Prehistoric site found near UK's Stonehenge

Oct 03, 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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.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: Greek mound excavators: No tours please, too busy

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Stonehenge 'No Place for the Dead', Says Expert

Nov 16, 2006

Professor Timothy Darvill, Head of the Archaeology Group at Bournemouth University, has breathed new life into the controversy surrounding the origins of Stonehenge by publishing a theory which suggests that ...

'Cursus' is older than Stonehenge

Jun 10, 2008

Archeologists have come a step closer to solving the 285-year-old riddle of an ancient monument thought to be a precursor to Stonehenge.

Israeli archaeologists discover ancient quarry

Jul 06, 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 ...

French find prehistoric animal worship site

Sep 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

Fossil arthropod went on the hunt for its prey

3 hours ago

A new species of carnivorous crustacean has been identified, which roamed the seas 435 million years ago, grasping its prey with spiny limbs before devouring it. The fossil is described and details of its lifestyle are published ...

Jurassic Welsh mammals were picky eaters, study finds

Aug 20, 2014

For most people, mere mention of the word Jurassic conjures up images of huge dinosaurs chomping their way through lush vegetation – and each other. However, mammals and their immediate ancestors were also ...

User comments : 3

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

barakn
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 03, 2009
The stones have disappeared and yet they know they were blue. Hmmm....
Sean_W
5 / 5 (1) Oct 03, 2009
Well they don't not look like they weren't not blue... so they must have been blue.
Mandan
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."

Sheesh.