Research finds Stonehenge was monument marking unification of Britain

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by kdog1982
 
I think it's reasonable to argue that building Stonehenge was 'unifying' in much the same way pyramid construction helped to unify ancient Egypt.

At the same time, the extent to which Stonehenge unified ancient Britain is open to speculation. If their ideas are accurate, I wonder who led the organisation of this unification and why? Human nature, on this scale, tends to unite *against* something rather than *in favour of* something. If so, uniting the peoples of Britain would have been done in the face of some threat or perceived enemies.

Books Stupid ideas Theories are ten a penny about who/how/why Stonehenge was constructed. Still, it took some leadership, knowledge and sweat to haul those stones and move them around like a kid with ABC blocks.




posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by kdog1982
lets do it simple and go with the alignments ,astrologically speaking.
Lot of trouble to get all those lined up for a monument unifying Britain.


I don't understand why it has to be one or the other.

They needed a project to work together on and would serve as monument to unity. The stones would be brought from different parts of the island and people from everywhere would work on it.

That does not mean that the actual architecture holds no meaning. The design would probably have some meaning or purpose, and knowing how important astrology was to older civilizations, of course they will make the right alignments. Either that, or they just bring these big rocks from everywhere an then dump them in a pile.



Khar
edit on 23-6-2012 by Kharron because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by kdog1982
 


Seems like there is a new theory on Stonehenge every year, and this particular theory appears very suggestive IMO as Stonehenge is very specific in architecture for such a common place.

Whilst it was probably visited by various communities, it is such an immense and specifically aligned structure that would have taken a lot of effort for just being a monument for community integration. Wouldn't a celebratory aspect such as the modern festival with food snd entertainment be more likely for a community place.
edit on 23-6-2012 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by theabsolutetruth
Whilst it was probably visited by various communities, it is such an immense and specifically aligned structure that would have taken a lot of effort for just being a monument for community integration.


But isn't that the point? The community being brought together for an immense common goal? What better way to unify people?


Wouldn't a celebratory aspect such as the modern festival with food snd entertainment be more likely for a community place.


Who's to say they didn't do that also. I'm sure the celebrated their achievements?

Maybe TPTB at the time sent word out that they were going to be wiped out by the gods if they didn't all come together (right now...) and build this monument to them?



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by kdog1982
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Well,according to these guys ,it was an attempt.


Noob mistake on their part or a miscommunication, understanding over what unified means. Unfied to me means a common government, while to them they are speaking of a common 'unified' culture.

The ancient greek city states had a common culture but were certainly not unified politically

16-19th century German states, etc
edit on 23/6/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Unified simply means they stopped fighting against each other and started working for a common goal. Instead of autonomous waring tribes they became one community, one people.

This did happen, whether Stonehenge was really the catalyst we will never know, but it is a reasonable possibility.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by theabsolutetruth
Whilst it was probably visited by various communities, it is such an immense and specifically aligned structure that would have taken a lot of effort for just being a monument for community integration.


But isn't that the point? The community being brought together for an immense common goal? What better way to unify people?


Wouldn't a celebratory aspect such as the modern festival with food snd entertainment be more likely for a community place.


Who's to say they didn't do that also. I'm sure the celebrated their achievements?

Maybe TPTB at the time sent word out that they were going to be wiped out by the gods if they didn't all come together (right now...) and build this monument to them?


Still seems highly speculative, and a very labour and resource intensive way of showing unification of communities. Most historical examples of such labour intensive and architecturally purposeful sites, are normally for either defense, worship or a show of power.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by theabsolutetruth
 


OK but none of that makes it an unreasonable claim, which all I'm saying.

What motivated people to build in the past can only be guessed at.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 04:11 AM
link   
They really should have stated they had a common culture instead of being "Unified". Obviously someone had enough influence, knowledge, ability and power to build such a monument...but to state that means the monument built was to show the unity of the Ancient Britain is going a step to far. For all we know one tribe conquered the others and used the captured populace as slaves to build a monument to his triumph.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by MagnusMaximus
They really should have stated they had a common culture instead of being "Unified". Obviously someone had enough influence, knowledge, ability and power to build such a monument...but to state that means the monument built was to show the unity of the Ancient Britain is going a step to far. For all we know one tribe conquered the others and used the captured populace as slaves to build a monument to his triumph.


But why?

You all keep denying the claim, but offer no reasonable reason. Developing a common culture is unifying. Unification did happen in Britain, there is no argument. The unification of England was completed by King Edred in AD 954.


During the following years Northumbria repeatedly changed hands between the English kings and the Norwegian invaders, but was definitively brought under English control by King Edred in AD 954, completing the unification of England. At about this time, Lothian, the northern part of Northumbria, was ceded to the Kingdom of Scotland.

