
and in its time.

Moderators: MichelleH, Minimalist, JPeters
Professor Burl's best guess on their purpose is a mixture of propitiation of the crop gods and sexual and alcoholic-psychedelic orgies.
To archaeologists, civilization means a culture with cities, a class structure, etc. I don't understand your comments about Stonehenge, there was certainly a culture capable of building it at the time it was built.Minimalist wrote:Stonehenge does not look like a fort.
It doesn't even have the functional look of a halfway useful corral.
But, the monument suffers from the same problem as the others... scholars do not believe there was any sort of civilization in place at the time it was built with the requisite organizational skills to build it.
BTW, this is the same argument that Egyptologists use against Schoch when he says that the sphinx is much older than the 4th Dynasty. Yet, there it sits with erosion marks on the enclosure wall..............
In fact, hunter-gatherer cultures were capable of buildiing some impressive monuments.
As for Schoch, you seem to be dismissing all the geologists who disagree with him and suggest other mechanisms for the erosion marks. Why?
And current thought is that it wasn't a 'people migrating' but ideas and associated artefacts, see for istance:Beagle wrote:Well, my thought about the "beaker people" doesn't hold water. I thought the culture was earlier.
http://www.themystica.com/mystica/artic ... eople.html
Also it appears that they migrated from a different part of Europe.