I don't know. I always feel somewhat awkward about Zoroastrianism in particular, which is basically portrayed as a giant family incest orgy.
Stone Henge doesn't deserve to be a Wonder and it's in the way of Salisbury Cathedral
- Thread starter SigurdStormhand
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I seriously doubt there were 70,000 Romans for Boudica to kill at the time, but that's beside the point.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...e-remodelled/A118920A90FB7CCB2838CEEB10BE477D
This paper highlights no significant activity after the Middle Bronze Age when it appears people began chipping the bluestones to make artefacts, which essentially constitutes looting, not continual occupation. After that there's basically nothing until the later medieval period.
Timothy Darvill, VPSA, and Geoffrey Wainwright, PSA gave a report on the 2008 excavations which is available here to anyone with Athens Access: https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...vations-2008/AB2CE78C311F161EC7B876A443C50AEA
The shaft you seem so exercised about appears to be Roman, not Celtic.
"Fully excavated, the shaft is substantial and, of course, it chops out a lot of earlier stratigraphy. In the bottom was a very strange piece, which some have likened to the phallic stones found on Neolithic sites. Certainly it is a long, thin, spiky piece of natural flint nodule. There was abundant Roman pottery from the fill and another late Roman coin on the base. Also from the shaft came a substantial amount of animal bone – more than 400 pieces all together – which Mark Maltby has been working on. There are bones of sheep, goat, pig, horse, dog, red deer, hare and rabbit, and two species of bird, fowl and wader. So we now have structural evidence for the use of Stonehenge in Roman times – mainly in the late fourth century or a little later – with the shaft for sure, and perhaps a pit or a grave against one of the sarsen stones as well. We have bluestone incorporated in both those structures, suggesting that, during this time, pieces of the bluestones around Stonehenge and within it were being broken off and used in the construction of these features. We might note that earlier excavations recovered some twenty other Roman coins, half of which are also of fourth-century date. There are 1,857 sherds of Roman pottery from previous excavations, and at least seven items of Roman metalwork. All together, then, there is a substantial collection of material; in the past this has been interpreted as being from Roman picnickers; now perhaps we need to rethink what this material really means for the use of the site as a place of ritual or ceremony in the first millennium AD." (p. 15)
So we have some possible ritual activity in the late 4th Century, which is Centuries after Druidic religion was supressed. As always we must bear in mind that Roman Polytheism was highly syncretic - the Romans would interpret local Gods as local manifestations of their own deities and were not shy about adopting local practices into their rituals. That doesn't mean Druidic continuity, though, it means a Celtic layer applied to what is still largely Roman practice.
The majority of what they record is further vandalism, i.e. bluestones being chipped and carried away to be used elsewhere.
"Bluestones at Stonehenge were clearly broken up in later prehistoric times, and in Roman and medieval times this became quite an industry. The bluestones were differentially selected for removal. As Paul Ashbee once noted, almost all the sarsen stones are still there, but something in excess of two-thirds of the bluestones have disappeared. Close examination of the bluestones at Stonehenge reveals the presence of large flake-beds on the stones where rock has been detached (fig 10). In the case of Stone 35a almost all the rock that originally protruded above ground was removed. Such removals contribute not to the shaping of the stones but to the removal of pieces for use elsewhere. Clearly, stone removal was happening in post-prehistoric times and continued down into more recent times."
So this means the locals continued to value the stones, to some degree. The question of who those people was in an open one, though? Cunning Folk, perhaps? Crucuially, what there is NO evidence of (excepting this one late-Roman shaft and another burial) is sustained ritual activity at the Stones. This is the key point - whilst the Stones may have continued to hold a fascination they were not in regular usage as a communal ritual site and the literary evidence underscores a general disinterest in them.
Near where I grew up there's a Stone called the "Devil's Stone" which is said to be the lock on his prison in Hell. The stone is still turned every year on the 5th of November to keep his prison secure. It is said if this is not done the Devil will escape and bring disaster to the village. This is probably some remnant of a pagan memory - but the turning is done by the local Christian bell ringers.
Not every historical religious figure was celibate, though. I don't see having some of them able to marry is disrespectful per se, for those who were celibate, well, we have a celibate trait. If a person should have the trait and doesn't, I'd characterize that as more as a failure of research rather than as disrespect. And as for being able to imprison them, execute them, etc., a great many religious figures were no strangers to suffering and martyrdom.
Fair points, although you actually *gain* piety for burning pregnant heretics at the stake. That's wrong on so many levels.
Wrong maybe, but definitely historical. Although I guess maybe they'd have let them give birth to the kid first.
This. CK2 can be fun without having stupid immersion breaking events its not impossible.
That's the thing - generally speaking executing the mother would be seen as also executing the innocent child, so it wasn't usually allowed, at least in the religions that originated in the Middle East (which includes Christianity).
It would basically be murder.
If she's a witch that child might be the spawn of SATAN!
On a serious sidenote, I've complained ages ago about "hunt Apostates" being introduced as default court chaplain activity. Specially ironic with pagan reformation, while not every religion will proselytize, every religion will burn people at the stake
On a serious sidenote, I've complained ages ago about "hunt Apostates" being introduced as default court chaplain activity. Specially ironic with pagan reformation, while not every religion will proselytize, every religion will burn people at the stake
The best decisions are always made in the grips of absolute terror and/or hatred.
Last edited:
you keep referring to a group of people native to South and East Britain as "Roman" as though the second Ceasar walked in and conquered them they miraculously had moreit.n common with the people of central Italy than those living in northern and western Britan?
In what sense were they "Roman" ? Linguistically? Religiously? Ethnically?
You know the answers here are no, no, and no.
Regardless-- let's concede the archeology supports these "Roman's" used the site--
That still disproves your original claim that no one but "cave men" ever cared about it.
Let's call it a shrine to Mercury and add bonuses for the Hellenic religion then, because the Romans used Stonehenge.
Ugh, I know it's off-topic, but I feel the need to pull this quote out and explicitly state how much I agree. "Hunt Apostates" is one of those additions added over the past couple years that has really broken the immersion of CK2 for me, enough that I listed it over on "the Leftovers" thread for hopeful future changes. I really do hope the devs could take a look at some of these old additions and do some tweaks here and there to reduce the anachronisms that leads CK2 to seem to have more in common with the universes of Warhammer or Game of Thrones than history.
Anyhow, back on topic, do we know what sort of bonuses Stonehenge will be granting? It was mentioned that it shares artwork with a generic "Pagan Stones" great work, which does make it sound as though it will have some religious ties...
You mean the fourth Caesar, right?
In any case, yes, by the 4th-5th Centuries they are Roman, specifically Romano-British, which is still fundamentally Roman. People were more thoroughly Romanised in the towns and cities, true, but then the towns and cities governed the surrounding countryside.
What, you think the people stayed proudly Celtic for 400 years?
In any case, yes, by the 4th-5th Centuries they are Roman, specifically Romano-British, which is still fundamentally Roman. People were more thoroughly Romanised in the towns and cities, true, but then the towns and cities governed the surrounding countryside.
What, you think the people stayed proudly Celtic for 400 years?
For that matter, by the 4th/5th centuries many of them were Christian.
Even better- Roman Christians were using Stonehenge as a Holy site in the 1st and 4th centuries-- so no need to bulldoze it for the 7th best Cathedral within a 30 mile radius.
Remove the stupid one Wonder per province limit. Or if they refuse to do that then just add the "less wondrous" historical buildings as normal buildings.
Seriously- there's evidence that Stonehenge was used for rituals and burials in the 1st and 4th century AD; my suggestion that it was Druidic-Celtic pagans doing so seems reasonable, but history scolds hate the idea that druids ever existed so they say "no it was someone else- Romans, Christians" and I say, "OK sure- but that's still SOMEONE, right?"
Christian used the basilical buildings because the classic Roman temple structure wasn't apt to Christian worship.
To say that Christians used Stonehenge as a place of worship without proper archaeological evidence is careless at best.
Evidence of rituals and burials near Stonehenge, doesn't even indicate that Stonehenge was a "holy site" , since druidism wasn't a state religion, but a blanket term for the common religious practices amongst the celts.
Even if some local group used it for their burials, means very little in the grand scheme of things.
Lastly even when Christianity became majoritarian, it didn't mean there were no tree worshippers left to do their rituals.
It is beyond belief that Stonehenge was used for Christian worship.
To say that Christians used Stonehenge as a place of worship without proper archaeological evidence is careless at best.
Evidence of rituals and burials near Stonehenge, doesn't even indicate that Stonehenge was a "holy site" , since druidism wasn't a state religion, but a blanket term for the common religious practices amongst the celts.
Even if some local group used it for their burials, means very little in the grand scheme of things.
Lastly even when Christianity became majoritarian, it didn't mean there were no tree worshippers left to do their rituals.
It is beyond belief that Stonehenge was used for Christian worship.
So i'm history scold for pointing out the archaeology of the site?
Also you are forgetting the Romans massacred the druids to the man during there last stand at Anglesey to break the back of the British resistance.
Also Christians using Stonehenge as a religious site!?! Are you trolling? Because I can honestly say Id sooner believe that some hitherto unknown group of descendants of neolithic farmers kept there religious traditions alive over 2 millennia in isolation then suddenly reemerged under the Romans and reclaimed the site than Christians worshiping there. I mean come on, You've stretched credulity until it broke and then danced on its grave. It's an utterly ridiculous assertion.
Last edited:
Have you presented any such evidence? Because you seem to cover up for your lack of sources, knowledge, and ability to critically engage with the sources presented to you with nothing but a constant moving of goalposts. A few pages ago you were so certain that Stonehenge was used by druids (not just suggesting that it seems reasonable, you were super emphatic), and your only evidence for this was a pop history book from which you couldn't even be bothered to quote (but I'm sure it's just chock full of evidence!) But now - after @SigurdStormhand has very helpfully chased down the paltry thing you were talking about - if all of that was predicated on an outlier shaft burial - you're very quick to abandon your previously ironclad belief (without admitting that you're mistaken, naturally) in favour of some new thesis disconnected from celtic paganism. I suspect that if some viking was recorded as having stubbed his toe there, you'd be seizing on that next. There's a kind of irony to the way you keep dramatically falling back to "history scolds!" every time you run out of rhetorical ground and need time to reposition your goalposts. There might be some vallidity in accusing some of us of acting like know-it-alls... except so are you. You've been very confident, very authoritative in your assertions... but then you can't back that up by demonstrating actual knowledge, and can only wait and hope to seize on perceived flaws in the material that the rest of us provide for you. It's okay to not know everything, and it's okay to vigorously defend your positions. But being determined to vigorously defend your positions when you don't know anything... it's no wonder you keep getting so frustrated.
Let's try and refocus here.
This really is the key point. We've never held that Stonehenge wasn't an intriguing regional oddity. We've never held that no one in the entire Christian era ever went there. But it was not a place of religious or cultural signifiance, the evidence does not exist that it was meaningfully used with any frequency (beyond perhaps what SigurdStormhand describes as looting), and to explore this notion of yours that it was obviously of wondrous importance to the medieval era we've had to drift into discussions of the pagan celtic period and now the imperial period. And what do we have to show for it? An outlier shaft burial, some looting of the site, and "Merlin did it!"? Those are anecdotes.
You keep dodging the point about affecting the site - as though we're trying to strawman you as believing the celts built it from scratch. But you've missed the point of why it matters. When people frequently interact with a site - which they would obviously be doing here in very significant numbers if Stonehenge was anywhere near as religiously/culturally/cross-culturally/funereally important as you insist - they cannot help but make changes to it. That's why a city like Alexandria has a Ptolemaic layer, a Roman layer, a late Roman/Byzantine layer, an Arab/early modern layer, etc. If Stonehenge was what you insist it was, if substantial numbers of people were deliberately going out of their way to interact with this object of such tremendous ritual value... we would have a hell of a lot more to show for it beyond a nearby burial or two, some chunks hacked out of the stone, and the words "Merlin did it!" on an isolated text somewhere. And after all these pages we're not one inch closer to anyone making a case that Stonehenge mattered to medieval people.
Last edited: