Skip to comments.Stonehenge 5,000 Years Older Than Thought
Posted on 04/20/2013 6:32:59 AM PDT by Sir Napsalot
Excavation near Stonehenge found evidence of a settlement dating back to 7,500 BC, revealing the site was occupied some 5,000 years earlier than previously thought.
Working at Vespasians Camp in Amesbury, Wiltshire, less than a mile from the megalithic stones, a team led by archaeologist David Jacques of the Open University unearthed material which contradicted the general belief that no people settled there until as late as 2,500 BC.
Indeed, carbon dating of the material revealed the existence of a semi-permanent settlement which was occupied from 7,500 to 4,700 BC. The dating showed that people were present during every millennium in between.
The team has found the community who put the first monument up at Stonehenge, archaeologist Josh Pollard from Southampton University and the Stonehenge Riverside Project, told the BBC.
The researchers believe that the people who settled at Vespasians Camp also built the first monument at Stonehenge large wooden posts erected between the 9th and 7th millennia BC.
The findings, to be broadcast in a documentary on BBC One, shows that Stonehenge wasnt just abandoned by Mesolithic humans and occupied by Neolithic people thousands of years later. On the contrary, it represents a place where one culture mingled with the other.
According to Peter Rowley-Conwy, professor of archaeology at Durham University, the finding is significant.
The site has the potential to become one of the most important Mesolithic sites in northwestern Europe, Rowley-Conwy said.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.discovery.com ...
More Grant Money....
seems like a pretty bold statement.
What’s next, a million years ago, after that a billion, how far can you ride a dead horse.
Let the debates (amongst scientists, archaeologists, and amateur enthusiasts) begin.
It stands to reason that over the millennia the stonehenge area could have human occupation prior to the actual construction of the monument. Not so surprising.
It’s not 5,000 years older than previously though. It just took 5,000 years to construct because of government red tape and union contracts.
The local timeline there STARTS a couple of thousand years AFTER the end of the Younger Dryas. That gives Britain a chance to regrow forests, etc.
This is a huge deal....It changes the course of history, the people and events. Proves their work is too loose to make it valid...aka....best guess.
Would you expect all that work to cost nothing? How would you pay for it?
As in the words of Senator Toomey, “It is time to move on.”
There is archaeological evidence of all these occurring in the exact same location. Yet, I am certain that the Timuquan had nothing to do with the flowers I put out last week, and that there were no slaves involved.
I guess archaeologists have to do something, but they do themselves no favors by jumping to conclusions on scant evidence.
More Grant Money....
Turning over stones as it were. The first job of any researcher is to find another way to get more grant money.
It wasn’t shovel ready. LOL.
People always knew Stonehenge was a sacred site, but like Mecca, they forgot why.
So far as is known there is no accurate carbon dating for goings on at this site
We will see what the archaeologists present their find, before we make judgment one way or another.
I’m not surprised it dates closer to the end of the last ice age and wouldn’t be surprised if it is even older.
They found what is left of Westeros.
|GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach|
Thanks Perdogg. This isn't surprising at all -- there's settlement remains for a long distance in all directions, and a broad roadway that -- of course -- has been claimed to be for ceremonial purposes, when in reality it was built to accommodate a large population. I'll go out on a limb and predict, once the former nearby riverbed starts to get sifted near and downstream of the whole site, much more will turn up, showing a long period of occupation and waste disposal by a large population.
Thanks! The more I learn about “old” places and “old” records, the more I am convinced that modern scientists can’t see beyond the end of their collective noses when it comes to habitation in certain areas. Some folks are just SO arrogant! LOL!
Thanks for the ping. Not surprising that the site was occupied 5,000 years before the Stonehenge monument was built.
Something attracted people to this site almost 10,000 years ago and they considered an important location for long after.
I wonder what it was that made this place so special.
Food supply, water supply.
What fun would science be without a big imagination?
Some are confusing the idea that the site is 5,000 years older than previously thought, and that the henge itstelf is 5,000 years older. Because of additional digging, researchers are discovering traces much older than they previously thought. The age of stonehenge is not older. As they pointed out, previously there are traces of a woodhenge. In the US everyone thought there was nothing older than Clovis. Then they started digging below Clovis level, and guess what, US might have been settled earlier than Clovis. Keep digging guys, and if you want to use some of my tax money for exploratory grants, I prefer that to spending on an unnecessary war in Iraq in 2003. [Before someone gives me heck about that, I currently have a son in Afghanistan.]