| Home. | Universe Galaxies And Stars Archives. | 
Universe Galaxies Stars logo.
     | Universe | Big Bang | Galaxies | Stars | Solar System | Planets | Hubble Telescope | NASA | Search Engine |

Stonehenge Wiltshire England - Full Version.

Ten Years Since The Revolution at Amazon.

SAS Black Ops at Amazon.
Amazon Kindle EBook Reader: Click For More Information.

Stonehenge Wiltshire England.
Stonehenge Wiltshire England.

It's widely assumed by most archeologists that the captivating and mysterious ancient site of Stonehenge, at Wiltshire, England, was constructed by early Britons around 2,OOOBC, and severed in some part as a sacrificial place of worship for the early Celtic tribes of Britain. A place where pretty young virgins were led out, laid prone over the cold rock and had their throats cut, their heart ripped out while Druids held their arms aloft and paid homage to the gods.

Other people claim it was an early observatory, a place of astronomical discovery, where ancient Astronomers surveyed the night sky, where they charted the motion and movement of the Moon and planets, where universal events were watched by amazed scholars who marvelled at the mathematical precision of the heavens.

Others see Stonehenge as a solstice calendar used to plot the changing seasons, where they could determine the perfect time to plant the seeds for maximum yield , gather in the harvest and, predictably, pay homage to the gods. The real truth of the matter though is, no one really knows. At best, any observation is merely speculative and the evidence anecdotal.

Most of the aforementioned ideas seem somewhat logical, especially if we look at the heel stone, the way the Sun rises behind it and predicts the solstice either of the two times of the year when the Sun is at its farthest point from the equator. The theories sound plausible, although perhaps they more express a modern affinity with our own obsession with cosmology and the stars rather than those of the Neolithic Celts.

In fact what we see is a desperate attempt to relate our modern existence back to a more Neolithic period. It's the kind of bridging factor between the past and present where we consider our early ancestors to be clever, because they obviously watched the heavens, but not clever enough to have adapted themselves into a more homogenous society. Therefore, from the analogy built by modern archeologist, what we witness is a prehistoric people, no doubt bearded, grunting at one another, prepared to rip their daughter's heart out just so they could accurately plot the course of events across the night sky. It becomes a sort of metaphor or paradox, for intellectual backward people prone to bouts of insanity and bloodlust, in between their extreme intellect and scientific breakthroughs. A people evolved enough to study the heavens, motion and movement of the planet, painstakingly over the centuries, but were too stupid to understand sacrifice to the Gods was meaningless in any comprehensive sense of the word.

Stonehenge in its early construction stage
Stonehenge in its early construction stage
Stonehenge complete shows the outlay of the stone circles
Stonehenge complete shows the outlay of the stone circles

Personally, I think the evaluation of our distant ancestors here in the British isles has, as usual suffered the British academic disease: only the foreigner developed to a higher state, and everything that stems from a British cultural indentity has been handed down to us by a succession of foreign invaders: The Romans, The Vikings, The Normans.

It's almost become a preoccupation with modern Britain, even though Britain has created more new countries than any other, built the biggest empire the world has ever seen, invented more new products than any other nation on Earth, and found the cure to more diseases and illnesses than anyone else. There's almost a self-loathing by the arrogant British upper-middle classes of their own people. And it this endemic self-loathing and hubris which I believe has gone some way to misunderstanding what might have been the most advanced society on the planet. Not a backward tribalistic people intent on human sacrifice, or even a people devoted to religious, pagan worship. But more, an intellectual society based on mutual cooperation through a federal, parliamentary structure. What we see at Stonehenge could undoubtedly be the oldest form of government buildings imaginable.

Current philosophical thought, touted around by the establishment, is primarily based around the phallic heel stone at Stonehenge. To most modern day scholars it is considered the fundamental piece of the jigsaw at Stonehenge and categorically explains all other aspect of the stone circle in Wiltshire, England.

