Hi everyone, hope you enjoy the video! A few quick notes: 1. YES, I know the Romans didn't conquer all of Britain - it is written from the point of view of a Roman general, at that time! 2. if you're wondering why the description of Stonehenge is a bit simplistic, glossing over important archaeology - that is quite how it feels to be a UK prehistorian studying sites other than Stonehenge! 😅
great post sir, well done. but could you please clarify one point for me ? i watched a show were mike parker pearson, carbon dated the outer blue stones, then found the exact match in wales. i think alice roberts might have hosted it, im not 100% sure of her involvement, i'd be shocked if she would be involved in this. but mike proved it with carbon dating. to be clear, are you saying they were telling lies ? because wierdly ,when i watched it all those years ago, i got the impression something was a miss.
@ I’m not saying they lied. But I think Parker Pearson is lax when using the words “possibly” and “maybe”… he’s a fantastic archaeologist otherwise. They have done geological work to understand the Waun Mawn site, and found little evidence of a link. Many doubt the stone circle there even exists at all, or was instead a ‘ring cairn’. Also, carbon dates can only prove the stones date to a similar age. Nothing more!
Yeah,but I had a Pet Rock in the seventies that had a real bad attitude. He'd pee on the floor and run away at every opportunity. Now HE was a problem 🫤🪨
This time last week while out walking on Arron me and my wife came accross a marvelous stone circle. They are all over the place in Scotland. Very few have had any meaningful research or been documented.
Personally, seeing the absolute mess they've made of Stone Henge, I say, long may that singular obsession continue in the hope that the ticket booths, pea-gravel, fences, roads, hi-vis jacket wearing busy-bodies and busloads of selfie-stick carrying tourists that make that site utterly degraded in any way as an authentically wondrous place remain there and do not venture to those places that are still quiet and untouched, awaiting the genuinely enquiring explorer and his imagination. So, looking at the big picture, though of course you are correct, I would say, regarding this video: 'careful what you wish for'.
I visited on a mid week June day in the seventies there were five cars in the car park and about a dozen people wandering about the stones, no fences, fees or gift shop. Perfect. I've driven past countless times since and never had the urge to stop.
@@alanwakefield2453 Aye, I drove past a decade or so ago, before I had grown a deep interest in such things, saw the ticket booth etc. and thought then "On whose authority are you charging entry to this monument?" ...So I hopped over the fence and was immediately escorted out by a couple of wardens... I've never been back. I've spent much of the last three years travelling Britain and Ireland exploring Dolmens mainly and I've learned not to even bother going to those that have become famous as it's always a depressing experience to see the travesty of contemporary civic construction and management alongside these works, Stone Henge, Newgrange and Brownshill Dolman are best avoided - I didn't actually visit Newgrange after reading the reviews of people who had been there and the reluctance of the staff to even show them the thing - it's by guides tour only - stick to those that have sheep shit around them, I say.
Also Don't pay £40 a head to go there the footpath runs right alongside the National Trust path, and now it's guarded you can't even get near the stones, or out into the wider site. Also the cafe is pretty basic and the museum is just OK. Call me old and daft but I preferred it before when it was like Avebury i.e. Open to human interaction. In the 70's I remember having a sunrise picnic in the middle of the circle at Stone Henge and it was magical. Now it's just somewhere you pay to walk around.
You sound pretty bitter for having the opportunity to go there before fences went up. It would be damaging for people to continue getting access without some preservation measures.
@@nancy.dave.williamshave you not seen the photos of the extensive renovations they did? It sat outside for like what 3-5 THOUSAND years with people walking around them
Years ago there was a "multi pass" (Heritage Pass"?) you could get that gave access to a lot of heritage sites. From memory it was cheaper than the entry to Stonehenge at the time.
I think we have forgotten how incredibly common circles +/or henges were in prehistoric Britain. Assuming we know of >1300 stone circles in UK. (Aubrey Burl), and; Fewer places would have had the availibility of stone, so many more would be built of wood. If we multiply by say just 3, (for all the wooden ones and the lost ones) that is one circle every 5 miles or so on average.- That's probably every village.
I actually count them differently (though I believe Burl was estimating lost stone circles). There are a LOT of circles of stone, but very few ‘stone circles’ or ‘Cumbrian Circles’, as Burl called them. Sites like Stonehenge, big uncluttered enclosures aligned to the solstices - even rarer. Swinside is a great example, as are some of the recumbant stone circles of Scotland!
Paul whitewick's use of the quote was a tip of the hat to the prehistory guys. The fact he is a patreon member of the prehistory guys is awesome! There is so much support in prehistory.
Bravo! This is truly excellent and important information. Thank you for explaining just why Stonehenge has garnered so much attention which has always seemed to me disproportionate. As you say, there are so many other, perhaps more wonderful, sites I've always had trouble finding information on. I'm so glad I just stumbled upon your channel, and I look forward to reading your book on Cumbrian monuments. Cheers!
@@FootballAndSuch the Thornborough henges, the Penrith henges, the Long Meg area, the Millom henges, Shap, endless examples! Have a look at my channel for lots of videos on them. Have a looks at my books ‘Yorkshire’s Prehistoric Monuments’ and ‘Cumbria’s Prehistoric Monuments’
Or in the Midlands. Breedon Hill fort in Leicestershire, Arbor Low and the Nine Ladies in Derbyshire, or Arthur’s stone over in Hereford. All modest but fascinating Neolithic sites
The first time I came to England I made a point of visiting Stonehenge, I had wanted to see it since I was about 8 years old. I was terribly disappointed, it was so small. I had grown up visiting Newgrange, Knowth, Dowth, Knocknaree, Loughcrew, Carrowmore and Carrowkeel. In comparison it had better shaped stones but was unimpressive. The worst aspect of Stonehenge marketing came many years later when I took my Father to see it. The official tour guide started off by claiming 'Stonehenge is the oldest and most important prehistoric monument in the world'.
I share your experience; I even saw Stonehenge on a perfect Autumn sunrise - still unimpressed. Anyone who has seen Castlerigg or Mayburgh on a perfect winter's day, would never claim Stonehenge to be the most impressive in the UK. Also, it's a far, far smaller landscape than those at Thornborough.
Nobody thought much about it until relatively recently The land it is on has been bought and sold over the years, the bit the stones are on was donated to the crown in 1918, and so English Heritage, but the land around it was only donated to the National Trust in the 1930's, then it because a tourist location, and became famous ...
It’s been the haunt of poets and artists since the 18th century. Certainly the best known prehistoric monument in the world for a time. The study of it has struggled to lift off recently, so more and more sensational ideas are being thrown out.
Love the vid, and well said. This is why i personally prefer to tackle history over prehistory, as at least I've got something to work on. With prehistory? Boy... so much speculation, educated guesses and gatekeeping. I dont envy you guys. But please, do keep it up.
MPP et al have completely over-egged the pudding of "ritual landscape" and the connections between Durrington Walls and the Henge. Whilst possible, it's only one of a number of equally valid interpretations. There is a thing in archaeology that some people achieve a status of being above criticism and unable to do wrong. MPP is one of those. How do I know? Masters in archaeology from Sheffield where MPP taught.
Agree with you there. I like MPP's work, but grow very tired of hearing "well MPP thinks" - like it's incredibly important. His ideas are actually refreshingly out-there - but nothing we should take as a baseline!
Not been to Stonehenge since it was turned into a moneymaking site, Plenty of other ancient monuments you can go to, that are pretty much left alone by the business people. Interesting insight here thanks for posting, take care 🥰😇😊
Much deserved praise from yourself and your alter-ego. You're good at this UA-cam designing, writing, presenting and editing lark. And you didn't even need to get a £45K debt taking a wanky video editing degree from an ex-poly. A fine and informative short account of the Stonehenge landscape. Cheers.
Thanks for this, I find all these fabulous places so interesting, never been to any but to see them here, explained and shown at their very best is amazing! Well done, I am sure there is still a lot to learn but in the meantime let us just enjoy them for what we see!
Don’t feel that Stonehenge is overrated. However, I completely agree that other sites are critical to understanding the Neolithic period and that more comparative study is necessary. There is much more to be learned. Avebury is my favorite, but Stonehenge is a long enduring site with some unique twists on Neolithic themes.
Absolutely agree it isn’t ‘overrated’, but equally important to others across the country. This idea that it’s the centre of the Neolithic world is, in my opinion, ludicrous.
@@thomasshepard6030 The same way they lifted far, far larger stones onto ‘dolmens’ (Google it). We didn’t get to the moon in a vacuum, human brilliance has been around a lot longer. Also, as mentioned, they’re actually not that big!
That’s part of the restoration. That stone had fallen and weathered. They keep it visible as evidence of the restoration, to keep perspectives realistic.
Well said. I thoroughly agree. I have always thought that archaeologists are taking the specific case and applying it to the general case. Rather than doing good science by testing the specific case against other sites, the general case. Stonhenge is just like London. It consumes a disproportionate share of available 'wealth'. Another wonderfully thought provoking video. Thank you.
In a way Stone Henge drew attention to the ancient history of Britain and Ireland, but then drew attention away from the majority of it. The discoveries we have made about it and because of it are amazing, and the more we learn from it the better, but it is just a snapshot of what's out there (literally all over the place!) and I feel it is giving us a distorted image of that society, fascinating as that image may be.
@@escandolosoamargo Well put. Definitely an amazing site - but one that overshadows so much. My point is, though, that it actually damages the research of the period. Drawing attention to itself no matter where in Britain you look. What if I don’t want to source Parker Pearson!
About 20 years ago, my mum invited a 90 yr old lady for Christmas dinner. She imbibed freely and told us how she had gone to Stonehenge on a motorbike with her squaddy boyfriend and had sex on the altar stone at midsummer....been in use a long time....
