Author Topic: Latest on Stonehenge Dig  (Read 4648 times)

Offline Black Swan

  • The Living Force
  • ********
  • Posts: 1,156
Latest on Stonehenge Dig
« on: September 22, 2008, 10:41:45 PM »
Dig pinpoints Stonehenge origins
By James Morgan
Science reporter, BBC News 

Archaeologists have pinpointed the construction of Stonehenge to 2300BC - a key step to discovering how and why the mysterious edifice was built.

The radiocarbon date is said to be the most accurate yet and means the ring's original bluestones were put up 300 years later than previously thought.

The dating is the major finding from an excavation inside the henge by Profs Tim Darvill and Geoff Wainwright.

The duo found evidence suggesting Stonehenge was a centre of healing.

Others have argued that the monument was a shrine to worship ancestors, or a calendar to mark the solstices.

A documentary following the progress of the recent dig has been recorded by the BBC Timewatch series. It will be broadcast on Saturday 27 September.

The excavation is documented in a BBC Timewatch special


Date demand

For centuries, archaeologists have marvelled at the construction of Stonehenge, which lies on Salisbury Plain, Wiltshire.

Mineral analysis indicates that the original circle of bluestones was transported to the plain from a site 240km (150 miles) away, in the Preseli hills, South Wales.

This extraordinary feat suggests the stones were thought to harbour great powers.

Professors Darvill and Wainwright believe that Stonehenge was a centre of healing - a "Neolithic Lourdes", to which the sick and injured travelled from far and wide, to be healed by the powers of the bluestones.

They note that "an abnormal number" of the corpses found in tombs nearby Stonehenge display signs of serious physical injury and disease.

And analysis of teeth recovered from graves show that "around half" of the corpses were from people who were "not native to the Stonehenge area".

"Stonehenge would attract not only people who were unwell, but people who were capable of [healing] them," said Professor Darvill, of Bournemouth University.

"Therefore, in a sense, Stonehenge becomes 'the A & E' of southern England."

Modern techniques

But without a reliable carbon date for the construction of Stonehenge, it has been difficult to establish this, or any other, theory.

Until now, the consensus view for the date of the first stone circle was anywhere between 2600BC and 2400BC.

To cement the date once and for all, Professors Darvill and Wainwright were granted permission by English Heritage to excavate a patch of earth just 2.5m x 3.5m, in between the two circles of giant sarsen stones.

The dig unearthed about 100 pieces of organic material from the original bluestone sockets, now buried under the monument. Of these, 14 were selected to be sent for modern carbon dating, at Oxford University.

The result - 2300BC - is the most reliable date yet for the erection of the first bluestones.

Strictly speaking, the result was rounded down to "between 2400BC and 2200BC" - but 2300BC is taken as the average.

An even more precise date will be produced in the coming months.

"It's an incredible feeling, a dream come true," said Professor Wainwright, formerly chief archaeologist at English Heritage.

"We told the world we were going to date Stonehenge. That was a risk, but I was always confident," said Professor Darvill.

Please turn on JavaScript. Media requires JavaScript to play.

The archaeologists reveal the first accurate carbon date for Stonehenge

Intriguingly, the date range ties in closely with the date for the burial of the so-called "Amesbury Archer", whose tomb was discovered three miles from Stonehenge.

Some archaeologists believe the Archer is the key to understanding why Stonehenge was built.

Analyses of his corpse and artefacts from his grave indicate he was a wealthy and powerful man, with knowledge of metal working, who had travelled to Salisbury from Alpine Europe, for reasons unknown.

Post mortem examinations show that he suffered from both a serious knee injury and a potentially fatal dental problem, leading Darvill and Wainwright to conclude that the Archer came to Stonehenge to be healed.

But without an accurate date for Stonehenge, it was not even clear whether the temple existed while the Archer was alive.

His remains have been dated between 2500BC and 2300BC - within the same period that the first stone circle was erected.

"It's quite extraordinary that the date of the Amesbury Archer is identical with our new date for the bluestones of Stonehenge," said Professor Darvill.

"These two things happening within living memory of each other for sure is something very, very important."

Earliest occupation

Professor Wainwright added: "Was the Amesbury Archer, as some have suggested, the person responsible for the building of Stonehenge? I think the answer to that is almost certainly 'no'.

"But did he travel there to be healed? Did he limp, or was he carried, all the way from Switzerland to Wiltshire, because he had heard of the miraculous healing properties of Stonehenge? 'Yes, absolutely'.

"Tim and I are quite convinced that people went to Stonehenge to get well. But Stonehenge probably had more than one purpose, so I have no problem with other people's interpretations."

Among other key finds, the team uncovered organic material that indicates people inhabited the Stonehenge site as long ago as 7200BC - more than 3,500 years earlier than anything previously known.

They also found that bluestone chippings outnumbered sarsen stone chippings by three to one - which Wainwright takes to be a sign of their value.

"It could be that people were flaking off pieces of bluestone, in order to create little bits to take away... as lucky amulets," he said.

The duo are preparing to publish an academic report of their excavation, and will announce their findings to their peers next month, in a lecture at London's Society of Antiquaries.

Ongoing debate

Experts on Stonehenge said the new date was a major milestone in understanding Britain's most famous monument.

Dr Andrew Fitzpatrick, of Wessex Archaeology, said: "This is a great result - a very important one.

"The date of Stonehenge had been blowing in the wind. But this anchors it. It helps us to be secure about the chronology of events.

"The theory that it was a centre of healing is certainly a plausible one, but I don't think we can rule out the other main competing theory - that the temple was a meeting point between the land of the living and the dead.

"I am not yet persuaded that the Amesbury Archer came to Stonehenge to be healed. I favour the interpretation that he was one of the earliest metal workers, who travelled to the area to make a living from his skills.

"In any case, it is still not clear if his burial predated Stonehenge."

Dave Batchelor, Stonehenge curator at English Heritage, said: "We are pleased that the professors' precision in targeting that small area of turf and their rigorous standards in archaeological excavations have produced such a rich collection of physical evidence.

"We are looking forward to seeing the results of the full analysis, but from what we understand so far, we believe they have added valuable information to the chronology of Stonehenge."

The BBC Timewatch special is broadcast on BBC Two at 2005 BST on Saturday 27 September

Story from BBC NEWS:

Published: 2008/09/21 23:01:34 GMT


Wisdom is as the flower from which the bee its honey makes and the spider poison, each according to its own nature.
The Kabbalah

Offline PepperFritz

  • The Living Force
  • ********
  • Posts: 1,600
Re: Latest on Stonehenge Dig
« Reply #1 on: September 23, 2008, 02:03:32 AM »

Quote from: BBC News
Archaeologists have pinpointed the construction of Stonehenge to 2300BC.... The radiocarbon date is said to be the most accurate yet and means the ring's original bluestones were put up 300 years later than previously thought....

Some relevant excerpts from the C transcripts:

Quote from: Session 941023
Q: (L) When was Stonehenge built?
A: 6000 approx. BC

Quote from: Session 950603
A: Radio carbon dating is not exact science.

Quote from: Session 990703
Q: ...Carbon dating. Is it incorrect by a
factor of two prior to 10,000 years as L has suggested? We
observe a factor of 2 variation in the scientific dating versus
your dating. This is a repeating phenomenon on nearly all
dates you have given.
A: "They" fail to take into effect the influence of magnetic
aberrations caused by ancient cataclysms.
Q: (L) How can these magnetic aberrations affect
radiocarbon dating?
A: By altering the isotopal imprints of matter.
Q: So, the cataclysm of about 1500 B.C....
A: All of them scramble the radiological data because of
magnetic surges.

Offline Vulcan59

  • SuperModerator
  • ********
  • Posts: 7,676
Re: Latest on Stonehenge Dig
« Reply #2 on: September 23, 2008, 06:57:50 AM »
Another perhaps relevant script is from session 980822.

Quote from: Session 980822
Q: (L) Now, on to the questions I have prepared: In a
previous session you said that the pyramid was built 10,643
years ago. That would be 8,649 BC. Is that a correct figure,
or was there any corruption?
A: Yes. Correct.
Q: Then you talked about the pyramid as a focuser of energy
to do 'all things' or many things. Later we asked about
Stonehenge and you said that Stonehenge was built 6,000 BC
by Druids, an early Aryan group, as an energy director to do
'all things.' This seems to be that both structures had similar
design functions. Is that correct?
A: No. Stonehenge is a vector of energy derived from Solar
and Cosmic rays. Pyramids focus electromagnetic energy
from the atmosphere ambiently. Stonehenge was built 8,000
BC, by the way.
Q: If it was built in 8,000 BC, and the Pyramids were built
8,649 BC, which is 10,643 years ago, more or less, that
means that they were built at almost the same time, or at least
within 600 years of each other. If they were built at almost the
same time, were they built by the same, or similar groups of
A: Atlantean descendants.
"To love you must know. And to know is to have light. And to have light is to love. And to have knowledge is to love."

Offline Laura

  • Administrator
  • ********
  • Posts: 30,765
Re: Latest on Stonehenge Dig
« Reply #3 on: September 23, 2008, 10:35:00 AM »
It's funny that the Cs first said 6 KYA and then corrected themselves to 8 KYA.  But that could relate to "remodeling" activities.  Anyway, here's what I wrote about radiometric dating in TSHOTW:

If we are going to investigate time, we will be confronted with the issue of dates, those markers of time, and of how these dates are established.

The most widely used method for determining the age of fossils is to date them by the “known age” of the rock strata in which they are found. At the same time, the most widely used method for determining the age of the rock strata is to date them by the “known age” of the fossils they contain. In this “circular dating” method, all ages are based on uniformitarian assumptions about the date and order in which fossilized plants and animals are believed to have evolved. Most people are surprised to learn that there is, in fact, no way to directly determine the age of any fossil or rock. The so called “absolute” methods of dating (radiometric methods) actually only measure the present ratios of radioactive isotopes and their decay products in suitable specimens - not their age. These measured ratios are then extrapolated to an “age” determination.

The problem with all radiometric “clocks” is that their accuracy critically depends on several starting assumptions, which are largely unknowable. To date a specimen by radiometric means, one must first know the starting amount of the parent isotope at the beginning of the specimen’s existence. Second, one must be certain that there were no daughter isotopes in the beginning. Third, one must be certain that neither parent nor daughter isotopes have ever been added or removed from the specimen. Fourth, one must be certain that the decay rate of parent isotope to daughter isotope has always been the same. That one or more of these assumptions are often invalid is obvious from the published radiometric “dates” (to say nothing of “rejected” dates) found in the literature.
One of the most obvious problems is that several samples from the same location often give widely divergent ages. Apollo moon samples, for example, were dated by both uranium-thorium-lead and potassium-argon methods, giving results, which varied from 2 million to 28 billion years. Lava flows from volcanoes on the north rim of the Grand Canyon (which erupted after its formation) show potassium-argon dates a billion years “older” than the most ancient basement rocks at the bottom of the canyon. Lava from underwater volcanoes near Hawaii (that are known to have erupted in 1801 AD) has been “dated” by the potassium-argon method with results varying from 160 million to nearly 3 billion years. It’s really no wonder that all of the laboratories that “date” rocks insist on knowing in advance the “evolutionary age“ of the strata from which the samples were taken -- this way, they know which dates to accept as “reasonable” and which to ignore.

More precisely, it is based on the assumption that nothing “really exceptional” happened in the meantime. What I mean by “really exceptional” is this: an event theoretically possible, but whose mechanism is not yet understood in terms of the established paradigms. To give an example: a crossing of two different universes. This is theoretically possible, taking into account modern physical theories, but it is too speculative to discuss its “probability” and possible consequences.

Could such an event change radioactive decay data? Could it change the values of some fundamental physical constants? Yes, it could.

Is it possible that similar events have happened in the past? Yes, it is possible. How possible it is? We do not know. We do not know, in fact, what would be an exact meaning of the “crossing of two different universes”.
In addition to considering the idea of cataclysms that could have destroyed ancient civilizations more than once, there is another matter to consider in special relationship to radioactive decay: that ancient civilizations may have destroyed themselves with nuclear war.

