Why was Stonehenge constructed with those woodwork joints (mortise and tenon; tongue in groove)?

Notice anything unusual about that upright?

Here is the first real post on this, my new Stonehenge/Silbury site – not counting the Hello World preliminary supplied by the WordPress host. It takes a close look at a detail regarding Stonehenge – one that is both at first sight practical and mundane,  yet baffling at the same time. I then use that detail to prise open what I believe to be the answer to the Stonehenge/Silbury enigmas – why were they built? Why go to so much trouble when, 5000 years later, archaeologists and historians are still asking what they were for?

Look first at the picture below.

It shows one of the upright sarsen stones which originally supported a lintel (the latter now next to it on the ground).  Notice the hump on top.

It is in fact the tenon of a mortise and tenon joint, the mortise being in the fallen lintel. Someone has handily provided a diagram to show the location of the two components of the joint – designed to locate one on the other to ‘tie’ the two together.

The two red circles show the position of the mortise (lower left) and tenon (top) respectively

But that’s not all. In addition to a mortise and tenon joint, the upright and lintel were interlocked by a second tongue in groove joint. Here’s a diagram showing this remarkable belt-and-braces arrangement, looking for all the world like something out of a woodwork class, yet laboriously fashioned using stone tools in the late Neolithic (pre-Bronze age).

Two mortise and tenon joints AND a tongue in groove (just to be on the safe side)…

The purpose of such joints is obvious where furniture is concerned. They allow a chair, table etc to support a weight without collapsing. But why the need to interlock the components of a heavy self-supporting structure like Stonehenge? Would not the force of gravity alone be sufficient to keep the arch-like trilithon arrangement of two uprights and a lintel crosspiece intact? Not even a hurricane could blow it down, surely?  Or even an infrequent earth tremor? What could possibly dislodge that mighty lintel, given that it is several metres high, towering above its builders, and weighing some tens of tons?

Answer? The doubly-secured lintel was to prevent it being detached by the ever-present  Enemy, who, arriving in large numbers, maybe at the dead of night, might come equipped with ropes, levers etc and attempt to dislodge those lintels, to send them crashing to the ground.

Why would the Enemy be so determined it its mission to destroy the crosspieces of Stonehenge?  Could it be that the circle of standing stones that we call Stonehenge came to represent a symbol of the awesome power of its builders over the nearby Enemy. Where the latter was concerned, did that circle of stones, looking somewhat sinister even to modern eyes,  represent something else – like summary execution, and a humiliating and highly visible fate to follow – one in which those lintel crosspieces played a key role?

So who was the Enemy? And why was Stonehenge a prime target for raiding parties, and accordingly designed to resist being torn down? Those questions will be the subject of my next posting

Further reading on those mortise and tenon joints

 Update April 22, 2016 (4 years on!)

I think I’ve sussed it out. Shame that all my text (imprudently composed online) disappeared when I hit the Publish button! Just as well that a picture is worth a 1000 words. Here’s the schematic I made to accompany the posting:

new trilithon 1 aligned plus mound penultimate for blog

See the new posting for a longer-than-usual caption to the above, essentially a Band-Aid operation. I’ll try restoring the full posting in easy stages, though that may take a few days.


Update: Jan 28 2018 (!)  Have just received a new comment (approved), but it’s not displaying correctly as yet under ‘Recent Comments’. Hopefully the problem will sort itself soon.

Here, belt and braces, is the comment from Raymond Nicolle:


I am biased because, in 1967, I personally saw a “flying saucer” in broad daylight come out of a cloud formation, turn, bank, and fly straight up in the air and disappear. So that makes me biased. I find it hard to believe that my ancestors, dressed in skins and with deer horns and stone clubs, created the carved stone parts of Stonehenge. The creation of mortise and tenons alone out of stone harder than granite boggle the mind let alone tongue and groove construction. My ancestors were too busy finding food, procreating and fighting off neighbours…in other words, just surviving. To my mind, the constructors of the granite and dolomite parts of Stonehenge were visitors to Earth who wanted to leave proof of their visitation. They wanted the construction to last for centuries and stand as a signal to any other visitors that “they were here”. They did what I would have done…leave a huge natural edifice and carry on exploring the universe.



Addendum: March 16, 2018

Have decided to add the following image as an addendum to ALL my Stonehenge postings (some 24 in all, here and on my sciencebuzz site). Why not – since it’s my considered answer to the ‘mystery’ of the monument’s peculiar architecture, the conclusion to some 6 years of  deliberation?



I say Stonehenge was designed as a giant bird perch, a ceremonial monument dedicated to ‘sky burial’, i.e. soul release from mortal remains to the heavens via AFS (avian-facilitated skeletonization, considered the height of fashion (and practicality) in Neolithic-era 2500BC! The stripped remains were then cremated, so an apt description of Stonehenge might, as previously suggested, be PRE-CREMATORIUM.



About Colin Berry

Retired science bod, previous research interests: phototherapy of neonatal jaundice, membrane influences on microsomal UDP-glucuronyltransferase, defective bilirubin and xenobiotic conjugation and hepatic excretion, dietary fibre and resistant starch.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

41 Responses to Why was Stonehenge constructed with those woodwork joints (mortise and tenon; tongue in groove)?

  1. Colin Berry says:

    Hello again Stan
    (Once again, no “reply” tab under your comment, so I hope you find this…)

    By way of a quick reply to your comment yesterday (1st Feb) may i say how surprised (and delighted) it was today to find someone who follows my pontifications not just here, my Stonehenge site, but the other main one too (sciencebuzz being somewhat dormant) namely Shroud of Turin.


    Yesterday was significant in the 7 year history of the TS site, on account of a recent discovery I made under the microscope using linen fibres imprinted with my latest methodology. I’ll spare you the details, except to say I tried inserting a link to the lengthy comment I placed yesterday – but could not give a link to the comment only (WordPress seems to be playing up yet again).

    Here’s a cut and paste of yesterday’s mega-comment. Apols for the note of impatience and irritation that creeps in towards the end (matching similar feelings as regards the brick wall that is called “Real Purpose of Stonehenge and all those Other Standing Stones etc etrc ” How nice it would be if there were more Stans on the internet …

    My comment on t’other site:

    Colin Berry says:
    February 1, 2019 at 4:41 pm

    Note (warning?) to regular visitors to this site. I’m now drawing a line under the mainly scientific thrust of this site, shortly entering its 8th year. Reason? I haven’t disposed of my scientific hat completely – and will try to say nothing that cannot be backed up with experimental evidence – whether new or dredged up from my archives.

    No, the main reason is that this home-based experimentalist has reached the limits of his technical resources, especially microscopy (despite the purchase some two years ago of two additional mic’s, one conventional, the other stereo).

