Mini-Stonehenge find 'important'

[Melvadius]

BBC new report the discovery of new 'Henge' site close to Stonehenge:

 

Archaeologists have discovered a mini-Stonehenge, a mile from the site of Wiltshire's famous stone circle.

 

"Bluehenge", named after the hue of the 27 stones from Wales which once formed it, has been described by researchers as a "very important" find.

 

All that now exists of the 5,000-year-old site is a series of holes where the dolerite monoliths once stood.

 

Bluehenge lies at the end of the "Avenue" - a pathway connecting the larger Stonehenge to the River Avon.

 

The remains of the monument was unearthed over the summer by researchers from Sheffield University.

 

It is thought it was erected around the same time as its neighbour Stonehenge.

 

The circle was made using the Preseli spotted dolerite stone.

 

It is a chemically altered igneous rock - harder than granite - which was mined in the Preseli Mountains in Pembrokeshire and dragged 200 miles to the site on the banks of the river.

 

Full details of the Bluehenge discovery will be published in February.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wiltshire/8288567.stm

 

Now the fact that full details will not be released until February has not stopped the Daily Mail creating their own report admnittedly they have asked some real archaeologists for their opinion and more or less accurately rteported them. On this basis despite having its fantasy elements in total the report is not as bad as the 'druid' used to illustrate the caption may initially lead you to suspect

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/art...tle-sister.html

 

The issue with Stonehenge as with most pre-historic site is that without written records it is small clues in alignments and identification of possible origins of materials that form the basis of modern interpretation so obviously there is always an element of doubt about how accurate any interpretation can be. At this stage I am still inclined to wait to see the full report before speculating too much about the site and its possible period of use although obviousy location wise it does seem to fit in with the interpretations of how some of the other large monuments in the nearby landscape may have been used. the key question which full analysis may answer is 'when' and for 'how long' to fit in with the 'where'. 'Around 5,000 years is not as precise a term as many people think as recent research on some of the nearby burial mounds has shown there can be quite a degree of difference in dates.

Edited October 5, 2009 by Melvadius