Thank you for watching! If you want to support the channel, you can become a Member of the channel at ua-cam.com/channels/scI4NOggNSN-Si5QgErNCw.htmljoin or I’m on Patreon at www.patreon.com/ancientarchitects
I love this theory, it could very well have been an enclosed stage, the acoustics would have been absolutely magnificent and it would make sense for the holes and mortice and tenon joints to actually have a purpose instead of just existing for no purpose at all. Some scholars may say there isn't any evidence for it, but what they forger is that there also isn't any evidence against it 🤗
I approve of this. This theory is plausible. I can imagine it being a place of gathering for council and power of communities to exchange ideas, plans, and hold celebrations. Efforts should go toward finding proof of Stonehenge being the foundation of a large building. This also makes the skeleton found at the site more intriguing. Was it the body of the theater jester?
@@1963pipo I think Celtic does translates to wet and freezing. Even though there is a big shiny yellow monster from myth and legend in the sky today,...my nanna used to talk about the day the sun shone.
I am shocked by this to be honest. I have ALWAYS wondered what it looked like with a roof and platforms. How is this the first time we're discussing this in the mainstream?
It's not the first time this has been spoke about. Many scientists believe this is a possibility. It's the same thing over and over. They're reporting about it to sell a book with the wahman so smart narrative. Even the news is pushing this story.
Well, i suggest that part of the problem is the Victorian "archaeologists" vandalised the structure with their ham fisted attempts at restoration. Their progressivist prejudices locked the henge into the image of an out door stone circle from then on.
We know that the Neolithic people made wood henges in the nearby areas. So a wooden roof is a possibility. This is a great original idea . I hope the experts look at her ideas.
@@shian228 there is a need, in such a humid environment, stone needs to be placed as a foundation like we do still today. Obviously we use cement today.
You can almost guarantee that they won't. They absolutely despise creativity and imagination from outside their circles, especially when it would require radical change and revision of their books. This is why careers should not founded on a specific view of a historical artifact. It creates groups of people who have literally staked their lives on an interpretation of an ancient ruin. That said, I think her idea of poles on top of bluestone is incorrect. That would be a very bad structural design. Still, overall I think it's a great piece of "imagineering".
This theory makes a lot of sense. It brings to mind the bronze-age roundhouse that was a common building style back in the day. It's not hard to imagine carpenters and masons building a giant roundhouse. Great video and compelling theory.
Sadly, common sense doesn't make sense to "Mainstream" scientists. Heck, they haven't even admitted that ancient Egyptians sailed to ancient Australia yet.
Me too. After a decade of my past working on building projects, I recognized the stones as pillars and beams, strong enough to hold the weight of upper levels. The first level must be made of stone because the humid weather. This is quite common even today. The wood beams and columns have been stolen by local people thru the centuries. This is also quite common. Even some of the stones where stolen for new buildings in the area. And that is why we find only the heaviest parts of the original structure today.
I just visited the Ancient Technology Centre today. They have an awesome "Earth House" and as soon as I walked into it, it felt like being inside stonehenge but with a roof. It immediately made me think about this old video of yours. If you've not looked into their Earth House, which they built based on research into ancient buildings and technology, then you really should. The place was astonishing. My whole perspective of henges has completely changed.
Saw in the Daily Mail, but have now seen her book. Wow! This is not some waffly, whacky journal but a clear, comprehensive, and thoughtful piece of work that contains much qualitative and original research. I particularly like her portrayal of people of the day as highly capable and intelligent. Even if not a Stonehenge 'groupie', the quality of the book's presentation will impress, especially as it seems that the layout and illustrations (as well as the model building!) was also Sarah's own work. The most interesting work to come out on this site for ages.
I've seen a lot of stuff about Stonehenge over the years, and this is the first time I've seen something that actually makes sense. The problem with structures that old is that over the centuries people would take parts and repurpose them for other things, while the critical parts to prove a case literally rotted away. Then there's the layers of history as one culture used it for one thing, and the next that came along used it for something else. It can get so muddled and confusing. I was fairly well sold on the idea of it being a burial site thanks to some recent research and laser mapping. But the idea it was an enclosed building when it was first created makes a whole lot more sense upon seeing this. I'm sure we'll never know for sure, but it is a wonderful idea to think of people building such incredible structures 5000ish years ago.
It seems to me that we have been under estimating most of the ancient buildings for years now. From Stonehenge to the pyramids to ancient sites around the world experts dismiss anything that does not fit the official version of events. Yet when anyone looks at the bigger picture and start to dig a little there are so many things that suggest far more advanced people in terms of both technology and expertise. Anything that does not fit with their explanation is either hidden from the public or just dismissed as nothing. It's about time that we had a fresh new look at all of our ancient sites and started to accept that we know so very little as facts. Love it when someone comes up with a new view of things and challenges what is taken as gospel by so many. Keep up the great work!!
The right answer is typically the most mundane and practical. The anthropological community often romanticizes the ancient world. I appreciate hearing a theory that humanizes and makes more relatable a structure that hasn’t made much sense until now. Thanks for bringing her theory to the rest of us!
Woodhenge is still around and was supposedly built around the same time. The wooden beams survived. What if Stonehenge is much older than people realize? It's also possible Stonehenge had wood beams and they may have been repurposed. 🤔
While I could definitely see a roof being built over it, I have my doubts it would have been quite so elaborate as depicted in the pictures shown if for no other reason that such extensive woodwork would likely have left more evidence in the form of prepared attachment points
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I love how the traditionalists say, “there isn’t any evidence that supports Sarah ‘s theory.” I’d also like to point out that there isn’t any evidence that it wasn’t a hall.” Closed mindedness, it’s the enemy of archeology.
The most simple, logic and elegant proposal ever mentioned! After the discovery of Göbekli Tepe, we could not ignore this option any longer. The original builders, with brains like you and me, must have used the ancient temple building memories from their elders, to start with such a solid construction anyway. Who were these builders, where did their elders got these memories from? They have been teached the knowledge of the firmament, seafarers they must have been..once..long before. From the archeological finds, we might conclude, they weren't welcomed by the local inhabitants, smaller stones aren't there any more..if they used any? Who were they?
Thank you Matt for sharing Sarah's great theory. I've always wondered why the mortice and tenons were needed: not like the lintels were going to blow away in a storm. Amazing how simple new theories disrupt accepted knowledge. i've watched and re-watched all your videos and one theme recurs: we are unable to explain so many ancient technologies.Thank you for what you do - you have given me hours and hours of viewing pleasure. Doug in Australia.