PS she did make stuff up though. Her name was Primrose Cummings, who made her money out of 'girls on horses' books and travelled the world on the revenue
I was the last person to sit on the stones - in the middle of the night - before the razor wire went up next morning. They've ruined the place - the admission fee, commercialisation and development is obscene. I will never go back.
England at its best! I mean that in a sarcastic way of course. These monuments belong to the country and its people not a box office money grabbing bunch of twats!
@@buildingthegreatpyramid Fun fact. I was born just a few miles from Stonehenge in a former POW camp on land belonging to Lydiard House - a manor that was the first project of what later became known as "English Heritage". They evicted us from the land a month before the public opening because we made it look "untidy". I was 1yr old. Nice people.
Fantastic production as always. I had wondered where this was going when you started discussing THE Letter! Yup, completely agree with the main theme. When we made the Avebury video a few months back, at least two more stones circled cropped up within a few miles of Avebury that are no longer. Stonehenge has a part to play, but as you suggested, just one part in the monumental jigsaw.
@@pwhitewick It has been the obsession of travellers since at least the Medieval period. Possibly even the Roman era. We’re all pretty obsessed ourselves! No doubt this obsession has done more for the study of megalithic sites worldwide than anything, or anyone, else.
I’m all for pursuing our understanding of as many archaeological sites as we can cram in. But I think Stonehenge plays an important role in keeping the public engaged, intrigued and supportive of archaeology. To be crass about it, archaeology needs its superstars to keep the funding rolling in!
Absolutely agree, and never argued against its use in public engagement or the press. Instead, I’m talking about ‘research bias’, where certain figures have skewed the narrative to be totally Stonehenge-centric.
I've lived in the south of England for 50 years but never visited Stonehenge. I've visited Old Sarum and Maiden Castle twice. I've also been inside a stone burial chamber in Anglesey which was great because I had the place to myself. My best guess is that these stone circles, and pyramid structures, were places where people went in an attempt to speak to the dead. A ancient seance. I think the stone structures were constructed to create a "quiet space" where the voices of the dead could be heard. The stones being used to absorb external noise of spirits from the natural world. There was no doubt some trickery with the priests using ventriloquy.
Absolutely fantastic comment, and very in line with my own thoughts. Stonehenge is definitely worth the visit, it is a magical and important place. Also, was the burial chamber Bryn Celli Ddu? If so, I once saw a naked druid in there
@@AdamMorganIbbotson Yes, it was Bryn Celli Ddu. I didn't see any naked druids, but I did the remains of a ceremony in the chamber with musical instruments and other stuff.
This was great, Adam. I almost actually punched the air when you said it doesn’t matter where the stones came from. Good job your out animation didn’t make it look like you were singling out Parker Pearson as chief proponent of Stonehenge nonsense. I had no idea there were conspiracy theories about Stonehenge being fake. Brilliant!
@@WC21UKProductionsLtd haha, thanks! I originally had a bit in there telling people to go and watch your Devil’s Arrows vid - but it sadly hit the cutting room floor! Archaeologists would do themselves a favour watching your videos over reading a 300 page Stonehenge book! Morphology and field archaeology, that’s the bread and butter.
It is The Ancient New Year Calendar and there are five trilithons, not six as shown it the black and white image, they are the Five Days of Doom added to the 360 day year when crossing the nighttime Taurids.
@@ninthseal6646 From what I’ve read, it fluctuated between 100,000 and 500,000 between 3500 and 2000 BC. There was a bug dip between the Neolithic and Bronze Age, that’s still unexplained. But some think it was the plague. I have a video on this, if you’re interested.
Glad I clicked on the vid, its made me realize you're exactly right. Stonehenge is impressive but I recon more archaeology needs be done on a lot more sights to get a better picture of what was going on.
As someone who lives in Ireland and has Neolithic circles and other standing stones on and around my land, other than a brief study in the early 1990’s it’s left alone. And while I’m happy to have my own personal “henge” I feel it has secrets it could share to those better qualified than me.
@ Only one of them does “The false man” it’s about 2m tall and stands alone. Apparently they’re all connected to Ceide Fields which is about 20km from me
Agree with the basic thesis. Stonehenge has exercised a disproportionate influence on Neolithic and Early Bronze Age archaeology. It used to be limited to popular archaeology, but Parker Pearson et al have pushed the narrative of a great centre for all of Neolithic Britain revered and venerated by people from far across the islands. By a strange coincidence this takes the pre-eminence of S Central England back from Tory shires into the remote past when Taffs and Jocks were as keen as ever to show their reverence for the natural superiority of the English toffs. Glad to see you reference Brian John's work. The evidence for quarrying sites in Bryniau Pfreseli, Penfro is total nonsense.
@@dyffrynardudwy9729 Thanks. Yes, this idea of Stonehenge being the great meeting place is bonkers, stupid, all the words. We don’t know if other places received far-flung visitors, because we haven’t yet looked!
I have a theory - think of stone circles as places you go to find people or people find you - ancient roundabouts. If i want people to find BobsTown - I go to the 'local' stone circle and align Bobstown with a stone if standing in the middle, or drive a wooden sign 'Bobs Town' into ground where needed by a general stone. Then tell visitors pick stone 17 - thats the direction to us. - Lose direction? No problems - two sticks in the ground at sunrise puts you back on the path or during the day - use the sun. The proof would be finding the marker stones for all the other stone circles close by - you go from circle to circle to cross the country until you get to the closest one to BobsTown. Even carry a small portable wooden 'stone circle' device that allows you to align your path whenever you need. The druids would know most paths and inform travellers.
Over the 60 or so years I've enjoyed reading about archaeology and British pre-history I've noticed that professional British archaeologists have shown a consistent unwillingness to interest themselves in anything pre-Roman. I don't know why. For instance, I remember, not so long ago when the outlines of a bronze-age harbour was delineated near Poole one of the chief archaeologists exclaimed how delighted she would be if she could find a Roman ship in it. 🤷🏻 It seems all to likely that much of the reason for the attention paid to Stonehenge is the result of it's status as a money-making, theme park/tourist attraction rather than it's intrinsic historical importance as a neolithic monument. However, my cynicism aside, another explanation for the academic focus on Stonehenge maybe that (unlike other neolithic sites like Avebury) it continued to be used as a ceremonial/funerary center of some sort throughout the Bronze Age and into the preRoman Iron Age. At least used enough that Roman frat boys mentioned it in their letters home. As such the 'ceremonial landscape' in which Stonehenge stands is very interesting. It just happens (as you point out) to not be the original landscape. To continue with my nit-picking (oh did I say I enjoyed your video very much?) I thought henges were circular neolithic enclosures with the banks inside the ditch. Avenues and what-not leading off is neither here nor there. Avebury is usually described is being within a henge isn't it? So why not Stonehenge. Not sure of your point there. Also I thought the Trilithons within Stonehenge were arranged in a horse-shoe shape, not a circle and the circle shown in your 18C (?) illustration was the artist's reconstruction. (I'm just complaining about the picture now, not your point about the similarity to concentric circles further North.) and BTW, who said chariots rattled over marshy fields? 😀
Hi there! Really glad you enjoyed my video! Few things though: 1. Henges are circular enclosures with one or more causeways interrupting a ditch and bank. The bank is always OUTSIDE the ditch. Not inside. Stonehenge is unequivocally not a henge. 2. Almost all Neolithic ceremonial enclosures saw use throughout the Bronze Age. This myth stems from Stonehenge (a particular archaeologist).
@AdamMorganIbbotson thank you for replying. It's more than I deserve. Bank Outside. Yes of course, I knew that really. It's what implies they were not defensive.
@@blaze1148 That’s not true. Plenty of research isn’t peer reviewed! And lots of peer reviewed studies are nonsense… All peer review does is make sure your arguments are cited correctly, and your data all makes sense. It’s up to the educated reader to decide what research is worth their time.
I grew up on a tiny island in the Shetland islands, and the island was almost perfectly divided in two by what may be the oldest wall in the world, and nobody knows why or how it came to be there, it's called the Funziegirt
@AdamMorganIbbotson I grew up playing on Neolithic, Pictish and Norse ruins and had zero idea of the significance of them till I was much older 🤦♂️ lol
@@jasoncox7257 True...and that's good. Imagine all the sites with parking lots, tourist traps selling merchandise and overprized crappy food? Hell, No! That being said, I keep my secrets about places I find magic where rarely anyone can be seen.
If you want the truth about Stonehenge, it has access and depart point pointing to the Northeast, this fact is very important because the Geordies knocked it up one weekend on the way back from Torquay to Glastonbury, you can see the difference in the wooden ones built by the people from the sarf we enjoyed the time so knocked something more substantial if we wanted to come back next year
I had never heard there were any Stonehenge conspiracy theories. My father used to visit quite often during the war when he was stationed at Larkhill - so they definitely predate the 1950s.
I would totally disagree with you on the the source of the stones being irrelevant. For example stone 50 (the 'Altar Stone ') is now thought to have originated in Scotland. Surely this is relevant in terms of the culture and connections that existed when this monument was built. Also why do so few people mention that Stonehenge was built and then rebuilt twice.
FACT: Stonehenge is a (1st Mother Temple) the same as the granite lingam sculptures in India and the (Key hole) tombs in Japan because the entire planet is Eden (Erde, Eden German for dirt, dust, stone is a Negative charge). You're welcome. Joel Mosier author J.Terran of ANCIENT MYSTERIES REVEALED.
The henge is a memorial to Noah’s deluge , sculpted from soft flood sediment which gradually petrified . The trilithons represent the ark near the saddleback mountains at mt Ararat . It is a common motif found at dolmens worldwide including Bhuddist and Shinto temples .
@@JohnDelong-qm9iv But John, what about the irrefutable dating evidence to 3000 BC, and the numerous artefacts that have been unearthed from the people who built it? Unless the people of Noah’s flood happened to like Neolithic / Bronze Age hand axes?
