Talk:Theories about Stonehenge

A Temple to the Trojan-Greek God Apollo
The classical Greek writer Diodorus Siculus (1st century BC) may refer to Stonehenge in a passage from his Bibliotheca historica. Citing the 4th-century BC historian Hecataeus of Abdera and "certain others", Diodorus says that in "a land beyond the Celts" (i.e. Gaul) there is "an island no smaller than Sicily" in the northern sea called Hyperborea, so named because it is beyond the source of the north wind or Borea. The inhabitants of this place chiefly worship Apollo, and there is "both a magnificent sacred precinct of Apollo and a notable temple which is adorned with many votive offerings and is spherical in shape." Some writers have suggested that Diodorus' "Hyperborea" may indicate Great Britain, and that the spherical temple may be an early reference of Stonehenge.

Other historical sources supporting that Stonehenge was a temple dedicated to Apollo include:
 * The Historia Britonum tells how Ancient Britain was settled by a descendent of Trojan hero Aeneas after the  destruction of Troy by the Greeks (1260 BC).  This reference shows that a small colony of Trojan-Greek origin was established in prehistoric Briton.
 * The Iliad (writen in 500 BC) describes the trojan war and in the opening scene tells how the Trojan priest of Apollo offers the Greeks wealth for the return of his daughter Chryseis.  This reference shows that at the time the Trojans worshipped Apollo.
 * Trinovantum, in medieval British legend, is the name mythically given to London in earliest times. According to Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae (1136 AD) it was founded by the exiled Trojan Brutus, who called it Troia Nova ("New Troy"), which gradually corrupted to Trinovantum.  This is another references that supports Trojan-Greek settlers as the founders of Briton.  (Roman General  Julius Caesar later invaded this colony around 55 BC.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.205.112 (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * As I have said, sources must discuss the subject of the article. This is original research and prohibited in the article. You are also interpreting your references, more original research and an attempt to have Wikipedia state as fact fringe beliefs that have no acceptance among historians. Dougweller (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Untitled
I would like to ask about what the astronomical meaning of stonehenge is. There are to be many beliefs about why they built it, but i would like to know what you think.
 * What I think is irrelevant - what Alexander Thom thinks probably is relevant. This page is for discussing how to improve the article; it's not a webforum or anything like that, sorry. Totnesmartin 20:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Geoffrey of Monmouth
Geoffrey of Monmouth's account (theory) is outlined in further detail at the main Stonehenge page than it is here. 72.8.96.166 09:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Mike Parker Pearson's work with Ramilisonina
Need citations for Mike Parker Pearson's work with Ramilisonina - They are one of the few who made the connection with nearby Woodhenge, and the symbolism of stone/timber with dead/living. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuqueue (talk • contribs) 05:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you seen this article by Mike Pitts? http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/Ant/077/0172/Ant0770172.pdf ? I don't have access to this one, but it looks like what you want: http://mcu.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/11/1-2/227
 * On his staff web page Parker-Pearson writes "In 1998 my Malagasy colleague Ramilisonina and I visited Stonehenge and Avebury and developed a new theory about the purpose of these and other stone circles in Britain. Our story is told in Mike Pitts' book Hengeworld (Arrow Books 2000) and Francis Pryor's book Britain BC (Harper Collins 2003). The theory has a number of implications which can be investigated through fieldwork; one of these is that Stonehenge was linked via 'avenues' and the River Avon to a Neolithic monument with timber circles at Durrington Walls (and Woodhenge) as part of a larger complex in which the passage from wood to stone acted as a metaphor for the conduct of funerary rites and ancestor ceremonies along the axis of the river."
 * And there is this: http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/Ant/081/0617/ant0810617.pdf Apologies if the Antiquity links don't work for you, I may be signed in but some of their stuff is free and at the moment I can't tell which is which.Doug Weller (talk) 08:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Secular Calendar Theory
The Secular Calendar Theory in the main article appears to contain elements of impractical conjecture and it needs, either, more detailed explanation to maintain it's credibility, or a note highlighting it's limitations as a theory. Broadly, the theory fails to explain why precise calendar dates would be needed for the purposes stated - in the context of time and place. ( In the case of agriculture, which was given as one example - picture a neolithic farmer contemplating his frozen field on an unseasonally frigid March day. A messenger arrives from Stonehenge with instructions from the priests that it is now time to begin planting. It wouldn't require much imagination to guess what the farmer's answer would be!)

There is archaeological evidence which points to the fact that southern England continued to have a thriving agricultural economy, long after Stonehenge and related structures had fallen into disarray. The secular calendar theory fails to account for this. sgn J. Fowler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.72.244 (talk) 13:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Could someone more familiar with this theory please add at least some citation to reliable articles? Based on the comments above I feel there is a potential [Wikipedia:NPV] issue as well but the citations are the most important thing right now. --MattLBeck (talk) 10:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Stone moving experiment
Does anyone know the source for the following: "In a 2001 exercise in experimental archaeology, an attempt was made to transport a large stone along a land and sea route from Wales to Stonehenge. Volunteers pulled it for some miles (with great difficulty) on a wooden sledge over land, using modern roads and low-friction netting to assist sliding, but once transferred to a replica prehistoric boat, the stone sank in Milford Haven, before it even reached the rough seas of the Bristol Channel." If so do you have additional details like how many people pulled the stone and how heavy it was? Thanks. Zacherystaylor (talk) 07:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

John Michell 1934-2009 Stonehenge Alternative Theories
{moved here from my talk page}

Dear Doug Do you have any way of retrieving the deleted entry that I submitted today concerning the late John Michell's contribution to the field of understanding megalithic structures? I ask this because I wrote it not keeping a copy elsewhere and am hoping to use the text elsewhere since it has apparently been decided by this "democratic" body of knowledge that this information is not wanted here. I would also, in the spirit of open inquiry (a quality that John Michell exemplified in both his life and his work) ask that you take some time out of your undoubtedly busy schedule to elucidate to this puzzled contributor your exact reasons for determining that my post committed the unquestionable sin of "original research"? Although I would be humbled should you presume that I can do the feats of mathematical wizardry of which John Michell was effortlessly capable, I must protest that it is not so. I am merely a reporter. The truth is, I was shocked to see that his well-documented, widely published and eminently readable work, which has won millions of admirers the world over, was not mentioned on a page that saw fit to name check Erich Von Daniken and mention UFO theories. Surely the discovery of precise measurements, corresponding to astronomical observations and having parallels in sacred texts is no more fringe than the ideas you have chosen to include under the heading "alternative views". Being thus shocked at this surely accidental omission, I decided to rectify it by adding the brief explanation of his concepts and list of relevant books. What references exactly do you need? These are not unpublished works - on the contrary: they have been through numerous editions. I hope that I do not come off as too combative. As you may or may not know, John died recently at the age of 76. He was a wonderful man and a personal friend for many years, who taught me a great deal and shall be sorely missed. Perhaps I am taking this personally. But regardless of my feelings, he should definitely not be regarded as a fringe scholar, and I think if you read his works you will agree that they are not wild theoretical ravings but disciplined investigations into mathematics, proportion, mysticism, and astronomy. They deserve a mention. More. I look forward to hearing from you and hope that we can come to an agreement about how I am to provide satisfactory substantiation for the inclusion of John Michell's work in this category of Wikipedia. Does it go to a Tribunal? Do I need to get a petition going or what? I shan't let it rest. Since his death, and the incorrect things that have already been printed about him, I am more than determined than ever to see that he gets his proper respects paid and that his brilliant research is not brushed aside. This whole thing is starting to remind me of what happened to Tesla, Reich, Leary. I await your thoughtful response and appreciate your forthcoming honesty. In any event, I would appreciate a copy of the text of my “original research” if you have the ability to retrieve. If not, that’s OK. I guess I can just make it up all over again. Best wishes, Diana