Oh hell yes! Great ideas! This certainly makes perfect sense. British weather... yep. Say no more. Surely, with some of the fancy modern techniques now available, there could be new research done looking for previously missed clues. Hell, just yesterday I was reading about the new find in cave dirt of the genome of a woman from an "unknown population" from 25,000 years ago. There needs to be some re-evaluations. Fantastic idea. Thanks, Matt!
Great video. I have taught the same when I have first time seeing Stonehenge and Gobekli Tepe. The way Stonehenge was found with lentils Fallen down and stones lying on the ground makes sense to me that it got knocked over as the roof has fallen down
I seem to remember a medieval sketch showing two floors and a roof, clearly the artists impression of its former use. There should be tool markings that would support this very interesting theory.
She nailed it. That is what I always envisioned Stonehenge would be like in its prime. One can only Imagine how other ancient buildings were actually used/constructed.
I'm 74 years old & have always believed that Stonehenge had a roof & possibly a second level. Why? Because, simply, it makes complete sense. Too much sense. Why would ancient people go to so much trouble to create such a monument & not take full advantage of all the possibilities. It was enclosed!
archeologists just prefer stone : but in sri lanka you can see how stone stupas are surounded and covered by wooden roof constructions. necessary protection not against english rain but tropic sun... Annuradhapura and Polonnaruva have examples.
@@WildAlchemicalSpirit Temples in ancient Greece as well. The tapering of and other aspects of stone columns are surely mimetism from the original wooden elements.
This makes perfect sense in many ways including the typical hinges and house structures from the time. This theory really completes everything else we know to he true about Stonehenge.
Hi Kayleigh. Consider the possibility that this is an artificial horizon so these ancient architects (pun intended) and engineers and astronomers could keep an eye on the sky. Sometimes things out there came clattering down as in 536 AD and 2800 BC and 6200 BC, you know Doggerland (doggone it -- note the 3400 year periodicity). Be sure to keep comets in mind when you explore the Doggerland catastrophe. That shelf off Norway didn't collapse just for fun. Newton rules. Cheers, HH
I just said this very thing yesterday on another video about Stonehenge! Not the balcony, but the roof. It just makes sense considering the weather. Since many archaeologists agree now that Gobekli Tepe and other tepe sites with stone circles had roofs, that lends even more creedence to this idea. Yes, a lot of time difference between Stonehenge and Gobekli tepe, but if it's a building style that worked, why wouldn't it be carried on in other places.
@@ancientsitesgirl I was in London for the Olympics. GREAT PLACE!!! If you do get to go there, check out Bletchley Park - lots of World War 2 history. It's very easy to get there from London. Unfortunately Stonehenge was too far away.😭 Good luck on your next presentation.😊
The southwest of England is the best part. Best beaches, Stonehenge, Glastonbury tor, silbury hill, loads of other stone circles and white horses carved into hill sides, and fovant badges and many more cool things
It has crossed my mind that all the stone circles once had roofs. Makes perfect sense that they would be communal shelters. This idea of a massive type of theatre or auditorium makes perfect sense too. This also stands out as being quite obvious in the various sites around Gobekli Tepe too - the shape of those structures seems to suggest they had wooden rooftops. Excellent progress in this field of research. Thanks for sharing the ideas.
As a kid my first feeling/reaction to stone-henge was that it must have been part of a building that we now don’t see the rest of. It always bothered me that people described it only as standing stones without considering that possibility. It’s funny / intriguing to now see it as a proper hypothesis! Not meaning this as a personal achievement or to undermine the work at all in any way, quite the opposite; but a reflection that maybe kids should be more involved in science! At least we should retain our childlike open-minded curiosity & wonder at the world :) Respect for the work on this, and your channel is awesome as always 👍
Works for me. Just give it time. How many other ideas have been dismissed over the years? Only to find out they were right all along. Look at changes since the 1960's even. Thanks again for the updates.👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
I love this idea! Maybe we should now revisit other sites similar to Stonehenge and look for more evidence to support this theory. Maybe Gobekli Tepe is a whole complex built in a similar fashion.
Now that is interesting. Some are now suggesting the t-shaped pillars at Gobekli were in fact structures to support a roof. Moreover it was roof covered in soil which in effect created an underground fortress. Other examples of underground communities have been found, whole cities in fact. This was a response to a n extended period of global climatic disasters at the time, before the end of the last ice age. An earth roof would also account for the perception of Gobekli having been deliberately buried. The roof material collapsed and buried the site.
I saw this yesterday and wanted more information. Thank you Matthew. It has already been proven that the large stones have acoustical properties. Not only does it reverberate perfect tone within the structure, it blocks any sound from going past the stone itself. Only the spaces between allow sound through. My first thought, with this theory is the blue stone elevated a wooden floor, as all musical tone would be muffled by damp ground. The floor would have to be somewhat free standing so not inhibit the reverberations of the larger stones. I also wonder now if the outer wood henge that they believe is older than Stonehenge was actually the fence surrounding this building and may actually be the true date of this prehistoric monolith. Just ideas, but you’re right, this is very exciting and in my opinion, very plausible. Definitely getting the book. Thank you again.
Very interesting theory! I can totally see this being true. Also, I can guess why so many people in the older "academic community" would not answer to her theory. They must be cringing at her "blasphemy", because they just "know". Great episode. Please continue to explore!
Once again I am impressed by your research. As an American, I have my built-in bias about history. I have a deep respect for anyone who will admit that: we just don't know. Recently, I watched a podcast with Joe Rogan and Graham Hancock with Michel Shermer as an extra guest. I didn't know that Graham Hancock is only an author and not a scientist. I am loosing my respect for him. He wants to rewrite history without doing any work to see where the Roman Empire ends and the Spanish history of Columbus begins. Keep up the good work.
I've thought about this since I was a teenager. It simply makes sense for there to have been some sort of covering for Stonehenge, even if it was basically only a huge tent. A thatched roof makes even more sense. What's more, it shouldn't have to interfere with any of the line of sight alignments for astronomical observations, which are all through the stones, not over them. I'm not sure about the exterior being enclosed, but putting a roof over the space makes a lot of sense. Our ancestors were hardier peoples than we are, and the weather was supposedly milder when Stonehenge was built, so it makes sense to me that they would have put a thatch roof on, and possibly gathered by a bonfire in the center, or something.