Probably the probable henge sites along the west coast of Cumbria. But excavating Thornborough and its nine assiciated henges would do untold good to the study. Nunwick Henge, for one.
regardless of how it was made, it was a lot of work for a people who were barley surviving, war lords, disease, famine and angry beasts.... pah, lets build rocky things for no reason ?!?! maybe they had it easier than we were told......
There is a point you might want to make more clearly here. Sometimes if someone wanted to relocate a site or build a new one then they might take stones from an old circle. The new one might only be built a little distance away. However, over time this process could see recycled stones end up bit by bit travelling some hundred miles over the centuries. There are certain natural flows to this including a flow from good sources of stone toward poor sources. This isn't the only possible process but it throws a spanner in the works when attempting to source materials which may not really have any particular source or that may have bits and pieces mixed in from various cases of scavenging and recycling. The nature of Stonehenge in its design assuming it was always like that really requires quite specific materials more purpose built.
@@FirstLast-rb5zj Very true. Though, again, I think the obsession with the stone varieties is an obfuscation away from the real mystery of Stonehenge - what is it? And who built it? The more we can learn about the culture who built it, the better. But that requires looking at other sites (and not then trying to directly link them to Stonehenge ala Mike Parker P)!
@@AdamMorganIbbotson It looks like at least part of its function is as a clock, astronomical observatory, a static ruler or literally a protractor to use against celestial objects in the sky being fixed in place an important part of this with the stones hard to move, a sort of static compass since these things are all combined for practical purposes where we now take things for granted such as the days in the year being mapped out, things mapped including the land and the calendar. This is a scientific tool in measuring, a fixed point of reference to track things in motion. They had to start with nothing so build various tools for it. The people at that time appear to have worked out that the land was limited in size and elongated. It's actually in one time zone. This makes it more worth the effort to use a fixed structure to measure time when you can't move around too much to make it out of allignment. Stonehenge appears to be located in a place that can be considered central in respect to being a kind of intersection of the longest points. This makes it useful to build someone constant out of stone for tracking time in respect to the movement of the sun and so on. It's probably not just that but this certain to have been a part of it. Back then people tracked seasons and the time in ways we don't today and it was important. Something permanent as a point of reference like a stone construct of this nature is useful for mapping time and seasons though these things often served other purposes as well such as territorial markers, sometimes simple navigational land marks like a crumb trail in a sense. There may have been some ritualistic use as well but for the most part the interpretation from a perspective of scientific archaeology and anthropology is that these served a number of functions and were not just pure symbolism though some symbolic elements might be incorporated into aspects of their design where it's not particularly important. A stone circle with intervals is also sometimes a way of apportioning the surrounding land like the slices of a pizza. Imagine your with a group of people on an alien planet with no maps or anything. You are in a location you wish to settle upon and you need lots of land for your animals for grazing. One way to do it is to make a circle of stones if there are ten of you at even intervals with ten sections. Then you each pick a direction. It's one of the easiest ways to divide up land starting out if not the easiest.
@@FirstLast-rb5zj Exactly the kind of theory I like. Fantastic. And agree on multifunctional stone circles. I believe they had more of an astronomical dating / funerary function (similar to Mike Parker Pearson funnily enough), as my research in Cumbria and Yorkshire points in that direction.
So Stonehenge has its own Arthur Evans who held a tyrannical grip on Bronze Age Crete. “Linear A & B are not Greek. The Minoan culture ran Greece & that’s why Linear B is found there.” Alice Kober - Linear B is an inflected language in a syllablic script. Michael Ventris & Prof John Chadwick - Linear B is Greek, a far more ancient (Bronze Age) than the classical. Seems all the other lithic monuments & circles are neglected like the Luwian (bronze age & post Bronze Age sites in SW Anatolia. Everyone wants to excavate the far more well known and famous “Hittite” empire sites. The Luwian sites have Eberhard Zangger director of the Luwian Studies nonprofit foundation. Who will be the Zangger for UK’s other sites?
Nothing against the archaeologists studying the site. They’re great. But the grip this one site has over the field cannot be ignored, as it then catapults their ideas further than necessary. In my opinion.
Fascinatingly, to me at least, Pitts' 'Hengeworld' and the more recent study of Stonehenge (also Pitts?) use the headlibe-grabbing circle to talk more generally about the whole shebang (including Avebury et al) and that was what made me delve into that bibliography over the more narrow looks at Stonehenge itself. I think part of the issue is simply the manner of the monument - it looks neat. It's much harder to photograph Avebury and the surrounding area effectively in a single image, for example, and Mayburgh, Long Meg, Castlerigg etc are all a bit... north and off the beaten track. Similarly, the fascination, I feel, stems academically from the sense that Stonehenge seems to have been revered by and fascinating to the people that followed whereas there's little (remaining and obvious above-ground) evidence that the same is true of the arguably more archaeologically rewarding sites elsewhere. In short, Stonehenge is simply an easy reference point for wider studies and thus becomes a self-feeding monster of research papers. That said, I agree, I think Stonehenge is serving as more a barrier these days to wider studies.
As someone who knows very little about, and has never visited Stonehenge, I have to say; Stonehenge looks far more impressive than the other megalithic monuments in Britain. Even just the iconic silhouette is so recognizable. It's no wonder that this is the site most recognized by popular culture. The other sites may have more important historical significance, but to the tourist, Stonehenge is the granddaddy of them all, and probably always will be.
Certainly agree with you there! As I say in the video, it is the most famous site. And paints /photographs well. It is iconic. But when you go to Avebury, the scale is on another level. Photos can’t do justice. Castlerigg is amazing, far more breathtaking than Salisbury Plain, in my opinion. It’s all well and good it being a popular site. But when it becomes seen as “the most important in Britain” - that’s a creeping negative impact. Hurts the research.
Possibly even worse and I hear this all the time " West Kennet, the longest long barrow in Britain." Not true. The longest one is rarely visited and barely known about.
I would also suspect rarely mentioned in the academic literature outside "the longest barrow is actually in Cornwall... anyway". These things are often brushed over without second thought.
@@AdamMorganIbbotson Dear. Is the one in Cornwall longer than that? That's another point driving tanks over them and stuff. Absolute neglect. If they found a Roman shithouse you'd never hear the end of it. Like all the roads are Roman but we had chariots ???? Loads of dodginess about native history.
see Stonehenge Watercolor Painting created by John Constable in 1835 /Concrete visible at 9 minutes and 9 seconds centre screen, It was still good and interesting and I'm very glad I went
You do have a point but Stonehenge also has something no other stone circle in Britain (or probably elsewhere) has: lintels! Furthermore those lintels are joined to the pillars by mortar and tenison joints that preclude the "primitive construction" narrative at the beginning of the video (not sure quotation of whom, surely not Cicero Jr.): it demans cranes of some sort!
Glad you enjoyed the video! Ah - lintels are found all over the place, at sites called dolmens. Up to 1000 years older than Stonehenge. Stonehenge is unique due to its morphology. But, I never argued Stonehenge was neither unique nor important. The Forth Bridge is unique, but Edinburgh’s not our capital. There are far larger, and just as unique monuments all across Britain. And to assume Stonehenge was ‘the centre of Neolithic Britain’ because of unique sockets is silly in my opinion.
@@AdamMorganIbbotson - Dolmens are not stone circles and anyhow those lintels are held (at least in all cases I know of) by mere gravity, while the ones of Stonehenge are held in place also by rather perfect ensemblage. This is very unique architecture for its time and context and I think that you're being a bit unfair about the uniqueness of Stonehenge in this regard. I don't know which was the exact political landscape of Neolithic and Chalcolithic Britain. Culturally there are at least two Neolithic areas: the megalithic one (SW England, Wales, Ireland and Scotland) and the henge-ist one (NE England), this obeys to two different origins in France: the megalithic one derives from the one of Brittany, Upper Normandy and Lower Loire, while the "henge-ist" one derives from the Danubian Neolithic (rondels = henges) from Nord-Pas-de-Calais, near Belgium. These were two distinct continental traditions that shared a common ultimate origin in the Neolithic of the Balcans and Asia Minor but had branched out some 2000 years before reaching Britain. I mention this because I'd expect as result two different ethnic areas, even if both should be of Vasconic languages and maybe had some mutual intelligibility in language and some occasional overlap. Even if there was clear population replacement in the late Chalcolithic (often dumped into "Bronze Age" in Britain and Ireland even if there was no bronze whatsoever yet), there was also clear cultural continuity in terms of use of megaliths and such (although some important sites like Skara Brae were abandoned in those days). That makes even more difficult to gauge the ethno-political landscape of late Chalcolithic (Bell Beaker) and Bronze Age, which should still be pre-Indoeuropean. Was Britain or parts of it unified under a single polity? I don't think there's any evidence for that, not before Alfred the Great at least (unless you consider colonial Roman Britain to be "a polity", which I don't). Had they some sort of confederation or league? That's within the realm of the plausible but again evidence is lacking. Was Stonehenge central to such confederacy? Maybe but I'd use the term "confederacy" in the loosest of terms, just out of caution. Compare, for example, with Sumeria and its spiritual capital Kish. Was Kish a political capital? Only briefly if at all: it was usually subordinated to other polities, stronger in terms military, respected but not the boss. Anyway, for all we know there were no towns or cities in Britain in those days, unlike in Southern Iberia, where the likelihood sizable centralized or federative realms is much greater (El Argar notably). Without towns I don't think we can talk of proper realms or polities, rather tribal entities would be my guess.