But who's to say it was actually the ancient Britons who placed the heel stone there in the first place? At best it's an assumption based on anecdotal evidence. There are no hard facts to suggest what we see at Stonehenge today is actually what was placed there millennia ago. There are no recorded writings to prove this point, or even ancient pictures or paintings to guide archeological investigation in any other direction than what the individual believes. There are no sacrificial graves or bodies with their skulls smashed open, or skeletal remains with the rib cage shattered, to emphasize where any form of ritual worship took place.

Quite simply the theory of a brutal, blood-lusting people down on their knees worshipping the heavens is nothing other than fantasy based on second hand evidence, and a correlation of what has taken place in other parts of the world. Other nations pursued this path, therefore we must have trod the same elementary steps. The Incas ripped hearts out, therefore we must have been ripping hearts out too.

However, if we examine the little evidence which remains more closely and forensically inspect what we do know about Stonehenge, then an entirely different picture of early Briton begins to emerge. What we discover, is not a tribal savagery, but more, a cohesive people who pulled together for the common good of a single nation and their fellow man. So what do we know . about Stonehenge and the ancient Britons who constructed the large stone circle in Wiltshire England?

Well, we know shortly before the Romans arrived in Britain around AD 62, Britons themselves freely traded serial crops with the European mainland. This suggests, contrary to popular myth that the Roman's didn't build the road - system in the UK. How do Historians think the early Britons transported their goods to the channel without any infrastructure to transport then it beggars belief that you can move large amounts of goods without a strategic road network to move them on.

And this is only one of the glaringly obvious facts which blow the Roman legacy out of the water .

One of the big problems when we assume early Britain was the beneficiary, rather than the benefactor of the Roman conquest is, it fails abysmally to take account of what any conquering army does. Conquering armies tend to erase all forms of history, heritage and culture of the country they've just invaded, and replace it with an acceptable version of their own.

Does anyone seriously believe, that if Adolf Hitler and his evil cohorts had managed to invade us after the Battle of Britain in 1940, that the Fuhrer and his evil cohorts wouldn't have erased the British empire, called it a Germanic empire and claimed credit for everything around them.

From science to technology an official German stamp would have been marked on everything, all records of past endeavours would have naturally been destroyed with big burning bonfires in the town square, as they did with Jewish literature in Germany, and the victors would have been grinned from ear-to-ear like Cheshire cats at their achievement. After all, it's the right of the victor to write history as they see fit.

Let's take an example of how this suppressive measure works in a realistic scenario. Look at the United States. Throughout American history, the suppression of the native American Indian has pursued a relentless path towards total annihilation of anything that is considered to show a true representation of the many different indigenous tripes who were there long before the European settlers arrived: the Crow, Blackfoot, Apache, to name but a few who carved out a mutual co-existence with each other, in an often bleak and barren wilderness.

They got on fine until the whiteman came, then it was war, subjugation and the oppression of the masses. Tribes were ruthlessly rounded into reservations, early concentration camps, their lands and women raped, their children bayonetted and the Buffalo hunted to extinction, and when they complained, they were branded savages, left to starve and those who dare sought freedom and liberty from the constraints of the Dickensian conditions they found themselves in through no fault of their own, were ruthlessly hunted down by the cavalry and shot where they stood. A pretty sorry state of affairs. But how was the tribal native American Indian painted by the newspapers, 'seen by the politician or explained away to the masses. Tacumpta Sherman came up with the infamous, inexcusable phrase: "The only good Indian is a dead Indian." And even though today the rest of us know exactly what went on: rape, murder, ethnic cleansing, the violation of the individual's human rights in the most profane way imaginable, it still doesn't stop the relentless pursuit of sanitizing US history via the world's greatest propaganda industry: Hollywood.

In motion pictures, from the early twenties to the present day, the suppressive regime of an all conquering people has maliciously sought to wash their hands of the truth, abandon their responsibility for past misdemeanour and conveniently forgets the atrocity committed in the name of greed and mankind's instinctive propensity to harvest everything in his path.

During the sanitization of the Native American Indian peoples, the early press branded them as savages, just as the Romans did with the early Britons, just as the Nazis did with the Jews. Scare stories disseminated among the new settlers. These barbarians will rape your women, murder your children in their beds, scalp your men: buy a gun, do everyone a favour, shoot a savage!

