Skip to comments.Unearthed, The Prince Of Stonehenge
Posted on 08/25/2002 5:04:48 PM PDT by blam
Unearthed, the prince of Stonehenge
By Roger Highfield
A prehistoric prince with gold ear-rings has been found near Stonehenge a few yards away from the richest early Bronze Age burial in Britain.
Earlier this year, archaeologists found an aristocratic warrior, also with gold ear-rings, on Salisbury Plain and speculated that he may have been an ancient king of Stonehenge.
The body was laid to rest 4,300 years ago during the construction of the monument, along with stone arrow heads and slate wristguards that protected the arm from the recoil of the bow. Archaeologists named him the Amesbury Archer.
Now they have found another skeleton from the same period five yards away. The remains are those of a man, aged 25 to 30, buried in the same posture, on his left side with his face to the north, and legs bent.
His grave was bare, containing only the sharpened tusk of a boar, but contained the basket shaped ear-rings. The man may have been the archer's son, the prince of Stonehenge, said Dr Andrew Fitzpatrick, who led the dig by Wessex Archaeology.
DNA testing on their teeth will be carried out to find out if the two bodies are part of the same royal family.
Around 100 artefacts were found in the archer's grave -10 times as many as at graves from a similar period elsewhere in Britain.
The grave is dated to about 2300BC - around the time at which Stonehenge's inner circle of bluestones was being hauled from the Preseli mountains in South Wales.
The king, who was 5ft 9ins tall, lacked a left kneecap, suggesting he had suffered a serious injury. He was aged 35 to 50 when he died, when he was placed in a timber chamber about three miles from Stonehenge.
A valuation committee must now put a figure on the finds after David Masters, the Wiltshire coroner, declared the discoveries treasure.
The British Museum and the Salisbury and South Wiltshire Museum have both expressed an interest in providing the archer's final resting place.
John and Sylvia Savidge, who own Red House Farm where the burial chambers were unearthed, may receive a cash reward once the treasure has been valued.
I think I read a year or two ago that some man up in the Yorkshire Dales is the most direct living descendant of the former tenant of a Stone Age skull unearthed not far from where he lives. It's hard for Americans to understand how much archaeological evidence 4 or 5 thousand years of relative dense settlement can leave. You probably can stick a shovel (or a Bobcat) into the soil just about anywhere in England and come up with something of interest. The Barbican area of London, where the old Roman and pre-Roman structures were exposed by the Blitz, is fascinating.
LOL. You've taken to answering all my questions before I ask them. (Good work)
LOL. You've taken to answering all my questions before I ask them. (Good work)
Firearms having been outlawed, UK journalists must now make do with being ignorant of bows....
"The Amesbury Archer
Looks Hebrew to the artist"
What makes him look Hebrew?
Stonehenge At The End Of Phase III
>What makes him look Hebrew?
Process of elimination. Does he look Oriental? No.
Does he look Negroid? No.
Does he look (North or South) American Indian? No.
Does he look European Celtic? Yes, even though there were no people designated as Celts at this time.
Who were the Celts? They were Hebrews/Semites/Israelites. (See the 3-MINUTE HISTORY at my FR Profile below for the details.)
Abraham (2,000 BC) was a Hebrew. (The word "Hebrew" simply means "stranger" or "wanderer"). Abraham came from a family of "Hebrews" in Ur, in what today is southern Iraq. There were lots of Hebrews wandering around loose, at least that part of the world at that time.
So what did Abraham, a Hebrew, look like? No one really knows, but you can work backwards to arrive at a reasoned estimate by looking at Abrahams offspring. This is far from perfect, but is better than nothing:
To begin, Abrahams offspring are white, or "Causasian". A quick look at some of Abrahams offspring gives the idea. These offspring are all contemporary Jews:
Joseph Lieberman, Paul Newman, Ted Koppel, Harrison Ford, Efrem Zimbalist, Jr., Kirk Douglas, Kevin Costner, Stephen Breyer, Yitzhak Rabin, Michael Landon, Lorne Greene, Mike Wallace, Benjamin Netanyahu, William Shatner, Douglas Fairbanks, Cary Grant, Leonard Bernstein, Paul Simon, Ariel Sharon, David Frost, Morley Safer, Ari Fleischer,
Jack Benny, Alan King, Casper Weinberger, Carl Reiner, George Burns, Red Buttons, Sam Levinson, Bernard Goldberg, Robert Downey Jr., Dustin Hoffman, Michael Douglas, Peter Sellers, Tony Curtis, Edward G. Robinson, Wolf Blitzer, Mel Torme, Paul Wellstone, Peter Falk, Leonard Nimoy, Jerry Springer, Arlen Spector, William Cohen,
Barry Goldwater, Robert Rubin, William Roth, Howard Metzenbaum, Hyman Rickover, Robert Reich, Russ Feinberg, Stanley Mosk, Arthur Burns, Milton Friedman, Bill Kristol, Victor Borge, William Kristol, Warren Rudman, etc., etc, etc.
These Jews, which everyone agrees are Hebrews/Semites/Israelites just happen to look like and could easily be confused with their Israelite cousins, European and American whites who are of Celtic origin. The Celts and the Jews are genetic cousins via Jacob/Israel. All are offspring from Abraham/Isaac/Jacob/Israel, and all are Hebrews, Semites, and Israelites.
This artist has drawn The Amesbury Archer to look like a modern white Celtic man, much like any other white European/American man today, so the artist apparently views the Amesbury Archer as a Hebrew.
Most Jews OTOH think there are no Lost Tribes of Israel. They think the huge Northern Kingdom was assimilated into the South. They don't recognize that only a few Israelites were ever called Jews, the vast majority existing today as white Europeans and Americans.
The truth lies between them, but few on either side can see it.
Are you serious, or just trying to be silly?
>They are nordic, not celtic. Teutonic and gallic are not the same,
even though in modern day england, the two are mixed and indestinguishable.
The Nordics and Gauls are not exactly the same, just as Dutch and Flemish are not exactly the same. But ALL are Celtic. Members of the 12 Tribes of Israel were not exactly the same, but they were all Israelites.
Please read the 3-MINUTE HISTORY by clicking on my LostTribe Profile below for the details, and to read a short list of the many Celtic tribes which make up todays Europe and America.
>I've never before heard that the nordics are related to the gauls. And to be frank(pun intended), I don't yet beleive you. I will be looking into this.
Good for you. The more we study you more we learn.
>I knew that the celts of the british isles were somehow descended(sp?) of the gauls. And I have heard the theory that the first european celts somehow came from semites that were in the anatolian peninsula and were thought to be one of the lost tribes. THis much I have accepted as probable.
If you really want to cut through the haze get right on top of the subject, go to the 20,000+ Assyrian tablets now in the British Museum. It will change your whole perspective on the population of Europe, as well as how the Old Testament really reads. If you go to the link at my FR Profile by clicking on LostTribe below and looking for Assyrian Tablets, that author has done an excellent job of bringing those Assyrian Tablets to life in a small and inexpensive but very readible book. You will never view history the same.
>Now, I have one more race for you to explain. The slavs..... I suppose you are going to tell me these too are semites and are the same as celts and nordics?
Ha! Nope. The Slavs are not the same as the Celts.
For which ancients? There are lots of artifacts and records which indicate that is not out of line for Israelites/Celts, both males and females. Neither was 6' way out of line, but neither was it common. For other races, perhaps it was.
Thank You for the note. It is appreciated!
In my experience, most "jews" don't even think about the subject. Or if they do, are totally conditioned by their culture, not from having actually objectively studied the subject even a little bit. Most do not agree strictly as a knee-jerk reaction. But an increasing number do, including Rabbis with whom I correspond, but who do not feel able to "go public" about it at this time. It's a matter of "culture" far more than history and theology.
>What's your take on who is celtic-related in europe?
I really go slow on trying to make specific associations because in my mind while it can be fascinating, it detracts from my main interest which is simply describing the association between The Lost Tribes of Israel and the Celts. Going from the Celts to specific countries is easy in a generic sense, but a source of unnecessary division and potential unhappiness on the other.
Worse, it can lead to a form of "Identity" theology, causing people to instead of concentrating on the word of God and what it means to them as a PERSON, want to identify with a GROUP. Dividing into groups is the first step towards dividing into YOU and ME, or US and THEM. I don't want any part of that.
It you carefully read the 3-MINUTE HISTORY at my Freeper LostTribe Profile below it will give you a solid grounding on basic Israelite history. Those historic facts, dates and definitions are the critical foundation of everything else. From there, you can confidently study the Celts and their expansion through Europe and America and see where they went. But be sure you have a BIG RED PENCIL to correct the many fundamental errors which you will find in copycat books on the market. Ha!
(A notable exception is Assyrian Tablets in the British Museum.)
The " Romance Language Speakers ", which is based on Latin, is batter than " Latins ", as you suggest.
(This, despite the impressive documentation by E. Raymond Capt in his outstanding book Assyrian Tablets in the British Museum which shows the extensive Hebrew roots in todays Germanic languages.)