Great video, very interesting. It raises the question whether Gobleki Tepe had a roof as well or was it open air. Some digital reconstructions show it with roofs while others show it as open air. I guess for both sites the only way to be sure is by finding remnants of wood or somehow testing the soil to see if there is ash or decomposed wood or maybe an increased carbon in the soil)
There's a good chance that the very top roof would not have been there. I'm picturing it open in the very center of the building but roofed all around otherwise. This would be consistent with other building designs that allowed for an atrium in the center.
The model has to be refined so that the Sarsen stones that form the horseshoe be better integrated as supporting structure. They are of different heights; so it makes them difficult or complex to serve as a structural base for some kind of roof or floor. Not impossible though. Great video !
Are we not missing quite a few post holes inside the stone circle for this to be the case? Also, is there any other evidence of large multi-storey structures from the time period? Or structures with large windows, for that matter?
We don't know. And we need to admit we don't know. If the Coliseum wasn't protected by order of a 16th century Pope ( I forget which one), it's be completely gone right now and no one today would think that the Romans had built such a structure.
@@dirremoire Someone came up with the idea the colosseum had a roof, or rather a canopy. It makes a lot of sense if it either rains or the sun shines intensely.
Post holes and any lumber structuring whatever, would be completely gone by now. There were two-story buildings from the period, presumably usually for special centers and etc given their rarity. Usually when buildings are destroyed or deteriorate, later civilisations and groups often wrote them off as mere 'nothings' and use them to supply stone and etc for other projects and scavenge from the previous structures. Ie- all the limestone stripped from the pyramids of Giza for other projects later on in later times. So, I guess her theory is just as plausible as everyone else's really.
@@mnomadvfx shure would, however, if a bunch of rad astronomers met there for a certain event and the weather is shit they would have a dry and protected place to spend time waiting for the sky to clear;) -one could research if the place was covered, would it affect the possibility of reading astronomy?
Honestly have had the same thought about Stonehenge myself. I couldn't picture how a roofed version would look though. Her model is fascinating and I love that I got to see it now in this video.
Sarah is correct. It was a huge building. It did have a roof. It was a very special place and more beautiful than anyone could imagine. The art on the walls to the hanging fabric. It was stunning. I have had several dreams about it to the point that I believe I was once there. It was a meeting place. People did eat there. It was marvelous. The drawing is off, it didnt look quite like that but the shape is correct. It had a cone top. This video almost made me cry. Bravo!!
Certainly makes more sense than the idea it's a seasonal calendar, for which logs would be ideal, being plentiful, quicker to erect, and easier to replace every 50 years or so.
Outstanding theory and great arguments, the second I saw this I was convinced on simple logic. Yes, it had to be roofed. Thank you for sharing this. The increased height of the inner U shape only makes sense that it had an inclined roof. There was always something missing in my mind and this absolutely is fitting. The vertical stones are open columns.
That’s actually really interesting, I’ve been there and not once thought about the possibility of it being a building, now you mention it I could totally see it with walls and a roof
I think it's interesting to think of it like this: We know people would've gathered at stonehenge in its prime. (What could they have gathered there for?) We know people were likely skilled carpenters because woodworking is one of the most basic human survival concepts. Most stone structures contain at least some wood. (What is the most practical use for wood in this case that stone couldn't be used for?) Keep all of those things in mind, and you can basically come up with anything.
I remember discussing the Stonehenge roof theory about 20 or so years ago. I don't personally think it's likely although I'd love to believe it. Firstly, I'd expect to see notches on the lintel stones where timbers would be tied in to stop them moving around but as far as I'm aware the lintel tops were left flat. Secondly, the hemispherical joints holding the outer ring of lintels in place work fine when the forces are directed straight down but I imagine any lateral forces from diagonal timbers in an outward direction would probably just flip them off & break the ring. I also don't buy the idea of a roof & balcony held up by wooden pillars balanced precariously on the tip of tall & skinny blue stones sunk just a couple of feet into soft chalk limestone. They're just not stable enough, the arrangement could all too easily just bend in the middle. It had occurred to me that perhaps someone did try to put a roof on Stonehenge at some point & that's why it fell over...
Me too. Why else would you have huge lintels? Especially as they're made in exactly the same way that they would make wooden lintels - to support a heavy roof. The Y and Z Holes are probably just an extension to the covered area. Here's another idea for the roof: www.curriculumvisions.com/search/B/bronzeAge/bronzeAge.html
Considering the aspect that the builders of Stonehenge migrated from Anatolia to Britain, it makes sense that the builders would have taken along the concept of covering their stone structures... just as they did with GobekliTepe.
The influence of Queen Victoria was so great that she decided that the megalithic peoples should make Stonehenge a theater, that they should use the yard as a measure of distances, etc.
I'm currently reading the Islands in the Sea of Time trilogy by S.M. Sterling, about the island of Nantucket getting sent back in time to 1500BCE and find that stonehenge is still in use by the natives. It's a fantastic read.
Somehow I immediately thought of Rudolf Steiner's Goetheanum building when I saw her conception. Both our fascination with Stonehenge today and Steiner's Theosophy are concerned with deep time and the recovery of lost knowledge.
A report from Roman times described it as a great domed Temple, so yes, it was most likely roofed, with turf or straw. A dome is the perfect shape for an observatory too, because they could make holes in different directions to take measurements.
This is actually an idea I myself have toyed with for many years, though certainly not to the degree of quality imagineering Sarah has done. Bravo, completely plausible AND it would be the logical growth of the neolithic roundhouse. Sarah is also completely correct in her statement regarding anything challenging the mainstream consensus being automatically rejected without consideration, regardless of the quality of research and work. That needs to change and it's needed changing for decades if not a century. By their logic, their "is no evidence" that castles had woodwork and finish coatings because the stone work is such high quality. Absurd.
To further support this theory or similar is the fact that the stones have two smooth and two rough surfaces, where the smooth surfaces is faced radially, typically as a part of a wall. If the mainstream theory of Stonehenge only being a sermonical observatory to study the solaces, then why aren`t all sides rough or smooth, or at least similar? If the stones were part of a supporting wall, then rough surfaces on the inside wouldn’t matter, but then you also want a pretty smooth surface facing outwards, which is the case.. Secondly if the stones main purpose was only to be an observatory, then why use big heavy blocks of stones when a wooden structure would do the same job? The logical answer is that stones are excellent in supporting heavy compressive loads, and wood is not, i.e being the remains of a building is absolutely not far fetched.. Good video!