The fact modern America would never have emerged as a country if it wasn't for the selfless pursuit of the tribal Indian who showed those who disembarked the Mayflower and settled in James town seems neither here nor there, even though they have Thanksgiving to remember the first years survival.

To modern America the native American who helped them establish their people is cut completely from the equation, and their noble place in history considered irrelevant, apart from the continued exploitation of product placement. And this systematic ethnic cleansing, which naturally shows history from the perverted vision of victor's eyes is not something which should be neglected or overlooked when we determine historical evidence of any people, anywhere in the world. Without the contribution and instinctive survival skills of the native American Indian, those early settlers would have withered and died. For modern consumption Hollywood churned out movie after movie.

Each showed the native American Indian in a very negative light.

People of my generation grew-up on a diet of cowboys and Indians, good guys and bad guys, where the naked savage on horse back with a plume of feathers was always portrayed as the anti-Christ.

Homesteads were burnt, women ran screaming into the fields, babes in arms, while the brave, heroic menfolk took up positions with their Winchesters and heroically cut the savage down, until the last few bullets, which of course they obviously saved for their woman and children, because the prospect of falling into the hands of the savage was quite literally a fate worse than death. What these dirty savages would do to them didn't bear thinking about. Where's the. Red Indians achievement or historical mark on the country they inhabited for tens of thousands of years before the first early European settlers arrived? Noticeable by its absence.

Please, don't get me wrong, I'm not having a go at the Yanks, I'm merely pointing to the obvious so we can use a tangible model to explain the past. If the Germans had soiled our beautiful country in the summer and autumn of 1940, the outcome for the British people would have been very similar to what it was for the native American Indian, the Jew and countless other indigenous peoples around the world.

Does anybody believe with columns Of black clad, flame carrying Storm Troopers marching down the Mall, the band in front of them playing Oompah-pah music, the heavy stomp! stomp! stomp! of Nazi Germany jackboots, the blood red banners with white circles and black swastikas, our history would have fared any better? Of course not.

Look at the people of the former soviet union who removed any trace of Starlin or Lenin when communism died, look at Iraq and the falling monuments of Saddam Hussein, and although this iconology is removed by the indigenous population, do we think an oppressive army wouldn't have undertook the same task themselves.

We know what the Romans were like. It was they who were the savages, not the peace loving peoples they conquered. Nailing defenceless people to crosses was a national pastime for the Romans, as was forcing them to fight as gladiators in the Arena, dragging them kicking and screaming into slavery or feeding them to the lions. So why the hell should we accept one empty word the Romans say in their obituary of subjugated lands and there masses. Quite frankly, the Romans couldn't be trusted to do anything, except that which was in their own imperialistic interest. They were like the American settlers of the eighteenth century: greedy, obsessive, prepared to slaughter anything in their path and then promote a relentless black propaganda campaign to justify it.

With the early Britons trading goods to a central European mainland, we have to comprehend the efficiency of their farming techniques, and ask how long these modern techniques might have been in place before the Romans arrived?

The consensus of opinion among most historians, is they date back, in some shape of form approximately 6,000 years. Which means the method of farming in Britain had already been in place for nearly 4,000 years before the Romans even came to Britain, and 2,000 years before Stonehenge was built. We know this from the charred residue remains, chronologically analysed, of wheat and other serial crops found in the ashes of old Neolithic fires.

If this is the case, then productive farming methods must have been used in an abundance. Land was carefully and meticulously cultivated, turned over in preparation of crop rotation and the crops themselves harvested with a methodical application. A grain surplus whicn allowed the early Briton to trade with more distant regions, of not just the Kingdom, but also their European neighbours across the channel simply couldn't have been produced any other way.

And with these Neolithic (modern) farm techniques came a sense of mutual co-operation. You can't have a land surrounded by tribal factions if they systematically slaughter each other.

If the early Britons were locked in conflict, constantly squabbling with each other over land, they'd be no one to tend the crops. Their time would be swallowed up by sporadic fighting, death, injury and disease. And all the known evidence contradicts this.

We know for a fact serial production around the Neolithic period, and up till the Roman occupation crop rotation and production was abundant.

