Jump to content

Welcome to Grasscity Forums - Register now for FREE
Register now to gain access to all of our features, it's FREE and only takes one minute.
Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Create an Account

Stonehenge A Monument to Unification?


  • Please log in to reply
 

#1
MelT

MelT

    Registered User

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 5,199 posts
ScienceDaily (June 22, 2012) — After 10 years of archaeological investigations, researchers have concluded that Stonehenge was built as a monument to unify the peoples of Britain, after a long period of conflict and regional difference between eastern and western Britain.

Its stones are thought to have symbolized the ancestors of different groups of earliest farming communities in Britain, with some stones coming from southern England and others from west Wales.
The teams, from the universities of Sheffield, Manchester, Southampton, Bournemouth and University College London, all working on the Stonehenge Riverside Project (SRP), explored not just Stonehenge and its landscape but also the wider social and economic context of the monument's main stages of construction around 3,000 BC and 2,500 BC.
"When Stonehenge was built," said Professor Mike Parker Pearson of the University of Sheffield, "there was a growing island-wide culture -- the same styles of houses, pottery and other material forms were used from Orkney to the south coast. This was very different to the regionalism of previous centuries. Stonehenge itself was a massive undertaking, requiring the labour of thousands to move stones from as far away as west Wales, shaping them and erecting them. Just the work itself, requiring everyone literally to pull together, would have been an act of unification."
Stonehenge may have been built in a place that already had special significance for prehistoric Britons. The SRP team have found that its solstice-aligned Avenue sits upon a series of natural landforms that, by chance, form an axis between the directions of midsummer sunrise and midwinter sunset.
Professor Parker Pearson continued: "When we stumbled across this extraordinary natural arrangement of the sun's path being marked in the land, we realized that prehistoric people selected this place to build Stonehenge because of its pre-ordained significance. This might explain why there are eight monuments in the Stonehenge area with solstitial alignments, a number unmatched anywhere else. Perhaps they saw this place as the centre of the world."
Although many people flocked to Stonehenge June 21 for the summer solstice, it seems that the winter solstice was the more significant time of the year when Stonehenge was built 5,000-4,500 years ago.
Professor Parker Pearson said: "We can tell from aging of the pig teeth that higher quantities of pork were eaten during midwinter at the nearby settlement of Durrington Walls, and most of the monuments in the Stonehenge area are aligned on sunrise and sunset at midwinter rather than midsummer. At Stonehenge itself, the principal axis appears to be in the opposite direction to midsummer sunrise, towards midsummer sunset, framed by the monument's largest stone setting, the great trilithon."

Parker Pearson and the SRP team firmly reject ideas that Stonehenge was inspired by ancient Egyptians or extra-terrestrials. He said: "All the architectural influences for Stonehenge can be found in previous monuments and buildings within Britain, with origins in Wales and Scotland. In fact, Britain's Neolithic people were isolated from the rest of Europe for centuries. Britain may have become unified but there was no interest in interacting with people across the Channel. Stonehenge appears to have been the last gasp of this Stone Age culture, which was isolated from Europe and from the new technologies of metal tools and the wheel."

Previous theories have suggested the great stone circle was used as a prehistoric observatory, a sun temple, a place of healing, and a temple of the ancient druids. The Stonehenge Riverside Project's researchers have rejected all these possibilities after the largest programme of archaeological research ever mounted on this iconic monument. As well as finding houses and a large village near Stonehenge at Durrington Walls, they have also discovered the site of a former stone circle -- Bluestonehenge -- and revised the dating of Stonehenge itself. All these discoveries are now presented in Parker Pearson's new book Stonehenge: exploring the greatest Stone Age mystery published by Simon & Schuster. The research was supported by the Arts and Humanities Research Council, National Geographic and many other funding bodies.

#2
Bluntzilla420

Bluntzilla420

    Slater Alligator

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 11,151 posts
No way humans could have constructed Stonehenge. I'm not a crazy alien believer or anything, but same goes with the pyramids of Egypt. No fucking way a bunch of scrawny Egyptians could carry large boulders like that and reach the top.

#3
ArtilleryShell4

ArtilleryShell4

    Don't bomb me, Bro!

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 3,171 posts

No way humans could have constructed Stonehenge. I'm not a crazy alien believer or anything, but same goes with the pyramids of Egypt. No fucking way a bunch of scrawny Egyptians could carry large boulders like that and reach the top.

Why is it more probable that aliens came here, used there superior technology to build a circle of large stones, then left no other signs to show the power they had, Than a large amount of slaves/workers moving stones to show the unification of Britain at the time.

Im sure even today, We could take one of those rocks, construct a basic device to move it using wheels and a support beam across it to hold the rock, and a large amount of ropes tied to it, We could pull it with enough people.