This is fantastic! I've always felt that there may be too much mystery placed on things. Separate all the parts and pieces to a toilet and bury it for 10,000 years and imagine what people who have never seen one would think it is? How many ways would they fit the pieces together?
It's an intriguing hypothesis but I see several issues: (1) The bluestone do not look like pillars at all (too narrow and not flat at the top). Also probably too precious to be mere pillars. (2) The wooden arches she draws are clearly anachronistic. Megalithic builders only began to develop the false dome (beehive or tholos) structure and never seem to have created anything like a true dome or arch, something only documented in the Iron Age among Etruscans AFAIK in what regards to Western Europe (technology adopted and improved by the Romans). You can imagine conical features but almost certainly not arches. (3) I would think that a second storey would have left some sort of mark in the supporting stone structure such as grooves to insert the beams into. So rather not but I like the open thinking she explores anyhow. Also the bluestones were brought from Wales by barge and oxen traction, of course, no big deal but quite uncontestable that they were brought from Wales. They also surely had some sort of crane and pulley like system, probably again with oxen traction and not human (what a waste using humans when you have oxen!)
Brilliant theory that makes eminent sense, especially given the environment, available materials and skill sets of the indigenous tribes of the epoch. Think this theory would apply equally to similar stonework structures in the U.K., as well as to those in Europe, such as in France for example. It's one of those amazingly simple insights, or perhaps is that clever answer to an ancient puzzle, become obviously self-evidently the correct one upon telling. And it has us ruefully considering, 'Why didn't I think of that?'
I always wondered this. If there are holes for wooden oposts around the henge, then then could have been supporting posts. I'm in Canada, and if there's holes for posts at an archaeological site, it's usually a palisade or lodge. I thought it was weird that stonehnge's were, just posts in the ground. If you were to use this vids theory, but use the outer ring of post holes as roof supports, the stone henge itself would be exposed in the middle of the building, keeping it's grandure. I don't know if the henge are supports or the centre piece. Keep up the great vids. Stay Happy and Healthy.
Any theory that adds function back to mere symbolism I'm willing to entertain. The connection with dates like the solstice and so on are sufficiently proven in my opinion. But what for the rest of the year? Build a giant stone structure for a few days and purely for ceremony and ritual?? "Tomb or Temple" thinking. This would make it a functional building. For use of what would be unknown but what do we use buildings that can house many people for? Anything in that category. From entertainment to a court or just a place people gathered for the evenings. At a longitude of 51° means many months of short days. Having such a place where people could gather would be treasure for a the wider community. Agree with you, props to this lady for thinking outside the convention.
There are often items found at an archaeological site that don't fit our understanding of what should be there and are dismissed as extraneous. The value of proposals such as this one can come when archaeologists can review those extraneous items in light of a different view of what might have been there to see if some aspect of the proposal could be a hint of what explains the extraneous object.
Great job! I had always assumed it was a complete structure with walls and a roof. Good to see someone hypothesizing the complete structure. Thanks for sharing this!
Thank you for watching! If you want to support the channel, you can become a Member of the channel at ua-cam.com/channels/scI4NOggNSN-Si5QgErNCw.htmljoin or I’m on Patreon at www.patreon.com/ancientarchitects
🤘😜🤘
I love this theory, it could very well have been an enclosed stage, the acoustics would have been absolutely magnificent and it would make sense for the holes and mortice and tenon joints to actually have a purpose instead of just existing for no purpose at all.
Some scholars may say there isn't any evidence for it, but what they forger is that there also isn't any evidence against it 🤗
And of course the Giza pyramids were once a giant single circus tent. Three ring circus. Spectacular!
I approve of this. This theory is plausible. I can imagine it being a place of gathering for council and power of communities to exchange ideas, plans, and hold celebrations. Efforts should go toward finding proof of Stonehenge being the foundation of a large building. This also makes the skeleton found at the site more intriguing. Was it the body of the theater jester?
I think it's a good idea.
"It's British weather afterall". Haha. Roof confirmed.
😂
haha pretty solid argument
They were Britons they didn't have the ish wait until it stops raining attitude back then, they had big hairy Celtic balls.
@@tonytrismegistusroberts5124
Wet and freezing balls ? They had houses to keep them dry 😃
@@1963pipo I think Celtic does translates to wet and freezing.
Even though there is a big shiny yellow monster from myth and legend in the sky today,...my nanna used to talk about the day the sun shone.
Kudos to the crew mowing the area around the monument. The circular pattern of the cut grass adds to the visual impact of the monument.
It's to keep the reptilians away.
It looks great inside with the natural timbers and arches! I think I will build a house like that!
I am shocked by this to be honest. I have ALWAYS wondered what it looked like with a roof and platforms. How is this the first time we're discussing this in the mainstream?
It's not the first time this has been spoke about. Many scientists believe this is a possibility. It's the same thing over and over. They're reporting about it to sell a book with the wahman so smart narrative. Even the news is pushing this story.
Well, i suggest that part of the problem is the Victorian "archaeologists" vandalised the structure with their ham fisted attempts at restoration. Their progressivist prejudices locked the henge into the image of an out door stone circle from then on.
Love your channel
We know that the Neolithic people made wood henges in the nearby areas. So a wooden roof is a possibility. This is a great original idea . I hope the experts look at her ideas.
And I've always wondered if those "wood henges" were holding up roofs.
@@shian228 there is a need, in such a humid environment, stone needs to be placed as a foundation like we do still today. Obviously we use cement today.
@@shian228 still a theory like all the others.
I have visited Woodhenge many time near Durington walls and often think it must have burnt down . Building a better one with stone near by
You can almost guarantee that they won't. They absolutely despise creativity and imagination from outside their circles, especially when it would require radical change and revision of their books. This is why careers should not founded on a specific view of a historical artifact. It creates groups of people who have literally staked their lives on an interpretation of an ancient ruin.
That said, I think her idea of poles on top of bluestone is incorrect. That would be a very bad structural design. Still, overall I think it's a great piece of "imagineering".
This theory makes a lot of sense. It brings to mind the bronze-age roundhouse that was a common building style back in the day. It's not hard to imagine carpenters and masons building a giant roundhouse. Great video and compelling theory.
I thought the theory was amazing
I thought the theory was amazing
Sadly, common sense doesn't make sense to "Mainstream" scientists.
