Re: Stonehenge
On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 11:59:40 +0100, Mike Swift <mike.swift@yeton.co.uk> wrote:
[color=blue]
>In article <mi1o1ap5uk2hgv26fhv13ikg6ua425gl2a@4ax.com>, Martin
><me@address.invalid> writes[color=green]
>>I wish archeologists would stick to the facts and not attribute everything to
>>religious ceremonies. The evidence for human sacrifice was flimsy. You
>>could just as well say that Richard III was killed in a human sacrifice. The
>>claims that only children could have done the decoration of a dagger
>>handle, turned out to be the opinion of a nano artist, who said that it had to
>>be made by people who were under 21, not just children. Not sure where he
>>got 21 from my eyesight changed to the point where I needed reading
>>glasses, when I was in my early forties. The long palisade was interesting.
>>How could they know that some of the posts were seven metres high. The
>>explanation of what it was for was laughable[/color]
>
>The palisade was simple, it was the stone age equivalent of the Berlin
>or Israeli walls to keep the tribe next door out :-)[/color]
The difference is that the palisade had ends. There's nothing to stop somebody
entering Stonehenge by avoiding the palisade. It is similar to Maginot line.
Lines don't stop people.
--
Martin in Zuid Holland
|