Time Team Specials

The Secrets of Stonehenge

Watch this episode now on 4oD Tony at Stonehenge

Stonehenge is the nation's most famous monument. For centuries, its age and purpose have been subject to speculation, excavation and fantasy. But over the last six years, a huge new team of archaeologists have been digging not just the monument but the entire prehistoric landscape that focuses on Stonehenge, to reveal the truth about this near-mythical place and crack its secrets.

Time Team's cameras have been with the dig through those six summers. During their excavations the team discovered the biggest Neolithic settlement in Northern Europe, which suggests they have found the place where the people who built Stonehenge were based. But the digs also reveal that Stonehenge was just part of a vast ritualistic landscape where ancient peoples celebrated life and death in great man-made structures.

The archaeologists believe that the landscape was turned into a huge and complex special ceremonial route for the remains of the departed as they pass into the afterworld. But these theories are only proved in their last summer of digging in 2008, as the team start to dig in the stone circle itself. The results surpass their wildest dreams and this pivotal excavation finally enables the team to reveal not only when Stonehenge was built and how it was built but, perhaps most importantly, why it was built.

On TV

First Shown

Date Time Channel
Monday 01 June 2009 9PM Channel 4

Last Shown

Date Time Channel
Sunday 14 June 2009 1.45AM More4

Comments

Your Comments

Post your comment

Please note: In order to post a comment you need to be registered and logged in to Channel 4:

Sign In Here or Register Here

Comments closed

Comments are closed at the present time

Your comments

Post your comment
By posting on this website you are agreeing to abide by our Comments Policy.
Mandatory Fields are marked with *
Your Comment (Maximum characters: 4000) *
You have
Back to Previous Page

Comments

Thank you for your comment!

Your message will be reviewed and the best ones will be published below.

If you intended to make an official comment to Channel 4 please contact us.