    I’ve been helped in my decision by one of the 9 folk, naming no names, contacted re my SCW-concealed Model 10 chromophore (and by extension, that of the TS body image as well!) offering to subject my roasted flour imprints to a battery of probably highly sophisticated tests, way beyond my own modest means. Yes, I’m happy to maintain confidentiality for the duration of the testing.

    How long it takes for the results to come through is anyone’s guess. But for now at any rate, I shall drop all pretence of being a working scientist (restricted to using kitchen and garage as laboratory). I shall reach out to a wider audience as regards the conclusions arrived at over the last 7 years.

    Set up a new site, or stick with the present? Both options are still open, but given this site has achieved greater Google ranking status these last few weeks (currently Page 5 of a (shroud of turin ) search, I’m minded to continue here, at least for the foreseeable future.

    Title of next posting ? Something along the lines of “Newcomers’ Guide to the Shroud of Turin” supplied with an abundance of facts, but not hesitating to insert my own opinions where I consider opinions are needed (if only to counter the existing ones that dominate current science-abusing sindonology!).

    Yes, it’s less to do do with pro- or anti-authencticity where this retired scientist is concerned – more to do with the use, nay ABUSE of science in pushing a pseudo-scientific agenda linked to whatever obsession, hang-up, call it what you want (ideology, religion, politics etc etc ).

    Previous topics on my sciencebuzz site and elsewhere: fossil fuels and climate change, Stonehenge and Silbury Hill, origin of the Universe and life forms, the Zane Gbangbola tragedy etc etc. The recent dismissal on the STERA site of me by name as “an avowed Shroud sceptic” could not be further from the truth.

    Show me evidence of authenticity – hard scientific evidence – instead of a never ending series of those “qualifying assumptions” that litter Shroudology” – read ingenious cop-outs – and you’ll find me ready to listen, and indeed willing to modify my current stance. – which says that the TS is an ingenious one-off medieval simulation of Joseph of Arimatheas’s “fine linen” used in transport mode from cross to tomb (acquiring a notional sweat/blood imprint en route). yes, it’s high time we dumped the description of the TS as a “burial shroud” and indeed that of “shroud”, to avoid confusion between two entirely different uses of the term “linen” in the biblical account – one for transport (first 3 synoptic Gospels) and an entirely different one in the final Gospel (John) for final preparation for customary Jewish interment in those final” “burial clothes”. The term “shroud” with scant biblical references (except to John) been flogged over decades, nay centuries to perpetuate a fiction, or as some might say, “fraud”.

    Or as I prefer to say. “pseudoscientific fantasy”.

    Message to sindonology: kindly read up on the scientific method, especially hypothesis framing and testing AND making and testing predictions based on those hypotheses.

    Drop completely the idea that science can be deployed as if case-defending/case promoting ammunition deployed by an attorney defending his or her client before an impressionable jury. That’s not how science operates… Think of science as serial model building, the modeller acting as Devil’s Advocate, trying to falsify each and every model, willing to ditch intermediates until one comes along that ticks most if not all the boxes.

    I now consider my Model 10 (flour imprinting/thermal image development) to do just that – to tick most of the boxes.

    It’s high time that sindonology, especially its “Shroud Science Group” sat up and listened to an accredited scientist, given the innumerable challenges thrown out to “scientists” to account for the body image. I did that way back in August 2015 – publicised on Dan Porter’s shroudstory site with my Model 10. Fail to do that, sindonology, and your reveal yourself for what you are – not a fount of science, but of pseudoscience.

    • Stan says:

      Yes I have it.
      Thank you for the compliment.My Father, told me that “ manners maketh man” But if you think you are right, stick like glue until you are proved wrong. Then say “ well I never thought of that”. Then go away and check there version for facts.
      I,ll have to ask one of my Grandchildren to show me about “ tags”.
      Good hunting
      Regarods Stan.

  2. Colin Berry says:

    What’s largely missing in ‘Stonehengeology’ in my view is joined-up thinking, the kind that attempts to tie it in with other mysterious additions to our island outpost.

    There are any number of ‘loose ends’ still waiting to be integrated within a common theme or purpose – like those Welsh bluestones which monopolize attention, but attract very little speculation as to precise role. I personally have already contributed my tuppenceworth regarding the ringing -when-struck variety of bluestones . Nuff said on that for now.

    The biggest unplugged hole in my view are the henges, with or without a ditch (inner or outer). Why the need for a heaped chalk embankment (where the ditch in the first instance merely supplies the chalk for the raised circle)? Why did they go to all that trouble with the middle of the three henges at Thornborough in Yorkshire to import white gypsum, serving the same role (?) as chalk, which according to the local paper was to make it more visible.


    But to whom or what? There is absolutely no doubt in my own mind as the purpose of Britain’s henges (largely if not exclusively confined to our global neck of the woods). But dolmens aren’t unique to Britain – the Korean peninsula has thousands of the things.

    It’s all summed up in two words: ritualized excarnation, a preliminary to efficient, low-pollution burial, or more likely cremation, of defleshed bone. (Yes, not a topic that folk normally wish to dwell on).

    Henges – man-made landmarks- were designed to attract scavenger birds from afar, being visible from miles away.

    Back briefly to those bluestones: the early ‘Welsh’ near Fishguard struck and thereby ‘rang’ their bluestones – creating a sound like church bells – attracting the gulls etc above the sound of waves from the neighbouring cliffs and shoreline. Those stones became so revered that they couldn’t bear the thought of leaving them behind when uprooting from west Wales, and setting off a long migration to Wiltshire and other more inland parts. They took the bluestones with them, continuing their chimes whenever there was a death in the family. The gulls etc dutifully followed….

    Thank you for your continuing interest gents…

    • Colin Berry says:

      PS: Here’s a BBC online article from just yesterday, addressing the realities of disposing of the dead, quickly (months, not years) and reasonably cleanly.


      The spotlight is on modern-day composting, not on Neolithic solutions to the same problems.

      Maybe we need a few more articles like this that address reality, that consign English Heritage and its tourist-attracting narratives (Neolithic and modern-day summer and/or winter solstice festivals etc) to oblivion, where they belong. It’s time that 21st century science – nay, simple everyday commonsense – was allowed a look-in. Why should we have to endure English Heritage’s never-ending money-spinning rose-tinted fantasies once, sometimes twice a year?

      Our Neolithic ancestors were hard-headed realists. They didn’t want their hard-won, laboriously-cleared pastures and crop fields to be cluttered at shallow depth (pre metal-digging implements\) with the smelly slow-decomposing remains of their nearest and dearest. Think preliminary excarnation (bird-mediated) followed by quick, efficient cremation. The final compact package of sterile bones, presenting no disease risk, could be stored in pottery urns, as indeed they were (see archaeological record).

      • Stanley Marshall says:

        Thank you for BBC info.
        Since discussing these matters,
        Today I read an article entitled “A greener life “
        Guarding Enviromental, A greener after life etc.
        And chance to vertilise barren land.?