(moved here by Dougweller (talk) 04:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)} Dianarosa (talk • contribs) 23:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What you wrote was more of a peaen of praise for John Michell (writer) then an explanation of his ideas about Stonehenge. It isn't up to editors to decide what is "among the most fascinating", and as an encyclopedia, we certainly should not be saying that someone's work is painstaking or that there are "undeniable correspondences". I know that he claims that "A great scientific instrument lies sprawled over the entire surface of the globe. At some period, thousands of years ago, almost every corner of the world was visited by people with a particular task to accomplish. With the help of some remarkable power, by which they could cut and raise enormous blocks of stone, these people created vast astronomical instruments, circles of erect pillars, pyramids, underground tunnels, cyclopean stone platforms, all linked together by a network of tracks and alignments, whose course from horizon to horizon was marked by stones, mounds and earthworks." And of course that Stonehenge is part of this. There's no reason why some mention of what Michell's ideas about Stonehenge were, but without personal commentary and following our policies and guidelines, eg WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:Verifiable. The first mention of John Michell should be written as John Michell (writer) which will lead people to our article on him, and any reference to his books should be specific citations - WP:Cite in the same fashion as this article. Dougweller (talk) 09:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Egyptian Connection
I took knowledge of a possible connection between the Egyptians, Pelasgians, and the Gauls for the exploration of tin mines in the Cornwall region, and that, from that earlier contact, especially with the Egyptians, arise the origin of the Stonehenge construction as an astronomical observatory - supposedly, the Egyptians need the metal for the construction of the Queops pyramid. The link could be found at http://figaro.fis.uc.pt/viriato/capa_pelasgos.pdf (in portuguese). I found no other sources that support this hypothesis. Can someone help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcris (talk • contribs) 21:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No archaeological evidence for this - no evidence of tin mining that early, no evidence of Egyptians, etc., and how was the tin supposed to have been used? There were closer sources of tin. Plus the dates. And Stonehenge wasn't an astronomical observatory as we know such things today. We can only discuss this by discussing sources, this isn't a venue for straight discussion of the topic. Dougweller (talk) 23:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The source i relly upon was the one i mention (translation via google), and as to the justification for tin use, the article says: “Pharaoh Khufu, having no tin deposits, required peaks and chisels to outfit about three million cubic meters of granite to build their pyramid”.Wcris (talk) 03:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, what can I say? We know that copper chisels were used, no tin involved. What you seem to have found is an extreme fringe viewpoint -- it's nonsense, there was no 'Treaty of Carnac" (and the main activity there was earlier than Stonehenge and the Great Pyramid), no evidence of use of tin, no evidence of exploitation of British tin at that time, etc. If you read WP:NPOV you will see that we only include ideas that have some significance, and this clearly doesn't - I searched for other people mentioning Cardoso and found nothing. Interesting though, thanks for bringing this to my attention. Dougweller (talk) 09:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. That's why i bring it here, the discussion page, and not to an actual edit of the main article. Let´s keep it that way, so. But, just to clarify, as i perceive the author's intention, the 'Treaty of Carnac', was not a a treaty in a formal sense, but a special conjugation of interests of the parties involved that he call it metaphorically as some sort of treaty. By the way, the article's author is not Mário Cardoso, but Viriato Simões, and refers to an ongoing investigation.--Wcris (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have scrolled up. Are you sure it's ongoing? It looks as though it relates to this 1986 book . I love the nonsense about the word uria somehow being the reason for the Sumerian names of Ur and Uruk. Dougweller (talk) 06:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're doing an honest mistake; the confusion may arise by the fact that the reference you see as "In 'citânia de briteiros e castro de sabroso'" it's about an image of citânia de briteiros site plan, that's probably missed in the translation page, whose original edition is from 1956; the extract we are dealing with here dates from a 2009 investigation from the author - probably some fieldwork to a future release paper on the subject. The referer webpage explicitly says: “In the following pages you will find the findings of research carried out by Viriato Simoes (Lisbon, 2009) about the origins of the Pelasgians and their interactions with other civilizations, including Egypt.© 2009 Viriato Simões, Lisbon”
 * I agree in part with your observation about the etymology of Ur names, but Archeology is an open field where we see continuously input from scholars that defy current knowledge. Ur, some say is derived from the Sumerian deity Urim, others claim that it's meaning came from 'light' or 'shining' - no certainties here, but until the author further develops his investigation we can only classify such claims as speculation.--Wcris (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't figure out who he is exactly. I'm guessing this is his:


 * Simões, Viriato Sá da Bandeira : futura capital do turismo angolano / Viriato Simões Sá da Bandeira: future tourism capital of Angola / Viriato Simões