@ Thanks, really enjoyed your write up. I agree with everything you said (except me being unfair to Stonehenge’s uniqueness - I’ve seen a lot of very unique sites!). My point is, Stonehenge didn’t spring up out of a vacuum. It was built in a span of 2000 years when similar structures were erected all over the place. If we ignore or gloss over those sites, we miss a key part of the story. That’s the argument the video makes - not that Stonehenge is ‘overrated’, but that other sites demand as much attention. Please have a watch of my video on Shap Avenue if you find the time! I reckon it’ll interest you :)
@@AdamMorganIbbotson - But why is Stonhenge "more perfect" architecturally than those other sites, whose stones have all kinds of non-polished shapes, have not any lintels, much less refined ones, etc.? I do think there's something unique about the "superior" architecture of Stonehenge and that deserves mention and pondering about. It's like those other "neo-megalithic" evolutions in both the continent and the islands such as the tholos. In Brittany there's a site (not sure if part of the Carnac complex) with many dolmenic burials but then one of them is a tholos (beehive tomb), a design that would soon spread across the Megalithic cultural area (and later even to Greece, where it was christened by archaeologists with a Greek name). Another parallel development are the hypogees or "artificial caves", more popular in certain areas like Lisbon region or Languedoc and definitely in Malta and Sardinia (although Sardinians used the tholos architectural concept for their castles called nuraghe, as did some Iberians in their first colonization of La Mancha semi-desert region). All that deserves pondering and not dismissal, after all they seem to represent the most advanced architecture of the Megalithic macro-culture, which seems often associated to the formation of stronger hierarchies (much like the pyramids in Egypt, of roughly the same age, basically announce the consolidation of the Egyptian state). The main difference is that Westerners did not keep a written record (or, if they did, it's lost) but there's something very uncannily similar, even if not just exactly the same thing.
@@AdamMorganIbbotson - PS: I just watched the Shap Avenue video: very interesting but I still find those "early" (?) megaliths "crude" in comparison to Stonehenge (stones are unpolished or otherwise shapen, no lintel superstructure, etc.) and that's a reason why I believe Stonehenge has got so much attention: it's not just an array of cyclopean crude stones (amazing as they may be) but a whole elaborate "building".
@@patdaveydrums I never said it sits alone. It is the only surviving stone / ‘megalithic’ monument. Woodhenge, I group with Durrington Walls. Also, not necessarily contemporary.
@ I thought the implication was that people travelled from one to the other along the river thus making it a ceremonial landscape. But sure, if they aren’t contemporary as you say.
@ It is a ceremonial / ritual landscape. No doubt. It’s just a small one. Not as large and important as many seem to make out. Still very important, obviously. But AS important as others. Not the pinnacle!
Correct me im im wrong, but isnt it believed that stonehenge was at one time atleast partiality inclosed with a roof ..more simpling the structure at newgrange ?
Just like the gaggle of Authors that jealously protect the Ripper story by debunking each other, the guardians of the rocks hold firm to their fantasy twaddle none of them have come up with a definitive answer for who why or when it was built, not to mention the outlandish alien/giant rock levitating druids brigade and their fantastic ideas.
yeah, the concrete stuff underneath them rocks might be a problem indeed. I mean, they put them rocks ontop of them concrete slabs???? So they already knew how to make concrete in those days?
Is it impossible that the Stone circle was completely standing or near standing in 55BC ? Not sure whether the archaeology would work either way, but it might well be possible that UK i inhabitants had repaired the site post Bronze age ? (I had thought the final form was due to the Beaker Peoples rather than there previous Neolithic population). I would suggest Stonehenge is the most famous due to the Lintels and complex structure and evolution rather than anything else. They did haul the Blue stones from Wales though...we've found similar stones and apparent quarries and geochemical and other geological analysis has confirmed that (the original theory goes back to the 1900s). It is now suggested that the "Altar stone" is from a site in Scotland. Do we have similar examples elsewhere in the UK ?
I have strong doubts about the Scottish prominance of the Altar Stone, just based on several past studies falling flat re. Stonehenge. And, yes, I agree on Stonehenge's lintels making it the most famous. Certainly a weird and wonderful Late Neolithic / Early Bronze Age site.
@@AdamMorganIbbotson Shouldn't bee too difficult to prove. Smallish drilled sample (back filled with contrite and a cap as they did for the Blue stones) and geochemical analysis and it ought o be fairly black and white. It did deem quite unlikely, although aren't their Pig bones at Durrington Walls village site with Scottish (Oxygen and Strontium ?) isotope fingerprints, so perhaps less unlikely than it might appear. Arguable even in the neolithic we had fairly good boats, so a coastal route might be possible.
@@anerioone Sorry to say I strongly disagree there! Especially when Avebury’s just up the road. I wouldn’t even put Stonehenge in my top 10. But, you are very welcome to your own opinion!
Avebury and Stanton drew also standing stones are free too go in also have buildings within circle and staton drew is unusual as there is one star away from main circle in church yard
@@wormon3626 Stanton Drew is fascinating! It also once had a large wood circle at its centre. Almost like the stone circle there reflects Stonehenge’s ditch, and the wooden circle the sarsens.
Hi everyone, hope you enjoy the video!
A few quick notes:
1. YES, I know the Romans didn't conquer all of Britain - it is written from the point of view of a Roman general, at that time!
2. if you're wondering why the description of Stonehenge is a bit simplistic, glossing over important archaeology - that is quite how it feels to be a UK prehistorian studying sites other than Stonehenge! 😅
great post sir, well done. but could you please clarify one point for me ? i watched a show were mike parker pearson, carbon dated the outer blue stones, then found the exact match in wales. i think alice roberts might have hosted it, im not 100% sure of her involvement, i'd be shocked if she would be involved in this. but mike proved it with carbon dating. to be clear, are you saying they were telling lies ? because wierdly ,when i watched it all those years ago, i got the impression something was a miss.
@@PhilLewis-xg7ivCarbon dating is used on Organic materials (Things that grew, wood, plant materials, etc) and not stone. Slight confusion here.
@ I’m not saying they lied. But I think Parker Pearson is lax when using the words “possibly” and “maybe”… he’s a fantastic archaeologist otherwise. They have done geological work to understand the Waun Mawn site, and found little evidence of a link. Many doubt the stone circle there even exists at all, or was instead a ‘ring cairn’.
Also, carbon dates can only prove the stones date to a similar age. Nothing more!
Randall Carlson explains Stonehenge extremely well compared to this, apologies but it's simply fact
@ Randall Carlson is a moron.
Stonehenge is a bunch of rocks, rocks don't have problems. People have problems with Stonehenge.
Yeah,but I had a Pet Rock in the seventies that had a real bad attitude. He'd pee on the floor and run away at every opportunity. Now HE was a problem 🫤🪨
Well said
Exactly, it could probably do with less "intellectuals" trampling all over it. The JSO lot didn't do anything good either.
Stone henge keeps all the sheeple from trampling the other sites!
You mean they couldn't go around it?
This time last week while out walking on Arron me and my wife came accross a marvelous stone circle. They are all over the place in Scotland. Very few have had any meaningful research or been documented.
Sadly true. What else is in that landscape? Destroyed and forgotten like Bluestonehenge - but never to be found…
Personally, seeing the absolute mess they've made of Stone Henge, I say, long may that singular obsession continue in the hope that the ticket booths, pea-gravel, fences, roads, hi-vis jacket wearing busy-bodies and busloads of selfie-stick carrying tourists that make that site utterly degraded in any way as an authentically wondrous place remain there and do not venture to those places that are still quiet and untouched, awaiting the genuinely enquiring explorer and his imagination.
So, looking at the big picture, though of course you are correct, I would say, regarding this video: 'careful what you wish for'.
I don't want more tourists! God forbid. I simply want to warn people about putting Stonehenge on a pedestal when trying to understand our prehistory!
@@AdamMorganIbbotsonI know, good fellow, but remember, the road to ruin is paved with good intensions.
I visited on a mid week June day in the seventies there were five cars in the car park and about a dozen people wandering about the stones, no fences, fees or gift shop. Perfect. I've driven past countless times since and never had the urge to stop.
@@alanwakefield2453 Aye, I drove past a decade or so ago, before I had grown a deep interest in such things, saw the ticket booth etc. and thought then "On whose authority are you charging entry to this monument?" ...So I hopped over the fence and was immediately escorted out by a couple of wardens... I've never been back. I've spent much of the last three years travelling Britain and Ireland exploring Dolmens mainly and I've learned not to even bother going to those that have become famous as it's always a depressing experience to see the travesty of contemporary civic construction and management alongside these works, Stone Henge, Newgrange and Brownshill Dolman are best avoided - I didn't actually visit Newgrange after reading the reviews of people who had been there and the reluctance of the staff to even show them the thing - it's by guides tour only - stick to those that have sheep shit around them, I say.
Also Don't pay £40 a head to go there the footpath runs right alongside the National Trust path, and now it's guarded you can't even get near the stones, or out into the wider site. Also the cafe is pretty basic and the museum is just OK. Call me old and daft but I preferred it before when it was like Avebury i.e. Open to human interaction. In the 70's I remember having a sunrise picnic in the middle of the circle at Stone Henge and it was magical. Now it's just somewhere you pay to walk around.
Get yourself to Tullie House Museum in Cumbria, or the British Museum if you want to see some great artrefacts of the Neolithic / Bronze Age.
You sound pretty bitter for having the opportunity to go there before fences went up.
It would be damaging for people to continue getting access without some preservation measures.
@@nancy.dave.williamshave you not seen the photos of the extensive renovations they did? It sat outside for like what 3-5 THOUSAND years with people walking around them
Years ago there was a "multi pass" (Heritage Pass"?) you could get that gave access to a lot of heritage sites. From memory it was cheaper than the entry to Stonehenge at the time.
You likely were respectful and cleaned up after yourselves and didn’t chip off a piece of stone. How many people are like that now?
I think we have forgotten how incredibly common circles +/or henges were in prehistoric Britain.
Assuming we know of >1300 stone circles in UK. (Aubrey Burl), and; Fewer places would have had the availibility of stone, so many more would be built of wood. If we multiply by say just 3, (for all the wooden ones and the lost ones) that is one circle every 5 miles or so on average.- That's probably every village.
