Posted on 08/25/2002 5:04:48 PM PDT by blam
Unearthed, the prince of Stonehenge
By Roger Highfield
(Filed: 21/08/2002)
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.
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.)
There were people, in what is now Hungary, in Paleolithic times. Some later invaders were Asian ; others , which the first king of ALL Hungary, Arpad , was not. The Magyars are different from the Mongols and the Huns. No, Hungarians were not Slavic.
Etruscans were NOT " dark " and were not Asiatics either.
If you want to go by Ancient Roman legend, the FIRST " Romans " , were descended from Aeneus ( the father of Romulus & Remus , according to Virgil and others ) and was a from Troy , which is now Turkish, but was NOT inhabitted by what we now think of as " Turks " , then. These people were VERY dissimilar from the Greks, who had later settled Sicily and the Southern most areas of Italy.
Populations have always been wiped out, moved, and / or intermarried . When you look at the over styalized painting from Crete and Anciet Eygpt, and then, at the remains of actual humans, you can see the differences. The same is true with the Etruscan grave paintings and statuary. Greek statuarary, OTOH, is idealozied. The Romans copied , to some extent , their style ;however, most is truer to nature ... facially .
We Finns, and the Estonians, as well as a number of peoples within what is now Russia, such as the Samoyeds, are part of this group too.
Yup. That is about the time the meteorite crashed into Iraq. (The crater was recently discovered.) The tree ring data show a severe problem worldwide at 2354BC. Also, it is recorded in Egypt that this period was so severe that people began eating their children. So....
I believe there has been periods of crustal displacement. It would explain Atlantis going under the waves, flash frozen mammoths, stars "falling" from the sky, ancient maps of Anarctica showing the penninsula without ice, glacier-formed landscape in upper North America, ancient legends of the sun rising in the west, periods of increased volcanic activity, and the rise and fall of ocean levels. Maybe a shift around 2300 B.C. necessitated a new calendar. The Great Pyramid's alignment with true North is a big problem though unless it was built after 2300 B.C., and I don't think it was. But the bible speaks of David and his troops fighting what I consider the second influx of hybrids from the mating of the Nefilim and the daughters of Adam. David killed Goliath and then his troops killed more giants a few decades later, and that would have been around 1000 B.C. So maybe the pyramids were built during the second influx and this influx occured after 2300 B.C. I think it's clear the pyramids weren't built by 3rd millenium B.C. human technology. If it was built in the 3rd millenium B.C., the builders had help.
I'm not at all convinced the Celts are the Lost Tribes, but I find the theory fascinating and I keep an open mind. However, when studying Beowulf last year, I was surprised to see that some of the rhyming patterns were similar to what I've been told characterizes Hebrew.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.