        Seperate matter.
        Whatt happend with your investigation into the Turin Shroid?
        Regards Stan

  3. Mike Morris says:

    In response to Stan Marshall’s latest comments: It’s apparently accepted knowledge that it was the smaller bluestones which were sourced in Wales and somehow brought from there to Salisbury Plain (possibly by boat and across the Bristol Channel and perhaps along the Bristol Avon, at least as far as the point when the course of the river veers northward not far from Trowbridge.) The last leg of the journey would presumably have been overland. The much bigger sarsen sandstone blocks “only” had to be brought from the Marlborough Downs. It must be a possibility that the “other” Avon which rises in the Vale of Pewsey and flows due south within 2 miles of the Stonehenge site, could have been used to “float” the sarsens for approximately half of the distance from the source. Turning to the methods used to “fasten” the sarsen lintels to the uprights: the use of conical stub tenons on the top of the uprights to match mortises hewn in the lintels of the trilithons was a prodigious enough feat in itself, especially as these were the tallest parts of the structure. However, it must be recognised that not only was a mortise and tenon system employed on the outer sarsen circle, but the lintels apparently show a curved profile on the vertical faces and they were also linked to each other using a kind of curved dovetail joint! This structure was definitely intended to be robust! Perhaps the builders much more aware of the possible destructive power of earthquakes than we give them credit for. There is also some evidence of European migrants being active in the area. Could these have included experienced builders from the Carnac region of France where numerous monolithic menhirs were being erected long before the Stonehenge structure was raised? A final point about the stub tenons: it occurs to me that the work involved in removing material around the top ends of the vertical sarsens, leaving the projecting tenons, must have been immense. A possible alternative would have been tenon “plugs” inserted into suitable recesses. Does anyone know which method was employed?

    • Stan Marshall says:

      Tenon plugs?
      I believe you have used this description as an all embrassing term..
      “The only tenon plug tool I have seen is one made from high tensil steel, and is used on timber.
      The odject I suppose is to “ cut a hole into XYZ., (;the horizontal stone) and then drop this onto the conical nipple of the vertical stones.
      What ever it is, would this not be at high level , where the vertical and horizontal stones would be at the same level.?
      When attached the raised level would then be reduced to ground level.
      It does not matter where the stones came from in this context ( the weight of the stones are immense.)
      How the “ joint “ was made was the problem I was trying to solve.
      But it’s good to exchange ideas , but I suspect we are all chasingbndifferent ideas on this matter.
      Not wishing to be flipent but 10,000 iyears ago when granny died would they not have buried the body PDQ?. I .understand that today we would consider what this might/ would pollute the soil.
      Or would we creamate her as so many other peoples did 10,000 years ago and still do today.?
      Colin has made a good case for his theory about birds defleshing the body before it is then buried.
      But the dead have been creamated fot thousands of years by many cultures.
      The North American Indians wrapped the bodies in skins etc and hung them on tressals.
      Other people’s threw the bodies into the nearest river. Some put the bodies in caves and crevices The Jews got their dead under ground before the sun set twice ( one has to be so careful this is not an anti Semitic comment it s a fact)
      I grew up in the east end of London regardless of religion we/all went to the same school in those days.
      Keep searching , one day we may know but when we talking 10, 20 thousand yeas ago I doubt it.
      Pharoes have been found, brainless, wrapped in cloth and hidden in pyriamds which dwarf some of the other buried sites.
      Regards Stan

  4. Colin Berry says:

    Hello again Stan

    Ask yourself this: what is the repeating unit one sees at ‘unique’ Stonehenge? Answer: two uprights and a cross piece spanning the two.

    Where else does one see that simple design, serving what purpose?

    Answer: the dolmen, aka cromlech.

    Then see what wiki has to say about that oh-so-simple structure, one I view as a prototype for Stonehenge:

    It remains unclear when, why and by whom the earliest dolmens were made. The oldest known are found in Western Europe, dating from c 7,000 years ago. Archaeologists still do not know who erected these dolmens, which makes it difficult to know why they did it. They are generally all regarded as tombs or burial chambers, despite the absence of clear evidence for this. Human remains, sometimes accompanied by artefacts, have been found in or close to the dolmens which could be scientifically dated using radiocarbon dating. However, it has been impossible to prove that these remains date from the time when the stones were originally set in place

    Fancy not knowing what dolmens were for. Why the ignorance to this day? Answer: modern Western man cannot bring himself to believe that his ancestors were into excarnation in a big way (especially big with Stonehenge) as a preliminary to burial or cremation (more likely the latter) it being oh so off-putting to contemplate where the finer senses are concerned.

    But it was practical, hugely so, providing a means of quickly and efficiently disposing of bodies in a way that did not pollute the soil (simple burial of whole body) or air (cremation of whole body) . A megalithic dolmen (Stonehenge) also centralized the excarnation process, allowing it to be conducted with an element of ceremony – and indeed partial privacy.

    The capstone provided a safe secure perch for scavenging birds – safe from ground-based competitors like foxes, wolves, wild cats, bears etc etc. The dolmen overhang would have made it difficult for those other species to run up the side of the upright. For Stonehenge it was the sheer height that would act as deterrent.

    • Stan Marshall says:

      Thank you for your reply.
      Your research/ theory etc., on what and why Stonhenge was constructed is beyond me. But since discussing this matter and I because I am inquisitive I have done some research on why, when and how long it took to build Stonehenge.
      I have read the comments of Prof. Timothy Danville? And Prof. Geoffrey Wainwright, on their thoughts, that Stonhenge is a place for healing not death.
      As an aside the construction using mortice and tenon joints on massive stones I suggest is an embellishment and nothing to do with stability.The weight of the horizontal capping would withstand any earth movement or adverse climatic conditions. Could it be just the Masons saying “ look how clever we are? “
      Christpher Wren did a similar thing on one of the churches he designed, “More columns the weight of the roof will,require more columns”: His detractors said. He designed the addition columns but cut them short so,they did not provied any structural purpose at all! I believe the church still stands today.
      Your comments on the overhangs on the capping stones is an interesting comment. But could it not also mean a mistake in measurement or just “ that’s OK leave it w can always trim the capping back. “ In the construction industry it is quite common to oversize capping ,cross members etc that can be trimmed back ( also far easier than cutting morticevand tenon joints)
      We will probably never know why or For what purpose these “ henges “ were built. But it is interesting.
      Regards Stan .

      • Colin Berry says:

        I’ve tried to explain Stonehenge as the end-result of a process of evolution, Stan. The starting point was a small-scale dolmen, with two uprights and a crosspiece (lintel), which served as a bird-friendly perch for excarnation of the dead – a preliminary to burial or cremation. Disposing of the final bones is a lot less polluting than disposing of entire bodies. Stonehenge? Essentially a series of joined up dolmens. What’s so difficult to comprehend, especially as one solves not just one archaeological mystery but two.

