I did some research on the internet about my question and found articles, but never with authors or sources..
as Odyssey Travellers
https://www.odysseytraveller.com/articles/new-discoveries-britains-stone-circles/
or:
http://what-when-how.com/ancient-astronomy/circles-of-earth-timber-and-stone/
in depth tutorials and information but from where and from who?

At the end I found more reliable information from the BBC:
https://www.historyextra.com/period/stone-age/britains-prehistoric-stone-circles/

"Stonehenge is undeniably a stone circle, but it’s not a henge, even though it has lent its name to the group of monuments that go under that title. The concept of the ‘henge’ was introduced by a man called Thomas Kendrick in 1932 and technically, a henge is a circular earthen bank with a ditch inside it and one or more entrances through the bank. At Stonehenge, there is a circular bank, but it is inside a ditch, so these elements are the wrong way round. Nevertheless, stone circles and henges do appear to be connected parts of a tradition that developed in Britain from around 3000 to 2000 BC – in other words, during the later Neolithic period (when agriculture began here) and moving into the earlier Bronze Age (when we see the first use of metals, from about 2400 BC)."


What we do know is people were coming from a distance to these places. Settlements are not always found in their immediate vicinity. Combined with finds of exotic objects in and around the circles, the evidence from isotope analysis of the bones of animals eaten at these sites points to the fact that people were travelling to get to them. “I think we can start to talk about pilgrimage,” says Richard Bradley. What were they coming to do? Well, eating seems to have been a big thing. Feasting, particularly on pork, is attested by excavated remains of animal bones.



Similarly, archaeological finds indicate that burial and commemoration of the dead also appears to have been going on. There was the deliberate deposition of unusual objects in the ground. Also, the observation of basic astronomical events would appear to have been practised, as many of the monuments have alignments that lend themselves to the solstices. Those are the main things that we can talk about with any sense of certainty, but of course that hasn’t stopped archaeologists and others from coming up with a multitude of theories about the purpose of these places.
What’s interesting is that their role seems to shift over time, notes Richard Bradley: “There’s a gradual change from public buildings – big houses I call them – where we see wooden structures with a lot of animal bone and a lot of debris, to stone settings usually with cremation burials. Then there’s a very last phase of use at stone circles which is perhaps more northern than southern. They were used all over again in the late Bronze Age (1200–800 BC) as cremation cemeteries and cremation pyres.”

An also this link about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priddy_Circles
Prehistoric circles but onlysimilat to "henges"?

As I understand it, the henges are limited to the British Isles? And the real purposes can up to know only guessed? As there are no written sources?

And in the time of the BBC I discussed with someone that we had here also a prehistoric circle near Bruges, as "archaeologists" said, but see, it is now confirmed that it were earthen circular walls from a medieval castle of the end 12th, begin 13th cnetury
https://inventaris.onroerenderfgoed.be/erfgoedobjecten/301364
https://www.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/iu3o45j1



Kind regards from Paul.

Do you mean "why are henges and such like often circular?" (other prehistoric enclosed geometric shapes are available) or are you making the mistake of assuming a common purpose for all circular enclosures?

Given the tools and materials to hand in pre-Bronze Age society, as well as the simplicity involved in delineating a circle, I'd be more inclined to ask why so few have survived in the landscape at all, especially when all indications show archaeologically that we have traditionally underestimated the profusion of circular constructions when assessing sites from the period.

It would help if, when addressing prehistoric constructions that happen to be circular, one also makes at least a general stab at differentiating between those presumed to have had a defensive role, those presumed to have had an agrarian role, those presumed to have had a political/religious role, those speculated to have had a role hitherto not presumed at all (such as the "Stonehege was a hospital" theory from a few years back) and, as is very likely, those presumed to have serviced at least some combination of two or more of these roles within the one site, sometimes concurrently or sometimes through change of use over the actively used portion of the construction's long existence. It would then help if one acknowledged where circular construction coincided with other geometrically aligned construction in the same area at the same time and where it was indeed possibly the predominant or sole shape employed in a particular area, by a particular society, or within a particular time-span.

As you can see, the permutations of potential uses for each specific instance can be many indeed, each site therefore really requiring to be assessed on its own merits and not, as a more ignorant tendency might have it among less than qualified authors who turn their attention to these structures for less than historically apposite reasons, to assume that either "prehistoric" or "circular" can ever be archaeologically or historically sound classifications.

It's 30 years ago but I remember lots of standing stones in Brittany (France).  On the Ile de Sein "les causers menhirs' would appear to be circular or at least elliptical in shape (it's difficult to because of the perspective in the drawing which I'm linking - one of these days I will master the skill of inserting a picture in one of my posts).  [url=Les Causeurs Menhirs, I'le de Sein, Finistere, (Bretagne) Brittany]Les Causeurs Menhirs, I'le de Sein, Finistere, (Bretagne) Brittany[/url]

It's true that the circle is used defensively.  I read once that when settlers were crossing the American west they would sometimes form their wagons into a circle when attacked by Native Americans, a tactic which they had copied from American bison protecting their young.  (Or did I watch too many "western" or "cowboy" films in my youth?).  The vast herds of bison no longer wander the great plains, alas, (at least not outside national parks - are they called that in America?) but here are some bison cows (a small number really so not sure whether they are domestic bison or wild ones) forming a circle while protecting their calves. I think there may be other animals besides the bison which form a circle to protect their young.

Paul, just to demonstrate how simplistic your original question may have been - here is a photograph of just one small site in Ireland, a bit of Brú na Bóinne in County Meath where a bow in the river Boyne half-encloses a parcel of land on which at least 12 prehistoric circular enclosures reside, some of which are highlighted here. These were constructed over a period roughly estimated to have been built between 6,000 and 2,000 years ago, and in fact since this view was taken another giant circle in the same area was discovered by an enterprising local amateur historian during a dry spell with a drone. What the photo doesn't include is the surrounding area which contains up to 100 more circular enclosures, some in henge style, some standing stones, some showing evidence of wooden perimeter structures, some palisade, and others in barrow form, the most famous of which are of course the Newgrange, Knowth and Dowth passage graves.



Now, you can see the problem with such a complex site (and there are even quite a few non-circular structures there too) when it comes to asking "what was the purpose of these prehistoric circles?". Just about every conceivable purpose, and probably a few others besides, may well have been catered for within just this small area of land, and over at least four millennia both the landscape and the purposes will of course have chopped and changed considerably.

nordmann,

now I see my mistake of making too broad a subject, as it is not defined at all. I will try to narrow my subject with only asking for "henges" as they are seemingly clearly? defined.
http://www.orkneyjar.com/history/henge.htm
A henge is a roughly circular or oval-shaped flat area enclosed and delimited by a boundary earthwork - usually a ditch with an external bank.


And with "henge" I found a lot more than with "historical circles"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henge

And now some questions again for the knowledgeables:
Are henges to be found only on the British isles?
Are there new theories about the purpose of henges, which are more archaeological supported than former ones?

Kind regards from Paul.

Lady,

"It's 30 years ago but I remember lots of standing stones in Brittany (France).  On the Ile de Sein "les causers menhirs' would appear to be circular or at least elliptical in shape (it's difficult to because of the perspective in the drawing which I'm linking - one of these days I will master the skill of inserting a picture in one of my posts).
https://thejournalofantiquities.com/2016/08/18/les-causeurs-menhirs-ile-de-sein-finistere-bretagne-brittany/


Purpose of "henges" Cropped-castlerigg-stone-circle-cumbria-1x1

Purpose of "henges" Les-causeurs-menhirs-ile-de-sein-finistere-by-portalix-wikimedia-e1471471198160



LiR, at least with me, it works. I put the cursor on the picture and then with the right  mouse button click on copy picture and then past it in my message and there it is...

"It's true that the circle is used defensively.  I read once that when settlers were crossing the American west they would sometimes form their wagons into a circle when attacked by Native Americans, a tactic which they had copied from American bison protecting their young.  (Or did I watch too many "western" or "cowboy" films in my youth?).  The vast herds of bison no longer wander the great plains, alas, (at least not outside national parks - are they called that in America?) but here are some bison cows (a small number really so not sure whether they are domestic bison or wild ones) forming a circle while protecting their calves. I think there may be other animals besides the bison which form a circle to protect their young.


LiR, yes that's true, but at least about the "henges" I learned yesterday that they were obviously not defensif of purpose, while the ditch was inside the bank. But you are right as the circle that I have mentioned yesterday near Bruges, where one first thought that it were henges, while now archaeologists have proved that it were circular defensive ditches. The ditches around a castle filled with water are also defensive.
Yes and I too see it still before my eyes: these old cowboy and indians films, when attacked by the indians forming a circle. And perhaps the circle is perhaps the best form to defend against outside danger, both from fire weapons and arrows? Are there no scientific studies about that? As for bisons to protect their young, i suppose the circle and oval are obvious as the most effective defense? A square not so natural?


Kind regards from Paul.

Hi Paul - I see you've changed the thread title to now focus on the term "henge" and the probable purpose to which such a structure might have been put.

"Henge" is in fact an archaeological classification of very little value - it traditionally defines a ditched enclosure that accommodated upright stone or wooden structures, especially around the perimeter. The problem with this definition is that the purpose, composition and disposition of the uprights is not examined beyond being confirmed as present in order to apply the term, which then of course begs so many questions regarding the true nature of the construction which invite so many fanciful attempts to answer them that, in archaeological terms, the whole exercise is worse than meaningless.

Inconsistencies involved in applying "henge" as a label include, as you also have seen, the various levels of complexity and structure of the ditch, as well as the general areas of the enclosure which vary widely within this poor definition, the geographical placement of the site in relation to local landscape, and of course the estimated dates of construction which cover such long periods that the time span not only includes fundamental cultural developments within particular societies credited with building them but actual entire population replacements in some places. As an archaeological "thumbnail" definition the word probably still has a meaningful function, but only as a place-marker pending further refinement of definition of purpose in relation to each specific site thus identified following further research in each case.

The days when all such sites could be lumped together on the basis of ditches and uprights as being of probable common purpose in spite of the millennia separating their construction dates and diverse cultural contexts in which they were built are long gone. And as a consequence the naive implication that they all held astronomical purpose as well as an automatic association with that traditional archaeological panacea for confusion, "ritual", has also now thankfully been dropped from the archaeological conversation too, or at least any such conversation based on actual forensic analysis and not just fanciful invention.

Paul,

 did you know that there are also what the Dutch call hunebedden or Dolmens in the province of Drenthe (Holland)

Link is in the English language:
http://www.hunebedden.nl/engels.htm


Dirk

nordmann wrote:

Hi Paul - I see you've changed the thread title to now focus on the term "henge" and the probable purpose to which such a structure might have been put.

"Henge" is in fact an archaeological classification of very little value - it traditionally defines a ditched enclosure that accommodated upright stone or wooden structures, especially around the perimeter. The problem with this definition is that the purpose, composition and disposition of the uprights is not examined beyond being confirmed as present in order to apply the term, which then of course begs so many questions regarding the true nature of the construction which invite so many fanciful attempts to answer them that, in archaeological terms, the whole exercise is worse than meaningless.

Inconsistencies involved in applying "henge" as a label include, as you also have seen, the various levels of complexity and structure of the ditch, as well as the general areas of the enclosure which vary widely within this poor definition, the geographical placement of the site in relation to local landscape, and of course the estimated dates of construction which cover such long periods that the time span not only includes fundamental cultural developments within particular societies credited with building them but actual entire population replacements in some places. As an archaeological "thumbnail" definition the word probably still has a meaningful function, but only as a place-marker pending further refinement of definition of purpose in relation to each specific site thus identified following further research in each case.

The days when all such sites could be lumped together on the basis of ditches and uprights as being of probable common purpose in spite of the millennia separating their construction dates and diverse cultural contexts in which they were built are long gone. And as a consequence the naive implication that they all held astronomical purpose as well as an automatic association with that traditional archaeological panacea for confusion, "ritual", has also now thankfully been dropped from the archaeological conversation too, or at least any such conversation based on actual forensic analysis and not just fanciful invention.

nordmann,

yes you are right, while the definition from the link of the Orkney islands seems to be clear cut, in the wiki article you see then that it covers a long period and many cultures and as you say, you have to consider nearly each separate "henge" like sites, case per case.
But with all these exchanges and reading I, personally, learned a lot about the subject, about which I was nearly ignorant.
Perhaps one last question, that I repeat:
Are these "henge" like sites only found in the British Isles (and the custom seems to come from the Orkney Islands?) or are there also found elsewhere?

Kind regards from Paul.

Dirk Marinus wrote:

Paul,

 did you know that there are also what the Dutch call hunebedden or Dolmens in the province of Drenthe (Holland)

Link is in the English language:
http://www.hunebedden.nl/engels.htm


Dirk

Dirk,

yes I heard about it. But the "dolmen" seems to be spread even to India and North-Korea according to the following wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolmen
And I had already invented a method to put this flat stone upon the other ones ...with a lever...each time some 10 cm (4 inches) with a lever of one to ten, meaning I could lift 800 kilos with my 80 kilos and each time supporting it with stones...and then on the other side...that effort will perhaps nearing 1300 kg...and then with four times two men on four sides at the same time that makes 6.4 ton ten centimeter each time
But as I read now the wiki, it is perhaps simpler to make a tumulus with the standing stones incorporated and then let glide on rolls the cover stone on the standing stones

Anyway if you want to see some types of stone arrangements, go to Carnac Brittany France (I was there), there you have it all (except henges nordmann?)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnac_stones
Alignments, tumuli, dolmen and even other formations...

Kind regards from Paul.

A somewhat "unhenged" comment - "circling" waggons wasn't, imo, learned from watching bison. The Boers hadn't seen any bison prior to using this tactic at Blood River, nor, I opine, did the Hussites.

I'm not clear whether the Dongwu Che were used in a circular formation or not, but as they were current for many years from C5th BCE it is at least possible.

PaulRyckier wrote:

Perhaps one last question, that I repeat:
Are these "henge" like sites only found in the British Isles (and the custom seems to come from the Orkney Islands?) or are there also found elsewhere?

Kind regards from Paul.

The term "henge" was a British confection that was never suitable for purposes of archaeological classification and includes quite a variety of structures. Some of these structures of course can be found elsewhere, though even in Ireland (which at the time of the term's coinage would have been included within "British" archaeological remit) more precise classification and terminology to reflect this variation was already in use. The reticence outside of Britain to adopt such a loose and inaccurate term that collectively classifies structures deserving of more precise analysis means that its continued popularity in Britain might indeed lead casual observers to conclude that a "henge" is therefore a "British phenomenon" archaeologically. It isn't - it is however a peculiarly "British linguistic phenomenon", and a rather unforgivable one at that in a country whose principal language is normally so adept at producing nuanced and exact rendition of verbal meaning.

I note that you and Dirk have also (despite your own thread's title) now introduced "dolmens" for discussion. While not quite as incorrect a classification as "henge" this word is still quite misleading. It became a popular alternative to "cromlech" in English during the 19th century based on a previous observation and coinage of the term made in France regarding similar structures there. However in Ireland, which has by far the greatest accumulation of such structures still in existence, the term has always been used with caution within archaeology as it was understood that these structures must also themselves be divided into at least three functional types, and also that these types correspond to fundamental demographic and cultural shifts within the populations that produced them over a very long period of time. Within these classifications the "cromlech" name still retains some relevance in certain instances (for those who understand its linguistic root), though variations of words with a "liath" (stone) root have also been coined in Irish archaeology to describe other specimens. The British confusion (which persists even today) was down to interpreting these structures based purely on current appearance, as superstructures with an elevation proud from the earth on which they stand. In reality the bulk of these are more correctly classified as eroded passage graves, and proper analysis of them should be conducted within that of passage graves generally, itself a very complex series of classifications within which any "dolmen" must be carefully placed contextually.

And before yet another bad classification appears here, I'll attempt to nip it in the bud by warning you to avoid falling into the British "barrow" trap too. (Falling into barrows is never recommended).

I had read a suggestion in a book (but can't remember the title) that people in American wagon trains had possibly adopted the circling tactic from bison.  Gilgamesh is correct that the stratagem had been used elsewhere.  Other animals besides bison form into circles.  Maybe it is instinctive to animals and I guess we humans are animals at the end of the day.

While I'm aware you've gone off on a complete tangent, LiR, there is actually something to be said regarding Stonehenge (and other "henges" of similar design) and its circularity as being relative to notions of defence or any other military function.

However it's probably the direct opposite to what you've pointed out by drawing comparison with wagon circles in the wild west. One theory that has been put forward in the past, and I have read it also in relation to other sites in Ireland too that share with Stonehenge evidence of great investment in their construction and upkeep over long periods along with no conceivably effective military or defensive use to which they could be put, that in fact their obvious and extreme vulnerability to attack was in fact exactly the point of their design in the first place.

The hypothesis is that such structures may have been positioned intentionally at geographical points of intersection between neighbouring spheres of authority, and although imbued with high religious or ritual significance their primary function underlying both was fundamentally as agreed "neutral zones", or "de-militarised zones", in which opposing forces could assemble in a manner promoting trust and mutual safety between all the participants. In this case their circularity, which afforded no one person or contingent positioned without the perimeter any advantage over any other person or contingent so positioned at another spot, served to enhance this aspect to their function. One can speculate as wildly as one wishes regarding the manner of ritual or the religious organisation that may or may not have been employed also to enhance this role and ensure its success, but certainly the architecture, highly impressive aesthetics, and placement of some of these sites do at least tentatively support this conjecture with reference to still observable features.

I wasn't trying to go off point, nordmann.  I was thinking of the circle being used as a defensive shape in nature and by humankind over the years.  I know I'm stating the very obvious but lookouts positioned strategically in a circular defence, particularly if it is high, would be able to see enemies approaching from all directions.  There is a small iron age hill fort not too far from my hometown (though it's on farmland therefore private and there isn't really* anything of historical significance to be uncovered there these days).  [url=https://en.wikipedia.org %E2%80%BA wiki %E2%80%BA Berry_Ring]https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Berry_Ring[/url]


https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Berry_Ring



[list="margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border: 0px;"]
[*]
[*]
[/list]

* I meant I don't think it merits a "dig".  I don't know if it was ever explored architecturally in the past.

What distinguishes a "henge" from a ring-fort (both bad classifications anyway) is exactly that, LiR - the ditch. Whereas a fortified circle's ditch is obviously designed to impede an enemy and assist the defenders, a henge's ditch is singularly unsuitable and, if anything, would actually make those inside even more vulnerable to assault by anyone hurling anything at them. This is precisely why the two terms have persisted as long as they have even despite their other rather obvious descriptive failures in every other respect - the earthworks evident in henges have no obvious effective defensive purpose whatsoever, even to the amateur eye of early antiquarians.

Green George wrote:

A somewhat "unhenged" comment - "circling" waggons wasn't, imo, learned from watching bison. The Boers hadn't seen any bison prior to using this tactic at Blood River, nor, I opine, did the Hussites.

I'm not clear whether the Dongwu Che were used in a circular formation or not, but as they were current for many years from C5th BCE it is at least possible.

Gil,

with all those "special" words, as "banoffee" (banana toffee cake), as here again with "dongwu che" you seduce me to do the search and to disgress...
It sounds a bit as Chinese and indeed it is...

and from that I came to the South Pointing Chariot
https://history-computer.com/CalculatingTools/AnalogComputers/South_pointing_chariot.html


Kind regards from Paul.

nordmann wrote:

PaulRyckier wrote:

Perhaps one last question, that I repeat:
Are these "henge" like sites only found in the British Isles (and the custom seems to come from the Orkney Islands?) or are there also found elsewhere?

Kind regards from Paul.

The term "henge" was a British confection that was never suitable for purposes of archaeological classification and includes quite a variety of structures. Some of these structures of course can be found elsewhere, though even in Ireland (which at the time of the term's coinage would have been included within "British" archaeological remit) more precise classification and terminology to reflect this variation was already in use. The reticence outside of Britain to adopt such a loose and inaccurate term that collectively classifies structures deserving of more precise analysis means that its continued popularity in Britain might indeed lead casual observers to conclude that a "henge" is therefore a "British phenomenon" archaeologically. It isn't - it is however a peculiarly "British linguistic phenomenon", and a rather unforgivable one at that in a country whose principal language is normally so adept at producing nuanced and exact rendition of verbal meaning.

I note that you and Dirk have also (despite your own thread's title) now introduced "dolmens" for discussion. While not quite as incorrect a classification as "henge" this word is still quite misleading. It became a popular alternative to "cromlech" in English during the 19th century based on a previous observation and coinage of the term made in France regarding similar structures there. However in Ireland, which has by far the greatest accumulation of such structures still in existence, the term has always been used with caution within archaeology as it was understood that these structures must also themselves be divided into at least three functional types, and also that these types correspond to fundamental demographic and cultural shifts within the populations that produced them over a very long period of time. Within these classifications the "cromlech" name still retains some relevance in certain instances (for those who understand its linguistic root), though variations of words with a "liath" (stone) root have also been coined in Irish archaeology to describe other specimens. The British confusion (which persists even today) was down to interpreting these structures based purely on current appearance, as superstructures with an elevation proud from the earth on which they stand. In reality the bulk of these are more correctly classified as eroded passage graves, and proper analysis of them should be conducted within that of passage graves generally, itself a very complex series of classifications within which any "dolmen" must be carefully placed contextually.

And before yet another bad classification appears here, I'll attempt to nip it in the bud by warning you to avoid falling into the British "barrow" trap too. (Falling into barrows is never recommended).

 
nordmann,

thank you so much for this enlightening reply. I learned from it how difficult it is to frame a subject in the right unambiguous way. It's an asset that we have here an erudit to learn us "om de rechte weg te bewandelen" (to walk the straight way?)
I learned also from your detailed and to the point, as ever, survey of the different connotations (concepts?).

Kind regards from Paul.

LadyinRetirement wrote:

I wasn't trying to go off point, nordmann.  I was thinking of the circle being used as a defensive shape in nature and by humankind over the years.  I know I'm stating the very obvious but lookouts positioned strategically in a circular defence, particularly if it is high, would be able to see enemies approaching from all directions.  There is a small iron age hill fort not too far from my hometown (though it's on farmland therefore private and there isn't really* anything of historical significance to be uncovered there these days).

LiR,

https://www.webbaviation.co.uk/aerial/picture.php?/28363
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berry_Ring

Kind regards from Paul.