#4
bummember

bummember

    Registered User

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 347 posts

Why is it more probable that aliens came here, used there superior technology to build a circle of large stones, then left no other signs to show the power they had, Than a large amount of slaves/workers moving stones to show the unification of Britain at the time.

Im sure even today, We could take one of those rocks, construct a basic device to move it using wheels and a support beam across it to hold the rock, and a large amount of ropes tied to it, We could pull it with enough people.


He said it doesn't believe in aliens. I don't know, I think an advanced ancient human civilization is extremely possible and provides answers to many more questions than Europeans honoring the sky which they didn't care about in the middle of nowhere

#5
Jason777x

Jason777x

    Registered User

  • Registered Upgraded
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts
I'm just wondering, WHY are these people NOT mentioning anything about "ley-lines" and the fact that stonehenge was built on a ley line? Why?

Either these people are not very well aware and don't really know what they're talking about or they're not telling us the truth. Could be either case. Food for thoguht ;)

-Jason

#6
Bluntzilla420

Bluntzilla420

    Slater Alligator

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 11,151 posts

Why is it more probable that aliens came here, used there superior technology to build a circle of large stones, then left no other signs to show the power they had, Than a large amount of slaves/workers moving stones to show the unification of Britain at the time.

Im sure even today, We could take one of those rocks, construct a basic device to move it using wheels and a support beam across it to hold the rock, and a large amount of ropes tied to it, We could pull it with enough people.


Stonehenge is much more possible than the pyramids, let's put it that way.

#7
MelT

MelT

    Registered User

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 5,199 posts

I'm just wondering, WHY are these people NOT mentioning anything about "ley-lines" and the fact that stonehenge was built on a ley line? Why?

Either these people are not very well aware and don't really know what they're talking about or they're not telling us the truth. Could be either case. Food for thoguht ;)

-Jason


Ley Lines were invented in 20's and have been debunked. Despite tens of dowsers and the like saying that they can detect them, in a series of tests carried out over the last 40 years, no two dowsers could agree on the position of ley lines or find hidden objects. The only people to claim that they exist are modern Wooers via a geodesic grid over the earth which supposedly takes in all major ancient sites. Unfortunately the grid is based on the Earth being spherical , which it is not, therefore the grid does not apply.

Magical ley lines
ley lines - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com
Dowsing, Divining, and Debunking Down Under | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine

MelT

#8
HookedonPhonics

HookedonPhonics

    On the road

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 585 posts

No way humans could have constructed Stonehenge. I'm not a crazy alien believer or anything, but same goes with the pyramids of Egypt. No fucking way a bunch of scrawny Egyptians could carry large boulders like that and reach the top.


Man Builds Stonehenge in Backyard | Tool Snob - ToolSnob.com

#9
TheFour

TheFour

    Registered User

  • Registered Upgraded
  • PipPipPip
  • 71 posts

No way humans could have constructed Stonehenge. I'm not a crazy alien believer or anything, but same goes with the pyramids of Egypt. No fucking way a bunch of scrawny Egyptians could carry large boulders like that and reach the top.


They used reinforced cranes and pulleys to manoeuvre the masonry. Scrawny? I bet you put an Egyptian labourer against an average modern bloke in some sort of deadliest warrior thing he'd get pulverised. Ancient humans had pretty much identical brains to the modern human, they weren't dumb.

#10
MelT

MelT

    Registered User

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 5,199 posts

They used reinforced cranes and pulleys to manoeuvre the masonry. Scrawny? I bet you put an Egyptian labourer against an average modern bloke in some sort of deadliest warrior thing he'd get pulverised. Ancient humans had pretty much identical brains to the modern human, they weren't dumb.



I had much the same thoughts, it's a pretty strange argument to think that the egyptian labor was scrawny or less mentally capable than we are.

MelT

#11
Sunn

Sunn

    partly cloudy

  • Bronze Member
  • 15,218 posts


#12
Bluntzilla420

Bluntzilla420

    Slater Alligator

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 11,151 posts

They used reinforced cranes and pulleys to manoeuvre the masonry. Scrawny? I bet you put an Egyptian labourer against an average modern bloke in some sort of deadliest warrior thing he'd get pulverised. Ancient humans had pretty much identical brains to the modern human, they weren't dumb.


Still doesn't answer how they reached the top of the pyramid. It's not about intelligence or strength, either. It's a technological question.

#13
seculardave

seculardave

    PercipioPercepiPerceptum

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 175 posts
If it's a technological question then surely it's also a question of intelligence? Also, technology doesn't need to be super advanced in order to have a powerful function. Consider the lever, so simple, and I'm sure they were employed in ancient Egypt and stonehenge.

Edited by seculardave, 27 June 2012 - 05:13 PM.