        As for the mortise and tenon joints, i find it hard to believe they were there simply as contructors’ bragging rights. Aren’t they totally invisible anyway to viewers, once in place?

        I believe they served a vital purpose in the construction phase. How? Think about the task
        of accurate placement of a lintel between two uprights, when there was no concrete to set the uprights firmly in the ground. You risk the uprights shifting and maybe toppling over when you try jiggling the lintel back and forth. Solution: link up the lintel with one upright first , slotting mortise and tenon together. It’s then a simple matter of rotation, maybe lubricant-aided, to get the other mortise and tenon lined up without disturbing the first upright. Hey presto, you have formed your arch without either upright tipping over. Once in place, weight and gravity locks the 2 verticals and one horizontal together.

        Place of healing? Why all the barrows, deposits of cremated bones etc etc. Nope. i say it was a Neolithic site for semi-industrialized body disposal, using the pecking variety of wild life to strip away soft tissue, leaving a much smaller residue of de-fleshed bone to dispose of.

      • Stan Marshall says:

        Thank you for the rapid reply.
        As I and others have said we may never know the reason why these massive structure were erected.
        But from a construction perspective the placement of the cross member stone to the verticle stones, is not as difficult as you may believe.
        Briefly and this will not explain why they were built.
        1. Two vertical stones are set in place.
        2. Earth etc., is built up around the stones until the top of the vertical stones are at temporary new ground level.
        These=vertical stone# are now at a raised ground level, which when the horizontal stone is set upon the vertical is then removed to the preexsisting ground level.
        If as we believe these massive stones were transported by sea and land from Wales to Salisbury plain, it would not take much initiative to sink the vertical stones to the required final depth, build up the soil surrounding the vertical stones to the proposed finished height , place the topping stone onto the vertical stones at the revised temporary ground level, mark the centres of the capping stone and cut the capping stone “:recesse”: to fit the and form a motive and tenon jount.
        Sounds easy it obviously was not.
        You question why these hidden joints were constructed?
        It was because the people who built these massive structures were craftsmen and therefore in the top echelon of their society . They would therefore leave their mark for others to discover.
        Survey any ancieint monument or not so ancient and you will find these “ unnessary markings” .
        Regard Stan


  5. Colin Berry says:

    Quick reply , Mike, to your 9:36 pm comment, to which the site’s host (WordPress) provides no Reply tab.

    Are you aware of an idea I posted many moons ago regarding a Neolithic attempt to attract gulls, correction, seagulls, as a Brit alternative to continental vultures.

    I refer to “henges”, which we are told were a Brit, or as some say, pre-Brit, substitute.

    Henges, carved in a chalk landscape (usually, or, in the absence of chalk, topped up with gypsum overlay as in Yorkshire, were conceived as a way of kidding foraging gulls on the wing that they were back on familiar territory, ie. cliff sides.

    Bodies of the recently deceased could then be laid out as if non-wriggling sea-food.

    No, not pretty to contemplate. But is body-disposal by any means, 21st century included, ever pretty to contemplate. For my part I wish at the end of my days to be shot off into deep space, where alien cultures can retrieve me in thousands of years time, then exhibit me in a permanent museum as something different from the norm…

    • Mike Morris says:

      No, Colin, I have not yet had a chance to peruse your earlier, fascinating, original and persuasive hypothesis. However, it appears to me to be every bit as credible as the next person’s theory and why should it not? As one of your other contributors has said, certain indigenous American tribes have been known to practise “avian (and, no doubt, mammalian) -assisted” excarnation of their dead and it could be argued that their anthropological identity displayed approximately late-Stone Age/ early Iron Age features. I seem to recall stumbling across a gruesome but compelling (and surprisingly short) time- lapse film of a single such excarnation on the Internet some years ago. The desert heat and abundance of wildlife played a part, but the principle was well demonstrated. Let’s see the television companies present an in-depth analysis of your version of Stonehenge’s core purpose! (I trust that its World Heritage site status is secure no matter what may be revealed.) I have a strong sense that any reasonable and logical future alien species would immediately recognise the totally unique qualities of your remains, probably with sufficient confidence to declare you a precious example of a completely new hominoid!

      • Colin Berry says:

        I’ve been waiting some 5 years to read the approving, albeit guarded, sentiments expressed in your comment, Mike, namely that I’m not a complete nutter talking complete garbage.

        There may be elements of garbage in my thesis, but like those seagulls and their landfill sites, there may be tasty goodies lurking there which other less-than observant souls have overlooked, you being a welcome exception….

      • Stan says:

        Colin, I have followed this matter for some time. I have also made a number of comments.
        Having been employed In the construction industry in GB and USA for sixty years, I:am more interested in how than why Stonehenge was built.
        No,risk assessments then but why and how and how long, what was the driving force, who said and why was the henge built.
        I am still not convinised that it was built to, remove the remains of the dead.
        As Arnie said “ I,ll be back”.
        Crack,on we wil,get there.
        Regards Sam

  6. Mike Morris says:

    Why the obsession with gulls? Surely they prefer ice cream and chips? Seriously, though, were there no Neolithic crows, rooks, jackdaws, magpies, kestrels, ravens, choughs, merlins, owls, eagles, buzzards etc., etc. Is it known if vultures were English natives or perhaps frequent visitors? Where are the ornithologists with an interest in ancient (but not that ancient) avian species?

    • Colin Berry says:

      Point taken Mike. But my focus is on Stonehenge and other stone circles as purpose-built sites for attracting scavengers on the wing – ones that adopted a particular regular and reliable feeding spot – not merely passing visitors.

      That’s where Stonehenge etc fitted the bill – having been set up to attract and RETAIN scavengers that were accustomed to getting the same meaty meal, day in, day out. That’s why places like Stonehenge and other stone circles were few and far between. Too many, and you would risk losing your regular customers…

      Our ancestors understood (and catered for) scavenger bird psychology.

      Yes, there are any number of scavenger bird species, but gulls are the ones that congregate in vast numbers, content to mix with their own kind …

      • Mike Morris says:

        Yes, gulls may congregate in large numbers inland in 2019, as opposed to foraging along their natural coastal habitats. However, I doubt that an evidently tiny number of Neolithic people spread thinly over the same area as today would have been able to tempt gulls, in particular, to Salisbury Plain in the same way as they are attracted to the vast landfill sites, overflowing waste bins and tons of discarded titbits of all kinds which are a feature of our modern society. It seems to me that birds with a built-in propensity to feed on carrion (human or otherwise) would have been much more likely candidates for regular, lofty, pre-snack perches atop sarsen trilithons circa 2,500 B.C. A gregarious species like the rook or crow would be my odds-on favourite for breaking any extant speed excarnation records. Perhaps the many representations of “axe heads” on the sarsens are really poorly-rendered illustrations of favourite night-black corvidae resting and digesting above the diligent artists/funeral directors!