In fact, it was the first thing the Romans decided to tax when they got here. And although some argue crop production actually went up under the Roman occupation, and this increase in yield shows a more superior productive nature, let me just point out, this doesn't mean a more productive method of intensive farming.

Under Albert Speer, Nazi Germany Germany's weapons production not only doubled, it tripled, then quadrupled. But this wasn't necessarily achieved through higher productivity of the individual worker, or the introduction of more efficient machinery, it was achieved by enslaving the Jews and working the poor bastards to death. As we know the Romans were fairly adept at nailing people to crosses, among other evil things. Therefore, it's not unreasonable to assume the peace loving Britons were dragged from their families and brutally abused by callous, unfeeling legionnaires, whose policy resembled that of their later replacement, the Nazi Germany storm trooper.

And it's this simple idea of Roman taxation which got me thinking. If crop production was so bountiful then the thirty-three tribes of indigenous Britons couldn't have been warring The two don't go together. For high yield production a system, where enough wheat is produced, with more left over to trade, a form of common stability must have been employed, tribes must have had a mutual understanding of each other's desires and wishes, were prepared to accept each other's way of life, and their individual lands and boundaries must have been respected by the individual tribes. And this simple, harmonious way of life couldn't have been achieved without people sitting down, formulating plans, talking to each other and working through their differences in a mature adult, grown-up way. These peoples must have held court. We might even say it was a coming together of the clans. And that I'm afraid makes Stonehenge a parliament, not a sacrificial site or observatory. Stonehenge was the big house.

Another reason to suggest this is taken fro.m a modern view of the way we organise and run our lives along a democratic process today. Most modern democracies have a central parliament or senate, with peripheral, regional councils. We tend to pool our sovereignty and do what's in the general interest of us all, rather than the selfish interest of the few, or the one. We extend -that out with supreme courts, county courts, and magistrate courts. If we imagine the ancient Britons living peacefully side-by-side, working together for the mutual co-operation of the many, as 33 separate kingdoms of the United Kingdom were when the Romans arrived, we might assume there was 33 separate stone circles with adjoining roads or walkways which led to a central parliament. This would mean at given junctures in their history the elders, or whoever represented the individual kingdom would have travelled to Stonehenge to make their point, trade, help each other out, do a bit of business and sought out any local rivalry. And that would place them in a higher order of Democratic process than the Romans, The Greeks, even the Egyptians were.

But can we seriously argue Stonehenge today, is as it was all those thousands of years ago? When it was first constructed by early architectural genius in that primordial period, would it really have been an open site of standing rocks with a few well balanced cross stones on top?

Would it really have had no walls, and no roof? Would the whole site be left to expose everything to the hostile elements the British weather can throw at it: the howling winds, driving rain, snow and ice, those bitter, biting February winds? The chances are not.

The stone circle itself is probably no more than a structural frame for an outer shell to sit on. As with all early buildings in this period, an oak canopy and thatched roof. The walls would have been made of Wattle (a framework of stakes or poles interwoven with thin branches and twigs) and covered in Daub (overlay with clay) to give a solid walled environment free from the hostile and inclement weather outside.

Although, I'd imagine it would be somewhat more grandiose than I make it sound.

Like all important dwellings, it would have been the most prestige in the country, bigger than any other, and more highly decorative, just like any nations parliament or senate is today.

To consider Stonehenge a Neolithic place of worship is profoundly ridiculous to say the least. Any country which produces any form of religious site tends to adopt an idolatrous approach. There are carvings in the rocks, carved religious icons and a sense, the idolatry takes precedence over all other factors.

Don't just think about what we see at Stonehenge, think about what we don't see! What's missing. It's what is missing which really holds the clues to this most magnificent place.

If we look at the huge sandstone Pyramids in the Valley of the Kings, they are coved from head to toe in Hieroglyphics, the Pyramids of the ancient Inca are inscribed with pictures of ritual sacrifice, wars, killings and some of the most profane acts of barbarity imaginable.

Even on Easter Island the tall, carved stone men have been worked with an almost biblical zeal to produce the faces of those they treasured, those they believed inhabited lands beyond this mortal world.

