Stone henge; Worship, Astronomical observation of defense?

[longshotgene]

I wasn't quite sure where to place this one, but I thought here would be as good a spot as any. This past summer I was in England doing research and had to stop by the famous Stonehenge. I also stopped by the larger and less known Avebury Henge, next to Marlboro. I noticed something fascinating about the henges. Were they really built for Star watching, or solstice observing only? The guide kept insisting that was what the research stated, but I have a hard time swallowing that. I am determined to believe the henges were used for a defensive nature. The guide kept saying, "But the sun comes up right over this spot every year." I said, "let's be practical." Who in their right mind, thousands of years ago would spend thousands upon thousands of man hours building a structure out of hewn stone just to watch the stars and the sun rise? Especially considering the fact there were no telescopes back then, and there were no real magnifying glasses to magnify the stars or any celestial object for that fact. I then proceeded to ask him if any excavation had been done extensively outside of the circle. He claimed there had not been. All they found were antler pieces, some left over arrow heads inside the ditch and other minor artifacts. He claimed if the henge was used for a defensive nature, there would be all kinds of stuff on the inside. I said he was quite right, except for the fact what we see today are the burned out timbers of a structure that existed long ago. The wood that covered it has long since dissappeared. Plus, if you really want to see the weapons that were used, one would need to lead an extensive dig outside of the ditch. That is where the weapons will be. Unfortunately, the massive graves lying around will prove nothing as the genetic composition of the people will be too close to differentiate. However, I feel if the graves were excavated, I believe the archaeologist would find that the bodies did not all die from natural causes. Tell me your thoughts.

[Ursus]

Who in their right mind, thousands of years ago would spend thousands upon thousands of man hours building a structure out of hewn stone just to watch the stars and the sun rise?

 

People who thought the lights in the sky were supernatural entities that controlled their destinies, or at least the agricultural seasons. From what I understand Stonehenge is built exactly in line with the sun on Winter Solstice.

 

Nice topic, but I'm moving this to the World History folder.

[caldrail]

I wasn't quite sure where to place this one, but I thought here would be as good a spot as any. This past summer I was in England doing research and had to stop by the famous Stonehenge. I also stopped by the larger and less known Avebury Henge, next to Marlboro. I noticed something fascinating about the henges. Were they really built for Star watching, or solstice observing only? The guide kept insisting that was what the research stated, but I have a hard time swallowing that. I am determined to believe the henges were used for a defensive nature. The guide kept saying, "But the sun comes up right over this spot every year." I said, "let's be practical." Who in their right mind, thousands of years ago would spend thousands upon thousands of man hours building a structure out of hewn stone just to watch the stars and the sun rise? Especially considering the fact there were no telescopes back then, and there were no real magnifying glasses to magnify the stars or any celestial object for that fact. I then proceeded to ask him if any excavation had been done extensively outside of the circle. He claimed there had not been. All they found were antler pieces, some left over arrow heads inside the ditch and other minor artifacts. He claimed if the henge was used for a defensive nature, there would be all kinds of stuff on the inside. I said he was quite right, except for the fact what we see today are the burned out timbers of a structure that existed long ago. The wood that covered it has long since dissappeared. Plus, if you really want to see the weapons that were used, one would need to lead an extensive dig outside of the ditch. That is where the weapons will be. Unfortunately, the massive graves lying around will prove nothing as the genetic composition of the people will be too close to differentiate. However, I feel if the graves were excavated, I believe the archaeologist would find that the bodies did not all die from natural causes. Tell me your thoughts.

 

Right. In ancient times the stars were brighter. Seriously. Modern light and atmospheric pollution has reduced visibility. They were looking for significant stars, not countless specks invisible to the naked eye (and their eyesight was in all likeliehood better than ours). Watching the sun/moon/stars was important to these people. That was how they measured time. It was a seies of phenomenon that they could not explain by mundane means and therefore something special, especially since the seasons were in unison with these observed movements. Some henges did have wooden structures, as temples they had specific purposes. For instance, Stonehenge was a place of the dead, whereas Woodhange (not too far away) was a place of life. Religious rituals between these two sites must have been very important to the people who lived thereabuts.