Heck, they haven't even admitted that ancient Egyptians sailed to ancient Australia yet.
@@RobotKongTV Ooooh I haven't heard of this. Could you provide some sources so I can look into for this Egypt->Australia theory? :D thanks in advance!
@@emmawhite6263 lookup the gosford glyphs
This makes so much sense I'm kicking myself in the butt not thinking of this before...
Ha. I know the feeling
@@AncientArchitects Bruce Bedlam 2008. ua-cam.com/video/XguPZsrAWQ4/v-deo.html
@@billwilkinson1397 hope Bruce still about to see this, no doubt in my mind this had a roof.
@@AncientArchitects www.stonehenge.tv/roof.html
@@billwilkinson1397 Wow! Yeah, I find Bruce's idea even more likely than Sarah's, even if they're similar in a lot of ways.
I've long thought it was likely a building. I've never heard anyone talk about it before, though.
Me too. It makes so much sense😊
Me too. After a decade of my past working on building projects, I recognized the stones as pillars and beams, strong enough to hold the weight of upper levels. The first level must be made of stone because the humid weather. This is quite common even today. The wood beams and columns have been stolen by local people thru the centuries. This is also quite common. Even some of the stones where stolen for new buildings in the area. And that is why we find only the heaviest parts of the original structure today.
Me too. Since I was a child.
The use of this circular support surface on the outermost wall crown has always been a mystery.
I always thought it had a roof of animal skins x
Her guess is as good as anyone else’s… can’t be close minded… great theory!
better than most
I just visited the Ancient Technology Centre today. They have an awesome "Earth House" and as soon as I walked into it, it felt like being inside stonehenge but with a roof. It immediately made me think about this old video of yours. If you've not looked into their Earth House, which they built based on research into ancient buildings and technology, then you really should. The place was astonishing. My whole perspective of henges has completely changed.
Saw in the Daily Mail, but have now seen her book. Wow! This is not some waffly, whacky journal but a clear, comprehensive, and thoughtful piece of work that contains much qualitative and original research. I particularly like her portrayal of people of the day as highly capable and intelligent. Even if not a Stonehenge 'groupie', the quality of the book's presentation will impress, especially as it seems that the layout and illustrations (as well as the model building!) was also Sarah's own work. The most interesting work to come out on this site for ages.
I've seen a lot of stuff about Stonehenge over the years, and this is the first time I've seen something that actually makes sense. The problem with structures that old is that over the centuries people would take parts and repurpose them for other things, while the critical parts to prove a case literally rotted away. Then there's the layers of history as one culture used it for one thing, and the next that came along used it for something else. It can get so muddled and confusing.
I was fairly well sold on the idea of it being a burial site thanks to some recent research and laser mapping. But the idea it was an enclosed building when it was first created makes a whole lot more sense upon seeing this. I'm sure we'll never know for sure, but it is a wonderful idea to think of people building such incredible structures 5000ish years ago.
Ya, that totally makes sense. Its actually so simple, it's hard to not believe. Nice work Sarah.
I've always thought this, and the same for Gobekli Tepe. But I'm an architect, and that flavors my thinking
Exactly, Gobekli Tepe could be the same!
Humans have always needed shelter throughout history, why do so many researchers forget that most if not all ancient structures would have had roofs?
Nice of you to amplify this. This theory is intriguing.
It seems to me that we have been under estimating most of the ancient buildings for years now. From Stonehenge to the pyramids to ancient sites around the world experts dismiss anything that does not fit the official version of events. Yet when anyone looks at the bigger picture and start to dig a little there are so many things that suggest far more advanced people in terms of both technology and expertise. Anything that does not fit with their explanation is either hidden from the public or just dismissed as nothing. It's about time that we had a fresh new look at all of our ancient sites and started to accept that we know so very little as facts. Love it when someone comes up with a new view of things and challenges what is taken as gospel by so many. Keep up the great work!!
The right answer is typically the most mundane and practical. The anthropological community often romanticizes the ancient world. I appreciate hearing a theory that humanizes and makes more relatable a structure that hasn’t made much sense until now. Thanks for bringing her theory to the rest of us!
Very interesting concept! Thank you for presenting it to us with Ewbank's model and artwork.
Her book looks fantastic. Check out her website
What a interesting hypothesis! I have never been there but the simple explanation of why, because of the weather, is so believable.
Truly amazing! I definitely think they should build another close by stonehenge as a museum
Woodhenge is still around and was supposedly built around the same time. The wooden beams survived. What if Stonehenge is much older than people realize? It's also possible Stonehenge had wood beams and they may have been repurposed. 🤔
"Jet Fuel can't Melt Stone Beams!"
The age of construction has already been postponed. That could happen again.
All that was left of Woodhenge was the postholes and cropmark. No wood survived.
it is likely that our history has a lot of lies so who knows
While I could definitely see a roof being built over it, I have my doubts it would have been quite so elaborate as depicted in the pictures shown if for no other reason that such extensive woodwork would likely have left more evidence in the form of prepared attachment points
But considering the build is tousands of years old proof of such attachment would have eroded away already,look at how battered they are.
AdarBlu 100%. A rougher, more basic proto look and it would fit perfectly
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I love how the traditionalists say, “there isn’t any evidence that supports Sarah ‘s theory.” I’d also like to point out that there isn’t any evidence that it wasn’t a hall.” Closed mindedness, it’s the enemy of archeology.
Why are you still not in the millions of subs ???? So underated. Love your work
The most simple, logic and elegant proposal ever mentioned!
After the discovery of Göbekli Tepe, we could not ignore this option any longer.
The original builders, with brains like you and me, must have used the ancient temple building memories from their elders, to start with such a solid construction anyway.
Who were these builders, where did their elders got these memories from?
They have been teached the knowledge of the firmament, seafarers they must have been..once..long before.
From the archeological finds, we might conclude, they weren't welcomed by the local inhabitants, smaller stones aren't there any more..if they used any?
Who were they?
Thank you Matt for sharing Sarah's great theory. I've always wondered why the mortice and tenons were needed: not like the lintels were going to blow away in a storm. Amazing how simple new theories disrupt accepted knowledge. i've watched and re-watched all your videos and one theme recurs: we are unable to explain so many ancient technologies.Thank you for what you do - you have given me hours and hours of viewing pleasure. Doug in Australia.