Where are the carvings at Stonehenge? Where is the dedicated love of craftsmen diligently plying their trade and satisfying the local community with their skill?

Do we seriously believe the tribe would be satisfied with a few rocks set out in a circle? If the early Neolithic Britons offered that to their people as a means of worship, they would have been the first to find themselves the recipient of the local sacrifice. No society which worships any form of God or Gods leaves blank walls that look as though they've just been dug from the ground.

It's an insult to suggest so. The stone circle stones in Wiltshire wasn't heaved and dragged all the way from Wales just so they could stand the stones in a neat round circle.

This was carefully planned, extremely well thought through and executed with a dedicated application.

Firstly, these people must have scoured the British countryside from tip-to-toe before they found the appropriate rock formation, then they must have sat down and discussed at some length what they should do, how they would do it, how many men would be needed to bring the project forward to fruition, the implication on other duties such as tending the land, who would be in charge, and how to implement the whole scheme in a methodical way. To the early Britons, this was every bit as much a mammoth project, on a scale with building one of the later, great cathedrals dotted throughout the UK. This was the engineering marvel of the time. And that in itself chucks another load of questions into the arena. What did they draw their plans on? There's no trace of stone carvings or any qther form of material which might have weathered the passage of time.

Although one assumes some form of documentation must have been used. Did the ancient Britons use some form of writing instrument? Some form of early paper, or tree bark. And if they did use this simply, but elegant method to record and log details of their adventurous exploits, just how advanced might their communication skills have been?

Even though my fellow countrymen jump to a contrived conclusion to explain the antics of our long lost forebears, painting them as a backward, blood- thirsty savage people, I think the picture of their basic day-to-day life might have been somewhat different.

The Romans during their occupation of Britain usually referred to the primordial Britons as "a savage, barbarian nation" because the Britons didn't employ the same lifestyle as them, even though the true extent of the Neolithic Britons achievements must have been uniquely different.

These were a peaceful people, whose tribes had come together under a mutual understanding, they gathered and formulated themselves into a network of kingdoms, free from the decimation and blood-letting the Roman empire endured. And it's this knowledge of mutual cohesion which gives us a more definitive understanding of basic life within the Kingdom.

To retain that peaceful co-existence, they must have shared crops with one another, worked their cattle for the collective benefit of the whole community, not just the avarice and greed of the few.

No doubt tools were merely a means to an end and their craftsmanship and expertise was passed down from father to son, brother to brother, neighbour to neighbour, in a quintessential way of life.

Quite simply it's the only way to stop the fighting.

It is inconceivable to think 33 tribes could have existed in harmony without such a plan.

If we explore the world around us today, we see mankind's exceptional greed, and pursuit of riches (oil) , and how it drives his megalomania, his religious hated and selfish intolerance, which in turn forces him to commit some of the most foul acts imaginable. Acts which leave women widowed and children orphaned September 11th 2001, whereas our early, Neolithic ancestors must have achieved something we can only look at with big jealous eyes and envy.

A lush green paradise, where common sense and social understanding reached out with a common unity. A nation of brothers and sisters who strive against the odds in the most basic circumstances to facilitate each other's survival. Not the heart ripping monsters who drain the blood of young virgins for some demanding god.

In fact, in Britain during this period, the chances are, there was no God(s).

One only needs look at the symbolism around the world, the rock carving on Pyramids and obelisk, standing stones and discarded buildings and ask: Where are the symbols of the ancient Britons religious heritage? Why didn't the ancient Britons carve religious icons in their standing stones? The obvious answer is: they didn't carve effigy into their stone columns because there was no effigy to carve, no pseudo-religious mumbo-jumbo, no down on your knees giving thanks for the controlled existence. Personally, I believe the rocks at Stonehenge and Avebury are functional and practical, not religious symbols or means of crop rotation time pieces. These stones would have stood as permanent posts, and skeletal shells for the rest of the building to go over and around.

At Avebury, the standing stones are not just placed in a circle, they also are placed as avenues which lead to and from the main circle stones. If my thinking is right, then I would guess the whole of Britain was joined together via a series of long avenues which crisscrossed the country uniting the 33 tribes in enclosed passageways, where every ten or so yards a stone was placed and was then intersected with a wattle and daub panel, like some kind of modern trellis fence. The benefit of this idea would be easily recognisable. Briton four thousand years ago was not as it is today. Back then packs of wolves roamed the countryside, as did bears and wild boar. Neatly panelled walkways would not only have provided excellent cover from marauding animals, but would have also stopped cattle and livestock from wondering in to the dense tree canopy forest and being lost forever when being transported from one village to the next.

With the added advantage of always knowing where you're going, the idea seems more sensible than a barbarian people ripping one another to shreds. I believe these enclosed avenues would have remained in place until the Roman invasion, when a more post-invasion strategy would have been developed. The Roman legions were paranoid, and would have seen any form of enclosed walkway as a threat to their legions, and thus they would have quickly dismantled them, leaving nothing but the long straight roman roads we see in the UK today.

We can but wonder what the Romans did to our history when they first arrived? If they were anything like Nazi Germany Germany, they probably erased most of it, tampered with the rest, extracted any beneficial pieces and claimed them for their own.

Some might argue quite passionately at this point, the picture I paint of Britain between the construction of Stonehenge and the arrival of the roman legions to be speculative, and I would be the first to agree, it is. Although no more speculative than their own. But as with any good theory it's based on the surrounding evidence. Evidence we know to be factual; evidence that makes sense. Unlike the Incas who carved the stonework of their pyramids in scenes of human sacrifice, the Britons never did: Why? Some may say because they couldn't. But that's rubbish. Even Neanderthal cave paintings in the Europe date back 50,000 years, and show, in intricate detail how they lived, what they hunted, and from those paintings we can deduce Britons were more than capable of artistic pursuit. During the Neolithic period, I would imagine the ancient Britons used, as previously mentioned, some type of tree bark, or mashed wood pulp as a instrument of communication, and obviously this doesn't withstand the ravages of time. It rots, leaving us with no tangible evidence.

No doubt academics will scoff at the theory.

But before they do, they should consider, not just tangible evidence left by the Romans, or previous momentum's from Roman artefacts from the Mediterranean Instead, they should pay more attention to what makes sense, how early Britons were more than able to sustain a profitable existence, export their excess crops and construct fortified encampments, create a peaceful co-existence with the tribes around them, yet not deface or damage places like Stonehenge. Perhaps to the early Britons the defacing of places of importance would have been as abhorrent to them, as it is to us today. Think about the logic of it, not just the clues the Romans left for us.

Think how 2,000 years before the Romans arrived, these people sculptured the most amaztng jewellery and trinkets. These were not a backward people, but the dawn of early civilisation, and their only mistake was not to leave a traceable record of their presence, or join the inhumanity which inflicts mankind and rouse a savage, despotic army. Just perhaps, they were a damned sight more intelligent than most of the warring nations are today.

Even today in Africa they can't manage to feed themselves, in the middle-east they can't live together peacefully, and in Europe and America we drawl at the prospect of a few gold coins, go weak at the knees if anyone mentions the word oil, and salivate at any form riches. At the same time we watch our children shiver on freezing cold nights in piss soaked shop doorways.

We step over our kids in the street, watch others beg for a few measly coins and hurry our footsteps at the indignity around us. Early Britons might have eked out their existence around a camp fire, drank ale and lived by the rising and falling of the Sun, lived day to day on what they could grow, what they could trade.

The irony is, they might have just been a lot more intelligent, compassionate, and happy than we'll ever be. They weren't driven by the desire of the few over the many, but were prepared to share and share alike.

Just maybe it's our own arrogance and self-indulgent nature that clouds our vision of primitive man. Maybe with no more than a wattle and daub hut, a few animals, a field of wheat and a desire to share in the prosperity of the tribe, he stood head and shoulders above us all.

Stonehenge : Related

  Go To Print Article  

Universe - Galaxies and Stars: Links and Contacts

the web this site
 | GNU License | Contact | Copyright | WebMaster | Terms | Disclaimer | Top Of Page. |