 

There has been some excavation outside the circle, and these are variously explained as offerings, although some look suspiciously like sacrifices.

 

The fact that someone found buried with signs of violent death means very little, more depends on the circumstances of the find and what was buried with him. Thats basic archaeology. Also, if a defensive site, why on earth did they create it on low lying terrain, and not the ridge to east? Neolithic forts were almost invariably built on high ground specifically for defense. Unsophisticated the neoliths may have been , but they were no less intelligent than us and knew full well the advantages of a steep hill. If defensive, what purpose would a ring of standing stones serve? Pointless. Better to build a stout palisade which is precisely what we find at contemporary hillforts.

 

There really isn't any reason to believe Stonehenge and Avebury were of any military value, apart from the status of occupying the site.

[Faustus]

I wasn't quite sure where to place this one, but I thought here would be as good a spot as any. This past summer I was in England doing research and had to stop by the famous Stonehenge. I also stopped by the larger and less known Avebury Henge, next to Marlboro. I noticed something fascinating about the henges. Were they really built for Star watching. . .

 

 

Salve Longshot,

 

 

 

It seems to me you have put your finger on something here. So much of what we believe is founded on

[caldrail]

"Also, if a defensive site, why on earth did they create it on low lying terrain, and not the ridge to east? Neolithic forts were almost invariably built on high ground specifically for defense" This quote indicates to me that Stonehenge wasn't built on a hilltop.

Correct - it wasn't. It was built on a plain where there no terrain obstructions to viewing the rising and falling of astronomical bodies. Secondly, and somewhat inconveniently, there are't any mountains in that part of the world. Given that, and the fact that the nearest high ground rises a few hundred feet, it was unlikely that it occured to neolithic people that the view was signifcantly better at high elevation. These people were not studying the night sky as scientists. The sun was bright enough wasn't it? It was red at first then again late in the day. Was there any other detail they needed? They certainly couldn't have studied it with the naked eye.

 

Look around: world wide astronomical observatories are built on hilltops, nay mountains do better, such as Mount Polamar, or the observatories built in south America by American universities and elsewhere. There are fewer obstructions like hills/trees, foggy atmospheric conditions all of which prevail at lower elevations. Viewing from higher elevations is always superior. I realize that we're not talking about telescopes here, but any view of the sky is enhanced at higher elevations.

 

This alone makes me suspect that something else was there first. I have always been fascinated by the supposed preoccupation of ancient peoples with the spring and autumnal equinoxes. It has always seemed to me that the winter and summer solstices would be more important. The easiest way to find the winter solstice and thus the moment of death and rebirth of the annular circle or cycle must be on the longest night and the shortest day of the year.

There are other alignments too which is why the equinox has significance. That was the whole point of stonehenge - to mark these alignments for convenience.

 

To me the Equinoxes are only by-products of plotting the annual cycle, starting at the beginning, the winter solstice. The dominance of the sky by the moon would be more transfixing to ancient peoples.

 

Yes, but then you're not a tribesman in neolithic england who has genuine fears of what the english weather is going to do to your prosperity. The passing of seasons is a vital consideration. Agriculture was very primitive and hunting always a gamble. These were days when we still had wild pigs, bears, and wolves running around what is now pastoral wiltshire. These ancient people had a rich religious life - quite possibly hard edged - and these sites were not places of worship in isolation. We know there are tracks and paths between many of them. Truth is, we don't know exactly what the rituals were nor have they left many clues. This gives rise to all sorts of well-meaning suggestions. The prevailing opinion is that stonehenge was a place symbolic of death, given the offerings and bodies buried around the place, and that Woodhenge was within easy reach especially if they travelled via the River Kennet. Woodhange, as the name suggests, was built from lumber and wasn't a stone circle, and as I mentioned is believed to have been a symbolic place of life.

 

Wiltshire has plenty of defensive works in the area. Barbury Castle, Liddington Hill, Uffington Castle, Bincknoll Castle (those are just the ones in my area that I know of) - all hill-forts with ditches and ramparts surrounding a habitation most often used in times of danger. The saxons took Barbury as a burial site - The name means 'Hill-top fort of Bera'. They also totally misunderstood Waylands Smithy some distance east on the Ridgeway. It was a burial chamber dating back as much as 5000 years, but the saxons decided it was a place worthy of their legended hero, Wayland. You see? Without knowing what the place was for or how it was used, the later people invent all sorts of theories to explain it. Logic has some use in determining things, but it might help if you study the surrounding area as well, for such sites belonged to communities who didn't simply exist in one spot. The archaeological record is just as important too. Without that, any conjecture has no proof.

[caldrail]

I thought it might be useful to post a picture of a typical hilltfort. This is Barbury Castle, south of Swindon in Wiltshire (Its a country park and easily accesible)

 

The hill looks quite shallow doesn't it? Believe me, it gets a lot steeper when you try to climb up there! This is a pic of Bincknoll Castle, a hillfort southwest of Swindon and little visited, which illustrates better how steep some of these hills can be.

 

These are the ramparts of the fort.

 

The earth is eroded since they were built thousands of years ago and somewhat less impressive. Also, the original wooden palisades are gone. For added interest, here's a pic of whats left of Waylands Smithy, near Uffington Castle (another hillfort). Although it seems a little unimpressive by some ancient monument standards, back then it must have been a spooky place.

[longshotgene]

Caldrail, you say being a farmer or hunter would have been tricky back then. Why on God's Green Earth would you waste man-power hours to create a giant circle, out of stone no less, to view the rising of the sun? I keep hearing that the stars would have been brighter and the sun would have been brighter. The individuals who say this make it sound like it was day light when it was night time. Now I do remember from my travels that there is a lot of twilight in the U.K., especially the farther north you go. I just cannot accept a theory that men who just emerged from the caves would waster valuable time erecting a giant stone circle so they could tell the seasons. Do you guys think Avebury was used for the same purposes as well? In a circle the sun is always going to rise from one point and settle in another. The heel stones could have been added a little later. Also, the henge is not far from a river, which could also add to the defensive theory. In fact, if you look at the geography it is possible the river could have been situated much closer to the henge. This would also explain the 'water being under the henge' theory. It would be possible since the henge sits on higher ground than the basin of the river, that there is an underground supply of fresh water. If the ancients knew this, it could be possible that the henge once housed a well of some sort. I have heard theories about the henges we have in the U.S. of being star worship centers. I think these are nothing more than fanciful theories created by tree huggers from the sixties. We are a war like people today. There is no reason to believe that the people back then would have been flower toting peace lovers. What sense would it make to abandon your worship center to seek refuge in a hill fort? If this were the case, I as an approaching enemy would have pulled the stones down, and burnt the wood poles that stood around it, all in plain site of the helpless natives who locked themselves in a fort. To top it off, when they came back to rebuild the fort, I would launch another attack, and bury them in their worship center. Just my thoughts. This is kind of interesting. You are making me work harder to defend my theory.

[Faustus]

(Faustus)To me the Equinoxes are only by-products of plotting the annual cycle, starting at the beginning, the winter solstice. The dominance of the sky by the moon would be more transfixing to ancient peoples.

(Caldrail)

Without knowing what the place was for or how it was used, the later people invent all sorts of theories to explain it. Logic has some use in determining things, but it might help if you study the surrounding area as well, for such sites belonged to communities who didn't simply exist in one spot. The archaeological record is just as important too. Without that, any conjecture has no proof.

