Stonehenge 5,000 Years Older Than Thought

Discovery ^ | 4-19-2013 | Rossella Lorenzi

[Sir Napsalot]

Your point is well taken.

We will see what the archaeologists present their find, before we make judgment one way or another.

[Maelstorm]

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.

[Mike Darancette]

They found what is left of Westeros.

[SunkenCiv]

GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach	join list or digest view topics view or post blog bookmark post a topic subscribe
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. To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.

[Monkey Face]

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!

[zot]

Thanks for the ping. Not surprising that the site was occupied 5,000 years before the Stonehenge monument was built.

[BenLurkin]

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.

[SunkenCiv]

Food supply, water supply.

[Jay Redhawk]

What fun would science be without a big imagination?

[gleeaikin]

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.]

[muawiyah]

Wild animals