England has remained in political unity ever since.


There is no reason there wasn't an attempt to unify in ancient times, or even succeeded. Unification is not necessarily permanent.

It seems you all just don't like the word 'unify' for some reason? Are you afraid of the idea that Humans 'unified'?
Because they did, if they didn't we would all still be in tribes fighting each other (and I don't mean wars fought for capitalist interests today).



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by MagnusMaximus
They really should have stated they had a common culture instead of being "Unified". Obviously someone had enough influence, knowledge, ability and power to build such a monument...but to state that means the monument built was to show the unity of the Ancient Britain is going a step to far. For all we know one tribe conquered the others and used the captured populace as slaves to build a monument to his triumph.


But why?

You all keep denying the claim, but offer no reasonable reason. Developing a common culture is unifying. Unification did happen in Britain, there is no argument. The unification of England was completed by King Edred in AD 954.


During the following years Northumbria repeatedly changed hands between the English kings and the Norwegian invaders, but was definitively brought under English control by King Edred in AD 954, completing the unification of England. At about this time, Lothian, the northern part of Northumbria, was ceded to the Kingdom of Scotland.

England has remained in political unity ever since.


There is no reason there wasn't an attempt to unify in ancient times, or even succeeded. Unification is not necessarily permanent.

It seems you all just don't like the word 'unify' for some reason? Are you afraid of the idea that Humans 'unified'?
Because they did, if they didn't we would all still be in tribes fighting each other (and I don't mean wars fought for capitalist interests today).


The UK still isn't very 'unified', besides the supposed 'unification' happened gradually over a very long time. It is a very speculative suggestion with no proof, that some tribes got together and decided to use their precious labour force and resources build a huge, very specific, very long lasting monument for the sake of 'togetherness'. Relationships between tribes and settlements were more fractuous then, feudalism was still rife, tribes probably still held a level of distrust built over decades or longer, and would probably have better things to do than building such a structure indicating harmony. It is far more likely that Stonehenge was built as a specific religious structure with specific purpose, perhaps accessed by many tribes or groups within a tribe, but unlikely that this community integration as the purpose.

Also using the term ''unity'' is a contempory idea, the concept perhaps didn't exist in the same way then. There were many superstitions from many influences and life was more of a survival struggle that sought appeasement from nature deities.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by MagnusMaximus
They really should have stated they had a common culture instead of being "Unified". Obviously someone had enough influence, knowledge, ability and power to build such a monument...but to state that means the monument built was to show the unity of the Ancient Britain is going a step to far. For all we know one tribe conquered the others and used the captured populace as slaves to build a monument to his triumph.


But why?

You all keep denying the claim, but offer no reasonable reason. Developing a common culture is unifying. Unification did happen in Britain, there is no argument. The unification of England was completed by King Edred in AD 954.


During the following years Northumbria repeatedly changed hands between the English kings and the Norwegian invaders, but was definitively brought under English control by King Edred in AD 954, completing the unification of England. At about this time, Lothian, the northern part of Northumbria, was ceded to the Kingdom of Scotland.

England has remained in political unity ever since.


There is no reason there wasn't an attempt to unify in ancient times, or even succeeded. Unification is not necessarily permanent.

It seems you all just don't like the word 'unify' for some reason? Are you afraid of the idea that Humans 'unified'?
Because they did, if they didn't we would all still be in tribes fighting each other (and I don't mean wars fought for capitalist interests today).


Define reasonable? and developing a common culture doesn't necessarily mean unification. For example the Germanic tribes that lived across the Rhine from the Romans eventually lived in villages that were built exactly like the Romans...the "culture" transferred from Romans to Germanics for a variety of reasons but you could never call them "unified" with one another. Another example would be the Hallstatt culture...it would be very hard to call the various Celtic tribes unified.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by theabsolutetruth
 


AbT

yes there is a new theory every year. There will be until they reconstruct the thing with a roof along with all the other stone & wood circles. From teepee all the way up to massive yutt, it makes no difference whether its a round pile of rubble or a bunch of geometric stones, these things are the remnants of ancient round dwellings.

When someone asks why all the alignments, just point out that behind each useful alignment (as opposed to those uys just shaking around looking for something to align to random points to) there was a dark stone absorbing the sun, Round dwellings aligned to take advantage of the sun's warming rays, no grand schemes just as simple as a bay window in the south of your house. Its amazing how controversial the idea is.

Reconstructed Stone Circles

that should save a few of these dumb ideas, though nothing will stop the magic bean and mystic energy brigade.

Regards

Chris






top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join