Comments

  1. Thank you so much for putting this programme on again, my wifey can finally see the end! Thanks! =)
    Posted by Ellie-Copter on 23/09/2009 12:33:48
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  2. hi tony and the gang when are you going to show the digs in taunton old pirory
    Posted by paul on 28/08/2009 20:37:39
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  3. Hi Time Team. Is there any chance that you could do a show featuring the surrey Iron railway.
    Posted by Simon Wilkins on 05/08/2009 14:11:26
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  4. Excellent program from Tony and co. But why do you waste so much time repeating the aims etc of the dig after every single commercial break. Come on guys, your audience are not morons, we don't dip into a program half way through and most of us haven't got dementia so don't need to be reminded whet we're watching.
    Posted by Chris Hodgson on 03/08/2009 09:51:30
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  5. Please, please, please put 'The Secrets of Stonehenge' on 4od again, my wife missed the last 30 mins of the programme (she watched the late night/early morning replay but fell asleep) and she's desperate to know how the programme ended. Thanks!!
    Posted by ellie-copter on 23/07/2009 16:27:19
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  6. could year & place be named on each prog and the progs be in order. A Specials series would be nice. thanks for great prog avid watcher dave hummerstone
    Posted by David Hummerstone on 09/07/2009 19:10:54
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  7. A speedy and exciting special episode in the great tradition of Time Team, making archaeology accessible to a mass audience. However, perhaps necessarily, many issues remain unresolved and the mystery of the true purposes of Stonehenge persists to baffle, intrigue and challenge us all. Perhaps the ancestors made it so - at least in part? A riddle inside an enigma wrapped in a puzzle. "There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamed of in your philosophy." Keep the mind open.
    Posted by Albion on 02/07/2009 09:35:59
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  8. It seems to me that it would be worthwhile someone doing some independent research - someone without a theory to try to prove. Otherwise there will always be biased 'evidence'.
    Posted by Sharon on 30/06/2009 19:34:38
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  9. "It amazes me how people get into very intricate detail and miss the big picture. Stonehenge is obviously the remains of the burial chamber inside a large pyramid. The pyramid was made of earth and wood, and would have been modeled on the Egyptian pyramids." - CALAMICO Indeed! It's obvious. Well... Apart from the fact that Stonehenge in no way resembles the burial chambers of any Pyramids ever discovered, and that no Pyramids or evidence of them has ever been found anywhere in or near Britain. Apart from those minor problems, it's totally obvious. As obvious as the Sun revolving around the Earth!
    Posted by George on 17/06/2009 03:01:00
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  10. I agree with Steves comment re: Avebury. I was thinking it to myself when watching this programme. Great production, would like to see something similar about the Avebury complex which time team, or anyone else in tv land has yet to explore and discover, though maybe its best left the way it is: ignoring Avebury, we don't need a tv prog verifying its importance.
    Posted by Man of the heath on 16/06/2009 21:54:41
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  11. Does Brian Thirtle think the mathematics connected to stonehenge are in anyway related to the advanced mathematical equastion disscovered at the crop circle in Wiltshire which represented the first ten digit of Pi.Or the one at stonehenge showing set of fractuls known as the Julian set. Although I have always felt the numbers had a connection to the Periodic Table,but as not a mathemation or scientist is impossible to prove.
    Posted by young hippy on 13/06/2009 15:16:30
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  12. The programme referred to the RJC Atkinson as a man who left no record of his extensive work at Stonehenge but this is simply not true. Apart from notes and a book on archaeology, Atkinson wrote "Stonehenge" published in 1960 by Penguin. I have a copy. Stuff passed off as new discoveries was fascinating but known to me for over twenty years. The only new theory seemed to be that the outer ring was always stone, not wooden as previously believed but no credible case was made for this "revelation". I get the feeling that some over zealous producer decided to overheat the story to make it more commercially viable. We don't need spurious "eureka" moments and experts in funny shirts with even more hilarious accents. The facts, well presented, are fascinating. Let them speak please Thank you regards BdeS
    Posted by Brian de Salvo on 10/06/2009 16:55:57
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  13. The beauty of Stonehenge is within its mystery. As fascinating as this excellent programme was, I hope that we never have the definitive answer. As can be seen by the previous posts there must be nearly as many different theories and ideas as there are visitors to this special site. Whatever its original purpose(s) perhaps we should pay more attention to what we experience when we visit now.
    Posted by Pagandrum on 09/06/2009 22:24:31
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  14. I was deeply interested in your findings at Stonehenge and would like to receive a proper reference article. Can you please put me down, therefore, for the usual site report when it is done - but hurry up, I'm 92 already! I have a feeling I once knew the father (grandfather?) of one of your team - was there a Constant Ainsworth? Avril Fox
    Posted by Avril Fox on 09/06/2009 12:33:58
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  15. Interesting, but a bit cutesy and over the top on yet another claim of stonehenge decoded. Its one more theory, and not even a new one re stone and ancestors. What astounds me time and again is that big programmes on stonehenge blatantly do not connect or relate to the avebury complex of exactly the same period. The parallels are many. Rivers, stones, avenues, henges, mounds, timber pallasades and other structures etc all similarly (and often more clearly) related. But yet again no mention of avebury being another tribe with similar beliefs, ritual and structure to throw light upon mutual interpretation. Thats daft. These 2 great sites are only 20 miles apart. In fact with regard to this last point the programme went to some effort in quite deliberately neglecting to mention avebury by saying instead that the sarsens were dragged from the "Marlborough area". I cannot help but think that the reason for this is so that the stonehenge digs and its interpretations are thus given the spotlight. This benefits the archaeologists on those exclusive digs. ie Helps sell books and media with apparently radical theories on putting the jigsaw together. Its like excavating one pyramid and going on about the mystery of its design, while making sure the crew and commentators dont mention the other two on either side of it .......... with all the information and clues that they have revealed. But thats celebrity tv archaeology for you.
    Posted by steve on 08/06/2009 03:37:46
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  16. A very well presented programme, with much food for thought. However, there are problems with the theory that wood equates with the living, and stone with the dead. Firstly, Woodhenge, which is close to Durrington, has various human remains within it, including the grave of a child. Secondly, the platforms for exposing corpses were made of wood. Thirdly, and perhaps most significantly, there was a second phase of usage at Stonehenge, during which there were numerous wooden posts. Even if it is correct that bluestones were placed into the Aubrey holes during the first phase, surely these wooden posts damage the theory?
    Posted by HugoJenks on 05/06/2009 16:39:19
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  17. The programme was well produced and enjoyable, but some of the deductions from the evidence of the excavations were perhaps too confident in their assertions. We now have various statements, based on evidence of variable quality, that Stonehenge was built to house the mortal remains of an elite society; that, 'The whole purpose of Stonehenge is that it was a prehistoric Lourdes,' (from an academic!); that it is an astronomical observatory. Christian churche perform all these functions: cemeteries for notables; centres of prayer for the sick; markers of east-west alignments (and, for Salisbury Cathedral, of the summer solstice). But none of these on its own accounts for the existence and the form of churches. So it is with Stonehenge. All that excavation and measurement can do is to suggest what activities might have been performed there. The builders of Stonehenge must have had an inspiration, a model, for what they constructed, a concept both grand and profound. Of what is Stonehenge an analogue? Surely it is based on something both demonstrably impressive and of fundamental important to the functioning of the universe. I have a good idea of what this was, suggested and backed by very strong evidence. But there is no serious forum in which to present and debate such ideas. Academic minds are closed, fearful of contamination with things unconventional; all that is left are earth-mystery folk, most of whom imagine that freedom from rigorous thinking leads to some kind of greater inner understanding. Does Channel4 have a role to play here?
    Posted by DAVID RIDE on 05/06/2009 12:21:27
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  18. Like the programme, and the theory seemed to fit Stonehenge.... But, what about all the other stone circles in the UK?
    Posted by Mustela on 04/06/2009 14:52:48
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  19. A most fasinating program from my favourite program Time Team. Anybody with an interest ancient times will have their own theories regarding Stonehenge, its great fun to speculate and any of them could be correct.I do get a bit fed up when TV programs present ideas as fact and then call them breakthroughs. As regards the road at Durrington Walls which leads to the river, the program suggested it was part of a processional route to Stonehenge.I think it had the more practical function of giving people at DW access to the river for drinking water and the washing of clothes, babies and themselves, a single track to the river would have caused major congestion. The avenue which leads to Stonehenge might have no association with the river at all.Avebury has an avenue (probably 2) and they don't seem to have any connection with rivers.They do have mini circles at one end though, just like the Stonehenge avenue now appears to have.Do we know for a fact that the river is now in the same place as it was in those days ? Over time rivers can change position quite considerably and it may not have been anywhere near the avenue. A posible breakthrough without doubt is the discovery of the gullies inside the avenue banks and ditches, if they truly align with the midsummer sunrise and the avenue and Stonehenge were built at the same time then you must have discovered the reason why Stonehenge is there and not somewhere else.If the gullies were formed by the ice age by the time of the neolithic they would have been silted over with vegetation or trees growing over them ,does anyone know how the neolithic people found them ? I think the reason Stonehenge is built out of stone and not wood is simple. Wood decays and is only temporary, stone last forever.If you want to impress the great sun god what better way than to build a great stone monument which takes years and lots of hard work, if you are prepared to do that for the love of your sun god then surely he (or she) will love you back. Also you have got a temple that will last for generations, and you will want to use it for everything after all that hard work,celebrate births, marriages ,the passing on to the next life and any other kind of knees up you can think of. (There are daggers carved into at least one of the sarsens, what might that suggest?). The discoveries are fantastic but to me they create more questions than answers. What do you think?
    Posted by Mark 2 on 03/06/2009 21:10:12
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  20. Many thanks for a fascinating programme on Stonehenge. It occured to me whilst watching that so many historic sites associated with death and burial are also about height and visibility. And those criteria are prevalent in many other spheres - judges are quite deliberately placed higher than the rest of the Court. Kings and Queens sit on thrones. The pyramids rise above the landscape. Totem poles. The Easter Island statues. Cathedral spires. Even policemen wearing helmets. So I guess we shouldn't be surprised that monuments to the dead comply with this. And that left me wondering whether the stones were ever decorated in any way. I remember reading that Silbury Hill was probably white (from the chalk) originally and maybe to create even more o an impression the stones were once coloured. Just imagine how impressive that would look from a distance!
    Posted by Dick Jones on 03/06/2009 19:42:33
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  21. I feel that the cursus and avenue have some connection with the transportation of the stones, possibly flooded to create canals as others have suggested. Could these then have been left to freeze over in winter time and facilitate the movement of the stones by way of sledges?
    Posted by paul on 03/06/2009 15:09:01
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  22. I always believed that Stonehenge was more likely to be aligned so people entering faced the midwinter sunset. It is more logical. We still have major festivities in mid-winter which have even spread to parts of the world where late December is not mid-winter, and to places near the equator with quite different seasons, but except that 21st June is my birthday - nothing much else special happens then anywhere. So was pleased to see that the Time Team investigations confirms the mid-winter alignment and importance of Stonehenge - and the (perhaps obvious but now confirmed) association of mid-winter with death. (That does not prevent the same alignment back to front becoming recycled for summer solstice sunrise)
    Posted by Heather on 03/06/2009 14:53:01
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  23. A lot of the ideas in this enjoyable program were actually slight reworkings of old ideas. the sequence of construction was shortened but still basically the same and the theory that durrington walls and stonehenge represent respectively the living and the dead sides of the contemporary civilisation has been widely accepted for a long time(see Stone circles of the British Isles, Aubrey Burl 1976 Yale press). The speculation that the Aubrey holes once held the Bluestones based upon the re-excavation of a previously excavated hole, ie 1 hole out of 56, is just that. Incidentally the statement that Richard Atkinson published nothing on Stonehenge is rubbish, see for example Atkinson R J C, Stonehenge (Penguin Books, 1956) and numerous other papers, Atkinson's work was instrumental in the understanding of the three major phases of the monument's construction, although it must be admitted that he did leave behind a lot of unpublished material. Without a time machine nobody will ever be able to conclusively prove who built it or why. Every generation gets the Archaeology it deserves and we want glib easily digested 'factoids'.
    Posted by mike vaughan on 02/06/2009 21:46:21
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  24. Can we have it on DVD please.
    Posted by Alan Reese on 02/06/2009 21:10:48
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  25. I accept the theory -so far as it goes-and for a certain period in time-but I suspect that the Winter Solstice festival at Stonehenge was more than just about honouring the dead-it was probably, with the re-birth of the year, a time for the regeneration of the living as well. As we know, the Stonehenge people were very much concerned with the cycle of life and death, with such a large gathering and feasting it was surely a good time for weddings as well? Apart from the very practical consideration that children conceived at the Winter festival would be born late summer-the best likely time of reasonably warm weather and food to sustain a new mother and consequently give a child a good start before winter set in, there is the thought that an individuals life could also go round in a circle,starting and finally ending at Stonehenge. Also the programme gave the impression that the rituals remained the same for thousands of years totally unchanged-while they may have used the same landscape it is reasonable to believe the beliefs and rituals may have changed radically-and some parts of the landscape may have fallen into disuse.
    Posted by Old Hippie Celt on 02/06/2009 18:12:58
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  26. Great to see another Time Team special, but I sometimes feel like there is so much crammed into one easy to digest program that things are skimmed over lightly, or over simplified. But, hardly a criticism. Was interesting all the same. Amazed people find Tony Robinson irritating... shame on you. Anyway... I "Stumbled" upon this page about the rebuilding of Stone Henge. I know that the URL/Address is a little weird, but have a look at some of the photos on there. http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicstonehenge.htm Understandably, there is a lot of rubbish on the internet, but I hoped that maybe someone on this comment post or even someone from the Time Team web team might be able to shed some light on if the photos and information on this webpage, actually have SOME truth behind them. for instance.. "if one could get near to the stones - to see the turf peeling back to reveal the concrete boots into which the majority of the stones are now set. " I would have thought this would have been mentioned. Anyway... hope someone can help !
    Posted by itchard on 02/06/2009 17:34:00
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  27. I thought this was a very interesting idea and, like Ciara, would like to see some summary of the evidence. Do TT anticipate putting a webpage together for the programme? It is particularly exciting to be getting such good dates now and I congratulate the team on this achievement. Finally, a request for further information. How does these new ideas fit into finds such as the "Amesbury Archer" and the events described at nearby Silbury, as given in the BBC's recent "Heart of the Hill"? In this programme (can't find my notes...!) it presented new dating evidence suggesting that Silbury was from a significant point in history, when West Kennet was being closed, and Avebury and Stonehenge were being built. A transitional period from barrow- to circle-building. Does this mark the arrival of the Beaker People? If so, what is the significance of the Grooved Ware pottery, which I have always associated with earlier peoples. From the dates revealed by TT, the cursus seems to belong to the barrow-builders' era. The suggestion that large post holes were footings for "towers of silence" is also remeniscent of this culture, in whose barrows long-bones and skulls were stacked up neatly. These two programs seem to be relating to overlapping pieces of consecutive puzzles and I sense a more detailed tale is waiting to be told.
    Posted by Duncan on 02/06/2009 16:26:01
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  28. If the woodhenge at Durrington is connected with Stonehenge, what about Avebury stone circle. This also looks in alignment with Durrington's woodhenge and even Stonehenge, on the map?
    Posted by Helen on 02/06/2009 11:51:16
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  29. I would draw all of your attention to the incredible years of hard work by a scientist called John Burke (presently talking on you tube) whom has discovered that all of these very old places right across the board - from Wiltshire to the jungles of South America - were all situated exactly over what have been called 'interfluves' in the Earth. These are'conductivity discontinuities', which are places where earth-types that do not conduct electrical fields bump up against earth-types that do. Where these two types meet we get huge groundswells of natural force every single day. And what is the significance? Hugely exaggerated feilds like these turn 'normal' crop seed into a sort of super seed, which can be planted in unfertilised soil to produce massive yeilds. That is a scientific fact and not a fantasy. Remember, when places like Stonehenge were built fertiliser and crop rotation were unknown. And yet it has been discovered that without exception, all of these so-called 'sacred sites' were abandoned at exactly the same time as when fertliser for soil and crop rotation were discovered by the ancient people. In other words, all of these places - Avebury, Stonehenge, the dolmens etc, they were all fundamentally created for the one thing that the people most needed: Food! And a control over the wild world around them. That would explain why these people went to so much trouble in building these incredible things at a time when they were under pressure to survive. In times like that you do not haul giant stones over thirty miles in order to build a cemetery... or a clock!
    Posted by J Suckley on 02/06/2009 10:58:22
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  30. Is the research and it's findings going to be publically avaliable in the near future? I felt the programme was excellent and much hard work went into the rsearch however there seems to many gaps between theory and evidence and a lot of jumping to conclusions. I would like the oppportunity to examine the research for myself.
    Posted by Ciara on 02/06/2009 10:13:56
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  31. Is the research and it's findings going to be publically avaliable in the near future? I felt the programme was excellent and much hard work went into the rsearch however there seems to many gaps between theory and evidence and a lot of jumping to conclusions. I would like the oppportunity to examine the research for myself.
    Posted by Ciara on 02/06/2009 10:01:44
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  32. Fantastic programme, marred, of course, by the incredibly irritating Tony Robinson. But what an achievement and what a revelation. Only a passing reference to the unresolved question of how the blue stones got there in the first place (dumped nearby by a glacier or improbably brought by hand from Wales). But congratulations to everyone involved - a marvellous project and great TV.
    Posted by Bill on 02/06/2009 09:44:34
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  33. Having watched the documentary I think there is a possibility that the team overlooked regarding the "cursus". Could it be that the stones were transported via the river Avon up to the point where there is evidence of a construction on the bend of the river where it meets the cursus. The cursus was then used as a canal to take the stones from the river to the site of Stonehenge ? The 4 pits that were found were foundations for an apparatus that could haul the stones from the river to another "barge" on the cursus and then transport them to the the opposite bank of the cursus which was built with a dyke in order to topple them on to land drawn apparatus ?
    Posted by Colm Clarken on 01/06/2009 22:40:30
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  34. im watchin the program at the minute and have always had a facination of stonehenge. could the supposed natural avenue have been made aligned on the axis as a avenue of water so that strips were formed in alignement?? ie they created a dyke like feature flooded it to create the lines aligned with stonehenge ( Built later) i wonder what it looked like full of water at the time of the summer or winter solstice??
    Posted by Bob Warner on 01/06/2009 22:30:02
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  35. I always understood that some stones came from Pembrokeshire. Is that not true?
    Posted by Bill Craven on 01/06/2009 22:17:19
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  36. Stonehenge, in my opinion is a calender for a mating season. If conception is during the solstice then nine months later we have the best chance for a babies survival, Easter and all the "new life" pagan symbolism, eggs etc etc .... coincidence? No doubt within Stonehenge's construction there is something which indicates the mating season should stop.
    Posted by enigma on 01/06/2009 20:39:57
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  37. It amazes me how people get into very intricate detail and miss the big picture. Stonehenge is obviously the remains of the burial chamber inside a large pyramid. The pyramid was made of earth and wood, and would have been modeled on the Egyptian pyramids. The pyramid was torn down and ransacked of any treasure long ago because they found the same thing the Egyptians found - it was bad luck (or cursed).
    Posted by calamico on 01/06/2009 16:57:11
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  38. Brian Thirtle MRICS MQSi 1st.June 2009 There is nothing ritual about Stonehenge.The people who built this monument had reached a level of wisdom which had no place for ritual. It was located on a very special geometrical point of the Earth's sphere (now moved a few feet) and is not only a node of a series of great circle arc triangulations but carries in its own design and in the geometry in the adjacent landscape the clues required to understand the mathematics involved. These great circle arcs are measured in "Aubries" named after the archaeologist who found the 56 Aubrey holes. There is also the evidence of the geological catastrophe which destroyed this civilisation attached to these great circle arcs. It has taken me 30 years to solve this problem this far,but like most things, it's easy when you know how. I am now 71 years of age and my brain is not as sharp as it used to be,so if Channel 4 would like to make some record of the story so far,in order for others to solve the remaining problems,just drop me a line. Kind regards Brian Thirtle MRICS MQSi
    Posted by Brian Thirtle on 01/06/2009 16:30:21
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  39. Form follows function. If we are to properly understand the function of Stonehenge, we must carefully consider its unique form. It is remarkable indeed, and there is nothing like it anywhere in the world from that era. When we do examine the form, we can see certain important design features. The top of the lintels of the sarsen circle is accurately horizontal. That is a clue. The trilithons are taller than the circle, and the gaps between the trilithon uprights are narrow. Some upright stones are chamfered towards the top, whilst others have more or less vertical edges. These are all significant clues, which cannot be ignored. My own careful examination has revealed numerous alignments. These alignments are found purely considering the sarsen stones, and therefore there can be no argument that convenient alignments of elements from disparate construction phases are used. In other words, there is a fixed moment in time when the main structure was created as a consistent and coherent design. The alignment along the axis of summer solstice sunrise and winter solstice sunset is already very well known. I have also noted alignments of summer solstice sunSET and winter solstice sunRISE, together with equinox sunrise and sunset. There are also important alignments with the maxima and minima standstills of the moon. This leads me to the conclusion that Stonehenge was both a solar and a lunar temple. But it was not just a temple. It was an accurate scientific instrument for measuring azimuth angles. Some may find this concept difficult, because it highlights just how advanced they were. They were certainly not "howling barbarians" as a prominent archaeologist once described them. My appreciation of the achievements of the people of Stonehenge has considerably increased. An outline of my theory is available on YouTube, with the title "Stonehenge Astronomical Observatory". More information is also available via www.brontovox.co.uk
    Posted by HugoJenks on 31/05/2009 09:59:05
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  40. This wonderful research project has been funded by a grant from the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council. www.ahrc.ac.uk The project involves a team of archaeologists from Sheffield, Manchester, Bournemouth, Bristol, Preston, Birmingham and elsewhere. Over 200 people were working on site in 2008. More details about the work (though it is a little out of date at the moment) at http://www.shef.ac.uk/archaeology/research/stonehenge
    Posted by Jake on 29/05/2009 14:34:43
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  41. Mike Parker Pearson again I guess. For a clue as the programmes probable content see http://www.eternalidol.com/?p=702
    Posted by Dedalus on 29/05/2009 00:02:41
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment
  42. Hi Is this the episode which features The University of Manchester?
    Posted by Catherine on 28/05/2009 11:35:58
    Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment

Next on:

Friday 20 November

9PM, More4

TV Listings

Advertisement

Skip Channel4 main Navigation
Explore Channel4
Food
Homes
Film
4Car
News
See All

Channel 4 © 2009. Channel 4 is not responsible for the content of external websites.