I actually count them differently (though I believe Burl was estimating lost stone circles). There are a LOT of circles of stone, but very few ‘stone circles’ or ‘Cumbrian Circles’, as Burl called them.
Sites like Stonehenge, big uncluttered enclosures aligned to the solstices - even rarer. Swinside is a great example, as are some of the recumbant stone circles of Scotland!
The Oxbridge Thumb is firmly pressed on a number of other scales in UK academia. Just because you are bright does not make you infallably right.
Bright… or wealthy.
Paul whitewick's use of the quote was a tip of the hat to the prehistory guys.
The fact he is a patreon member of the prehistory guys is awesome!
There is so much support in prehistory.
They do sooooo much good work for the Community.... and when they do make a film. My goodness its worth the wait.
Bravo! This is truly excellent and important information. Thank you for explaining just why Stonehenge has garnered so much attention which has always seemed to me disproportionate. As you say, there are so many other, perhaps more wonderful, sites I've always had trouble finding information on. I'm so glad I just stumbled upon your channel, and I look forward to reading your book on Cumbrian monuments. Cheers!
Well said! Stonehenge almost seems to be the archeological version of Beatlemania! What about the many intriguing neolithic landscapes in the north?
You said it! What about those Northern sites??!! Read about them in the upcoming 2nd edition of my book 'Cumbria's Prehistoric Monuments'!!
Which ones in particular I am northern and would love to see some
@@FootballAndSuch the Thornborough henges, the Penrith henges, the Long Meg area, the Millom henges, Shap, endless examples! Have a look at my channel for lots of videos on them.
Have a looks at my books ‘Yorkshire’s Prehistoric Monuments’ and ‘Cumbria’s Prehistoric Monuments’
Or in the Midlands. Breedon Hill fort in Leicestershire, Arbor Low and the Nine Ladies in Derbyshire, or Arthur’s stone over in Hereford. All modest but fascinating Neolithic sites
@ Arthur’s Stone is a lovely one!
The first time I came to England I made a point of visiting Stonehenge, I had wanted to see it since I was about 8 years old. I was terribly disappointed, it was so small.
I had grown up visiting Newgrange, Knowth, Dowth, Knocknaree, Loughcrew, Carrowmore and Carrowkeel. In comparison it had better shaped stones but was unimpressive.
The worst aspect of Stonehenge marketing came many years later when I took my Father to see it. The official tour guide started off by claiming 'Stonehenge is the oldest and most important prehistoric monument in the world'.
I share your experience; I even saw Stonehenge on a perfect Autumn sunrise - still unimpressed. Anyone who has seen Castlerigg or Mayburgh on a perfect winter's day, would never claim Stonehenge to be the most impressive in the UK.
Also, it's a far, far smaller landscape than those at Thornborough.
I didn't know that Jeremy Clarkson was a tour guide at Stone Henge...
Nobody thought much about it until relatively recently
The land it is on has been bought and sold over the years, the bit the stones are on was donated to the crown in 1918, and so English Heritage, but the land around it was only donated to the National Trust in the 1930's, then it because a tourist location, and became famous ...
It’s been the haunt of poets and artists since the 18th century. Certainly the best known prehistoric monument in the world for a time. The study of it has struggled to lift off recently, so more and more sensational ideas are being thrown out.
Merchandising, merchandising, merchandising...
@@InsaneSeer Disneyland comes to mind
Having watched this, I'm feeling the urge to go and watch another highly relevant documentary: 'This is Spinal Tap'.
Love the vid, and well said.
This is why i personally prefer to tackle history over prehistory, as at least I've got something to work on.
With prehistory?
Boy... so much speculation, educated guesses and gatekeeping.
I dont envy you guys. But please, do keep it up.
MPP et al have completely over-egged the pudding of "ritual landscape" and the connections between Durrington Walls and the Henge. Whilst possible, it's only one of a number of equally valid interpretations. There is a thing in archaeology that some people achieve a status of being above criticism and unable to do wrong. MPP is one of those. How do I know? Masters in archaeology from Sheffield where MPP taught.
Agree with you there. I like MPP's work, but grow very tired of hearing "well MPP thinks" - like it's incredibly important. His ideas are actually refreshingly out-there - but nothing we should take as a baseline!
Not been to Stonehenge since it was turned into a moneymaking site,
Plenty of other ancient monuments you can go to, that are pretty much left alone by the business people.
Interesting insight here thanks for posting, take care
🥰😇😊
What a fantastic video!
I couldn't agree more Adam. A masterpiece of argumentation.
Thanks Adam and Adam. What lovely names you have.
Much deserved praise from yourself and your alter-ego. You're good at this UA-cam designing, writing, presenting and editing lark. And you didn't even need to get a £45K debt taking a wanky video editing degree from an ex-poly.
A fine and informative short account of the Stonehenge landscape. Cheers.
It's proximity to London and the ability to turn it into a money-spinning daytrip tourist attraction may have a lot to do with this.
@@cliveambrose2251 It has everything to do with it. But that shouldn’t influence the academic discourse (which it does)
Thanks for this, I find all these fabulous places so interesting, never been to any but to see them here, explained and shown at their very best is amazing! Well done, I am sure there is still a lot to learn but in the meantime let us just enjoy them for what we see!
Absolute pleasure!
Don’t feel that Stonehenge is overrated. However, I completely agree that other sites are critical to understanding the Neolithic period and that more comparative study is necessary. There is much more to be learned. Avebury is my favorite, but Stonehenge is a long enduring site with some unique twists on Neolithic themes.
Absolutely agree it isn’t ‘overrated’, but equally important to others across the country. This idea that it’s the centre of the Neolithic world is, in my opinion, ludicrous.
Good presentation & well said. Stonehenge has become the "poster boy" of modern archaeology.
Modern archaeology is great! But because we can debate like this!
Though I've seen numerous videos of the reconstruction in the 50's and 60's, I've never heard anyone say it is fake.
Already have a few on this video!
Theres a good video on here from a japanese guy analysing the fakery its called stonehenge is fake rocks I think.
What a disgrace.
So how did they get the stones on top of the upright stones 5 thousand years ago doesn’t make sense
@@thomasshepard6030 The same way they lifted far, far larger stones onto ‘dolmens’ (Google it). We didn’t get to the moon in a vacuum, human brilliance has been around a lot longer.
Also, as mentioned, they’re actually not that big!
Like most ancient things, we will never truly know the truth.
Came up on my feed and this was great. Instant sub and will watch the others
@@johncruickshank9763 Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it!
12.57 clearly see the stone rendering falling off on the stone putting doubt in my mind
That’s part of the restoration. That stone had fallen and weathered. They keep it visible as evidence of the restoration, to keep perspectives realistic.
Well said. I thoroughly agree. I have always thought that archaeologists are taking the specific case and applying it to the general case. Rather than doing good science by testing the specific case against other sites, the general case. Stonhenge is just like London. It consumes a disproportionate share of available 'wealth'.
Another wonderfully thought provoking video. Thank you.
@@paulgammidge-jefferson9536 Wonderful comment, thanks!
Funny enough AC Valhalla did a pretty good job of showing off that there are tons of stone circles all over the place.
In a way Stone Henge drew attention to the ancient history of Britain and Ireland, but then drew attention away from the majority of it. The discoveries we have made about it and because of it are amazing, and the more we learn from it the better, but it is just a snapshot of what's out there (literally all over the place!) and I feel it is giving us a distorted image of that society, fascinating as that image may be.
@@escandolosoamargo Well put. Definitely an amazing site - but one that overshadows so much.
My point is, though, that it actually damages the research of the period. Drawing attention to itself no matter where in Britain you look. What if I don’t want to source Parker Pearson!
About 20 years ago, my mum invited a 90 yr old lady for Christmas dinner.
She imbibed freely and told us how she had gone to Stonehenge on a motorbike with her squaddy boyfriend
and had sex on the altar stone at midsummer....been in use a long time....
She must have been demented - the Altar stone is buried!
.. likely it was one of the large stones with a relatively flatish upward surface, that she was ridden upon as if it were an alter top .. methinks.
@@razor1uk610 yes, thanks.
@@AdamMorganIbbotson She meant the one that's on it's side near the centre west.
PS she did make stuff up though. Her name was Primrose Cummings, who made her money out of 'girls on horses' books and travelled the world on the revenue
Id like to know where the other heel stone went too?
I bet there’s a ton of missing stones out there. Like I say, weird there’s only one megalithic site there!
I was the last person to sit on the stones - in the middle of the night - before the razor wire went up next morning. They've ruined the place - the admission fee, commercialisation and development is obscene. I will never go back.
England at its best! I mean that in a sarcastic way of course. These monuments belong to the country and its people not a box office money grabbing bunch of twats!
@@buildingthegreatpyramid Fun fact. I was born just a few miles from Stonehenge in a former POW camp on land belonging to Lydiard House - a manor that was the first project of what later became known as "English Heritage". They evicted us from the land a month before the public opening because we made it look "untidy". I was 1yr old. Nice people.
I visited all these places in the 1970's before the UK became a giant cash register.....
The hunk of rusty metal puts me off at 1252-13.00mins
Fantastic production as always. I had wondered where this was going when you started discussing THE Letter! Yup, completely agree with the main theme. When we made the Avebury video a few months back, at least two more stones circled cropped up within a few miles of Avebury that are no longer. Stonehenge has a part to play, but as you suggested, just one part in the monumental jigsaw.
@@pwhitewick It has been the obsession of travellers since at least the Medieval period. Possibly even the Roman era. We’re all pretty obsessed ourselves!
No doubt this obsession has done more for the study of megalithic sites worldwide than anything, or anyone, else.
@@AdamMorganIbbotson Also..... don't watch this Sundays video......😳
Just more lies from established archaeology, they just never stop.