Radiocarbon dates for Pleistocene remains in northeastern North America, according to scientists Richard Firestone of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and William Topping, are younger as much as 10,000 years younger than for those in the western part of the country. Dating by other methods like thermo-luminescence (TL), geoarchaeology, and sedimentation suggests that many radiocarbon dates are grossly in error. For example, materials from the Gainey Paleoindian site in Michigan, radiocarbon dated at 2880 yr BC, are given an age by TL dating of 12,400 BC. It seems that there are so many anomalies reported in the upper US and in Canada of this type, that they cannot be explained by ancient aberrations in the atmosphere or other radiocarbon reservoirs, or by contamination of data samples (a common source of error in radiocarbon dating). Assuming correct methods of radiocarbon dating are used, organic remains associated with an artifact will give a radiocarbon age younger than they actually are only if they contain an artificially high radiocarbon keel.

Quote from: Firestone and Topping
Our research indicates that the entire Great Lakes region (and beyond) was subjected to particle bombardment and a catastrophic nuclear irradiation that produced secondary thermal neutrons from cosmic ray interactions. The neutrons produced unusually large quantities of Pu239 and substantially altered the natural uranium abundance ratios in artifacts and in other exposed materials including cherts , sediments, and the entire landscape. These neutrons necessarily transmuted residual nitrogen in the dated charcoals to radiocarbon, thus explaining anomalous dates. […]

The C14 level in the fossil record would reset to a higher value. The excess global radiocarbon would then decay with a half-life of 5730 years, which should be seen in the radiocarbon analysis of varied systems. […]

Sharp increases in C14 are apparent in the marine data at 4,000, 32,000-34,000, and 12,500 BC. These increases are coincident with geomagnetic excursions. […]

The enormous energy released by the catastrophe at 12,500 BC could have heated the atmosphere to over 1000 C over Michigan, and the neutron flux at more northern locations would have melted considerable glacial ice. Radiation effects on plants and animals exposed to the cosmic rays would have been lethal, comparable to being irradiated in a 5 megawatt reactor more than 100 seconds.

The overall pattern of the catastrophe matches the pattern of mass extinction before Holocene times. The Western Hemisphere was more affected than the Eastern, North America more than South America, and eastern North America more than western North America. Extinction in the Great lakes area was more rapid and pronounced than elsewhere. Larger animals were more affected than smaller ones, a pattern that conforms to the expectation that radiation exposure affects large bodies more than smaller ones.

The evidence that Firestone and Topping discovered is puzzling for a lot of reasons. But, the fact is, there are reports of similar evidence from such widely spread regions as India, Ireland, Scotland, France, and Turkey; ancient cities whose brick and stone walls have literally been vitrified, that is, fused together like glass. There is also evidence of vitrification of stone forts and cities. It seems that the only explanation for such anomalies is either an atomic blast or something that could produce similar effects...
He who learns must suffer
And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget
Falls drop by drop upon the heart,
And in our own despair, against our will,
Comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God.
Agamemnon, Aeschylus

Offline rrraven

  • Jedi Council Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 565
Re: Latest on Stonehenge Dig
« Reply #4 on: September 24, 2008, 02:58:38 AM »
Laura wrote
The evidence that Firestone and Topping discovered is puzzling for a lot of reasons. But, the fact is, there are reports of similar evidence from such widely spread regions as India, Ireland, Scotland, France, and Turkey; ancient cities whose brick and stone walls have literally been vitrified, that is, fused together like glass. There is also evidence of vitrification of stone forts and cities. It seems that the only explanation for such anomalies is either an atomic blast or something that could produce similar effects...
I was just reading a interesting thread on the thunderbolts forum called Vitrified Forts that brings up a few ideas why they might have been vitrified , it went somewhat off topic later but the first 2 pages may be of interest
it also ties into what the Cs said in session000415
A: No. Stones were once utilized to provide for all needs, as
the energies transmitted connected directly with the pituitary
gland to connect spiritual realities with the material realms of
3rd and 4th densities. So you see, the "stone" was viewed as
Matriarchal indeed!

Offline Johnno

  • The Living Force
  • ********
  • Posts: 1,274
Re: Latest on Stonehenge Dig
« Reply #5 on: October 01, 2008, 01:52:43 AM »
FWIW, walking around Stonehenge and the barrows nearby I seemed to find a lot of white rock that looked melted. It wasn't soft crumbly chalk, more a very white smooth type of mineral.
So-and-so-and-so-must-be; do-not-do-what-must-not-be. -Mullah Nasr Eddin: Beelzebub's Tales to his Grandson.

No matter who gets elected, Government always gets in.