# Origin of Stonehenge rocks discovered



## entropy13 (Dec 21, 2011)

Researchers in the United Kingdom have finally solved a major piece of Stonehenge's enduring mystery: the place of origin for some of the ancient structure's most-famous rock formations.

The National Museum Wales and Leicester University have identified the source as Craig Rhos-y-felin, located more than 100 miles from the Stonehenge site. But this discovery, of course, just opens on to another mystery--namely, just how and why an ancient culture carved and transported the giant stones over such a great distance.


Full article here.


----------



## phanbuey (Dec 21, 2011)

I think they did it to mess with us... or maybe there was a ton of ice then and it was an easy downhill slide.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Dec 21, 2011)

Were there any rocks of this type closer to the current site? That were exposed on the surface at least. Maybe the rocks had been a part of something else, became atypically important to to these people, and were then relocated when the people had good reason to move.


----------



## Solaris17 (Dec 21, 2011)

I find it awesome that they figured it out. However like the question says why? they did this in multiple cultures as well at about the same time. Egypt and easter island are examples. Moving large things great distances. why and how? Maybe it was though. A huge joke like "oh man they will be so fucking confused. and then we will write literature about how prim and proper we are and they will have no clue how twisted our sense of humor is. Jokes on them. 400 years later. WTF were they thinking? Lets spend millions on resources to figure this out.


----------



## scaminatrix (Dec 21, 2011)

I thought everyone knew where the rocks come from 
I love Stonehenge. I've been there almost every year for the last 9 years or so for the summer solstice festival (they're holding a winter solstice festival there right now, as we speak type). Widest held belief/theory among the Druids is that they were "painted in superconductor gold and then levitated along ley lines there" 
So yea, great, now we "know" where they come from, the bigger question still stands. How? Please, lets not waste more money finding this out.


----------



## DannibusX (Dec 21, 2011)




----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Dec 21, 2011)

Will be there next spring; going on a special tour where we can get right up and touch them and such. My dad told me a story recently about going there with my Mom in 1968 at like 1PM on a weekday. They were driving with the road essentially to themselves and suddenly there it was. No markers or signage or anything. Furthermore, it wasn't roped off or anything at the time nor was there another soul about and they had the whole place to themselves.

Ah, the more mellow, less crowded "old days". Which I missed.


----------



## pantherx12 (Dec 21, 2011)

Pfft old news is old.

Also saw a documentary a while ago ( years ago in fact) where they highlighted that the simple use of rollers and patience would of done the trick nicely.

I mean back than a nomadic life style wouldn't of been crazy or far-fetched, so people rolling along the stones then sleeping by them and moving them again is not that crazy either.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Dec 21, 2011)

They were Celts. My ancestors. Ancient Trolls.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Dec 21, 2011)

pantherx12 said:


> Pfft old news is old.
> 
> Also saw a documentary a while ago ( years ago in fact) where they highlighted that the simple use of rollers and patience would of done the trick nicely.
> 
> I mean back than a nomadic life style wouldn't of been crazy or far-fetched, so people rolling along the stones then sleeping by them and moving them again is not that crazy either.



Why haven't we tried to replicate this? 

Also we just now found out how far those rocks traveled. Years ago they didn't know that.


----------



## theJesus (Dec 21, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> They were Celts. My ancestors. Ancient Trolls.


Hundreds of years in the future, people will be studying the great mystery of how such a disreputable troll ended up in such a reputable position as a news poster


----------



## GLD (Dec 21, 2011)

My guess is people back then werent lazy like the people of today. Some hard work was probably no big deal back then. You get lazy, you don't get food, you get weak, then you parish. Unlike the twinkie eaters of toady.


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Dec 21, 2011)

GLD said:


> My guess is people back then werent lazy like the people of today. Some hard work was probably no big deal back then. You get lazy, you don't get food, you get weak, then you parish. Unlike the twinkie eaters of toady.



I like twinkies.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Dec 21, 2011)

AphexDreamer said:


> Why haven't we tried to replicate this?
> 
> Also we just now found out how far those rocks traveled. Years ago they didn't know that.



Have you seen how we try to replicate things? We come up with a couple half assed ideas, try two or 3 times, if that, then give up and go home out of laziness or lack of cash. You know how this shit worked back then? You kept trying till it worked, even if it took generations of ideas and effort. This is what all that ancient alien theorists crap really relies on, a severe underestimation of just what humans with spare time are capable of.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Dec 21, 2011)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> Have you seen how we try to replicate things? We come up with a couple half assed ideas, try two or 3 times, if that, then give up and go home out of laziness or lack of cash. You know how this shit worked back then? You kept trying till it worked, even if it took generations of ideas and effort. This is what all that ancient alien theorists crap really relies on, a severe underestimation of just what humans with spare time are capable of.


That and a woman's ability to drive a man out of the house. If there was no internet I would have built the pyramids in my back yard by now. Some Celtic King had a pain in the ass wife who he thought was a "virgin". When he got the clap and had to live with her he built Stonehenge just to GTFO. Soon after he started sacrificing all "virgins".


----------



## Solaris17 (Dec 21, 2011)

GLD said:


> My guess is people back then werent lazy like the people of today. Some hard work was probably no big deal back then. You get lazy, you don't get food, you get weak, then you parish. Unlike the twinkie eaters of toady.



oh god this type of mentality. If you followed that type of logic then the loggers that used WHEELd carriages were more lazy then people that rolled rocks on giant trees. Of course this is assuming it had any logical function. for all we know it didnt benefit them at all. Maybe stone hendge is were villagers went and shit and once a month they set the center on fire.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Dec 21, 2011)

pantherx12 said:


> Pfft old news is old.
> 
> Also saw a documentary a while ago ( years ago in fact) where they highlighted that the simple use of rollers and patience would of done the trick nicely.
> 
> I mean back than a nomadic life style wouldn't of been crazy or far-fetched, so people rolling along the stones then sleeping by them and moving them again is not that crazy either.



Yea right, for some reason i've known this for years.




TheMailMan78 said:


> They were Celts. My ancestors. Ancient Trolls.


I thought you said you were of Irish decent? These guys were Welsh/maybe English.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Dec 21, 2011)

WhiteLotus said:


> Yea right, for some reason i've known this for years.
> 
> 
> 
> I thought you said you were of Irish decent? These guys were Welsh/maybe English.



Stonehenge was built way before the Saxon invasion. The guys who built it were Celts which fell back to northern Britannia and Ireland. So yeah basically the Irish built Stonehenge. I mean they are as pure Celts as are left.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Dec 21, 2011)

GLD said:


> My guess is people back then werent lazy like the people of today. Some hard work was probably no big deal back then. You get lazy, you don't get food, you get weak, then you parish. Unlike the twinkie eaters of toady.



it would have never ever been no big deal, at no point in time will moveing that weight of stone 100 miles be trivial imho and to me the fact they werent lazy is obvious they will have still had to hunt their meals or have pre thought that,
 and would allmost deffinately moved them on masse , thats a lot of people arseing about with stones and not chaseing hogs,
 all just to get away from the wife,

 nice idea but can you imagine the earache you would get if you told err in doors your off out wi the lads for a year or so to build a big stone ring, she would have offered to make you a new ring their n then.


----------



## Iceni (Dec 21, 2011)

this is only relevant to the "blue stone" at stone henge. 

The large sarcens are only from 20 miles away.

http://www.popsci.com/science/artic...s-pinpoint-origin-stonehenges-bluestone-rocks



> The guys who built it were Celts which fell back to northern Britannia and Ireland. So yeah basically the Irish built Stonehenge. I mean they are as pure Celts as are left.



Not true. Celt is a generic term used by the Romans for any Tribe with pale skin. Celts were found over a huge expanse of land in europe. And at the time of the Romans 0AD these stones were already ancient. Estimates go up to 5000 years old for the site. That would pre-date the Romans pushing back the celts by some 3000 years.. well well before the roman empire. 

this is a map of pre Roman Europe circa 200BC (before Rome began to empire build). You can see most of france and spain are classed as celts as well... 







this is a map of megalithic activity in europe. You can see the time period of activity and where structures are found... This is very old stuff the oldest is almost 7000 years old and is pre Roman by almost 5000 years.







Finally for the most part the Roman empire did not push back nations... it pushed back politics, religion and some people. But for the most part the nations that were consumed remained in there own ethnic groups just under the rule of Rome. Yes there was some migration of peoples as armies moved, For the most part however the majority of the locals would have just been romanised rather than been replaced.




> TheMailMan78



Finally a curve ball for you and just you since you seem to think Irish is pure Celt. The Irish black hair blue eyes genetics is probably due to the Irish and there love of fishing. They had a decent fleet, and decent ports. This also means that for an expectationally long time Ireland was used as a major stop for Portuguese and Spanish vessels wanting to fish the deeper waters. This is proven fact. 

Other trading nations would be the Scots whom traded mainly with Scandinavian/Germanic countries had a lot of the red haired people of those countries settle there. And they got the red hair gene from even further east!!! This will give you an interesting read i think.

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2004-07/1089647276


----------



## AphexDreamer (Dec 21, 2011)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> Have you seen how we try to replicate things? We come up with a couple half assed ideas, try two or 3 times, if that, then give up and go home out of laziness or lack of cash. You know how this shit worked back then? You kept trying till it worked, even if it took generations of ideas and effort. This is what all that ancient alien theorists crap really relies on, a severe underestimation of just what humans with spare time are capable of.



Time excluded is it even physically possible? Can humans do that and can whatever the stones would be rolling on endure the stone for that distances?

Then we can ask how long it might have taken them to do it, proving it can be done.


----------



## DannibusX (Dec 21, 2011)

In the future, I will build a time machine and go back in time with the sole purpose to build Stonehenge and post that I'm going go into the past in the future on TPU.

And this time, instead of using local stone, I'll get from somewhere around 100 miles away like Craig Rhos-y-felin in north Pembrokeshire.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Dec 21, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Stonehenge was built way before the Saxon invasion. The guys who built it were Celts which fell back to northern Britannia and Ireland. So yeah basically the Irish built Stonehenge. I mean they are as pure Celts as are left.



Erm nope. The true "english" are modern day Cornish.

Rephrase:

During the Saxon invasion the "English" were pushed towards the West. The North was pretty much off limits because of the tribal warfare that will continue on for ever, what is now Wales had numerous tribes fighting it out amongst themselves so that was pretty much a no go. So finally the "english" were pushed back as far as the south west (Cornwall and Devon). Modern day "Cornish" is as close to the original English Language as you are going to get.

Though yes I do concede that some of the Celts did flee to other parts and had some kind of impact there. The Irish Celts have a strong ties to the vikings. Just check out the artwork, very similar.


----------



## MilkyWay (Dec 21, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Stonehenge was built way before the Saxon invasion. The guys who built it were Celts which fell back to northern Britannia and Ireland. So yeah basically the Irish built Stonehenge. I mean they are as pure Celts as are left.



Yeah thats why the Irish went through the Celtic Revival because they are pure Celts


----------



## Iceni (Dec 21, 2011)

WhiteLotus said:


> Erm nope. The true "english" are modern day Cornish.



There are no true English lol.

Pre Roman English, Would indeed be Cornish, But very few would have migrated from england to actually go there. Most would have just become romanised. Having little or no funding to move, A poor native road infrastructure and no real way to travel most would have just accepted the change. The ones that didn't were either brutally killed. Or sold as slaves back into Europe. 

The Cornish were not invaded because Rome originally wanted England for it's grain production. Cornwall, Wales and Scotland are all pretty rugged, Open to the elements, and not the best producers of grains. Spain was romes tin supplier and it wasn't until Rome fell into decline that they looked to Cornwall for tin. By that time the people of England were already taking the land back. And Rome was pulling back to mainland Europe. 

However there are still Roman villas found throughout Cornwall. This is probably due to the villas been in fashion, rather than been a political gesture.

As for true English, England has been occupied several times by several nations and indeed the original population of England was once migrants from mainland Europe who moved over when the ice sheet from the last ice age started to reveal land. England has always had strong connections with migration in Europe and It's not an exclusive club! 

Indeed to be English is to take the best from other nations and make it your own.

The Anglo Saxons (germans) came later and took over the lands, because of wealth, They they assimilated with the local population. At the same time you have the Jutes from france, and the Danes From Scandinavian. The Danes were already trading with most of the world at this point. And the Danes settled because of a lack of growing land in Scandinavia....

LOL it's really hard to even try explain England... My girlfriend has a degree in archaeology and even she trips up!


----------



## Solaris17 (Dec 22, 2011)

ITT English people talking about who is really English.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Dec 22, 2011)

Iceni said:


> Not true. Celt is a generic term used by the Romans for any Tribe with pale skin.


 This is not true. There were over 6 distinct languages of the Celts that that were spanned over most of Europe. For example the Gaul's which were in France. The Romans called them......Gaul's. Not Celts. Also what of the Germanic wars to the north? They didn't call them Celts. They called them Cimbri and Teutons which were made up of Gaul's (traditional Celts) and Teutons (traditional Germans). The Romans didn't have a generic name for anything. They knew exactly who and what they delt with. 



Iceni said:


> Celts were found over a huge expanse of land in europe. And at the time of the Romans 0AD these stones were already ancient. Estimates go up to 5000 years old for the site. That would pre-date the Romans pushing back the celts by some 3000 years.. well well before the roman empire.


 Yeah I know. See my point was the Irish are not "Pure Celts" but that island was never taken 100% and assmulated as the rest of thier lands were. When the Romans brought Saxons and the later Anglo invasion they pretty much whiped out the native Celts and forced the rest north and to Ireland. The invaders were of Germanic tribe decent and NOT CELT and the invasion by them started in about 300CE as Roman recruits. So the last of the closest relatives of the Celts are the Irish and maybe some in northern Brittan like the Scotts. South Brittian was taken and assimilated by the Romans, Saxons, and Anglos. Nothing down there left is from the Celts but Stonehenge.



Iceni said:


> Finally for the most part the Roman empire did not push back nations... it pushed back politics, religion and some people. But for the most part the nations that were consumed remained in there own ethnic groups just under the rule of Rome. Yes there was some migration of peoples as armies moved, For the most part however the majority of the locals would have just been romanised rather than been replaced..


 Except they also didnt stop trible wars or other various invasions from doing so. Did Rome end the Celts? No. Thier allies did.....which later turned on them.




Iceni said:


> Finally a curve ball for you and just you since you seem to think Irish is pure Celt. The Irish black hair blue eyes genetics is probably due to the Irish and there love of fishing. They had a decent fleet, and decent ports. This also means that for an expectationally long time Ireland was used as a major stop for Portuguese and Spanish vessels wanting to fish the deeper waters. This is proven fact. ..


 Pure Celt? lol there hasn't been a pure Celt in 2000 years. All I said they are as pure as there is left. Not that they are in fact "Pure Celt". Im sorry but a simple classifaction is in order. Modern English are made of Anglo-Saxon decent. Irish and Scotts are defined as Celtic decent. Key word. DECENT. Not pure.

Bottom line is the Celts built Stonehenge. Last of closest defined Celts? Irish.



MilkyWay said:


> Yeah thats why the Irish went through the Celtic Revival because they are pure Celts


Of course they did. The British have been trying to wash away the Irish culture for hundreds of years. They just now feel safe enough to accept their own culture.



WhiteLotus said:


> The Irish Celts have a strong ties to the vikings. Just check out the artwork, very similar.


They share art style due to the Viking conquests.


On a side note I'm happy to say my art history training has come in handy. lol


----------

