Archaeologica.org

English churches are normally dedicated to a Saint, not the money bags RS. Often the land was gifted and the local community financed the construction through tithes. Did the local population of SH have a written language RS?
Most of our local churches are dedicated to Dewi Sant, St David, I rather doubt he could have financed many of them nor be buried in more than one or two.
Suggesting that SH was a place of pilgramage assumes a religious context, unproven.

Roy.

Tiompan wrote:Most of the monument types you mention were planned .

Not the Maya pyramids/temples, George. They were built one on top, and around, the other. And then another. And another. Over centuries. Like Russian Matryoschka dolls. And every temple or tomb prominently displays who the big mover or high priest of the day was.
Not so at Stonehenge.

Not so at Stonehenge.

Perhaps your dedication stone is propping up some farmers barn RS, also any such may have been destroyed by later modifers or enemies, as per Egypt.
There is no such at Callanish, nor Avebury, nor any of the Irish sites either.

Roy.

the complex could have been built at any of a thousand other locations in Britain. But it wasn't. So why specifically there?

A lot of people say such places are where Ley Lines intersect. Maybe they're right (?)

uniface wrote:

the complex could have been built at any of a thousand other locations in Britain. But it wasn't. So why specifically there?

A lot of people say such places are where Ley Lines intersect. Maybe they're right (?)

A lot of people talk crap too. I doubt whether the concept of Ley lines was fashionable between 1,500 and 3,000 BC. Or Feng Shui.
Astronomy was. I'll bet fully complemented by astrology, mythology, and by spiritually 'enhanced' shamans and druïds, dancing and chanting.

I doubt whether the concept of Ley lines was fashionable between 1,500 and 3,000 BC. Or Feng Shui.

A truthful and accurate statement, IMHO, to which no objection could be raised.

But it is certain that they didn't labor under 20th Century assumptions and blind spots. They probably would have considered these humorous.

Aha, more elitism. Just what we need.

Rokcet Scientist wrote:

Tiompan wrote:Most of the monument types you mention were planned .

Not the Maya pyramids/temples, George. They were built one on top, and around, the other. And then another. And another. Over centuries. Like Russian Matryoschka dolls. And every temple or tomb prominently displays who the big mover or high priest of the day was.
Not so at Stonehenge.

That's why I said “most “ but the initial Mayan temple or pyramid would seen a degree of pre-planning with the expectation of further redevelopment whereas at Stonehenge as in may other larger Neolithic UK/European monuments the original site may have had a few scoops or deposits with the depositers having no conception of the monuments to follow . In what is now the Stonehenge car park a line of posts were erected in the Mesolithic approx 50000 years before anything was built at the main site ,many long barrows are built on earlier camp sites or middens .

George

Why the location Uni? Good question, most people concentrate on why it was built rather than the location, which may or may not have been of great importance.
One obvious reason was that southern England was more heavily populated than the rest of our island, it was also much more influenced by 'foreign' ideas. It is also the largest flat (ish) area below the ridge of hills to the north. The soils are lighter than the clays to the north and better drained, hence the larger population probably.
If all of these points, and others, are valid, where else would it have been built?

Roy.

The real physical anomaly of the site is the lack of water , the Avon is over a mile away and there are no local small water courses
I can't think of another monument in the UK and Ireland where that applies .

George

Was it so at the time?

Roy.

Dunno for sure but it is a wide flat area with little likelihood of water being drained from the distant only slightly higher downs .The Avon may have had a slightly different course but is still over a mile away and beneath a scarp .
George

I gather from your comments George that you are UK based and familiar with the area, which is a help as I guess that our American friends will all be familiar with the Henge but less so with the surroundings.
I know of no evidence for any significant change in the river's course, in fact the evidence is to the contrary, but there is evidence to suggest that the area was much wetter in the past. The area was originally forested apparently, and as you will know the only tree that thrives on the lowland chalk is the Beech.
Beech will produce a tap root where there are any holes in the chalk and produce a mature tree where others fail. A full grown tree requires many thousands of gallons of water to sustain it and the area is certainly not over endowed with timber today.

Roy.

I live in Scotland Roy , and havn't visited Stonehenge in a looong time . The area would have had a the same rainfall as the SW but due to the chalk and the topography it looks like water courses would have been at a minimum , they are certainly very rare today but we still have quite a few woods in the surrounding area . The climate if anything was also drier during the main periods of use of the monument .

George

When the last set of excavations were carried out George they had a problem with 'post holes', they were apparently unable to distinguish between man made holes and those from trees.
Having been born and lived for many years on the chalk downlands I am very aware of the lack of surface waters, but what puzzles me is the fact that the area has sustained a population for thousands of years.
The whole area is riddled with man made structures, as you'll know, where did they obtain their water from? Why would they have occupied an area with no water supplies available to them?
It doesn't make sense.

Roy.