Oh hell yes! Great ideas! This certainly makes perfect sense. British weather... yep. Say no more. Surely, with some of the fancy modern techniques now available, there could be new research done looking for previously missed clues. Hell, just yesterday I was reading about the new find in cave dirt of the genome of a woman from an "unknown population" from 25,000 years ago. There needs to be some re-evaluations. Fantastic idea. Thanks, Matt!
very interesting idea, the weather aspect alone had me. book ordered, order number 500
Great video. I have taught the same when I have first time seeing Stonehenge and Gobekli Tepe. The way Stonehenge was found with lentils Fallen down and stones lying on the ground makes sense to me that it got knocked over as the roof has fallen down
I seem to remember a medieval sketch showing two floors and a roof, clearly the artists impression of its former use. There should be tool markings that would support this very interesting theory.
I subscribed. You had me at PLEASE. This new theory elevates the British ancients to a new higher level for me. Great stuff.
She nailed it. That is what I always envisioned Stonehenge would be like in its prime.
One can only Imagine how other ancient buildings were actually used/constructed.
I enjoyed her work
I'm 74 years old & have always believed that Stonehenge had a roof & possibly a second level. Why? Because, simply, it makes complete sense. Too much sense. Why would ancient people go to so much trouble to create such a monument & not take full advantage of all the possibilities. It was enclosed!
archeologists just prefer stone : but in sri lanka you can see how stone stupas are surounded and covered by wooden roof constructions. necessary protection not against english rain but tropic sun... Annuradhapura and Polonnaruva have examples.
In Jerusalem, the First Temple was built of stone and wood.
@@WildAlchemicalSpirit Temples in ancient Greece as well. The tapering of and other aspects of stone columns are surely mimetism from the original wooden elements.
I really like this idea! It makes total sense. Nice job, Sarah!
👍
This makes perfect sense in many ways including the typical hinges and house structures from the time. This theory really completes everything else we know to he true about Stonehenge.
I'm always excited for a Stonehenge video 😍
Enjoy Kayleigh!
Hi Kayleigh. Consider the possibility that this is an artificial horizon so these ancient architects (pun intended) and engineers and astronomers could keep an eye on the sky. Sometimes things out there came clattering down as in 536 AD and 2800 BC and 6200 BC, you know Doggerland (doggone it -- note the 3400 year periodicity). Be sure to keep comets in mind when you explore the Doggerland catastrophe. That shelf off Norway didn't collapse just for fun. Newton rules. Cheers, HH
I just said this very thing yesterday on another video about Stonehenge! Not the balcony, but the roof. It just makes sense considering the weather. Since many archaeologists agree now that Gobekli Tepe and other tepe sites with stone circles had roofs, that lends even more creedence to this idea. Yes, a lot of time difference between Stonehenge and Gobekli tepe, but if it's a building style that worked, why wouldn't it be carried on in other places.
I've already heard about that. Interesting theory and quite convincing! I'd like to finally visit England! Greetings!
You should
@@polbrempolbrem6639 ✌
@@ancientsitesgirl
I was in London for the Olympics. GREAT PLACE!!! If you do get to go there, check out Bletchley Park - lots of World War 2 history. It's very easy to get there from London. Unfortunately Stonehenge was too far away.😭 Good luck on your next presentation.😊
@@catman8965 I will. Thanks Cat
Man!
The southwest of England is the best part. Best beaches, Stonehenge, Glastonbury tor, silbury hill, loads of other stone circles and white horses carved into hill sides, and fovant badges and many more cool things
This makes so much sence I dont know why we would think that it was not roofed .... a shelter has been #1 priority to humanity for a long time...
I too, love this idea. More ancient places should be seen with more functional purposes!
You're excited!🔎📹🗞🗂 Wow! Always get excited... when I see your notifications Matt.⛏⚱🗿
It has crossed my mind that all the stone circles once had roofs. Makes perfect sense that they would be communal shelters. This idea of a massive type of theatre or auditorium makes perfect sense too. This also stands out as being quite obvious in the various sites around Gobekli Tepe too - the shape of those structures seems to suggest they had wooden rooftops. Excellent progress in this field of research. Thanks for sharing the ideas.
As a kid my first feeling/reaction to stone-henge was that it must have been part of a building that we now don’t see the rest of. It always bothered me that people described it only as standing stones without considering that possibility.
It’s funny / intriguing to now see it as a proper hypothesis!
Not meaning this as a personal achievement or to undermine the work at all in any way, quite the opposite; but a reflection that maybe kids should be more involved in science!
At least we should retain our childlike open-minded curiosity & wonder at the world :)
Respect for the work on this, and your channel is awesome as always 👍
Works for me. Just give it time. How many other ideas have been dismissed over the years? Only to find out they were right all along. Look at changes since the 1960's
even. Thanks again for the updates.👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
They're waiting till she dies and they can give her the least credit possible and no chance at honors or revenues.
The nearby Woodhenge shows that they did build large structures from timber.
"it's British weather after all" … is what finally convinced me.
I love this idea! Maybe we should now revisit other sites similar to Stonehenge and look for more evidence to support this theory. Maybe Gobekli Tepe is a whole complex built in a similar fashion.
Now that is interesting. Some are now suggesting the t-shaped pillars at Gobekli were in fact structures to support a roof. Moreover it was roof covered in soil which in effect created an underground fortress. Other examples of underground communities have been found, whole cities in fact. This was a response to a n extended period of global climatic disasters at the time, before the end of the last ice age.
An earth roof would also account for the perception of Gobekli having been deliberately buried. The roof material collapsed and buried the site.
I saw this yesterday and wanted more information. Thank you Matthew.
It has already been proven that the large stones have acoustical properties. Not only does it reverberate perfect tone within the structure, it blocks any sound from going past the stone itself. Only the spaces between allow sound through. My first thought, with this theory is the blue stone elevated a wooden floor, as all musical tone would be muffled by damp ground. The floor would have to be somewhat free standing so not inhibit the reverberations of the larger stones.
I also wonder now if the outer wood henge that they believe is older than Stonehenge was actually the fence surrounding this building and may actually be the true date of this prehistoric monolith.
Just ideas, but you’re right, this is very exciting and in my opinion, very plausible.
Definitely getting the book.
Thank you again.
Very interesting theory! I can totally see this being true. Also, I can guess why so many people in the older "academic community" would not answer to her theory. They must be cringing at her "blasphemy", because they just "know". Great episode. Please continue to explore!
Once again I am impressed by your research. As an American, I have my built-in bias about history. I have a deep respect for anyone who will admit that: we just don't know.
