Stonehenge Begins to Yield Its Secrets | Hacker News Reader

Stonehenge Begins to Yield Its Secrets

nytimes.com

93 pointsjeo123412 comments

When people talk about ancient civilizations, they tend to... make things up. Stonehenge, in particular, due to its recent cultural significance, has lots of ridiculous stories told about it. There's this narrative about primitivism, which generates interpretations centered on religion and ritual.

A more informative view, I think, is to assume it's practical. When I look at pictures of Stonehenge, it looks to me like motte and bailey. A literal motte and bailey, the military fortification, not the logical fallacy by the same name. A motte and bailey is a military structure that was extremely common in the middle ages.

There's a ditch around the outside, which is for defense against small groups of invaders. There's a big stone structure in the middle, which you can climb up on if attackers get past the ditch, using a structure that was removed some time later. The graves, cooking pits, and other things at the site are just signs of habitation.

I agree that when people talk about ancient civilizations, they tend to make things up, often assuming religious symbolism where none may have existed. David Macaulay's Motel of the Mysteries is a fabulous satire of that tendency and everyone should read it.

But I also think calling Stonehenge a motte and bailey fortification is missing the mark. That's an easy enough interpretation that, if the archaeology supported it, everyone would accept it and move on. There's something more to it, and maybe we just don't yet have enough data to say what it is.

If you were picking somewhere to defend, a flat paddock is hardly idea. It was probably forested then too, making it even worse. I have no idea what it was but it sure doesn't seem like a defensive position.

You choose the flat paddock for economic reasons, and then fortify it as best you can.

With monoliths from West Wales.

By definition it cannot be a motte-and-bailey since motte means mound or hill, of which there is none.

It would also be an extremely small fortification that would be exceptionally hard to build. So while that explanation might be worth examining, I think logistically you would need to explain why they wouldn't have just used wooden bound structures instead (which you could source more locally). It isn't like four stones make something fire proof.

Plus it entirely ignores other linked religious ruins in the area like the town of Amesbury four miles away (and their stones). And those clearly have no military purpose, and were also moved and resurrected.

I'm all for buying into a theory that Stonehenge had a purpose. But militarily? Meh. It is just not consistent with anything and doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It looks nothing like other military structures from the time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com