Talk:Stonehenge

A link to Cultural depictions of Stonehenge currently appears in See Also, and until recently also appeared in an otherwise blank "In popular culture" section, rendered as follows: ==In popular culture== {{main|Cultural depictions of Stonehenge}}

For ease of reader navigation, I favor the inclusion of the hat link in an empty "In popular culture" section and the removal of the See Also link (per MOS:SEEALSO). Readers expect to find modern/cultural summaries at the bottom of wikipedia articles, and per WP:IAR we should meet that expectation. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Frankly in my opinion a link to this article should not be included at all, because this article itself should not exist. It has an editorializing lead, an OR section, and a trivia section. That's it. Almost anything relevant in there is already mentioned in some form on the main article; I plan to merge what is not already there, and then most likely redirect the page. I am also in general not a big fan of See Also sections, and the current one is a particularly egregious one, so this is going to need trimming as well. On a side note, having empty sections with only a hatnote is almost always bad practice, and "in popular culture" sections very often end up as a trivia collection, which should be avoided. I do not really understand your point regarding IAR in relation to readers expectations. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛⋅💬⋅📋 20:42, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi User:Choucas0, if you're going to be working on this article and Cultural depictions of Stonehenge then I have no objections to any course of action that improves things. I think you're almost certainly mistaken about the notability of Cultural depictions of Stonehenge, but I won't fight to save whatever pop-cruft you think you can cut. (Note that it was created in 2007 as a split from Stonehenge. If you remove it, you'll be taking on a Herculean (Sisyphean?) task in ongoing removal of pop-culture trivia.)

Regarding IAR: I mean that readers expect to find discussion of the relevance of the article subject to pop culture – e.g. as an inspiration for art, music, etc. – near the bottom of the article. In fact, we have no section on that subject, despite it clearly being notable; our "Modern History" section doesn't really cover that subject at all. Instead, we've relegated that topic to the strangely-named Cultural depictions of Stonehenge. I think you will struggle to fit that subject into the Modern History section, but if you want to undo the original split and incorporate discussion of Stonehenge's impact on culture into the existing article structure, that's great. Thanks, Suriname0 (talk) 23:09, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I suggest adding the recently published novel Circle of Days by Ken Follett to the Fiction subsection under the See Also section. 65.31.132.143 (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.

Thank you for trying to improve the project, but please consider that we can’t have everything on an article, so we have rules for what is WP:NOTABLE Slomo666 (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Currently, there is an issue with @AntientNestor around the inclusion of a peer-reviewed source and supporting secondary source referencing the statement from Silvia Ghirotto on the prevailing dark pheonootype of the Stonehenge inhabitants during that period. @Murgatroyd49 has accepted the changes with minor amendments but would welcome input of other editors as this is a reliable source which should not be omitted. Cited per below from the study:

• "We then applied that protocol to 348 ancient genomes from Eurasia, describing how skin, eye, and hair color evolved over the past 45,000 y. The shift toward lighter pigmentations turned out to be all but linear in time and place, and slower than expected, with half of the individuals showing dark or intermediate skin colors well into the Bronze and Iron ages."

• "Paleolithic period: from approximately 45,000 to 13,000 y ago; 12 samples; 11 typed for eye color, hereafter E, 10 for hair color, hereafter H; 12 for skin color, hereafter S; one of them is the Ust'-Ishim test sample. Dark phenotypes are inferred for all traits for almost all the samples analyzed. The only exception is a Russian sample, Kostenki 14, dated to between 38,700 and 36,200 y ago, which exhibits an intermediate skin color."

WikiUser4020 (talk) 22:03, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I quoted from the cited source in my edit summary. A longer quote here: "[…] light skin phenotypes (in 5 samples from the Czech Republic, Great Britain, Latvia, Sweden, and Ukraine)." This repeated twice more in the source. This is the exact opposite to what you put in. Please take its out again. AntientNestor (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@AntientNestor I've just stated that the study references the Palaeolithic period which shows that the samples that were overwhelmingly dark-skin and light skin begins to emerge in Britain in the Neolithic period along with variable skin tones including intermediate. Read the supplementary material which illustrates the visual mapping of dark skin in Britain. We already have a sourced statement from the author in a secondary source. She states:

• “I would say that, given that Stonehenge was built during the transition from Neolithic to Bronze Age, and given the high frequency of dark-skinned samples we inferred for that period even in northern Europe, it is likely that Britons who built Stonehenge displayed dark features.”