Recently, I watched a podcast with Joe Rogan and Graham Hancock with Michel Shermer as an extra guest. I didn't know that Graham Hancock is only an author and not a scientist. I am loosing my respect for him. He wants to rewrite history without doing any work to see where the Roman Empire ends and the Spanish history of Columbus begins.
Keep up the good work.
Makes perfect sense. I’m sold. It’s logical. Excellent observations.
I've thought about this since I was a teenager. It simply makes sense for there to have been some sort of covering for Stonehenge, even if it was basically only a huge tent. A thatched roof makes even more sense. What's more, it shouldn't have to interfere with any of the line of sight alignments for astronomical observations, which are all through the stones, not over them.
I'm not sure about the exterior being enclosed, but putting a roof over the space makes a lot of sense. Our ancestors were hardier peoples than we are, and the weather was supposedly milder when Stonehenge was built, so it makes sense to me that they would have put a thatch roof on, and possibly gathered by a bonfire in the center, or something.
Great video, very interesting. It raises the question whether Gobleki Tepe had a roof as well or was it open air. Some digital reconstructions show it with roofs while others show it as open air. I guess for both sites the only way to be sure is by finding remnants of wood or somehow testing the soil to see if there is ash or decomposed wood or maybe an increased carbon in the soil)
I think the consensus has now turned towards roofed structures at Gobekli.
It makes so much sense. It is to much work to just be a circle of stones. Give the builders credit for having common sense. 👏
There's a good chance that the very top roof would not have been there. I'm picturing it open in the very center of the building but roofed all around otherwise. This would be consistent with other building designs that allowed for an atrium in the center.
Have you not heard his most compelling argument for it being roofed , its British weather after all? 🤣🤣 jk
The model has to be refined so that the Sarsen stones that form the horseshoe be better integrated as supporting structure. They are of different heights; so it makes them difficult or complex to serve as a structural base for some kind of roof or floor. Not impossible though. Great video !
its been 5,000 years... Stones could have been level at construction and sunk into the ground at different rates so now they are uneven heights.
A really revolutionary idea. I didn't even think stonehange was originally supposed to be some complete structure.
This Theory is just as valid or even more so as the current leading one... This makes way more sense...
Furthermore, an outdoor could have placed the stones further apart to allow a lot more people to see without blocking the view
This is a great theroy an culture that could make what we see today would be quite capable of building the rest. Wonderful video
Are we not missing quite a few post holes inside the stone circle for this to be the case?
Also, is there any other evidence of large multi-storey structures from the time period? Or structures with large windows, for that matter?
We don't know. And we need to admit we don't know. If the Coliseum wasn't protected by order of a 16th century Pope ( I forget which one), it's be completely gone right now and no one today would think that the Romans had built such a structure.
@@dirremoire Someone came up with the idea the colosseum had a roof, or rather a canopy. It makes a lot of sense if it either rains or the sun shines intensely.
Post holes and any lumber structuring whatever, would be completely gone by now. There were two-story buildings from the period, presumably usually for special centers and etc given their rarity.
Usually when buildings are destroyed or deteriorate, later civilisations and groups often wrote them off as mere 'nothings' and use them to supply stone and etc for other projects and scavenge from the previous structures. Ie- all the limestone stripped from the pyramids of Giza for other projects later on in later times.
So, I guess her theory is just as plausible as everyone else's really.
@@strikeforcek9149 There are post holes on the Stonehenge site though - just not within the circle, as far as I'm aware.
There are potholes
I find this idea highly compelling as a Scandinavian, weather is a factor not to be forgotten, when it's rough everything is on put on hold...
@@mnomadvfx shure would, however, if a bunch of rad astronomers met there for a certain event and the weather is shit they would have a dry and protected place to spend time waiting for the sky to clear;) -one could research if the place was covered, would it affect the possibility of reading astronomy?
Honestly have had the same thought about Stonehenge myself. I couldn't picture how a roofed version would look though. Her model is fascinating and I love that I got to see it now in this video.
Sarah is correct. It was a huge building. It did have a roof. It was a very special place and more beautiful than anyone could imagine. The art on the walls to the hanging fabric. It was stunning. I have had several dreams about it to the point that I believe I was once there. It was a meeting place. People did eat there. It was marvelous. The drawing is off, it didnt look quite like that but the shape is correct. It had a cone top. This video almost made me cry. Bravo!!
Certainly makes more sense than the idea it's a seasonal calendar, for which logs would be ideal, being plentiful, quicker to erect, and easier to replace every 50 years or so.
Outstanding theory and great arguments, the second I saw this I was convinced on simple logic. Yes, it had to be roofed. Thank you for sharing this. The increased height of the inner U shape only makes sense that it had an inclined roof. There was always something missing in my mind and this absolutely is fitting. The vertical stones are open columns.
"No one knows who they were...or what they were doin" - Nigel Tufnel
That’s actually really interesting, I’ve been there and not once thought about the possibility of it being a building, now you mention it I could totally see it with walls and a roof
I think it's interesting to think of it like this:
We know people would've gathered at stonehenge in its prime. (What could they have gathered there for?)
We know people were likely skilled carpenters because woodworking is one of the most basic human survival concepts.
Most stone structures contain at least some wood. (What is the most practical use for wood in this case that stone couldn't be used for?)
Keep all of those things in mind, and you can basically come up with anything.
I've heard about this theory couple of days ago, very fascinating, seems plausible to me !
Stone Henge is much older than people of this time can realize! Every option should be evaluated...
I have always thought that it was the framework for a building. Anthropology has been my lifelong hobby.
I remember discussing the Stonehenge roof theory about 20 or so years ago. I don't personally think it's likely although I'd love to believe it.
Firstly, I'd expect to see notches on the lintel stones where timbers would be tied in to stop them moving around but as far as I'm aware the lintel tops were left flat. Secondly, the hemispherical joints holding the outer ring of lintels in place work fine when the forces are directed straight down but I imagine any lateral forces from diagonal timbers in an outward direction would probably just flip them off & break the ring.
I also don't buy the idea of a roof & balcony held up by wooden pillars balanced precariously on the tip of tall & skinny blue stones sunk just a couple of feet into soft chalk limestone. They're just not stable enough, the arrangement could all too easily just bend in the middle.
It had occurred to me that perhaps someone did try to put a roof on Stonehenge at some point & that's why it fell over...
Great idea , Sarah😉the theory is sound.