 

Well said Caldrail but my comment was but intended to convey the possibility that the Stonehenge was not designed and built as an astronomical observatory (certainly unrelated to stars which were too minor as objects, but as regards to sun/moon/earth cycles instead), and that other possibilities ought to be considered. My comments were inclined to agree with Longshotgene in that regard.

 

Consider: a distant tree line 100 feet high and 1.1 mile away would delay a sunrise by 4 minutes, a half mile by 8 minutes, and a quarter mile for 16 minutes. Were the forests cleared in all directions, round-about or at least easterly and westerly for a mile, a half mile, or a quarter mile?

 

An observer with a desire to see a sunset might feel inclined to seek higher ground to be sure of seeing the actual sunrise rather than one delayed by obstacles like trees or even small rises in the terrain. A builder desiring to commemorate special sunrises and sunsets might consider a higher elevation if it would yield a

Edited September 28, 2007 by Faustus

[caldrail]

Describing Stonehenge as an astronomical observatory is laughable. These people were not studying the stars as we might today. It was a religious facility, whose rituals were intended to take place at certain times of the year and therefore it was necessary to mark these days. Human beings are good observers (even if their conclusions are sometimes odd) and they were well aware of the cycles of sky and season. All four events, solstice or equinox, were important. If there was any emphasis on one or the other we'll never know, but this druidic tradition survives from these times.

 

Due to the phenomenon of the precession of the equinoxes the first visible point of sunrise and sunset on the earth

[caldrail]

Caldrail, you say being a farmer or hunter would have been tricky back then. Why on God's Green Earth would you waste man-power hours to create a giant circle, out of stone no less, to view the rising of the sun?

Religion. It makes people do all sorts of daft things.

 

I keep hearing that the stars would have been brighter and the sun would have been brighter. The individuals who say this make it sound like it was day light when it was night time.

No, the night was as dark as it is now more or less. But visibilty was usually better - weather and volcanic activity permitting, so the stars were more visible etc.

 

Now I do remember from my travels that there is a lot of twilight in the U.K., especially the farther north you go. I just cannot accept a theory that men who just emerged from the caves would waster valuable time erecting a giant stone circle so they could tell the seasons. Do you guys think Avebury was used for the same purposes as well?

A similar purpose, just like every other stone circle in britain and europe. The culture of the megalith builders is a curious one. Although a unsophisticated society they went to great lengths to create these monuments. Its pointless arguing that tribesmen just out of caves wouldn't waste time building them - they did - and we have the proof. Also, survival as a community is easier than survival as an individual. Think about it. On your own you have to do everything yourself, and much is wasted. As a community, tasks are shared, less is wasted, and more free time is available. You're going to have to accept that these people wasted time erecting a giant stone circle so they could tell the seasons, because no-one else could have. Their religious life was very important to them. Humans often build massive structures for religious purposes. Look at the vast medieval cathedrals for instance. Is that any less pointless?

 

In a circle the sun is always going to rise from one point and settle in another. The heel stones could have been added a little later. Also, the henge is not far from a river, which could also add to the defensive theory.

Ermm... no. The river flows past, not around, it doesn't flow particularly close, nor are there any signs of watercourses dug to employ the river defensively. Sorry, but stonehenge is almost indefensible.

 

It would be possible since the henge sits on higher ground than the basin of the river, that there is an underground supply of fresh water. If the ancients knew this, it could be possible that the henge once housed a well of some sort.

No evidence.

 

I have heard theories about the henges we have in the U.S. of being star worship centers. I think these are nothing more than fanciful theories created by tree huggers from the sixties.

Thats an opinion, but not good history and definitely not based on archaeology.

 

We are a war like people today. There is no reason to believe that the people back then would have been flower toting peace lovers.

Correct. They weren't. They are known to have competed for territory back then and that inevitably involves violence. Because they occaisionally fought tribal wars doesn't mean they couldn't feel close to nature or observe rituals. Didn't the native americans have a similar outlook on life?

