Thank you for watching! If you want to support the channel, you can become a Member of the channel at ru-vid.com/show-UCscI4NOggNSN-Si5QgErNCwjoin or I’m on Patreon at www.patreon.com/ancientarchitects
I love this theory, it could very well have been an enclosed stage, the acoustics would have been absolutely magnificent and it would make sense for the holes and mortice and tenon joints to actually have a purpose instead of just existing for no purpose at all. Some scholars may say there isn't any evidence for it, but what they forger is that there also isn't any evidence against it 🤗
I approve of this. This theory is plausible. I can imagine it being a place of gathering for council and power of communities to exchange ideas, plans, and hold celebrations. Efforts should go toward finding proof of Stonehenge being the foundation of a large building. This also makes the skeleton found at the site more intriguing. Was it the body of the theater jester?
@@1963pipo I think Celtic does translates to wet and freezing. Even though there is a big shiny yellow monster from myth and legend in the sky today,...my nanna used to talk about the day the sun shone.
We know that the Neolithic people made wood henges in the nearby areas. So a wooden roof is a possibility. This is a great original idea . I hope the experts look at her ideas.
@@shian228 there is a need, in such a humid environment, stone needs to be placed as a foundation like we do still today. Obviously we use cement today.
You can almost guarantee that they won't. They absolutely despise creativity and imagination from outside their circles, especially when it would require radical change and revision of their books. This is why careers should not founded on a specific view of a historical artifact. It creates groups of people who have literally staked their lives on an interpretation of an ancient ruin. That said, I think her idea of poles on top of bluestone is incorrect. That would be a very bad structural design. Still, overall I think it's a great piece of "imagineering".
This theory makes a lot of sense. It brings to mind the bronze-age roundhouse that was a common building style back in the day. It's not hard to imagine carpenters and masons building a giant roundhouse. Great video and compelling theory.
Sadly, common sense doesn't make sense to "Mainstream" scientists. Heck, they haven't even admitted that ancient Egyptians sailed to ancient Australia yet.
I am shocked by this to be honest. I have ALWAYS wondered what it looked like with a roof and platforms. How is this the first time we're discussing this in the mainstream?
It's not the first time this has been spoke about. Many scientists believe this is a possibility. It's the same thing over and over. They're reporting about it to sell a book with the wahman so smart narrative. Even the news is pushing this story.
Well, i suggest that part of the problem is the Victorian "archaeologists" vandalised the structure with their ham fisted attempts at restoration. Their progressivist prejudices locked the henge into the image of an out door stone circle from then on.
Me too. After a decade of my past working on building projects, I recognized the stones as pillars and beams, strong enough to hold the weight of upper levels. The first level must be made of stone because the humid weather. This is quite common even today. The wood beams and columns have been stolen by local people thru the centuries. This is also quite common. Even some of the stones where stolen for new buildings in the area. And that is why we find only the heaviest parts of the original structure today.
I just visited the Ancient Technology Centre today. They have an awesome "Earth House" and as soon as I walked into it, it felt like being inside stonehenge but with a roof. It immediately made me think about this old video of yours. If you've not looked into their Earth House, which they built based on research into ancient buildings and technology, then you really should. The place was astonishing. My whole perspective of henges has completely changed.
Woodhenge is still around and was supposedly built around the same time. The wooden beams survived. What if Stonehenge is much older than people realize? It's also possible Stonehenge had wood beams and they may have been repurposed. 🤔
I've seen a lot of stuff about Stonehenge over the years, and this is the first time I've seen something that actually makes sense. The problem with structures that old is that over the centuries people would take parts and repurpose them for other things, while the critical parts to prove a case literally rotted away. Then there's the layers of history as one culture used it for one thing, and the next that came along used it for something else. It can get so muddled and confusing. I was fairly well sold on the idea of it being a burial site thanks to some recent research and laser mapping. But the idea it was an enclosed building when it was first created makes a whole lot more sense upon seeing this. I'm sure we'll never know for sure, but it is a wonderful idea to think of people building such incredible structures 5000ish years ago.
Thank you Matt for sharing Sarah's great theory. I've always wondered why the mortice and tenons were needed: not like the lintels were going to blow away in a storm. Amazing how simple new theories disrupt accepted knowledge. i've watched and re-watched all your videos and one theme recurs: we are unable to explain so many ancient technologies.Thank you for what you do - you have given me hours and hours of viewing pleasure. Doug in Australia.
Saw in the Daily Mail, but have now seen her book. Wow! This is not some waffly, whacky journal but a clear, comprehensive, and thoughtful piece of work that contains much qualitative and original research. I particularly like her portrayal of people of the day as highly capable and intelligent. Even if not a Stonehenge 'groupie', the quality of the book's presentation will impress, especially as it seems that the layout and illustrations (as well as the model building!) was also Sarah's own work. The most interesting work to come out on this site for ages.
While I could definitely see a roof being built over it, I have my doubts it would have been quite so elaborate as depicted in the pictures shown if for no other reason that such extensive woodwork would likely have left more evidence in the form of prepared attachment points
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I love how the traditionalists say, “there isn’t any evidence that supports Sarah ‘s theory.” I’d also like to point out that there isn’t any evidence that it wasn’t a hall.” Closed mindedness, it’s the enemy of archeology.
The right answer is typically the most mundane and practical. The anthropological community often romanticizes the ancient world. I appreciate hearing a theory that humanizes and makes more relatable a structure that hasn’t made much sense until now. Thanks for bringing her theory to the rest of us!
archeologists just prefer stone : but in sri lanka you can see how stone stupas are surounded and covered by wooden roof constructions. necessary protection not against english rain but tropic sun... Annuradhapura and Polonnaruva have examples.
@@WildAlchemicalSpirit Temples in ancient Greece as well. The tapering of and other aspects of stone columns are surely mimetism from the original wooden elements.
I'm 74 years old & have always believed that Stonehenge had a roof & possibly a second level. Why? Because, simply, it makes complete sense. Too much sense. Why would ancient people go to so much trouble to create such a monument & not take full advantage of all the possibilities. It was enclosed!
It seems to me that we have been under estimating most of the ancient buildings for years now. From Stonehenge to the pyramids to ancient sites around the world experts dismiss anything that does not fit the official version of events. Yet when anyone looks at the bigger picture and start to dig a little there are so many things that suggest far more advanced people in terms of both technology and expertise. Anything that does not fit with their explanation is either hidden from the public or just dismissed as nothing. It's about time that we had a fresh new look at all of our ancient sites and started to accept that we know so very little as facts. Love it when someone comes up with a new view of things and challenges what is taken as gospel by so many. Keep up the great work!!
I seem to remember a medieval sketch showing two floors and a roof, clearly the artists impression of its former use. There should be tool markings that would support this very interesting theory.
Hi Kayleigh. Consider the possibility that this is an artificial horizon so these ancient architects (pun intended) and engineers and astronomers could keep an eye on the sky. Sometimes things out there came clattering down as in 536 AD and 2800 BC and 6200 BC, you know Doggerland (doggone it -- note the 3400 year periodicity). Be sure to keep comets in mind when you explore the Doggerland catastrophe. That shelf off Norway didn't collapse just for fun. Newton rules. Cheers, HH
The most simple, logic and elegant proposal ever mentioned! After the discovery of Göbekli Tepe, we could not ignore this option any longer. The original builders, with brains like you and me, must have used the ancient temple building memories from their elders, to start with such a solid construction anyway. Who were these builders, where did their elders got these memories from? They have been teached the knowledge of the firmament, seafarers they must have been..once..long before. From the archeological finds, we might conclude, they weren't welcomed by the local inhabitants, smaller stones aren't there any more..if they used any? Who were they?
@@ancientsitesgirl I was in London for the Olympics. GREAT PLACE!!! If you do get to go there, check out Bletchley Park - lots of World War 2 history. It's very easy to get there from London. Unfortunately Stonehenge was too far away.😭 Good luck on your next presentation.😊
The southwest of England is the best part. Best beaches, Stonehenge, Glastonbury tor, silbury hill, loads of other stone circles and white horses carved into hill sides, and fovant badges and many more cool things
Great video. I have taught the same when I have first time seeing Stonehenge and Gobekli Tepe. The way Stonehenge was found with lentils Fallen down and stones lying on the ground makes sense to me that it got knocked over as the roof has fallen down
There's a good chance that the very top roof would not have been there. I'm picturing it open in the very center of the building but roofed all around otherwise. This would be consistent with other building designs that allowed for an atrium in the center.
Me too. Why else would you have huge lintels? Especially as they're made in exactly the same way that they would make wooden lintels - to support a heavy roof. The Y and Z Holes are probably just an extension to the covered area. Here's another idea for the roof: www.curriculumvisions.com/search/B/bronzeAge/bronzeAge.html
She nailed it. That is what I always envisioned Stonehenge would be like in its prime. One can only Imagine how other ancient buildings were actually used/constructed.
This makes perfect sense in many ways including the typical hinges and house structures from the time. This theory really completes everything else we know to he true about Stonehenge.
It has crossed my mind that all the stone circles once had roofs. Makes perfect sense that they would be communal shelters. This idea of a massive type of theatre or auditorium makes perfect sense too. This also stands out as being quite obvious in the various sites around Gobekli Tepe too - the shape of those structures seems to suggest they had wooden rooftops. Excellent progress in this field of research. Thanks for sharing the ideas.
Works for me. Just give it time. How many other ideas have been dismissed over the years? Only to find out they were right all along. Look at changes since the 1960's even. Thanks again for the updates.👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
I love this idea! Maybe we should now revisit other sites similar to Stonehenge and look for more evidence to support this theory. Maybe Gobekli Tepe is a whole complex built in a similar fashion.
Now that is interesting. Some are now suggesting the t-shaped pillars at Gobekli were in fact structures to support a roof. Moreover it was roof covered in soil which in effect created an underground fortress. Other examples of underground communities have been found, whole cities in fact. This was a response to a n extended period of global climatic disasters at the time, before the end of the last ice age. An earth roof would also account for the perception of Gobekli having been deliberately buried. The roof material collapsed and buried the site.
I just said this very thing yesterday on another video about Stonehenge! Not the balcony, but the roof. It just makes sense considering the weather. Since many archaeologists agree now that Gobekli Tepe and other tepe sites with stone circles had roofs, that lends even more creedence to this idea. Yes, a lot of time difference between Stonehenge and Gobekli tepe, but if it's a building style that worked, why wouldn't it be carried on in other places.
Oh hell yes! Great ideas! This certainly makes perfect sense. British weather... yep. Say no more. Surely, with some of the fancy modern techniques now available, there could be new research done looking for previously missed clues. Hell, just yesterday I was reading about the new find in cave dirt of the genome of a woman from an "unknown population" from 25,000 years ago. There needs to be some re-evaluations. Fantastic idea. Thanks, Matt!
Great video, very interesting. It raises the question whether Gobleki Tepe had a roof as well or was it open air. Some digital reconstructions show it with roofs while others show it as open air. I guess for both sites the only way to be sure is by finding remnants of wood or somehow testing the soil to see if there is ash or decomposed wood or maybe an increased carbon in the soil)
The model has to be refined so that the Sarsen stones that form the horseshoe be better integrated as supporting structure. They are of different heights; so it makes them difficult or complex to serve as a structural base for some kind of roof or floor. Not impossible though. Great video !
Are we not missing quite a few post holes inside the stone circle for this to be the case? Also, is there any other evidence of large multi-storey structures from the time period? Or structures with large windows, for that matter?
We don't know. And we need to admit we don't know. If the Coliseum wasn't protected by order of a 16th century Pope ( I forget which one), it's be completely gone right now and no one today would think that the Romans had built such a structure.
@@dirremoire Someone came up with the idea the colosseum had a roof, or rather a canopy. It makes a lot of sense if it either rains or the sun shines intensely.
Post holes and any lumber structuring whatever, would be completely gone by now. There were two-story buildings from the period, presumably usually for special centers and etc given their rarity. Usually when buildings are destroyed or deteriorate, later civilisations and groups often wrote them off as mere 'nothings' and use them to supply stone and etc for other projects and scavenge from the previous structures. Ie- all the limestone stripped from the pyramids of Giza for other projects later on in later times. So, I guess her theory is just as plausible as everyone else's really.
As a kid my first feeling/reaction to stone-henge was that it must have been part of a building that we now don’t see the rest of. It always bothered me that people described it only as standing stones without considering that possibility. It’s funny / intriguing to now see it as a proper hypothesis! Not meaning this as a personal achievement or to undermine the work at all in any way, quite the opposite; but a reflection that maybe kids should be more involved in science! At least we should retain our childlike open-minded curiosity & wonder at the world :) Respect for the work on this, and your channel is awesome as always 👍
I've thought about this since I was a teenager. It simply makes sense for there to have been some sort of covering for Stonehenge, even if it was basically only a huge tent. A thatched roof makes even more sense. What's more, it shouldn't have to interfere with any of the line of sight alignments for astronomical observations, which are all through the stones, not over them. I'm not sure about the exterior being enclosed, but putting a roof over the space makes a lot of sense. Our ancestors were hardier peoples than we are, and the weather was supposedly milder when Stonehenge was built, so it makes sense to me that they would have put a thatch roof on, and possibly gathered by a bonfire in the center, or something.
I saw this yesterday and wanted more information. Thank you Matthew. It has already been proven that the large stones have acoustical properties. Not only does it reverberate perfect tone within the structure, it blocks any sound from going past the stone itself. Only the spaces between allow sound through. My first thought, with this theory is the blue stone elevated a wooden floor, as all musical tone would be muffled by damp ground. The floor would have to be somewhat free standing so not inhibit the reverberations of the larger stones. I also wonder now if the outer wood henge that they believe is older than Stonehenge was actually the fence surrounding this building and may actually be the true date of this prehistoric monolith. Just ideas, but you’re right, this is very exciting and in my opinion, very plausible. Definitely getting the book. Thank you again.
Isn’t it just common sense that it had a roof and walls what good would aload of standing pillars be to anyone? Everyone always puts it down to ritual bs like people didn’t have realistic uses for structures 😂 Ancients architects thanks for the brilliant work of documenting these little known theories love the channel keep up the good work
Exactly! Humans have always needed shelter throughout history, why do so many researchers forget that most if not all ancient structures would have had roofs?
Very interesting theory! I can totally see this being true. Also, I can guess why so many people in the older "academic community" would not answer to her theory. They must be cringing at her "blasphemy", because they just "know". Great episode. Please continue to explore!
Outstanding theory and great arguments, the second I saw this I was convinced on simple logic. Yes, it had to be roofed. Thank you for sharing this. The increased height of the inner U shape only makes sense that it had an inclined roof. There was always something missing in my mind and this absolutely is fitting. The vertical stones are open columns.
Once again I am impressed by your research. As an American, I have my built-in bias about history. I have a deep respect for anyone who will admit that: we just don't know. Recently, I watched a podcast with Joe Rogan and Graham Hancock with Michel Shermer as an extra guest. I didn't know that Graham Hancock is only an author and not a scientist. I am loosing my respect for him. He wants to rewrite history without doing any work to see where the Roman Empire ends and the Spanish history of Columbus begins. Keep up the good work.
Certainly makes more sense than the idea it's a seasonal calendar, for which logs would be ideal, being plentiful, quicker to erect, and easier to replace every 50 years or so.
I'm currently reading the Islands in the Sea of Time trilogy by S.M. Sterling, about the island of Nantucket getting sent back in time to 1500BCE and find that stonehenge is still in use by the natives. It's a fantastic read.
Somehow I immediately thought of Rudolf Steiner's Goetheanum building when I saw her conception. Both our fascination with Stonehenge today and Steiner's Theosophy are concerned with deep time and the recovery of lost knowledge.
Pretty compelling video.. I've been thinking the same thing for a long time. It looked to me as though Stonehenge was designed a lot like a rotunda building and when you consider the amount of time that's passed one could easily see how any part of the structure made timber would have decomposed by now leaving no traces.
A report from Roman times described it as a great domed Temple, so yes, it was most likely roofed, with turf or straw. A dome is the perfect shape for an observatory too, because they could make holes in different directions to take measurements.
@@mnomadvfx shure would, however, if a bunch of rad astronomers met there for a certain event and the weather is shit they would have a dry and protected place to spend time waiting for the sky to clear;) -one could research if the place was covered, would it affect the possibility of reading astronomy?
I think it's interesting to think of it like this: We know people would've gathered at stonehenge in its prime. (What could they have gathered there for?) We know people were likely skilled carpenters because woodworking is one of the most basic human survival concepts. Most stone structures contain at least some wood. (What is the most practical use for wood in this case that stone couldn't be used for?) Keep all of those things in mind, and you can basically come up with anything.
Considering the aspect that the builders of Stonehenge migrated from Anatolia to Britain, it makes sense that the builders would have taken along the concept of covering their stone structures... just as they did with GobekliTepe.
A roofed structure would allow permanent occupancy for a restricted team of officiants and keepers. The empty surroundings allowed for the seasonal crowds, for which there is abundant evidence.
Just as with Gobekli Tepe, there is not enough discussion regarding possible roof structures. Love her model, and the comparison to the Globe Theatre is brilliant! Oh the continuity!
@@claudiaxander ok, point taken. On structures of moderate span, say 5 meters, heavy wooden beams might last for decades with animal hide covers then earth. Maybe? Animal tusks are known to have been used also.
@@anzacman5 Then we can cancel out Gobekli, as their was no timber/tusk residue, just loose backfill. Whatever roofed it was taken away, no burning either. Double dratt!
Brilliant theory that makes eminent sense, especially given the environment, available materials and skill sets of the indigenous tribes of the epoch. Think this theory would apply equally to similar stonework structures in the U.K., as well as to those in Europe, such as in France for example. It's one of those amazingly simple insights, or perhaps is that clever answer to an ancient puzzle, become obviously self-evidently the correct one upon telling. And it has us ruefully considering, 'Why didn't I think of that?'
I agree that the abilities of ancient peoples are under estimated in many cases . If the Egyptian folks could do all that fancy stone work with too simple of tools then the early English could do the wood and thatched roof system.
You're pretty close. What was removed in 1958 were three drilled stone core pieces cut by repair workers which disappeared. Only one core piece has been returned since they were pilfered.
This is fantastic! I've always felt that there may be too much mystery placed on things. Separate all the parts and pieces to a toilet and bury it for 10,000 years and imagine what people who have never seen one would think it is? How many ways would they fit the pieces together?