Please refer to the data set which highlights the Great Britain samples from the Mesolithic period. WikiUser4020 (talk) 22:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I think the sources are fine, but I don't see how the following highlighted part of your addition is supported by them:

"A 2025 study conducted by scientists from the University of Ferrara had found that many of the prehistoric Europeans, including genetic remains from the Stonehenge inhabitants, retained the dark skin of their African ancestors until the Bronze and Iron Ages."

The study doesn't mention Stonehenge and in the LBC source it's only inferred based on probability, not that they had any samples from "Stonehenge inhabitants".

Looking at the supporting information of the study:

• Neolithic samples:
  • 6 from Scotland (1 pale skin, 5 dark or black)
  • 1 from Carsington (1 dark to black) (205 km from Stonehenge)
  • 1 from Hetty Peglers Tump (1 dark to black) (65 km from Stonehenge)
• Copper Age samples:
  • 2 from Trumpington Meadows (1 pale, 1 dark) (170 km from Stonehenge)
• Bronze Age samples:
  • 3 from Scotland (1 pale/intermediate, 1 intermediate, 1 dark)
  • 1 from Trumpington Meadows (1 intermediate) (170 km from Stonehenge)
  • 1 from Yarnton (1 pale) (75 km from Stonehenge)
  • 1 from Clay Farm (1 intermediate) (175 km from Stonehenge)
  • 1 from Biddenham Loop (1 pale/intermediate) (135 km from Stonehenge)
• Iron Age samples:
  • 2 from Hinxton (2 pale/intermediate) (170 km from Stonehenge)

In summary: There are 10 samples from England from the Neolithic to the Iron Age, that are from between 65 and 205 km away from Stonehenge: 2 pale, 3 pale/intermediate, 2 intermediate, 1 dark, 2 dark to black.

This isn't very specific to Stonehenge and the additions are largely irrelevant to the article. I think keeping the first sentence without the highlighted part above is fine, the rest is undue. Hypnôs (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@Hypnôs I take your point. The phrasing could be adjusted and invite any amendments from your side in regards to this. I think the sourced statement from the author on the inference should be included as she makes this explicit judgement based on the inferential analysis based on the prevalence of dark skin in Neolithic Europe. WikiUser4020 (talk) 23:52, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I disagree that any of this is relevant to this article. As Hypnôs says "The study doesn't mention Stonehenge and in the LBC source it's only inferred based on probability, not that they had any samples from "Stonehenge inhabitants"". It might be appropriate for articles on the Neolithic/Bronze/Iron Age, but not in an article which exceeds the maximum recommended article size and has plenty of irrelevant/barely relevant mentions already. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:25, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@DerbyCountyinNZ I think the supporting secondary source and proximity of the Neolithic samples near Stonehenge warrants inclusion as highlighted by Hypnos. Hypnos has trimmed to a few sentences so I think should be sufficient for inclusion. The matter seems pretty much closed. WikiUser4020 (talk) 01:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, which samples were from near Stonehenge? GenevieveDEon (talk) 06:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@GenevieveDEon Look above at Hynos comments which states the specific samples pooled from Great Britain and specified in the supplementary material i.e. the datasets which has a breakdown of the individual samples.

Looking at the supporting information of the study:

Neolithic samples:

6 from Scotland (1 pale skin, 5 dark or black)

1 from Carsington (1 dark to black) (205 km from Stonehenge)

1 from Hetty Peglers Tump (1 dark to black) (65 km from Stonehenge)

Copper Age samples:

2 from Trumpington Meadows (1 pale, 1 dark) (170 km from Stonehenge)

Bronze Age samples:

3 from Scotland (1 pale/intermediate, 1 intermediate, 1 dark)

1 from Trumpington Meadows (1 intermediate) (170 km from Stonehenge)

1 from Yarnton (1 pale) (75 km from Stonehenge)

1 from Clay Farm (1 intermediate) (175 km from Stonehenge)

1 from Biddenham Loop (1 pale/intermediate) (135 km from Stonehenge)

Iron Age samples:

2 from Hinxton (2 pale/intermediate) (170 km from Stonehenge)

In summary: There are 10 samples from England from the Neolithic to the Iron Age, that are from between 65 and 205 km away from Stonehenge: 2 pale, 3 pale/intermediate, 2 intermediate, 1 dark, 2 dark to black. WikiUser4020 (talk) 07:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I can read. As the 'nearest' one is from Hetty Pegler's Tump, 65km away, I'm asking again: are there any that are actually near Stonehenge? GenevieveDEon (talk) 07:43, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

The “I would say that"-quote is pretty clear and unambiguous. The statement "displayed dark features” is quite different from the inference "retained the dark skin of their African ancestors." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:48, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan It is literally stated in the abstract: "We showed that the Neolithic diffusion of early farmers introduced lighter phenotypes, but for millennia, pigmentation diversity remained extensive, so that many Europeans kept the dark skins of their African ancestors well within the Bronze and Iron ages."

@GenevieveDEon I think those samples are still within the reasonable distance from Stonhenge. This is subjective dispute over what we define as near or proximity as Hypernion did not seem to have a problem with it's inclusion. WikiUser4020 (talk) 09:15, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, if those farmers introduced lighter skin-colours, and they were the people who built Stonehenge, than we can't imply that the Stonehenge-builders had a dark skin, retaining "the dark skins of their African ancestors," can we? "Their" here refers to the pre-farmer population, not to the Stonehenge-builders. The Ghirotto-quote is quite speculative; for the moment, all this undue and accepted for inclusion by numerous editors. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:24, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan The co-author is very explicit in her inferential analysis. She is stating that the prevalence of dark skin throughout Neolithic Europe means it is likely that the Stonehenge inhabitants would have likely had darker skin. The study is not saying the Stonehenge builders had predominately light skin but light skin emerges during that specific time interval with dark skin remaining prevalent prior to this. Read the supplementary analysis and data sets referenced above. In line with the authors statement. Nonetheless, I will leave things as they stand for now. WikiUser4020 (talk) 10:53, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

The recent book by Robert John Langdon, Archeologist: The Stonehenge Enigma - Third Edition, ABC Publishing Group, ISDN: 978190797040, 2020 shows convincing arguments to extend the timeline and usages of Stonehenge to 8300 BCE. The allowing of using this book as reference material to provide a balanced viewpoint of history would be a good start. This book makes more sense than most of the conjecture written so far. MH032 (talk) 10:28, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

There seem to be a number of off-wiki concerns with his work: . DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:42, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

It's a fringe theory and his work has not received any peer review. Using it here would not provide a balanced viewpoint of history. Ranger Steve ^Talk 11:20, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Isn't ABC Book Publisher's main business self-published works? If so, the book won't do for a source. AntientNestor (talk) 11:25, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Oppose any use of this pseudoarchaeological book here or the Stonehenge WP:FRINGE dumping ground.  Tewdar  11:25, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Looking at this website, I do not think this is a reliable source. The Banner talk 15:09, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

I oppose the use of Landon's pseudo-archaeological theories, it's WP:FRINGE. His books are self-published by a vanity press. Netherzone (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Adding my voice to the opposition to including this fringe theory. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:58, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Proposed first edit Existing text is: '... Another theory is that they were brought much nearer to the site as glacial erratics by the Irish Sea Glacier[35] although there is no evidence of glacial deposition within southern central England.[36] ...'

Request edit to insert text after this:

'However the Devensian ice sheet extended as far the Bristol Channel, only 80km (50mls) away from the site, and in earlier ice ages glaciers deposited erratic boulders as far south as Sussex [ref *]. Therefore the theory that the stones were transported by ice sheets for most or all of their journey from north Wales should not be lightly dismissed.'

Ref. *: David A. Bone, ‘Enigmatic rocks and sarsen stones of the West Sussex Coastal Plain, southern Britain’, Proceedings of the Geologists' Association, Vol. 133: 1, Feb. 2022, pp. 2-21

Proposed second edit

Existing text:

'What was to become known as the Altar Stone was believed to have been derived from the Senni Beds, perhaps from 50 miles (80 kilometres) east of the Preseli Hills in the Brecon Beacons.[36] Work announced in 2024 by a team from Curtin University, who analysed the chemical composition of fragments of rock that had fallen off the Altar Stone, and dated them, found that the best match was with rocks in the Orcadian Basin (which includes Caithness, Orkney, and the Moray Firth regions of north-eastern Scotland). The researchers stated that this implies the stone was transported some 430 miles (690 km), and thus demonstrates cultural links between Southern England and Northern Scotland.[39]'

Request edit to insert text after this:

'However, alternatively, it is possible that the Altar Stone may be an erratic boulder transported from northern Scotland by ancient ice sheets rather than humans.' ANBFred (talk) 12:53, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Given there is pretty strong evidence that the North Wales stones were excavated, and possibly erected locally, not too long before the construction of Stonehenge and well after the last ice-age, I don't think the moved by glacier theory is remotely tenable. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:59, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Dear Mugatroyd49,

Thanks for responding so quickly to my suggested edits. However your response seems to be based on support for a particular point of view, rather than maintaining balance in the article.

First suggested edit.

At present the article correctly mentions that there is an alternative theory that the stones are glacial erratic boulders, transported by ice but after this a statement has been added: 'although there is no evidence of glacial deposition within southern central England.[36]', which gives the impression that ice sheets did not extend as far south as Stonehenge, so the glacial theory can be discounted. However although the glaciation in the last Ice Age did not extend farther south than the Bristol Channel, previous glaciations extended farther south and deposited erratic boulders as far south as Sussex (this is a well-known geological fact, not a fringe theory).

Therefore as currently written, this part of the article is unbalanced and misleading and this needs to be rectified. This could be done by inserting the text I have suggested or, alternatively, balance could be restored by simply removing 'although there is no evidence of glacial deposition within southern central England'.

(Please note, by the way, that although academic papers have been published about a possible quarry found in north Wales and a possible 'test Stonehenge' erected nearby, the evidence found was not 'pretty strong' - there was no clear physical evidence such as stoneworking tools, loading platforms, haul roads etc.)

Second suggested edit

As currently written, the article assumes as a fact the theory that the Altar Stone was transported hundreds of miles from north east Scotland by humans. However, as in the case of the Welsh bluestones, there is the other possibility that it may have been an erratic boulder, transported by ice for some or all of the distance - a particularly strong possibility in view of its direction of travel and distance covered. My suggested edit does not argue which theory is right - it just draws attention to the fact that there is an alternative theory which should be considered. ~2026-52225-0 (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Have you checked the reference quoted? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Dear Friend,

Yes, I have checked reference [36]. It is an interesting paper and it brings out well the sheer amount of uncertainty which surrounds most of the issues involved. On the point I raised about the current Wikipedia article, the key passage is:

'The distant origins of some of Stonehenge's monoliths have given rise to a variety of hypotheses about how and why they might have come so far. The theory that the stones were carried by glaciers, transported during an Ice Age to Salisbury Plain or its margins (Kellaway Reference Kellaway1971; Thorpe et al. Reference Thorpe, Williams-Thorpe, Jenkins and Watson1991; Williams-Thorpe et al. Reference Williams-Thorpe, Green, Scourse, Cunliffe and Renfrew1997, Reference Williams-Thorpe, Jones, Potts and Webb2006), has not been refuted until now, even though there is no evidence for glacial deposition within southern central England (Thomas Reference Thomas1923; Green Reference Green1973; McMillan et al. Reference McMillan, Hamblin and Merritt2005; Gibbard & Clark Reference Gibbard, Clark, Ehlers, Gibbard and Hughes2011; Clark et al. Reference Clark, Hughes, Greenwood, Jordan and Sejrup2012).'

Note the acknowledgement by Palmer Pearson (one of the leading proponents of the 'transport by humans' theory) that the 'transport by ice' theory 'has not been refuted until now'.

Palmer Pearson presents no direct evidence to support his claim that 'there is no evidence for glacial deposition within southern central England' - he only refers to work by others, without quoting details so I do not know whether he has quoted them accurately and whether they all said exactly that. It may be that either he has not quoted the conclusions of these papers accurately, or else that they were subject to significant qualifications which have not been mentioned. It is hard to believe that they all stated this specific conclusion without qualification, as there is actually plenty evidence of glacial erratics in central England and also in southern England (e.g. the 2022 paper I referred to about glacial erratics in Sussex).

In the circumstances, in my opinion the current Wikipedia text at this point is not supportable, so unless you agree to adding my suggested amendment, the best solution would be to delete the words 'although there is no evidence of glacial deposition within southern central England'. (I have no objection to the reference to Pearson's paper [36] later in the article, which seems to me useful and appropriate.)

In the circumstances, I repeat my suggestion of adding a sentence to the paragraph about the Altar Stone:

'However, alternatively, it is possible that the Altar Stone may be an erratic boulder transported from northern Scotland by ancient ice sheets rather than humans.'

One more point: I have noticed a clear error in the passage:

'Stonehenge megaliths include smaller bluestones ... The sandstone Altar Stone may have originated in east Wales. ... '

The latter statement is simply wrong. I suggest that it should be amended to read 'As discussed above, the sandstone Altar Stone appears to have originated in northeast Scotland.'

Regards,

ANBFred ANBFred (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: Per above. Ideas that are not broadly supported by scholarship in the field should not be given undue weight in an article, see WP:FRINGE - Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 13:05, 24 January 2026 (UTC)