#14
HookedonPhonics

HookedonPhonics

    On the road

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 585 posts

Still doesn't answer how they reached the top of the pyramid. It's not about intelligence or strength, either. It's a technological question.


Are you actually serious? You realise the shape of the pyramid allows you to progressively build to the summit, it's no coincidence it is that shape, it is a structure that allows you to continually build upwards while maintaining a platform to develop on top of. This is also why the Maya and Aztecs built similar structures of similar design.

#15
yurigadaisukida

yurigadaisukida

    Registered User

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 12,898 posts
If super advanced technology was used to build these things why did they build tthem out of random rocks that were shaped by.primitive chisels?

Why not use sanded polished marble or carbon manor tubes?

#16
Solar Being

Solar Being

    search within

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 2,826 posts
Posted Image

#17
yurigadaisukida

yurigadaisukida

    Registered User

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 12,898 posts


?????

#18
Solar Being

Solar Being

    search within

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 2,826 posts

?????


just a picture to stir the mind ;)

Edited by NoFlame, 28 June 2012 - 03:16 AM.


#19
MelT

MelT

    Registered User

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 5,199 posts
LOL! Kirilian photography. What Jason isn't aware of, or pretends not to be, is that Kirilian photography was also debunked years ago. For those interested to know more, this is one of a list of good science sites on the subject, this is simply the most concise.

I wonder what one-liner he'll use to dismiss this one?

"...
Kirlian Photography

Posted Image
Kirlian photo of a finger

Kirlian photography is a type of contact print photography in which an object touching a photographic plate is connected to a high voltage source, creating an aura-like image. It is named after Russian inventor Semyon Kirlian (1898 – 1978), who accidentally discovered the technique in 1939.
How it Works

An object is placed in contact with a photographic plate and connected to a source of high voltage, high frequency, low current electricity (the low current makes it harmless). Small coronal discharges are created by the strong electric field at the edges of the object. The frequency of the electricity excites electrons in the object so they ionize the surrounding air.
Objects must be conductive for this technique to work. The object can be moist (e.g. a living thing) or conductive metal. A dry non-conducting object will not produce the effect.
Paranormal (Auras)

Kirlian photography is often confused with aura photography. Although the similarities are obvious, they are two very different techniques. In aura photography there is no voltage and no direct contact with the photographic plate.
Many paranormal enthusiasts still claim that the aura captured by Kirlian photography is some sort of "life force". However this is easily debunked:

  • Kirlian photographs can be taken of anything moist or conductive, including coins, paper clips, etc. (this means that it is not a 'life aura').
  • Kirlian photographs taken in a vacuum (where no ionized gas is present) show no aura.
  • Some people claim that a living object slowly loses its aura after it dies. This is more easily explained by the fact that it loses its moisture.
Jason, please try something new and not nonsense from the 70's.


MelT

#20
Solar Being

Solar Being

    search within

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 2,826 posts

LOL! Kirilian photography. What Jason isn't aware of, or pretends not to be, is that Kirilian photography was also debunked years ago. For those interested to know more, this is one of a list of good science sites on the subject, this is simply the most concise.

I wonder what one-liner he'll use to dismiss this one?

"...
Kirlian Photography

Posted Image
Kirlian photo of a finger

Kirlian photography is a type of contact print photography in which an object touching a photographic plate is connected to a high voltage source, creating an aura-like image. It is named after Russian inventor Semyon Kirlian (1898 – 1978), who accidentally discovered the technique in 1939.
How it Works

An object is placed in contact with a photographic plate and connected to a source of high voltage, high frequency, low current electricity (the low current makes it harmless). Small coronal discharges are created by the strong electric field at the edges of the object. The frequency of the electricity excites electrons in the object so they ionize the surrounding air.
Objects must be conductive for this technique to work. The object can be moist (e.g. a living thing) or conductive metal. A dry non-conducting object will not produce the effect.
Paranormal (Auras)

Kirlian photography is often confused with aura photography. Although the similarities are obvious, they are two very different techniques. In aura photography there is no voltage and no direct contact with the photographic plate.
Many paranormal enthusiasts still claim that the aura captured by Kirlian photography is some sort of "life force". However this is easily debunked:

  • Kirlian photographs can be taken of anything moist or conductive, including coins, paper clips, etc. (this means that it is not a 'life aura').
  • Kirlian photographs taken in a vacuum (where no ionized gas is present) show no aura.
  • Some people claim that a living object slowly loses its aura after it dies. This is more easily explained by the fact that it loses its moisture.
Jason, please try something new and not nonsense from the 70's.


MelT


Haha, my name isn't Jason.

And I didn't make any claims, just posted a simple photograph.

Is that not what it would look like for electricity flowing through pyramid/tesla coil rig?

Edited by NoFlame, 28 June 2012 - 07:44 AM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users