@@cesiumalloy Who’s lying about what? Maybe lay off the Graham Hancck
....are you referring to the Roman Empire per chance 😉
I’m all for pursuing our understanding of as many archaeological sites as we can cram in. But I think Stonehenge plays an important role in keeping the public engaged, intrigued and supportive of archaeology. To be crass about it, archaeology needs its superstars to keep the funding rolling in!
Absolutely agree, and never argued against its use in public engagement or the press. Instead, I’m talking about ‘research bias’, where certain figures have skewed the narrative to be totally Stonehenge-centric.
I've lived in the south of England for 50 years but never visited Stonehenge. I've visited Old Sarum and Maiden Castle twice. I've also been inside a stone burial chamber in Anglesey which was great because I had the place to myself. My best guess is that these stone circles, and pyramid structures, were places where people went in an attempt to speak to the dead. A ancient seance. I think the stone structures were constructed to create a "quiet space" where the voices of the dead could be heard. The stones being used to absorb external noise of spirits from the natural world. There was no doubt some trickery with the priests using ventriloquy.
Absolutely fantastic comment, and very in line with my own thoughts. Stonehenge is definitely worth the visit, it is a magical and important place.
Also, was the burial chamber Bryn Celli Ddu? If so, I once saw a naked druid in there
@@AdamMorganIbbotson Yes, it was Bryn Celli Ddu. I didn't see any naked druids, but I did the remains of a ceremony in the chamber with musical instruments and other stuff.
A very confused conjecture by one who needs to develop their base understandings.
Another great video. Thanks! Some day I’ll get across the pond to see these places… I hope!
@@Andy_Babb Make sure to visit Castlerigg! Much more awe inspiring than Stonehenge
Another well researched, measured, and well presented documentary. Thanks Adam, I look forward to the next one !!
@@stephenasmith49 really appreciate that - thanks mate!
This was great, Adam. I almost actually punched the air when you said it doesn’t matter where the stones came from.
Good job your out animation didn’t make it look like you were singling out Parker Pearson as chief proponent of Stonehenge nonsense.
I had no idea there were conspiracy theories about Stonehenge being fake. Brilliant!
@@WC21UKProductionsLtd haha, thanks! I originally had a bit in there telling people to go and watch your Devil’s Arrows vid - but it sadly hit the cutting room floor!
Archaeologists would do themselves a favour watching your videos over reading a 300 page Stonehenge book!
Morphology and field archaeology, that’s the bread and butter.
It is The Ancient New Year Calendar and there are five trilithons, not six as shown it the black and white image, they are the Five Days of Doom added to the 360 day year when crossing the nighttime Taurids.
@@bardmadsen6956 Ah ah ah - naughty! We say “I think it is”, and “possibly”. Did you learn nothing??
top vid by a top chap,
top comment! :)
Hi there! Nice vid. Just an odd question: What was the population numbers in England when Stone Henge was built? ( :
@@ninthseal6646 From what I’ve read, it fluctuated between 100,000 and 500,000 between 3500 and 2000 BC.
There was a bug dip between the Neolithic and Bronze Age, that’s still unexplained. But some think it was the plague. I have a video on this, if you’re interested.
@@AdamMorganIbbotson big*
Glad I clicked on the vid, its made me realize you're exactly right. Stonehenge is impressive but I recon more archaeology needs be done on a lot more sights to get a better picture of what was going on.
@@vespasian266 thanks Vespasian! And you should know - your camp is just down the road from it!
Indeed, i may be in awe, or something similar, or chariots clattering over marshy terrain. Pretty weird.
withnail and i music great choice
if this were a newspaper article:
Archaeologists BAFFLED by monument older-than-while-simultaneously-the-same-age-as Stonehenge
@@ForestArchaicCollective “amazing new find at a site like Stonehenge, unravels new mystery at Stonehenge” rinse / repeat for the next 20 years.
As someone who lives in Ireland and has Neolithic circles and other standing stones on and around my land, other than a brief study in the early 1990’s it’s left alone. And while I’m happy to have my own personal “henge” I feel it has secrets it could share to those better qualified than me.
@@glenith50 Do the standing stones have a name?
@ Only one of them does “The false man” it’s about 2m tall and stands alone. Apparently they’re all connected to Ceide Fields which is about 20km from me
Very well said. Context is so often missing from our click bait society.
Agree with the basic thesis. Stonehenge has exercised a disproportionate influence on Neolithic and Early Bronze Age archaeology. It used to be limited to popular archaeology, but Parker Pearson et al have pushed the narrative of a great centre for all of Neolithic Britain revered and venerated by people from far across the islands. By a strange coincidence this takes the pre-eminence of S Central England back from Tory shires into the remote past when Taffs and Jocks were as keen as ever to show their reverence for the natural superiority of the English toffs. Glad to see you reference Brian John's work. The evidence for quarrying sites in Bryniau Pfreseli, Penfro is total nonsense.
@@dyffrynardudwy9729 Thanks. Yes, this idea of Stonehenge being the great meeting place is bonkers, stupid, all the words.
We don’t know if other places received far-flung visitors, because we haven’t yet looked!
nice shot of swinside circle
Absolutely!, well said.
I have a theory - think of stone circles as places you go to find people or people find you - ancient roundabouts. If i want people to find BobsTown - I go to the 'local' stone circle and align Bobstown with a stone if standing in the middle, or drive a wooden sign 'Bobs Town' into ground where needed by a general stone. Then tell visitors pick stone 17 - thats the direction to us. - Lose direction? No problems - two sticks in the ground at sunrise puts you back on the path or during the day - use the sun. The proof would be finding the marker stones for all the other stone circles close by - you go from circle to circle to cross the country until you get to the closest one to BobsTown. Even carry a small portable wooden 'stone circle' device that allows you to align your path whenever you need. The druids would know most paths and inform travellers.
Over the 60 or so years I've enjoyed reading about archaeology and British pre-history I've noticed that professional British archaeologists have shown a consistent unwillingness to interest themselves in anything pre-Roman. I don't know why. For instance, I remember, not so long ago when the outlines of a bronze-age harbour was delineated near Poole one of the chief archaeologists exclaimed how delighted she would be if she could find a Roman ship in it. 🤷🏻
It seems all to likely that much of the reason for the attention paid to Stonehenge is the result of it's status as a money-making, theme park/tourist attraction rather than it's intrinsic historical importance as a neolithic monument.
However, my cynicism aside, another explanation for the academic focus on Stonehenge maybe that (unlike other neolithic sites like Avebury) it continued to be used as a ceremonial/funerary center of some sort throughout the Bronze Age and into the preRoman Iron Age. At least used enough that Roman frat boys mentioned it in their letters home. As such the 'ceremonial landscape' in which Stonehenge stands is very interesting. It just happens (as you point out) to not be the original landscape.
To continue with my nit-picking (oh did I say I enjoyed your video very much?) I thought henges were circular neolithic enclosures with the banks inside the ditch. Avenues and what-not leading off is neither here nor there. Avebury is usually described is being within a henge isn't it? So why not Stonehenge. Not sure of your point there.
Also I thought the Trilithons within Stonehenge were arranged in a horse-shoe shape, not a circle and the circle shown in your 18C (?) illustration was the artist's reconstruction. (I'm just complaining about the picture now, not your point about the similarity to concentric circles further North.)
and BTW, who said chariots rattled over marshy fields? 😀
Hi there! Really glad you enjoyed my video!
Few things though: 1. Henges are circular enclosures with one or more causeways interrupting a ditch and bank. The bank is always OUTSIDE the ditch. Not inside. Stonehenge is unequivocally not a henge.
2. Almost all Neolithic ceremonial enclosures saw use throughout the Bronze Age. This myth stems from Stonehenge (a particular archaeologist).
You must have missed all those TV documentaries then.
@AdamMorganIbbotson thank you for replying. It's more than I deserve.
Bank Outside. Yes of course, I knew that really. It's what implies they were not defensive.
@alanbeaumont4848 lol, yes, I've not owned a telly for 35+ years.
Every fact has its deniers now days 🙄
@@ThatLadyBird i.e, idiots
@@AdamMorganIbbotson .....do not forget all _'facts'_ are _peer reviewed_ - and if you don't see a problem with this then you are way off the mark.
@@blaze1148 That’s not true. Plenty of research isn’t peer reviewed! And lots of peer reviewed studies are nonsense… All peer review does is make sure your arguments are cited correctly, and your data all makes sense.
It’s up to the educated reader to decide what research is worth their time.
I grew up on a tiny island in the Shetland islands, and the island was almost perfectly divided in two by what may be the oldest wall in the world, and nobody knows why or how it came to be there, it's called the Funziegirt
@@SoupieGuitar Wow - can’t believe I’d never heard of this. May be a future video!
@AdamMorganIbbotson I grew up playing on Neolithic, Pictish and Norse ruins and had zero idea of the significance of them till I was much older 🤦♂️ lol
Where the dew drops cry, and the cats meow.
No one knows what they were doing, or why they were there...
The World's most famous-in Europe, perhaps, but I would say Carnac in France is the much more significant one.
Would tend to agree. But even within England, I would say Avebury was a greater marvel. All over Europe, there are amazing places not well known.
@@Kivas_Fajo Stonehenge is definitely more famous worldwide than Carnac. Agree Carnac is very important (they’re all equally important)
@@jasoncox7257 True...and that's good. Imagine all the sites with parking lots, tourist traps selling merchandise and overprized crappy food?
Hell, No!
That being said, I keep my secrets about places I find magic where rarely anyone can be seen.
Those pictures are very old, maybe 1970's. It is now a NT touristy money-maker with gates and fences, expensive tickets and bling shops.
@@AlwaysBastos I got myself a ‘Stonehenge Rock’ jumper when I was there. Worth every penny.