    • Stan says:

      Ho ho!
      In earlier, comments, we read about the stones looking like the white cliffs of Dover.
      The cliffs are chalk, which is a natural .
      Seagulls( also inaccurately labeld) excrement is white .. Seagulls are scavengers, they do not live by eating fish( unless it is accompanied by chips) the birds you refer to are birds of prey.flesh eaters.
      I am stil not convinced that Colin is right , but I,ll keep reading.
      Happy new year to you all

      • Colin Berry says:

        Yes, you’ve just reminded me, Stan. Gulls are remarkable. While not necessarily “seagulls”, they, or at any rate their parents , wing their way far inland if they sense there’s a more reliable source of food to be had, an alternative to chancy fishing for food on the shore line – needing to be forever circling on the wing.

        Some of us recall the sight of landfill sites, prior to our local councils providing separate bins for kitchen waste. Vast numbers of ‘sea’ gulls turned them white with their congregated feathers and plumage – not rooks, not crows, not owls etc etc which would have coloured the roadside landscape differently

  7. Colin Berry says:

    Thanks for the interest Sam

    Here’s a snapshot from the La Varde paper, showing what one needs to look for if suspecting that cremated bone was first subject to excarnation – by birds or whatever (the paper not being specific as regards precise means).

    How difficult is it to look for those “linear fractures” in the extensive collection of cremated bone unearthed at Stonehenge?. Why have we been deprived of a simple yes or no as to whether it was or was not pre-excarnated.

    If pre-excarnated, who’s to say the finally-evolved form of Stonehenge we see today, with its unique cross-piece lintels, was not intended primarily as a giant landscape-dominating bird perch designed to attract and retain flesh-scavenging bird life (probably voracious seagulls primarily – the nearest we have to vultures). Those avian visitors were deliberately attracted inland, first by carved-in-chalk henges, later by standing stones, to aid efficient disposal of “sky burial” of mortal remains prior to arrival of metal picks and spades and needing minimal amounts of dry timber for subsequent cremation of what the birds left behind?

    No, not pretty to contemplate. But then, what method of body-disposal is or was ever pretty, even with modern technology?

  8. Colin Berry says:

    Hello again Stan, aka Sam

    I did a long, maybe overlong posting on this site back in March this year, where I listed in abbreviated form some 33 points that I considered support the chief function of Stonehenge (and its timber forerunners) as something entirely different to what we’ve been led to believe.

    Original idea (18th century): William Stukeley, long overdue for a decent burial: alignment with summer and/or winter solstices and associated rituals.

    New idea: a pre-crematorium designed to attract avian scavengers for purpose of defleshing aka ‘sky burial’, making for subsequent more efficient/environmentally-friendly cremation, with later interment of those cremated bones on or offsite.

    Here’s a copy-and-paste of the 33 listed points (which I’ve been meaning to expand on, but never got round to doing thus far):

    1.Neolithic predicament re efficient body disposal.
    2.Need to preface cremation with excarnation.
    3.Outsourcing of excarnation/cremation to specialist sky burial/cremation site and professionals.
    4.Reason why animal bones accompany human ones (Neolithic barter economy).
    5.Evidence from Guernsey archaeology (La Varde) for cremation of excarnated bones as distinct from whole cadavers.
    6.Numerous other sites, in Britain, continental Europe, from Asia Minor to Far East etc show evidence of monumental constructions that are seemingly custom-made to attract excarnating bird life.
    7.Important parallels between ‘Seahenge’ on the Norfolk coast and Stonehenge. BBC (1999) report alludes to excarnation.
    8. Explanation for Stonehenge’s ‘salt-tolerant lichens’ – suggesting seagull presence.
    9.Explanation for lintels as additional perch capacity, needed when relying on seagulls etc as distinct from Continental and Eurasian vultures.
    10.Rationale in ‘bird perch’ terms for adding bridging lintels to span uprights.
    11.“House of Dead” near Stonehenge can hardly have been a house – with its forest of ‘indoor’ timber posts Same applies to another so-called house, or at any rate allegedly roofed structure at ‘Woodhenge’.
    12.Rationale for non-defensive chalk embankments, aka henges in terms of sky burial. Gypsum coating on middle of 3 Thornborough Henges to render more visible from afar (to birds, not people!).
    13.Rationale for dual-purpose “Aubrey holes”, initially as supports for timber poles or bluestone pillars. later as graves.
    14.Two alternative non- archaeoastronomical explanations, for alignment of Stonehenge and other henge/pseudo-henge sites with one of more access points in a raised embankment.
    15.The curiously un-remarked upon beaked arguably bird-like characteristics of the so-called sarsen “Heel Stone” (an unhelpful and potentially misleading description) that may have influenced choice of Stonehenge’s location.
    16.Stonehenge as a site for fulfilling a range of funeral requirements simultaneously on a reasonable timescale geared to needs of the bereaved who may have travelled some distance.
    17.Need to integrate the presence of accumulated cremated bones into a single overarching narrative.
    18.New interpretation of use made of imported lithophonic Preseli bluestones (“dinner bell”).
    19.Lack of incised insciptions on megaliths to support non-excarnation narratives. But Bronze Age daggers and axe heads.
    20.Rationale for co-existence of animal bones among cremated remains – supplementary offerings to encourage bird life to stay in vicinity.
    21.Significance of profusion of barrows etc on Salisbury Plain.
    22.Paucity of evidence for link to solstices etc.
    23.Multiple expressions of the Neolithic perceived need for prior excarnation.
    24.Integration with Avebury, Silbury Hill etc, albeit some 20 miles away.
    25.Integrating somewhat disturbing features of Durrington ‘winter feasting’ into excarnation narrative.
    26.Explanation for the laboriously fashioned but out-of-sight woodworking joints.
    27.Integrating the Cursus forerunner.
    28.Attraction of Stonehenge for modern birdlife.
    29.Search for Stonehenge counterpart equivalent to Seahenge’s central altar-like upturned tree stump.
    30.Ancillary clues to ‘sky burial’ having been practiced in and around Stonehenge.
    31.Rationalizing the presence of timber posts, later on stone pillars at numerous Neolithic sites, usually within a banked enclosure, for sky burial purposes.
    32.New interpretation of dolmens as small-scale versions of Stonehenge.
    33. Need for long-overdue break with conferring a split personality on Stonehenge (sun-worship/place of the dead). Dispense finally with the first of those two. De-fantasize, de-romanticize.

    “Bit harsh” in my earlier comment today, Sam? Yup, I’m increasingly prone to being a “bit harsh”, deploring as I do information vacuums, for which there can be absolutely no excuse whatsoever in the modern age, especially given the internet. (As for our national newspapers, BBC etc – words fail me! Where do they find their so-called “science editors” etc?).