 * In: Boletim da Câmara Municipal de Sá da Bandeira . In: Bulletin of the Municipality of Sa da Bandeira. - nº18 (1965), p.38-39 - No. 18 (1965), p.38-39
 * Descritores: Angola | Turismo | Região de desenvolvimento Keywords: Angola | Tourism | Region Development and I find him here and on the list of participants for the 12th Congress of whatever that is but he's one of the very few whose affiliation isn't shown. He may have written something on brassicas also. And  Dougweller (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Can't quite help you on this one, sorry. I think that maybe Viriato Simões is, at least, connected with the work mentioned on the second link you provide, but not sure. What i can say with absolute degree of confidence is that the person who provide the link to the text we were talking about, is prof. Paulo Jorge Baeta Mendes of the Physics department of Coimbra University, and that he gave his own email address as the contact to those who wish to obtain permission to reproduce the work in question; the nature of the connection between Prof. Paulo Mendes and Viriato Simões, family or otherwise - even his alter-ego for historic inquiries - i cannot tell. Also, Google tells us that the document was posted (or at least Google crawled it)on 4 Ago, 2009, and since then no more updates.--Wcris (talk) 00:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Wally Wallington's methods
His video's show how you could stand one of these rocks up, but you'll notice in them he uses a water hose to wet the sand to do so- they didn't have water hoses in ancient Britain (I suppose they could use many many buckets however.) Also, how did he get the stone on top of the other one? Someone said by the same method he used to stand the rock up- well no, that only stands it up, not gets it on top of another stone. The snare (talk) 15:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Perpetual Choirs and Amesbury
> I just noticed that the Perpetual Choirs reference under "Ley Lines" re. Amesbury is erroneous. It results from adulterations of the original Welsh texts (as in Dr. Rachel Bromwich's Trioedd Ynys Prydein, trans. and notes). > > Originally, the three were Glastonbury, Bangor (Iscoed/on-Dee) and Caer Caradoc (Old Sarum/Salisbury). Iolo Morganwg et al altered the threesome in Series 3 of Y Myvyrian Archaiology at the beginning of the nineteenth century. Bangor was identified there as Llantwit Major and Caer Caradoc acquired "Cor Emrys at". Since Emyrs = Ambrosius, the identification was made with Ambresbury and, thus, Amesbury. So the article's Amesbury mention in the context of Perpetual Choirs is just plain wrong, and John Michell (writer), himself, compounded this error by identifying the site as "in"/"at" Stonehenge, itself, also completely wrongly.

{} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunnies55 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Cremations or...
Cremated remains have been found at all the henges, according to what I have read in these articles pertaining to Woodhenge, Stonehenge and Bluehenge. I have also read that Woodhenge was preceded by the sacrifice of an entire forested area, and Stonehenge has human sacrificial guardians buried upright beneath the ground. Does anyone have any knowledge that the cremated remains were actually burnt offering sacrifices rather than funereal practices? Are there any references to bloodstains on the stones of these places? References to books or magazine articles pertinent to this question are also requested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.63 (talk) 19:34, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Sacrificial site?
According to what I have read here on Wikipedia and in other articles on stone circles, cremated remains have been found. The theory presented has been that of a graveyard. But Woodhenge's construction was preceded by the sacrifice of a large forest, and Stonehenge apparently has sacrificed people buried beneath it as "guardians". I can't help feeling that those cremated remains actually point to burnt offerings made to deities. Does anyone have any other references that might also point to sacrifices? Johnbod (talk) 15:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.63 (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Roof and walls?
Could stonehenge have had a roof and walls made of wood that were looted (the stones obviously being too heavy to easily carry away). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.51.217.118 (talk) 06:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The calendar theory (see also Stonehenge Talk page)
Ya, the Darvill calendar theory is hot: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/keeping-time-at-stonehenge/792A5E8E091C8B7CB9C26B4A35A6B399

Does not seem to interest Wikipedia "scholars" so far though... What a waste! 2605:B100:E030:D41:757C:913:8F80:9094 (talk)alainr345 (I would do it guys but it's wayyyyyy above my pay grade in archaelogy; but have a nice memory of seeing Stonehenge in 2018; happy those Brits seem to finally give a go to hiding the super ugly and annoying road!)
 * Note 1: It's worth putting on the main page folks... although perhaps also its debunkink by Dr. Hill just posted at Ancient Origins.net with path of /news-history-archaeology/stonehenge-solar-calendar-0016574
 * Note 2: My own theory is: IT'S A PERPETUAL CHALK MARKING SYSTEM, where 30 outside stones=30 days, 12 inside stones=12 months, 4 corner stones=4 days; the first day of each year has NO marking (they erase all markings on that day); total= 365 days; the central stone serves as the 4-years 1/4 day compensation indicator. The so-called "Q and R" smaller stones would have been added one by one at a 4-years interval. You get around 300 years with that, the currently predicted exploitation period! Now, you tell me: "but there are only 10 inside upright stones stoupid, your theory is bull....". I, A. Renaud (Montreal, Canada), therefore predict here at Wikipedia on this very March 31, 2022 day that archaelogists WILL find 2 holes marking the pre-existing 2 stones of November/December on the NE side of the Trilithon horseshoe at Stonehenge, in-between stone 51 and 60. Be it recorded officially here and show me the money guys, Alleluia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:B100:E030:D41:757C:913:8F80:9094 (talk) 02:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ya, hum! I reckon it's me (including note 2); maybe a bit far fetched... but I stand by my theory (nobody has "unproved" it so far); when appropriate, please send the Nobel prize medal c/o... -- AlainR345Techno-Wiki-Geek 20:29, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ancient Origins is fringe nonsense and can't be used. Doug Weller  talk 11:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC)