know you either. All we have to form opinions about the other is what we post here or elsewhere.
    You have written a book or whatever about what you think Stonehenge was for. More power to you, I say. I cordially dispute your contention with an overwhelming body of evidence that is both in the public domain and through a mind-numbing length of time consulting with friends & colleagues who have 'boots-on-the-ground', so to speak.

    I have been wrong in the past about certain things concerning Stonehenge. I freely admit it. I've been corrected by people who had more information about these things than I did.
    But these days? Not so much ...
    Now people consult with me.

    Like most serious researchers I use a little thing I like to call: "The Scientific Method." That is: Come up with a theory, weigh it against the evidence, repeat the process until new evidence comes into play. If necessary, change the theory.
    Nobody gets their feelings hurt and nobody calls you an idiot.

    You are perilously close to the Name-Calling phase of this little exchange, and I doubt that you have any idea how many people are reading this very comment page - probably as I write this.
    (Tim's blog is trolled by some pretty heavy-hitters.)

    The evidence for every point I have made is fact-based. There is solid evidence to support what I say - and I haven't even gone very far beyond the 'Common Knowledge' part.
    You have apparently heard of Hawley, and you quote Roz Cleal. Bravo.
    How about Parker-Pearson, Mike Pitts, George Currie, anybody from Wessex Archeology, Ruggles, Meadon, Atkinson, or Stone?
    How about our own Tim Daw, or Simon Banton, or Dan Rendell?
    I've never heard of you, so I know you didn't consult me ...

    Stonehenge research is not done in a vacuum, sir.
    Your theory is not Fact-Based. It is a wish-list.

    I wish you well in all your endeavors,

  13. Hey boys lighten up this reminds me of the famous Monty Python Towns Women's Guild of Sheffield re-enactment of the Battle of Pearl Harbour.

  14. This comment has been removed by the author.

  15. LOL!
    Oh, c'mon Peter ...
    You're just annoyed because I forgot to put your name on my list of go-to guys.
    (Great Python reference though!)
    hee hee

    FYI RJL - Mr Dunn is among the foremost researchers with regard to the initial Phases at Stonehenge, and his interpretations of the interior Post-Clusters are quite illuminating.
    All fact-based, naturally.

  16. FYI

    OxA-4920 8400 +/- 100 Calibrated Date 7580 - 7090 BC

    OxA-4919 8520 +/- 80 Calibrated Date 7700-7420 BC

    GU-5109 8880 +/- 120 Calibrated Date 8090-7580 BC

    HAR-455 9130 +/- 180 Calibrated Date 8820-7730 BC

    HAR-456 8090 +/- 140 Calibrated Date 7480-6590 BC

    Page 526 Stonehenge etc 1995 Cleal et al

    Please note that as more information about C14 in the air (particularly around 10,000 BC) is known the older the calibrated dates will become in the future - no charge!!

  17. RJL,
    In review, its appears you were correct about the age of the Car-Park Posts.
    Yes - they are 8/8500 years BC - not BP.
    (I get those confused, which is why I generally lean toward BP.)

    Calibrating C-14 is a tricky business, and the age of the item dated must be considered in the result.
    If your plus/minus is 500 or 1,000 years and Pine can live 300 years (Oak much longer), at what point do we add or subtract the age of the tree was when it was erected in the hole?
    Dendrochronology has become extremely accurate, but unfortunately it cannot be performed in this case.



Comments welcome on fresh posts - you just need a Google account to do so.