    • Colin Berry says:

      PS: Back in Spring, 2016, I gave a brief mention of this paper by Jenny Cataroche and Becky Gowland regarding the cremated bone unearthed at a standing circle/passage tomb in La Varde, Guernsey:

      It gets a brief mention in my list of 33 key points (No. 5). Why do I consider it important (and hugely under-advertised)?

      (Note: the above is but one paper in a bound multi-author volume edited by Prof. Tim Thompson, now available in paperback form for £9.95 from Oxbow Books, which is less than I paid 2 years ago to receive the single paper online!).

      Answer: evidence is presented using new, state-of-the-art techniques that the La Varde bones were not the end-product of cremating entire human bodies, but from bodies that had been excarnated (de-fleshed).

      Now for the take-away message: despite the vast amount of cremated bone unearthed at Stonehenge, I cannot find a single mention of the initial state of the bone – intact body or excarnated!

      Maybe it’s there somewhere, and I’ve missed it, despite much fruitless internet-searching. If anyone knows of anything in the Stonehenge or other ‘standing stone’ literature comparable to the Cataroche/Gowland La Varde technique, distinguishing between cremation of fleshed versus defleshed bone, do please let me know.

      In the meantimne, I’ll assume the data do not exist for Stonehenge, which frankly I consider extraordinary (indeed, distinctly remiss to say the least). Are we seeing a deliberate attempt on the part of the UK’s Archaeological Establishment to suppress any and all connection between Stonehenge and a particular body-disposal practice that is considered primitive and ‘un-British’, likely to offend finer feelings, especially those of entrance fee-paying tourists?

      Speaking for myself, I prefer my knowledge and understanding of ancient as well as modern history to be rooted in unadorned FACT, not fantasy…

      • Stan Marshall says:

        Now you have got me thinking, which is of course the whole purpose of these sites.
        I,ll do some “ digging” of my own. If I find anything. “ I,ll be back”
        Regads SAM

  9. Colin Berry says:

    Thanks Ray

    Your comments convey an appreciation of the enormity of what our ancestors achieved at Stonehenge (especially) and rightly focus on what might be described as Neolithic -era technological precociousness.

    But it’s my gut feeling, aided by a little additional research, that our archaeologists are failing to get their heads around the nature of rapid human progress in the Neolithic period, driven by practical considerations, like how best to dispose of the dead. What may have seemed practical and proper in one century may not have seemed so in the next (but we lack a continuous archaeological record by which to track all those incremental changes in fashion).

    On thing’s for certain: the mind-boggling structure we call Stonehenge did not appear in the blink of an eye, so one should not be too quick to rule out anything that required centuries of organized human labour and ingenuity, each stage improving on the one before.

    I believe Stonehenge evolved in stages over the course of many centuries, indeed millennia. Being a longstanding site for disposal of human remains, recognized as such for hundreds of miles around, it gradually became smarter and smarter as to how to fulfill its role quickly and efficiently, leaving nothing at the end except a package of cremated bones for grieving relatives to do with as they wished.

    Stonehenge ought by rights to be seen as a monument to an early focus on the part of our island ancestors towards practical and efficient solutions to everyday problems, notably funeral arrangements. Think of it as an early version of Cape Canaveral and its moonshots (except it wasn’t rockets that were being launched into the skies and outer space).

    If that required what I have termed AFS (avian-facilitated skeletonization, aka sky burial) as first step, followed by end stage cremation of the pecked-clean bone that remained, then I’m inclined to say “so what?”.

    In what way is AFS, discreetly screened from public view by those heaped-up henge banks, any more cringe-making than than speculating on what happens to our own modern-day elderly relatives who at the end of their days are either buried deep in the ground or sent off to a crematorium? There are no easy entirely tasteful, aesthetic answers surely when it comes to disposal of the dear departed.

    Thank you for the appreciative comment re this blog (and the difficult task it is trying to achieve, namely to get folks to think realistically about Stonehenge and its true purpose, requiring unsophisticated Neolithic technology for disposal of the dead!).

    I say Stonehenge was essentially a crematorium (with an initial pre-skeletonization stage involving voracious gulls and other feathered ‘friends’ seeking a high-protein meal that no one these days wants to think about).

    The trick was to attract a regular clientele of hungry birdlife, gulls especially, progressing chronologically over the centuries though cliff-like henges, then timber posts, then standing stones… Think of Stonehenge as a giant bird-table (with a nearby add-on crematorium that was not willing to accept whole bodies!).

    I hope I haven’t bored you. It’s always a pleasure to receive comments from someone with an enquiring mind, willing to lend an ear to new thinking…

    • Colin Berry says:

      PS: I’m no expert where shaping stones of differing hardness is concerned. Having said that, it’s worth remembering that the mortise and tenon joints were not in the igneous blue stones but the local sarsen megaliths – sedimentary sandstone – used for the main outer circle. Granted it’s not the soft crumbly variety of sandstone: sarsen stone is highly silicified, giving it a high rating of 7 on the Mohs scale of hardness, allegedly almost as difficult to shape as an igneous stone.

      But here’s a possible factor that needs to be taken into consideration: sarsen stone is said to pick up lots of water, being somewhat porous (it was abandoned early on as a building material, making homes damp and uninhabitable). One can’t help but wonder if it’s maybe easier to shape sarsen stone when its pores are saturated with water, say after heavy rainfall. Maybe frost getting into waterlogged pores makes it weaker still. Was that the trick for creating those tenons one wonders, which as you rightly point out are/were something of a technological wonder in their own right. Maybe those Neolithic M&T makers had to play a waiting game…

      PPS: from wiki entry on sarsen stone:
      “Sarsen is not an ideal building material, however. William Stukeley wrote that sarsen is “always moist and dewy in winter which proves damp and unwholesome, and rots the furniture”.

      So maybe the problem is not excessive porosity, but lack of it! Maybe condensation forms on the surface of the stone like it does on car roofs at night, being unable to soak away. That weakens my argument for water-assisted weakening of the sarsens… 😦

      • Stanley Marshall says:

        Interesting point about the Rosetta Stone. Could thousands of hands tracing the “ carved” letters over hundreds of years have resulted in removing the rough edges? I also believe the face side of the stone was covered in wax at one time to prevent such further action. The answer might never be found and that is the interesting part of these discussions Sam

        Sent from my iPad


  10. Raymond Nicolle says:

    I am biased because, in 1967, I personally saw a “flying saucer” in broad daylight come out of a cloud formation, turn, bank, and fly straight up in the air and disappear. So that makes me biased. I find it hard to believe that my ancestors, dressed in skins and with deer horns and stone clubs, created the carved stone parts of Stonehenge. The creation of mortise and tenons alone out of stone harder than granite boggle the mind let alone tongue and groove construction. My ancestors were too busy finding food, procreating and fighting off neighbours…in other words, just surviving. To my mind, the constructors of the granite and dolomite parts of Stonehenge were visitors to Earth who wanted to leave proof of their visitation. They wanted the construction to last for centuries and stand as a signal to any other visitors that “they were here”. They did what I would have done…leave a huge natural edifice and carry on exploring the universe.