Thank you, Matt❤⛰❤
Thanks Lynn
What she has suggested and demonstrated with her model makes a lot of sense.
It’s obvious! I have known this for decades. Big strong stone supports with registering holes on top.
Me too. Why else would you have huge lintels? Especially as they're made in exactly the same way that they would make wooden lintels - to support a heavy roof. The Y and Z Holes are probably just an extension to the covered area.
Here's another idea for the roof: www.curriculumvisions.com/search/B/bronzeAge/bronzeAge.html
Considering the aspect that the builders of Stonehenge migrated from Anatolia to Britain, it makes sense that the builders would have taken along the concept of covering their stone structures... just as they did with GobekliTepe.
It makes a lot of sense. We should always question all possibilities, and it makes me scratch my head that people just accept one theory.
Will you ever review the Cahokia Mounds which are adjacent to St. Louis?
Check out his friend's channel, Anyextee.
The influence of Queen Victoria was so great that she decided that the megalithic peoples should make Stonehenge a theater, that they should use the yard as a measure of distances, etc.
I'm currently reading the Islands in the Sea of Time trilogy by S.M. Sterling, about the island of Nantucket getting sent back in time to 1500BCE and find that stonehenge is still in use by the natives. It's a fantastic read.
When i read her article yesterday i said WOW, it just makes sense. Thanks Matt great video
Somehow I immediately thought of Rudolf Steiner's Goetheanum building when I saw her conception. Both our fascination with Stonehenge today and Steiner's Theosophy are concerned with deep time and the recovery of lost knowledge.
A report from Roman times described it as a great domed Temple, so yes, it was most likely roofed, with turf or straw. A dome is the perfect shape for an observatory too, because they could make holes in different directions to take measurements.
This is actually an idea I myself have toyed with for many years, though certainly not to the degree of quality imagineering Sarah has done. Bravo, completely plausible AND it would be the logical growth of the neolithic roundhouse. Sarah is also completely correct in her statement regarding anything challenging the mainstream consensus being automatically rejected without consideration, regardless of the quality of research and work. That needs to change and it's needed changing for decades if not a century.
By their logic, their "is no evidence" that castles had woodwork and finish coatings because the stone work is such high quality. Absurd.
To further support this theory or similar is the fact that the stones have two smooth and two rough surfaces, where the smooth surfaces is faced radially, typically as a part of a wall. If the mainstream theory of Stonehenge only being a sermonical observatory to study the solaces, then why aren`t all sides rough or smooth, or at least similar? If the stones were part of a supporting wall, then rough surfaces on the inside wouldn’t matter, but then you also want a pretty smooth surface facing outwards, which is the case..
Secondly if the stones main purpose was only to be an observatory, then why use big heavy blocks of stones when a wooden structure would do the same job? The logical answer is that stones are excellent in supporting heavy compressive loads, and wood is not, i.e being the remains of a building is absolutely not far fetched.. Good video!
This is fantastic! I've always felt that there may be too much mystery placed on things. Separate all the parts and pieces to a toilet and bury it for 10,000 years and imagine what people who have never seen one would think it is? How many ways would they fit the pieces together?
Gobekli Tepe also has such speculation, especially because of it being recessed in the ground, with its T-shaped [support ?] columns.
It's an intriguing hypothesis but I see several issues:
(1) The bluestone do not look like pillars at all (too narrow and not flat at the top). Also probably too precious to be mere pillars.
(2) The wooden arches she draws are clearly anachronistic. Megalithic builders only began to develop the false dome (beehive or tholos) structure and never seem to have created anything like a true dome or arch, something only documented in the Iron Age among Etruscans AFAIK in what regards to Western Europe (technology adopted and improved by the Romans). You can imagine conical features but almost certainly not arches.
(3) I would think that a second storey would have left some sort of mark in the supporting stone structure such as grooves to insert the beams into.
So rather not but I like the open thinking she explores anyhow.
Also the bluestones were brought from Wales by barge and oxen traction, of course, no big deal but quite uncontestable that they were brought from Wales. They also surely had some sort of crane and pulley like system, probably again with oxen traction and not human (what a waste using humans when you have oxen!)
Well, this theory is a bit older than made out to be here, but I am satisfied that you are giving it new life. Well done.
Love this theory, why not sounds perfectly feasible.
This is an absolutely brilliant idea...and would certainly stand to reason (as mentioned concerning the lovely weather in Britain).
I hadn't thought of that, but it could be a very logical conclusion. It makes sense.
Thanks
Bob
Brilliant theory that makes eminent sense, especially given the environment, available materials and skill sets of the indigenous tribes of the epoch. Think this theory would apply equally to similar stonework structures in the U.K., as well as to those in Europe, such as in France for example. It's one of those amazingly simple insights, or perhaps is that clever answer to an ancient puzzle, become obviously self-evidently the correct one upon telling. And it has us ruefully considering, 'Why didn't I think of that?'
I always wondered this. If there are holes for wooden oposts around the henge, then then could have been supporting posts. I'm in Canada, and if there's holes for posts at an archaeological site, it's usually a palisade or lodge. I thought it was weird that stonehnge's were, just posts in the ground. If you were to use this vids theory, but use the outer ring of post holes as roof supports, the stone henge itself would be exposed in the middle of the building, keeping it's grandure. I don't know if the henge are supports or the centre piece.
Keep up the great vids.
Stay Happy and Healthy.
Any theory that adds function back to mere symbolism I'm willing to entertain. The connection with dates like the solstice and so on are sufficiently proven in my opinion. But what for the rest of the year? Build a giant stone structure for a few days and purely for ceremony and ritual?? "Tomb or Temple" thinking.
This would make it a functional building. For use of what would be unknown but what do we use buildings that can house many people for? Anything in that category. From entertainment to a court or just a place people gathered for the evenings. At a longitude of 51° means many months of short days. Having such a place where people could gather would be treasure for a the wider community. Agree with you, props to this lady for thinking outside the convention.
There are often items found at an archaeological site that don't fit our understanding of what should be there and are dismissed as extraneous. The value of proposals such as this one can come when archaeologists can review those extraneous items in light of a different view of what might have been there to see if some aspect of the proposal could be a hint of what explains the extraneous object.
Great job! I had always assumed it was a complete structure with walls and a roof. Good to see someone hypothesizing the complete structure. Thanks for sharing this!
Great idea! Thanks for information.
I've pondered this for a long while, glad its getting traction.