Prehistoric site found near UK's Stonehenge

October 3, 2009

(AP) -- Archaeologists have discovered a smaller prehistoric site near Britain's famous circle of standing stones at Stonehenge.

Researchers have dubbed the site "Bluehenge," after the color of the 27 Welsh stones that were laid to make up a path. The stones have disappeared, but the path of holes remains.

Researchers from Sheffield University in northern England say the new circle represents an important find. The site is about a mile (2 kilometers) away from Stonehenge, which is believed to have been built around 2500 B.C.

Bluehenge, about 80 miles (130 kilometers) southwest of London, is thought to date back to the same period, but the exact circumstances of Bluehenge's construction aren't clear.

Researchers plan to publish more information about it next year.

©2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Explore further: Debate unfolds over origin of grouped stones at lake's bottom

Related Stories

Israeli archaeologists discover ancient quarry

July 6, 2009

(AP) -- Israeli archaeologists have uncovered an ancient quarry where they believe King Herod extracted stones for the construction of the Jewish Temple 2,000 years ago, the Israel Antiquities Authority said Monday. The ...

French find prehistoric animal worship site

September 24, 2009

French archaeologists have discovered the oldest known place of worship dedicated to the dugong, or sea cow, on an island just north of Dubai, two research centres said Thursday.

Recommended for you

Four pre-Inca tombs found in Peru's Lima

November 27, 2015

Archaeologists in Peru have found four tombs that are more than 1,000 years old in a pyramid-shaped cemetery that now sits in the middle of a residential neighborhood in Lima, experts said.


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 03, 2009
The stones have disappeared and yet they know they were blue. Hmmm....
5 / 5 (1) Oct 03, 2009
Well they don't not look like they weren't not blue... so they must have been blue.
not rated yet Oct 04, 2009
Um, believe it or not folks, microscopic analysis of archaeological soil samples is now possible and the original stones almost certainly would have left such traces. Also, particular mineral types have particular surface textures/fracture characteristics, which also would have certainly been left in the outlines of any imprints.

So, rather than trying to go all Albert Einstein here in a clever, but embarrassing attempt to try to seem smarter than the experts in a comments section, why not "dig a little deeper", if you'll pardon the pun? If the question of how they determined the type of stone used is so important to you, why not research the subject of archaeological techniques, or actually find the study?

Googling the term "bluehenge" immediately gave me this:
"All that remains of the 60ft wide Bluehenge are the holes of 27 giant stones set on a ramped mount. Chips of blue stone found in the holes appear to be identical to the blue stones used in Stonehenge."


Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.