    • Colin Berry says:

      Yes, but Stonehenge didn’t start as stone anything.


      It began a circular bank and surrounding ditch, i.e. a henge. Later it acquired a large collection of timber posts. Only then did megaliths arrive (smaller bluestones, 5 or 6 feet high, ) followed later by the much taller sarsens.

      Why would little (or large!) green men go to all this trouble over centuries, nay millennia?

      Sure, the stone is hard, especially the igneous dolerite and rhyolites of bluestone. By the same token, one piece of dolerite can be used to chip away at another. The ‘chipping’ techniques had, after all, been perfected in the Stone Age, preceding the Neolithic (New Stone) age by many millennia.

      • Ray Nicolle says:

        To my mind, it is one thing to chip away at arrowheads or spear points and entirely something else to chip away at a massive, igneous-hardened, stone block to make a tenon. A tenon!? I guess you have visualized the huge amount of stone you have to chip away just to make a rock tenon to fit into a mortice hole. I can imagine pounding out a mortice hole with a bluestone boulder but a tenon? But when I try to imagine my crude ancestors who inhabited the Isles at that time, planning and creating mortice and tenons out of those blue stones, I admit I have to supress a giggle. Then joining them with tongue and groove and also shaping them esthetically… it beggars my belief. I wish I had the same faith in my ancestors as you have.

        As to why, whoever created these marvels, came back time and again and added to them…I have no idea. Maybe we became a tourist destination?

        As an aside, have you seen that magnificent Egyptian lion statue carved out of red granite? When I saw it, the first thing that came to my mind was the massive amount of red granite that would have to be chipped away just to create the basic outline of a lion from a big chunk of granite let alone the finished product. Chipped away from igneous hardened rock with crude tools? I wish I could believe that. I really do. But, to me, it looked carved and polished. Why wouldn’t they use more malleable sandstone like the Romans? Have you read any studies that try to show the difference between statues that have been chipped and more modern statues that have been carved using modern technologies? Also, when I got to look at the Rosetta Stone, it looked like it had been typed…not scoured and etched with sticks and sand. But that’s just me.

        Thanks for your blog. At my old age, I’m trying my best to keep my curiosity alive and your blog is super that way.

  11. Colin Berry says:

    Copper Age? Bronze Age? Iron Age? Even as long ago as 2000-5000 years ago, our ancestors were amazingly sophisticated in the technical spheres that aided their everyday life. Think of the sophistication of blending metal from two entirely different ores – copper and tin – to make bronze. Think of the temperatures needed to get iron from iron ore!

    I’m not sure if you’re aware of my entire thinking re Stonehenge which evolved over some 4 years after this 2012 posting. Most of it was posted to my sciencebuzz site, and only briefly summarized in the final 2016 posting on this site:


    I could give you a 100 word summary if you want, but if you’re like most folk – archaeological establishment included – you’ll take one look, shrug your shoulders and walk away (thanks to the emphasis placed on the Neolithic hangup re the need to liberate the soul of the newly dead to the heavens from its earthly prison – and how southern England’s chalky uplands+ gouged-out gull-attracting henges were the initial steps in an evolving strategy based around AFS (avian-facilitated excarnation). Seahenge and Stonehenge were simply add-on furniture needed to complete the safe-from-predator design that enabled English gulls to safely perform the task performed by vultures on the Continent better evolved and equipped for a quick scavenging role.

    Yes, it was worth all the effort, lugging those monoliths vast distances, because gulls etc had already colonized the wide open chalk uplands of Wiltshire, ceasing to be entirely coastal-based. The aim was to keep them there, with regular timed flesh-based offerings, to train and encourage them to take on the role of English “vultures”, ensuring recently dead relatives an assured and closely-managed send-off to the skies!

    Carved-out-of-countryside gull-attracting henges – a Brit speciality made to resemble white coastal cliffs while far inland – was Mark 1 technology. Stonehenge with its elevated bird perches, was just a highly centralized Mark 2 development – a carefully-contrived safe haven pseudo-cliff face for opportunist free-range gulls in search of regular and assured free lunches (plural note!)!

    I strongly suspect, btw, that 3000 years ago, Stonehenge was completely chalked-over to make it a gleaming white! Centuries of rain and its dissolved carbonic acid have chemically dissolved the chalk, leaving bare rock that gives no clue as to original super-henge-like purpose!

    • Stanley says:

      Seagull perches?.
      I must confess that I have never heard this phrase in connection with anything built by man, Neolithic or modern.
      My first visit to Stonehenge was in 1950, when my parents took me by chara to see the henge.
      My next visit was in 1953, when my school Northrrn Polytechnic, took 24 of us (plumbers, brickies, painters and carpenters)
      To see the henge and to dinscuss how it was constructed, you will note that I have called us by trade, The Poly was a building school were we studied building trades along with our GCE as they were called then..
      I am very familiar with how metals are mined, and formed into usable building products, like lead, copper, tin, aluminium, zinc, cast iron ,wrought iron etc.
      I know how to bend shape and dress all these metals.
      On leaving school I completed a five year apprenticeship in the ” building trade”, During which time I handled every product ct that was made to erect or demolish a building.
      Two years National Services as a sapper building bridges, floating rafts and then how to blow them up.also made me aware of what modern men could build and why.
      As a draughtsman, engineer, and Q S , and cost engineer I completed over 60 years in the construction industry., working on some of the most sophisticated and unmentionable building projects, with the finest Architects, Engineers and builders.
      I know how inventive, cleaver and industries Neolithic peoples were and that modern buildings are built on the foundations ( not actually) of the past builders.
      But I have never heard of your theory about seagull perches, so yes I would be obliged if you could recommend any book etc which discusses this theory.
      Oh! I don’t shrug my shoulders either as I have said I have worked on what at the time was inconceivable. Funding for research not easy to obtain.Other wise every crack pot would be applying.
      So F you could recommend some reading I would be obliged and good fortune in whatever project you are worked no on.
      Regards Sam

      • Colin Berry says:

        This has to be a quickie holding reply, Sam, since I’ll be out of the house, away from the laptop for the next few hours.

        There’s a scant literature linking Stonehenge with excarnation/sky burial. The first is the BBC feature on Seahenge in 1999, which caught my attention, flagging up as it did the link between a small-scale timber version of Stonehenge and excarnation by birds (though seagulls were not specifically mentioned).

        1. Seahenge gives up its secrets, 1999
        Stonehenge was curiously not mentioned, except for this single intriguing reference:

        “Norfolk County Council’s Archaeological Unit identified the find as a Bronze Age timber circle dating from around 2000 BC – roughly contemporary with Stonehenge. Inevitably, the circle was dubbed Seahenge.”