If you want the truth about Stonehenge, it has access and depart point pointing to the Northeast, this fact is very important because the Geordies knocked it up one weekend on the way back from Torquay to Glastonbury, you can see the difference in the wooden ones built by the people from the sarf we enjoyed the time so knocked something more substantial if we wanted to come back next year
Nice use of the Withnail and I soundtrack
I had never heard there were any Stonehenge conspiracy theories.
My father used to visit quite often during the war when he was stationed at Larkhill - so they definitely predate the 1950s.
Stonehenge is the Caitlin Clark of the Neolithic.
I would totally disagree with you on the the source of the stones being irrelevant. For example stone 50 (the 'Altar Stone ') is now thought to have originated in Scotland. Surely this is relevant in terms of the culture and connections that existed when this monument was built. Also why do so few people mention that Stonehenge was built and then rebuilt twice.
FACT: Stonehenge is a (1st Mother Temple) the same as the granite lingam sculptures in India and the (Key hole) tombs in Japan because the entire planet is Eden (Erde, Eden German for dirt, dust, stone is a Negative charge). You're welcome. Joel Mosier author J.Terran of ANCIENT MYSTERIES REVEALED.
@@joelmosier125 “I think”, please.
The henge is a memorial to Noah’s deluge , sculpted from soft flood sediment which gradually petrified . The trilithons represent the ark near the saddleback mountains at mt Ararat . It is a common motif found at dolmens worldwide including Bhuddist and Shinto temples .
@@JohnDelong-qm9iv But John, what about the irrefutable dating evidence to 3000 BC, and the numerous artefacts that have been unearthed from the people who built it?
Unless the people of Noah’s flood happened to like Neolithic / Bronze Age hand axes?
where would you like to excavate if you could,
Probably the probable henge sites along the west coast of Cumbria. But excavating Thornborough and its nine assiciated henges would do untold good to the study. Nunwick Henge, for one.
regardless of how it was made, it was a lot of work for a people who were barley surviving, war lords, disease, famine and angry beasts.... pah, lets build rocky things for no reason ?!?! maybe they had it easier than we were told......
They were clearly doing pretty well for themselves, until monument construction suddenly halts around 1800 BC
So Cicero was loitering within tent.
@@douglasclerk2764 Yes. Well known fact.
There is a point you might want to make more clearly here. Sometimes if someone wanted to relocate a site or build a new one then they might take stones from an old circle. The new one might only be built a little distance away. However, over time this process could see recycled stones end up bit by bit travelling some hundred miles over the centuries. There are certain natural flows to this including a flow from good sources of stone toward poor sources. This isn't the only possible process but it throws a spanner in the works when attempting to source materials which may not really have any particular source or that may have bits and pieces mixed in from various cases of scavenging and recycling. The nature of Stonehenge in its design assuming it was always like that really requires quite specific materials more purpose built.
@@FirstLast-rb5zj Very true. Though, again, I think the obsession with the stone varieties is an obfuscation away from the real mystery of Stonehenge - what is it? And who built it?
The more we can learn about the culture who built it, the better. But that requires looking at other sites (and not then trying to directly link them to Stonehenge ala Mike Parker P)!
@@AdamMorganIbbotson It looks like at least part of its function is as a clock, astronomical observatory, a static ruler or literally a protractor to use against celestial objects in the sky being fixed in place an important part of this with the stones hard to move, a sort of static compass since these things are all combined for practical purposes where we now take things for granted such as the days in the year being mapped out, things mapped including the land and the calendar. This is a scientific tool in measuring, a fixed point of reference to track things in motion. They had to start with nothing so build various tools for it. The people at that time appear to have worked out that the land was limited in size and elongated. It's actually in one time zone. This makes it more worth the effort to use a fixed structure to measure time when you can't move around too much to make it out of allignment. Stonehenge appears to be located in a place that can be considered central in respect to being a kind of intersection of the longest points. This makes it useful to build someone constant out of stone for tracking time in respect to the movement of the sun and so on. It's probably not just that but this certain to have been a part of it. Back then people tracked seasons and the time in ways we don't today and it was important. Something permanent as a point of reference like a stone construct of this nature is useful for mapping time and seasons though these things often served other purposes as well such as territorial markers, sometimes simple navigational land marks like a crumb trail in a sense. There may have been some ritualistic use as well but for the most part the interpretation from a perspective of scientific archaeology and anthropology is that these served a number of functions and were not just pure symbolism though some symbolic elements might be incorporated into aspects of their design where it's not particularly important. A stone circle with intervals is also sometimes a way of apportioning the surrounding land like the slices of a pizza. Imagine your with a group of people on an alien planet with no maps or anything. You are in a location you wish to settle upon and you need lots of land for your animals for grazing. One way to do it is to make a circle of stones if there are ten of you at even intervals with ten sections. Then you each pick a direction. It's one of the easiest ways to divide up land starting out if not the easiest.
@@FirstLast-rb5zj Exactly the kind of theory I like. Fantastic. And agree on multifunctional stone circles.
I believe they had more of an astronomical dating / funerary function (similar to Mike Parker Pearson funnily enough), as my research in Cumbria and Yorkshire points in that direction.
Stonehenge was not there in Roman Britain it was moved from Ireland by Merlin for King Arthur
@@johntandy8918 ah yes, of course. Sorry!
@ no problem 👍
So Stonehenge has its own Arthur Evans who held a tyrannical grip on Bronze Age Crete. “Linear A & B are not Greek. The Minoan culture ran Greece & that’s why Linear B is found there.”
Alice Kober - Linear B is an inflected language in a syllablic script. Michael Ventris & Prof John Chadwick - Linear B is Greek, a far more ancient (Bronze Age) than the classical.
Seems all the other lithic monuments & circles are neglected like the Luwian (bronze age & post Bronze Age sites in SW Anatolia. Everyone wants to excavate the far more well known and famous “Hittite” empire sites. The Luwian sites have Eberhard Zangger director of the Luwian Studies nonprofit foundation. Who will be the Zangger for UK’s other sites?
Nothing against the archaeologists studying the site. They’re great. But the grip this one site has over the field cannot be ignored, as it then catapults their ideas further than necessary. In my opinion.
You mean it wasn't built by 'Ancient Aliens?'
@@autodidact537 That’s actually PRECISELY what I mean. Read between the lines…
Fascinatingly, to me at least, Pitts' 'Hengeworld' and the more recent study of Stonehenge (also Pitts?) use the headlibe-grabbing circle to talk more generally about the whole shebang (including Avebury et al) and that was what made me delve into that bibliography over the more narrow looks at Stonehenge itself. I think part of the issue is simply the manner of the monument - it looks neat. It's much harder to photograph Avebury and the surrounding area effectively in a single image, for example, and Mayburgh, Long Meg, Castlerigg etc are all a bit... north and off the beaten track. Similarly, the fascination, I feel, stems academically from the sense that Stonehenge seems to have been revered by and fascinating to the people that followed whereas there's little (remaining and obvious above-ground) evidence that the same is true of the arguably more archaeologically rewarding sites elsewhere. In short, Stonehenge is simply an easy reference point for wider studies and thus becomes a self-feeding monster of research papers. That said, I agree, I think Stonehenge is serving as more a barrier these days to wider studies.
Also, I really must get round to paying for SAGE access - that paper on the bluestones, I reckon, is very much my cup of herbal tea.
Ah, yes, Parker-Pearson - I recognise that name and not for good reasons...
I'm a massive fan of Pitts! Hengeworld and 'How to Build Stonehenge' are absolutely fantasic. He's leagues above me.
@@AdamMorganIbbotson Nonsense, he's merely matured into his niche cos he's older and had longer to do so. :)
it's off by 15 minutes, and can't be reset to the correct time?
did they get the date wrong when they put it back together?
after so long it should be further out of line than it is today.
@@daroniussubdeviant3869 Date wrong? The sun has no dates dear.
As someone who knows very little about, and has never visited Stonehenge, I have to say; Stonehenge looks far more impressive than the other megalithic monuments in Britain. Even just the iconic silhouette is so recognizable. It's no wonder that this is the site most recognized by popular culture. The other sites may have more important historical significance, but to the tourist, Stonehenge is the granddaddy of them all, and probably always will be.
Certainly agree with you there! As I say in the video, it is the most famous site. And paints /photographs well. It is iconic.
But when you go to Avebury, the scale is on another level. Photos can’t do justice. Castlerigg is amazing, far more breathtaking than Salisbury Plain, in my opinion.
It’s all well and good it being a popular site. But when it becomes seen as “the most important in Britain” - that’s a creeping negative impact. Hurts the research.
@@AdamMorganIbbotson I see what you are saying. It would be concerning from an academic or historical perspective.
Possibly even worse and I hear this all the time " West Kennet, the longest long barrow in Britain." Not true. The longest one is rarely visited and barely known about.
I would also suspect rarely mentioned in the academic literature outside "the longest barrow is actually in Cornwall... anyway". These things are often brushed over without second thought.
@@AdamMorganIbbotson yep. I was talking about the one on Salisbury Plain in the military zone.
@@jasoncox7257 Almost got blown up there last time I visited. Thought the red flags meant 'don't go past this point'....
@@AdamMorganIbbotson Dear. Is the one in Cornwall longer than that? That's another point driving tanks over them and stuff. Absolute neglect. If they found a Roman shithouse you'd never hear the end of it. Like all the roads are Roman but we had chariots ???? Loads of dodginess about native history.
@@jasoncox7257 Have a look at 'bank barrows' and 'bank cairns', longer long barrows!
Perhaps that’s why we cannot bypass it by a better road!
@@Choosyview hey now, don’t get me started on that debacle!
see Stonehenge Watercolor Painting created by John Constable in 1835 /Concrete visible at 9 minutes and 9 seconds centre screen, It was still good and interesting and I'm very glad I went
They wouldn’t have been able to reerect it without. They keep it obviously visible so you know it’s restored. I appreciate that.
