Stonehenge's Altar Stone - a Bit of Context

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 24 ธ.ค. 2024

ความคิดเห็น • 33

  • @wilsontheconqueror8101
    @wilsontheconqueror8101 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Well done on ur artwork sir! Would luv 2 C more.

  • @Tiffers963Hz
    @Tiffers963Hz 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +6

    Thank you, Guy, for sharing your perspective and time with us. I send you an abundance of gratitude and blessings. 𐦞

  • @barnabyaprobert5159
    @barnabyaprobert5159 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +6

    ***OR*** it was deposited nearby by a glacier at the end of the Ice Age.
    The builders of Stonehenge may have discovered this very unusual stone and decided that it would be perfect for the altar stone.

    • @birdieg3012
      @birdieg3012 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      The glacial erratic theory has been around a very long time. Not impossible, but the chances of one rock of that size ending up where it did?

    • @jono1457-qd9ft
      @jono1457-qd9ft 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

      ​@@birdieg3012There are thousands if glacial erratic boulders in the south of England. The ice sheets flowing south were huge.

    • @birdieg3012
      @birdieg3012 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@jono1457-qd9ft REALLY?
      Well I never did!!!!!

  • @johangamb
    @johangamb 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +4

    what a great little painting you did 👏

  • @jerrydeanswanson79
    @jerrydeanswanson79 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

    Good morning from Wisconsin. Nice seeing you again Guy!

  • @saraguard05
    @saraguard05 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Always enjoy the videos whatever the topic thanks Guy.

  • @thomasrotweiler
    @thomasrotweiler 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +5

    As one might say "A little context goes a long way". One advantage Egypt had was greater population density, concentrated on the banks of the Nile and Nile delta. Britain at the time of Stonehenge was populated by scattered farming communities, and hunter gatherer groups. Unlike Egypt Britain does not appear to yet developed any discernible political structure, it is presumed there were some sort of tribal forms but there was no large settlements, no centres of power. Some form of commonality of beliefs, practices between the people of West Wales and Salisbury Plain is clearly evidenced (burials etc.) A commonality of practices etc can also be discerned between the people of western Britain and the Northern isles, suggesting that a seaborne route for the "Altar" stone would be more likely ? I'd imagine that it would easier (assuming a suitable craft could be constructed) to move the stone by a dedicated crew over long distances, rather than hoping to find sufficient local labour all along a purely land route. (One might use the lochs along the Great Glen Fault in Scotland to bypass the northerly western isles. This would be a less perilous route. )

    • @birdieg3012
      @birdieg3012 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      I do not know enough (any) naval history to be able to say, but any sea-going vessel to safely transport a dead weight of 6 tonnes would have to be extremely large.
      Canal narrowboats in the UK have a maximum load of around 30 tonnes evenly distributed along their length, but have just 2-7 inches of freeboard.
      In other words, any sea-going vessel would have to be far more substantial than a modern narrowboat.
      As for loading the stone without a crane? Maybe the logical thing would be to beach the vessel on a spring tide, on a carefully chosen beach, but the stone would have to be loaded PDQ.

    • @terryhunt2659
      @terryhunt2659 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      @@birdieg3012 It is more likely that such a stone would have been transported submerged, slung on ropes between two vessels temporarily connected catamaran-wise.
      This makes the stone easier to 'load' and 'unload' using rollers or skids, lessens its effective weight by buoyancy, and makes it easy to pause in shallow water merely by lengthening the ropes until the stone sits on the bottom. This method was almost certainly used (and has been experimentally duplicated) in Ancient Egypt.
      In the Neolithic period, the water table of Southern England was much higher, and the rivers Thames, Kennett and Avon likely broader and deeper; it's quite possible that they were navigable by seagoing vessels (which must have existed because of demonstrated immigrations from the Continent) up to the areas of Stonehenge and Avebury.

  • @dyffrynardudwy9729
    @dyffrynardudwy9729 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    The NE Scotland Middle ORS source is far from proven. All that has been analysed at the other end of the 700km but used once only human transport link are fragments donated to museums found near the Altar Stone. The S'henge team's capacity for speculative narrative over rigorous thinking is pretty impressive. So too their adherence to a view of a Unified Ancient Britain with Taffs and Jocks all happy to uproot home and family to pay homage to its natural ruling class based in southern central England with nary a dastardly continental foreigner in sight.

  • @AreHan1991
    @AreHan1991 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Thanx for putting things into perspective

  • @greendragonreprised6885
    @greendragonreprised6885 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

    Guy, you mention possible 'man' power but could they not also have used domesticated animals, cattle for instance, to provide the muscle? It's not that long, historically speaking, since we relied on heavy horses to pull ploughs.