        The BBC then promptly dropped all reference in its later updates to Seahenge!. That’s thanks I suspect to being carefully led off the scent by local archaeologists looking to promote less gruesome explanations for the novelty that was right on their doorstep, previous marshland, uncovered by winter storms, now partly re-assembled in their visitor-attracting local museum collections:

        2. The second is the more recent article by retired funeral specialist Ken West in 2014, with whom I’ve been in email contact.

        Ken West 2014
        “Stonehenge and sky burial”

        He mentions birds, listing several, though gulls again are not specifically mentioned (and he’s cool on my gulls idea as well!).

        Ken’s now turned his hand to novel writing and no longer writes about ‘sky burial” as far as I’m aware, so thanks first to official indifference, probably hostility too, to say nothing of media management and now my losing an ally in the new ideas department, the proposed link between Stonehenge and excarnation has simply failed to take off.

        So thanks for your interest and for providing an opportunity to flag it up, after my having given up flogging what seemed like a dead horse some 18 months ago, returning to my other main interest – that Shroud of Turin!


        I’ll be interested Sam in hearing your own mature thinking and views where the seagull idea is concerned – and/or ones of your own. Do keep in touch. Better still, visit some other Stonehenge-featuring sites and include a link back to this one!

  12. Sam says:

    Perhaps the builders were saying look how clever we are. Didn’t Sir Christopher Wren design some columns just short of their purpose to prove that he new better than the non builders?
    Wonderful masons. The mystery to me is how they got the stones to Salisbury at all?

    • Colin Berry says:

      If Stonehenge had been intended as a show-off monument (“look how smart we are compared with you lot!”) there would surely have been a series of Stonehenges, each trying to outdo the others in terms of size and grandeur. But there’s only one Stonehenge with those distinctive crosspieces that I know of (or as I call them, bird perches).

      But there’s also the modest Seahenge on the Norfolk coast, humble timber, not stone construction. It’s hard to see what bragging rights it would have acquired. So it makes more sense to look for a common purpose shared by the two henges.

      And there is indeed a common purpose that can be inferred. Both existed for ritualized excarnation – defleshing of corpses, as an alternative to bodies being buried in the ground to rot or cremated whole. “Sky burial” in other words. Let birds with their beaks do an initial clean up – no flies, no smells, no maggots. Cremate what’s left (thus the deposits of cremated bones at Stonehenge and elsewhere).

      The archaeological establishment does not wish to hear about Bronze and Iron Age Brit-style excarnation. Why not? They know the subject is a turn-off – hardly guaranteed to keep the project grant money for new digs etc rolling in – much better to waffle on endlessly about pagan ritual, symbolism, astronomical alignments bla bla…

      Me? I prefer reality, even when it’s harsh reality…

      • Stanley says:

        So there is only one example of a ” stonehenge ” with the characteristics of (carpentry joints)?
        But there is a Seahenge constructed from timber at this time..
        Why only one Stonehenge and bragging rights?
        Perhaps the people who constructed ” Stonehenge ” had reached the pinnacle of their stone building technowledgy ? We are talking of a population of approximately 100,000 people in the whole of GB. So let’us assume that 1/3 occupied Southern Great Britain .
        33,000 occupied the area surrounding say ” Wiltshire ” ( poor analogy by me here), but t I think you know where this is going?
        What percentage of these 33000 people would have the knowledge to construct Stone henge ? Presuming that they all lived local to the site oif construction, which would be shall we say far fetched?
        Life expectancy of a male at that time? 40 years? +/- 5 years. .
        Not a lot of time to devise new techniques or pass on new knowledge or devise new building
        methods, from very few people to conceive of the idea to dump the dead for excarvatnation?
        it would not be unreasonable to conclude that the very small percentage of a still further small percentage had little time to know how to build an henge at all let alone consider the disposal of dead bodies.
        With such a small sample of humans is it not possible thar they simply did no know what more they could do and thereby ” run out of iideas so this was the best they could do?” ” Look at us we built this”
        Hence there is only one stone heng constructed with mortise and tenon joints?Not sure about your other assertions I am looking at the construction, skill, logistics and time it took to build Stonehenge?
        A truly remarkable achievement.
        Regards Sam


  13. Ben says:

    Have you been to Peru or other megalithic sites? They often use similar stone tricks https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/Peru_Sillustani_Grave_Tower_Chullpa.jpg (although terrible reconstruction/restoration job attempt)

    Interestingly enough, these towers all collapsed on the same sides and rocks are strewn far from the towers themselves (they are heavy). Requires explosive forces to do that kind of damage. Strategically placed Dynamite? Strategically placed thunder strikes? Comet breakdown/strike (in the region) causing a deluge or air pressure wave?… http://m.phys.org/news/2014-08-year-old-nanodiamonds-multiple-continents.html

    …and the last thing they are, are tombs (at least for their original designed purpose).

    • Denise Havard says:

      Hello? anyone here? Mr. Berry, I’m completely clueless about Stonehenge, except that I have been there as a 16 year old. Now, at 51, I have learned for the first time about the tongue and groove (at least that’s what we call it in the US). I was astonished. I never knew that. Sorry to be so uneducated! I just wanted to say how much I enjoyed your posts, and the other posts, as well. You have truly blown my mind. Good luck in your future endeavors.

      Denise Havard, Texas, USA

      • Colin Berry says:

        Thanks Denise

        Thank goodness there’s someone on the planet who still has an open mind. 99%+ of the minds here in the UK continue to be firmly closed on the likely purpose of Stonehenge, indeed of neolithic megaliths (“standing stones”) in general.

        Yes, 99% have bought in 100% to the archaeoastronomical “summer/winter solstice rituals ” narrative, assiduously promoted year on year by English Heritage, the UK mass media, megalithic.co.uk (“megalithic portal”) etc etc.

        Hopefully one day, in the not too distant future, scales will fall from eyes that have been lured into romanticized rose-tinted spectacle thinking (I use the term “thinking” loosely).

      • Stan Marshall says:

        Bit harsh Colin.
        Is there any archaeological evidence, excavation surveys etc.,
        That Stone Hedge is a magnicent structure is not doubted.
        Denise is quite right in her respect for your interpretation, it’s not light weight but perhaps the thousand of years theory on Druid’s etc needs to be looked at again.
        Willing to see your investigation reports etc.
        Denise don’t be to surprised at what “ primitive people could and did.
        I worked and livid in Arazona for some years, take trip round the Apache trail and check out what the Pima Indians , to survive , live and educate their children.
        Not how to remove their bodies but how to survive.
        I wish you both well.
        PS. Looking forward to ypurbTurin Shroud observations.

  14. Pingback: Mortise and Tenon (Week 3) | A Year at College of the Redwoods Fine Woodworking

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s