You do have a point but Stonehenge also has something no other stone circle in Britain (or probably elsewhere) has: lintels! Furthermore those lintels are joined to the pillars by mortar and tenison joints that preclude the "primitive construction" narrative at the beginning of the video (not sure quotation of whom, surely not Cicero Jr.): it demans cranes of some sort!
Glad you enjoyed the video! Ah - lintels are found all over the place, at sites called dolmens. Up to 1000 years older than Stonehenge. Stonehenge is unique due to its morphology. But, I never argued Stonehenge was neither unique nor important. The Forth Bridge is unique, but Edinburgh’s not our capital.
There are far larger, and just as unique monuments all across Britain. And to assume Stonehenge was ‘the centre of Neolithic Britain’ because of unique sockets is silly in my opinion.
@@AdamMorganIbbotson - Dolmens are not stone circles and anyhow those lintels are held (at least in all cases I know of) by mere gravity, while the ones of Stonehenge are held in place also by rather perfect ensemblage. This is very unique architecture for its time and context and I think that you're being a bit unfair about the uniqueness of Stonehenge in this regard.
I don't know which was the exact political landscape of Neolithic and Chalcolithic Britain. Culturally there are at least two Neolithic areas: the megalithic one (SW England, Wales, Ireland and Scotland) and the henge-ist one (NE England), this obeys to two different origins in France: the megalithic one derives from the one of Brittany, Upper Normandy and Lower Loire, while the "henge-ist" one derives from the Danubian Neolithic (rondels = henges) from Nord-Pas-de-Calais, near Belgium. These were two distinct continental traditions that shared a common ultimate origin in the Neolithic of the Balcans and Asia Minor but had branched out some 2000 years before reaching Britain. I mention this because I'd expect as result two different ethnic areas, even if both should be of Vasconic languages and maybe had some mutual intelligibility in language and some occasional overlap.
Even if there was clear population replacement in the late Chalcolithic (often dumped into "Bronze Age" in Britain and Ireland even if there was no bronze whatsoever yet), there was also clear cultural continuity in terms of use of megaliths and such (although some important sites like Skara Brae were abandoned in those days). That makes even more difficult to gauge the ethno-political landscape of late Chalcolithic (Bell Beaker) and Bronze Age, which should still be pre-Indoeuropean.
Was Britain or parts of it unified under a single polity? I don't think there's any evidence for that, not before Alfred the Great at least (unless you consider colonial Roman Britain to be "a polity", which I don't). Had they some sort of confederation or league? That's within the realm of the plausible but again evidence is lacking. Was Stonehenge central to such confederacy? Maybe but I'd use the term "confederacy" in the loosest of terms, just out of caution. Compare, for example, with Sumeria and its spiritual capital Kish. Was Kish a political capital? Only briefly if at all: it was usually subordinated to other polities, stronger in terms military, respected but not the boss.
Anyway, for all we know there were no towns or cities in Britain in those days, unlike in Southern Iberia, where the likelihood sizable centralized or federative realms is much greater (El Argar notably). Without towns I don't think we can talk of proper realms or polities, rather tribal entities would be my guess.
@ Thanks, really enjoyed your write up. I agree with everything you said (except me being unfair to Stonehenge’s uniqueness - I’ve seen a lot of very unique sites!).
My point is, Stonehenge didn’t spring up out of a vacuum. It was built in a span of 2000 years when similar structures were erected all over the place. If we ignore or gloss over those sites, we miss a key part of the story. That’s the argument the video makes - not that Stonehenge is ‘overrated’, but that other sites demand as much attention.
Please have a watch of my video on Shap Avenue if you find the time! I reckon it’ll interest you :)
@@AdamMorganIbbotson - But why is Stonhenge "more perfect" architecturally than those other sites, whose stones have all kinds of non-polished shapes, have not any lintels, much less refined ones, etc.? I do think there's something unique about the "superior" architecture of Stonehenge and that deserves mention and pondering about.
It's like those other "neo-megalithic" evolutions in both the continent and the islands such as the tholos. In Brittany there's a site (not sure if part of the Carnac complex) with many dolmenic burials but then one of them is a tholos (beehive tomb), a design that would soon spread across the Megalithic cultural area (and later even to Greece, where it was christened by archaeologists with a Greek name). Another parallel development are the hypogees or "artificial caves", more popular in certain areas like Lisbon region or Languedoc and definitely in Malta and Sardinia (although Sardinians used the tholos architectural concept for their castles called nuraghe, as did some Iberians in their first colonization of La Mancha semi-desert region). All that deserves pondering and not dismissal, after all they seem to represent the most advanced architecture of the Megalithic macro-culture, which seems often associated to the formation of stronger hierarchies (much like the pyramids in Egypt, of roughly the same age, basically announce the consolidation of the Egyptian state).
The main difference is that Westerners did not keep a written record (or, if they did, it's lost) but there's something very uncannily similar, even if not just exactly the same thing.
@@AdamMorganIbbotson - PS: I just watched the Shap Avenue video: very interesting but I still find those "early" (?) megaliths "crude" in comparison to Stonehenge (stones are unpolished or otherwise shapen, no lintel superstructure, etc.) and that's a reason why I believe Stonehenge has got so much attention: it's not just an array of cyclopean crude stones (amazing as they may be) but a whole elaborate "building".
I thought SH was connected by river to a corresponding and contemporary. wood henge? This would go against your idea that SH "sits alone"
@@patdaveydrums I never said it sits alone. It is the only surviving stone / ‘megalithic’ monument. Woodhenge, I group with Durrington Walls.
Also, not necessarily contemporary.
@ I thought the implication was that people travelled from one to the other along the river thus making it a ceremonial landscape. But sure, if they aren’t contemporary as you say.
@ It is a ceremonial / ritual landscape. No doubt. It’s just a small one. Not as large and important as many seem to make out.
Still very important, obviously. But AS important as others. Not the pinnacle!
Correct me im im wrong, but isnt it believed that stonehenge was at one time atleast partiality inclosed with a roof ..more simpling the structure at newgrange ?
@@Scottmiller1974ohio Nope. No evidence for that! Could be argued it was the case, but not generally believed no.
Thanks, interesting insight.
Just like the gaggle of Authors that jealously protect the Ripper story by debunking each other, the guardians of the rocks hold firm to their fantasy twaddle none of them have come up with a definitive answer for who why or when it was built, not to mention the outlandish alien/giant rock levitating druids brigade and their fantastic ideas.
Look carefully at the stones... They are cast concrete with a spray on geopolymer
Not Alice Roberts. Im an American living in Philomath Oregon and even us Philomites love Dr. Professor Roberts.
All ABOUT The Spin, and The Spin is The Money, The Egos, and The Herd.....
I am surprised no one has called Stonehenge racist yet
yeah, the concrete stuff underneath them rocks might be a problem indeed.
I mean, they put them rocks ontop of them concrete slabs????
So they already knew how to make concrete in those days?
o, and another problem: Its fake.
Is it impossible that the Stone circle was completely standing or near standing in 55BC ? Not sure whether the archaeology would work either way, but it might well be possible that UK i inhabitants had repaired the site post Bronze age ? (I had thought the final form was due to the Beaker Peoples rather than there previous Neolithic population). I would suggest Stonehenge is the most famous due to the Lintels and complex structure and evolution rather than anything else.
They did haul the Blue stones from Wales though...we've found similar stones and apparent quarries and geochemical and other geological analysis has confirmed that (the original theory goes back to the 1900s). It is now suggested that the "Altar stone" is from a site in Scotland. Do we have similar examples elsewhere in the UK ?
That's an interesting idea about people repairing it.
I have strong doubts about the Scottish prominance of the Altar Stone, just based on several past studies falling flat re. Stonehenge. And, yes, I agree on Stonehenge's lintels making it the most famous. Certainly a weird and wonderful Late Neolithic / Early Bronze Age site.
@@AdamMorganIbbotson Shouldn't bee too difficult to prove. Smallish drilled sample (back filled with contrite and a cap as they did for the Blue stones) and geochemical analysis and it ought o be fairly black and white. It did deem quite unlikely, although aren't their Pig bones at Durrington Walls village site with Scottish (Oxygen and Strontium ?) isotope fingerprints, so perhaps less unlikely than it might appear. Arguable even in the neolithic we had fairly good boats, so a coastal route might be possible.
@ Again, pig bones at Durrington are given far too much significance in my opinion. Let’s see what bones elsewhere turn up
Stonehenge may be many of the things you say, but stonehenge is the most stunning site in prehistoric england.
@@anerioone Sorry to say I strongly disagree there! Especially when Avebury’s just up the road. I wouldn’t even put Stonehenge in my top 10.
But, you are very welcome to your own opinion!
Avebury and Stanton drew also standing stones are free too go in also have buildings within circle and staton drew is unusual as there is one star away from main circle in church yard
@@wormon3626 Stanton Drew is fascinating! It also once had a large wood circle at its centre.
Almost like the stone circle there reflects Stonehenge’s ditch, and the wooden circle the sarsens.
Aliens
Bullocks
Any problems, they can hire a crane and rebuild it like they did in the 1930s.
Uh oh.
Okay okay we get it your from the North. 😂😂😂.
Stonehenge getting all the attention and love must really sting
There are sites in Cornwall and Devon with more zest than Stonehenge
@AdamMorganIbbotson was just teasing you, mate. 😜
@@lmonk9517 you cheeky southerners! That’s twice I’ve been baited on here. Ooh you scoundrels you! 🥕
@@AdamMorganIbbotson ♥♥♥♥
"clattering across the marshlands"
Clattering into*
Lets talk 😅 far too many narcissist youtubers these days. Lets be human 😅@@AdamMorganIbbotson
@ I am a landscape archaeologist, who happens to have started a UA-cam channel 5 months ago. Not the other way around!