    • @PaulZehtabi
      @PaulZehtabi 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      Definitely, I have always wondered if heavy animals like oxen may have been used

    • @birdieg3012
      @birdieg3012 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      Check what domesticated animals were around in the UK 2500-3000 BC.
      Plus, only in very recent times has winter fodder been readily available to keep numbers - root crops and hay are realtively modern in comparison.

  • @b.griffin317
    @b.griffin317 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    It was very likely (as were the Prisilli bluestones) glacial erratics found in the neighborhood of where they were erected.

    • @terryhunt2659
      @terryhunt2659 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

      No, the Welsh bluestones are now known to have been quarried from a specific site in the Preseli peninsula, erected in a circle nearby for some time, and then transported to the area of Stonehenge (and perhaps re-erected next to the Avon) some centuries before finally being incorporated into the evolving Stonehenge design.

  • @birdieg3012
    @birdieg3012 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +4

    But why?
    This is far more of a puzzle to me than how.
    I do not mean why was the henge built, but how did someone from the area of Salisbury Plain know about Scottish sandstone and choose that above all else? It seems as unlikely as the glacial erratic possibility.
    More than that, how many sources of stone are represented in Stonehenge, and why and how were they selected? How did knowledge of different stones from hundreds of miles away become local knowledge?
    In more recent times, perhaps until the industrial revolution, large stone structures tended to be made from local materials in Britain. There is no shortage of numerous stones suitable for building in the UK, and to suggest that there was understanding at the time about such things as weatherability, also seems far-fetched.

    • @ClassCiv
      @ClassCiv  3 หลายเดือนก่อน +7

      All legitimate questions but not ones that archaeology is capable of answering, hence the habitual resort to speculation that has an unfortunate habit of being peddled as facts. Archaeology cannot identify motive or the transmission and communication of ideas and knowledge; it can only identify the manifestation or end result. The Egyptians clearly knew about sources of stone hundreds of miles away too. Your point could be extended by observing that while we might be able to identify the source of the stone, there is no guarantee that the end users at Stonehenge knew exactly where it had come from - we cannot identify how many different people were involved in moving it or the length of time. There is no guarantee that transporting it was a single-phase exercise. Perhaps more revealing would be the discovery of such stones 'lost in transit'; that might at least enlighten us a little about the transport methods.

    • @birdieg3012
      @birdieg3012 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      @@ClassCiv Re-use of stone would not have been novel, I am sure. Pilllaging stone from one building for another has probably gone on for ever, or as long as stone has been a building material.
      One hell of a lump of rock to go through various uses and series of short journeys in this case though!
      I might also say that I find the idea of a vessel with sufficient displacment and structtural strength to move the stones across the nile..................................
      If a spot with a suitable bed could be found (if one exists/existed at all), and ramps were cut into the banks, dragging the stones through the river ought to be far, far simpler, they would even be somewhat lighter once in the water.
      Perhaps they could have made a crossing by covering the bed with small rocks/rubble?

    • @westcommonroom9737
      @westcommonroom9737 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

      In the same way the neolithic in East Anglia knew of the Pike O Stickle Flint products I imagine. The itinerant traders.

    • @birdieg3012
      @birdieg3012 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      @@westcommonroom9737 There is a considerable difference between stones of maybe a kg or so with utilitarian use, and several tonnes of a rock that have little or no utilitarian use.
      Stone for tools or even decoartion (jewellry), could and undoubtedly did pass hand to hand, no doubt by peaceful means and not, over thousands of miles.

    • @westcommonroom9737
      @westcommonroom9737 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      @@birdieg3012 It's information that the itinerant traders will have specialised in.

  • @MediaFaust
    @MediaFaust 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    I don't think that "they" are considering the political applications to a sufficient degree when it comes to this sort of thing, perhaps being a little too trigger happy with the "cult" explanation. I'm imagining that the altar stone preceded the final stone circle at Stonehenge -- and that it was placed there by "the Ness of Brodgar" cultural complex, wanting to exert their political power in the region; which is why it later got laid down flat and used as a stepping stone by the new power that eventually built the stone circle we all know to make a statement of their own.

  • @Muzzeo
    @Muzzeo 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    Could listen to you talk for hours guy

  • @darbysdownhomedetecting
    @darbysdownhomedetecting 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Thanks for sharing Guy 😁

  • @ashcross
    @ashcross 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Guy, could you please turn on comments on your latest video please? Not that my guess about that mysterious Roman object is likely to be right!

  • @honodle7219
    @honodle7219 3 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    Too bad the builders of Stonehenge didn't leave written records. I'm curious to know why only THIS stone type or THAT stone type works for the project. Not to mention what the hell the thing is for. You might have mentioned that one or both of the colossi emitted a shrill tome at sunrise in ancient times, up until the Romans repaired them.
    They sang no more ever after.

  • @andershansson2245
    @andershansson2245 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

    If anyone is puttinng down the capabilities, or effort, of people at the time, it certainly isn't you, Guy.