Stonehenge

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 12:44 pm

Surely we can come up with a better system than that.

there is a better system than that
its called revolution
now grab yourself a torch and a pitchfork and meet me at the palace

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 12:55 pm

Ah! But what follows the revolution brother?

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 1:31 pm

well my coronation of course

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 1:48 pm

King Marduk the first. Do you intend starting a dynasty?

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 1:59 pm

nope
I want to control the worlds resources and sciences so they can find a way that I can live forever in true ming the merciless fashion

you can be Klytus if you like Digit
http://www.guntner.com/FlashGordon/Bored.wav

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 2:01 pm

As long as you're not looking for a queen ducky.

stan · Post by **stan** » Sun Dec 31, 2006 11:35 am

Hi, Digit.

This is the earlier thread on the Stonehenge art.
You were on it, but several pages after the bulk of the art discussion.

Cheers,
Stan

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Wed Jan 03, 2007 1:05 pm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... enge27.xml

Stonehenge was the Lourdes of its day, to which diseased and injured ancient Britons flocked seeking cures for their ailments, according to a new theory.

For most of the 20th century archaeologists have debated what motivated primitive humans to go to the immense effort of transporting giant stones 240 miles from south Wales to erect Britain's most significant prehistoric monument.

Hmm... could be for all I know.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Wed Jan 03, 2007 1:33 pm

Stonehenge was the Lourdes of its day, to which diseased and injured ancient Britons flocked seeking cures for their ailments, according to a new theory

its not a new theory its a rehashed old pile of shit theory that has no supporting evidence at all

For most of the 20th century archaeologists have debated what motivated primitive humans to go to the immense effort of transporting giant stones 240 miles from south Wales to erect Britain's most significant prehistoric monument.

not really thats just the tourists that have been wondering that
the rest of us have been wondering why they transported the giant stones (sarsens) from wiltshire about 25 miles away and the bluestones which way a maximum of 4 tonnes 240 miles from wales

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Sat Jan 06, 2007 1:24 pm

Only just found this, it's a bit late, but BBC news page for june 06 states that geologists have found evidence that the blue stones weren't taken from Wales by human hands but were in fact transported by glaciers. old argument I know, but they claim to have the evidence.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Sat Jan 06, 2007 1:27 pm

No way. I'll go look for a link Digit. ( we've got to tell you how to post a link)

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Sat Jan 06, 2007 1:31 pm

Please. None of my idiot guides tell me how. It was BBC Wales by the way.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Sat Jan 06, 2007 1:37 pm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wale ... 123764.stm

Here is an old article refuting the one you were talking about. I seem to remember that now. Since that time I believe that this quarry article has been proven by a thermoluminescence technique.

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Sat Jan 06, 2007 1:47 pm

My post is from one later than yours and refers to yours Beag, and before anyone we know drops on me I'm not supporting either, just mentioning the page.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Sat Jan 06, 2007 2:14 pm

My post is from one later than yours and refers to yours Beag,

Ok Digit, I'll see if I can find the proof of what I'm saying - but later, it's football time in America.

I'll be by the computer though.