 

What sense would it make to abandon your worship center to seek refuge in a hill fort?

Ok, stick around and get murdered. The whole point of a hill-fort was a place to retreat to when times got tough. Most neolithic people lived in the surrounding area. They were also communal centers for gatherings etc, so they weren't just used for military defense.

 

You are making me work harder to defend my theory.

Thats because your theory isn't supported by the evidence. Stonehenge was not a military structure. Its design is not intended for protection, nor does the surrounding terrain show any sign of military work.

[Jerikagoddess]

How much study have you done on the religion of the peoples who built stonehenge? Their World revolved around celestial bodies, and the cycles of the year. All of their yearly holidays were based on Solar and lunar cycles. The solstices, the equinoxes, and the full, and new moons were their lives. It told them when to plant, when to harvest, and when to store for winter. They diefied the sun and moon as representations of their god and goddess. They were very acomplished astronomers, but it wasnt just rocks and gasses that they built the Henges for, it was the heart of their societies.

Edited October 26, 2007 by Jerikagoddess

[Jerikagoddess]

That's not giving those ancient peoples much credit. People of the ancient world were more advanced than you might think. They understood medicine, knew astrological facts we've only rediscovered in the last few centuries, and performed engineering feats that in some cases we are STILL incapable of reproducing

 

 

 

[Jerikagoddess]

They didnt actually celebrate the new year after the Winter Solstice, but after the Harvest (Around the beginning of November)

 

(Faustus)To me the Equinoxes are only by-products of plotting the annual cycle, starting at the beginning, the winter solstice. The dominance of the sky by the moon would be more transfixing to ancient peoples.

(Caldrail)

Without knowing what the place was for or how it was used, the later people invent all sorts of theories to explain it. Logic has some use in determining things, but it might help if you study the surrounding area as well, for such sites belonged to communities who didn't simply exist in one spot. The archaeological record is just as important too. Without that, any conjecture has no proof.

 

Well said Caldrail but my comment was but intended to convey the possibility that the Stonehenge was not designed and built as an astronomical observatory (certainly unrelated to stars which were too minor as objects, but as regards to sun/moon/earth cycles instead), and that other possibilities ought to be considered. My comments were inclined to agree with Longshotgene in that regard.

 

Consider: a distant tree line 100 feet high and 1.1 mile away would delay a sunrise by 4 minutes, a half mile by 8 minutes, and a quarter mile for 16 minutes. Were the forests cleared in all directions, round-about or at least easterly and westerly for a mile, a half mile, or a quarter mile?

 

An observer with a desire to see a sunset might feel inclined to seek higher ground to be sure of seeing the actual sunrise rather than one delayed by obstacles like trees or even small rises in the terrain. A builder desiring to commemorate special sunrises and sunsets might consider a higher elevation if it would yield a

[Faustus]

How much study have you done on the religion of the peoples who built stonehenge? Their World revolved around celestial bodies, and the cycles of the year. All of their yearly holidays were based on Solar and lunar cycles. The solstices, the equinoxes, and the full, and new moons were their lives. It told them when to plant, when to harvest, and when to store for winter. They diefied the sun and moon as representations of their god and goddess. They were very acomplished astronomers, but it wasnt just rocks and gasses that they built the Henges for, it was the heart of their societies.

 

Salve Jerikagoddess,

 

Indeed, I haven

Edited October 27, 2007 by Faustus

[Northern Neil]

The plotting of events such as equinoxes and solstices would not take the immense effort alluded to in earlier postings. Indeed, once a bearing is taken from the Pole Star, one merely has to wait a few days in late winter / early autumn for the sun to rise at 90 degrees to your line, and bingo - you have the position of the equinoxes.

 

Due to the phenomenon of the precession of the equinoxes the first visible point of sunrise and sunset on the earth

Edited October 27, 2007 by Northern Neil