tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post4480678040130223706..comments2024-03-28T22:13:17.139+00:00Comments on Stonehenge and the Ice Age: Chips off the old blockBRIAN JOHNhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00413447032454568083noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-67977840017109996502014-01-01T01:51:33.990+00:002014-01-01T01:51:33.990+00:00Nice one.
Happy new year all.Nice one.<br />Happy new year all.chris johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16210890033354730381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-57144421809566199572013-12-31T18:36:25.001+00:002013-12-31T18:36:25.001+00:00Nice one, Pete....... Happy New Year!!
Nice one, Pete....... Happy New Year!!<br /><br />BRIAN JOHNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00413447032454568083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-79252108070765017492013-12-31T18:32:56.019+00:002013-12-31T18:32:56.019+00:00Stonehenge Storm damage!
http://www.newsbiscuit.co...Stonehenge Storm damage!<br />http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2013/12/30/druids-working-round-the-clock-to-restore-ley-lines/<br /><br />PeteG<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-55260073786397459142013-12-30T16:04:01.994+00:002013-12-30T16:04:01.994+00:00Brian said:[29 Dec above]:"As for the "E...Brian said:[29 Dec above]:"As for the "EH conspiracy", I have said before - and so have plenty of others - that it suits EH rather well to maintain a situation in which there are many questions and not many answers.Ever heard of marketing?!!"<br />Is it me, or is it just a coincidence that MPP worked for quite a long period for English<br /> Heritage prior to 1990? [source: introduction to MPP's Lunchtime Lecture]TonyHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-35112403068390412872013-12-30T00:18:58.795+00:002013-12-30T00:18:58.795+00:00The history of archaeology is full of instances of...The history of archaeology is full of instances of digging things up to see what we find. I think in future the questions we want answering should be defined precisely and should have a sufficient weighting to compensate for the inevitable collateral damage.<br /><br />There is always going to be damage. The science around e.g. particle analysis and e.g. dna is advancing very quickly and we will be much more capable in 20 years time than we are today. The question we ask today has to be important enough to justify the possibility of damaging something we might need to analyse in the future.<br /><br />In the case of the 2 or 4 orthostats people want examined we cannot formulate any sensible question. <br /><br />Most people who think logically already conclude that the debitage comes from deliberate breaking of bigger stones. Finding a link or no link between some debitage and one of the four orthostats does not take us any further. It does not change anything we might do subsequently or alter any hypothesis - it is frankly a complete waste of time, money, and the opportunity to do more sensibly directed excavation.<br /><br />And Dean/Kostas: I thought we agreed not to feed trolls here so unless you prove some real-life identity or Brian is prepared to validate your bona fides, I am not going to help educate your evident misconceptions or enter into a debate.chris johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16210890033354730381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-13534253412018468762013-12-29T18:57:47.214+00:002013-12-29T18:57:47.214+00:00Brian , you said " I am not sure what you are...Brian , you said " I am not sure what you are saying here." Wouldn't it have been more reasonable to ask for clarification rather than go off on a tirade with the straw men ? <br />When I complain of people putting words in my mouth , it is easily checked , if the complaint has no justification then I can easily be shown to be wrong .<br /><br />Archaeo digs are , simply , destructive .Even archaeos who were always aware of that are starting to see the point of some restraint .<br />I have little interest in EH ,I only ever hear of complaints , most probably justified but any future excavation at Stonehenge must only be in their own interest .Once again , despite the itches ,I welcome whoever restrains the cats .Geo Curhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03616965043116389325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-34985593256592717432013-12-29T17:39:36.763+00:002013-12-29T17:39:36.763+00:00Geo -- if you make broad statements you must expec...Geo -- if you make broad statements you must expect people to seek to understand them and to draw conclusions as to what you mean. There is no point in you then -- not for the first time -- complaining and accusing people of misunderstanding things or putting words into your mouth -- or of putting up "straw men." Waste of everybody's time...<br /><br />That having been said, I accept that archaeological digs are rather destructive, and that the regolith once disturbed is gone for ever. And yes, I do agree with you that consents for future digs have to be carefully allocated, and that new, less invasive techniques might well come along.<br /><br />As for the "EH conspiracy", I have said before -- and so have plenty of others -- that it suits EH rather well to maintain a situation in which there are many questions and not many answers. Ever heard of marketing?!!BRIAN JOHNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00413447032454568083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-53245270470272417412013-12-29T17:31:17.463+00:002013-12-29T17:31:17.463+00:00Dean/Kostas , in that case your "logical conc...Dean/Kostas , in that case your "logical conclusions " were wrong .<br /><br />Once again a misrepresentation and misunderstanding ,the itch metaphor was in relation to curiosity and had no bearing on scientific value ,which wasn't even mentioned . Another example of an illogical conclusion .<br />geocurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-60279415100996477142013-12-29T17:16:16.765+00:002013-12-29T17:16:16.765+00:00Brian , I wasn't saying anything like you sug...Brian , I wasn't saying anything like you suggest most of your response consists of straw men .There was no mention of research or the rationing of it ,to suggest so ,is preposterous .The comments were obviously in relation to archaeological investigations .<br />Archaeology is destructive , once you have dug that trench you can never return to the original state . We have learnt from the mistakes of previous generations but there was no request or need for you to feel guilty.Its too late for much of Stonehenge but that is why there will be something left for future generations to excavate , to a far higher standard and with more sophisticated tools .<br />Fortunately ,scientists cannot investigate whatever may be important to them ,that 's why we have and need research and ethical councils controls are necessary on any discipline that involves the biosphere and physical environment .<br />The EH conspiracy comment is worthy of Kostas .Further intervention is ,if anything , in their interests .<br /> Find answers by all means ,feel free to discover the extent of glaciation in the area around Stonehenge ,or elsewhere ,all with an interest would be glad to see the results .<br />The geologists were indeed respectful and responsible and Stonehenge does need to be protected and preserved , did I suggest otherwise?geocurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-80070571292889902672013-12-29T14:43:12.431+00:002013-12-29T14:43:12.431+00:00Geocur,
Fundamental logic! Logical conclusions to...Geocur,<br /><br />Fundamental logic! Logical conclusions to a statement are part of that statement and its intent. Your unrelenting attacks on Kostas do not surprise me. But do not interest me either!<br /><br />Let Dr Ixer et al determine the scientific value of sampling the stones, as they have requested. I doubt if this is merely a <i>mental itch</i> for them as it is for you.Deannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-14335994411170046762013-12-29T14:31:30.222+00:002013-12-29T14:31:30.222+00:00Geo -- I am not sure what you are saying here. To...Geo -- I am not sure what you are saying here. To quote: "We are speedily using up our generations share of intervention at Stonehenge..." That sounds dangerously close to saying that we should suppress our instincts for investigation in favour of respect / reverence / aesthetics... or something else.<br /><br />Since when has any generation had a ration of research time and intervention on anything? The very idea is preposterous. Scientists will investigate whatever appears to them to be important. Others (like EH) might argue that they would prefer not to know certain things, for the sake of keeping controversy alive and keeping "mysteries" going -- incidentally very good for keeping the fee-paying members of the public interested in visiting Stonehenge. As far as I am concerned, the more intervention at Stonehenge, the better. If there are unsolved mysteries and questions, it is in the nature of mankind to seek to get in there to sort them out and find answers.<br /><br />And why should you or I or anybody else feel guilty for the misdemeanours of our ancestors? It seems to me that the geologists who have been looking at Stonehenge recently have been very responsible and respectful to the fact that Stonehenge is an icon that needs to be preserved and protected.BRIAN JOHNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00413447032454568083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-77517493123029436262013-12-28T23:21:48.986+00:002013-12-28T23:21:48.986+00:00Tony,the problem isn't the eventual cosmetic ...<br /><br /> Tony,the problem isn't the eventual cosmetic appearance of stones or bones.In the case of the stones it hardly matters at all. <br /> Despite advances in the past couple of decades in the amount required for sampling ,and the far more detailed info becoming available ancient bone in particular needs to be to conserved. We have lost enough from just a few generations ago .The barrow diggers/vandals that destroyed so much for posterity were also " truth " seekers . geocurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-14824859122320956082013-12-28T23:05:41.224+00:002013-12-28T23:05:41.224+00:00"Does each generation have a limited right an...<br />"Does each generation have a limited right and allotment to the truth?"<br /> <br /> An not uncommon misunderstanding of what was actually said Kostas .<br /> geocurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-78572869023480592172013-12-28T22:03:52.655+00:002013-12-28T22:03:52.655+00:00Yes, Brian, I am sure Rob Ixer and his devoted tea...Yes, Brian, I am sure Rob Ixer and his devoted team need only very small core samples from the Stonehenge orthostats in order to carry out their wonderful scientific scrutiny of the rock for provenancing purposes. Remember, there are precedents for this if only in the analogous sense: skeletons are sampled for carbon dating purposes, for example. Any holes in either skeleton or rock can be re-filled for presentation purposes.TonyHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-55501815861354731812013-12-28T21:31:40.583+00:002013-12-28T21:31:40.583+00:00What would we know by sampling the 'buried can...What would we know by sampling the 'buried candidate', stump 32e/d? We would know the Rhosyfelin rhyolite fragments in the debitage did or did not come from any of the Stonehenge orthostats standing or buried. <br /><br />If the Rhosyfelin rhyolites do not match any of the orthostats how did they get to Stonehenge? And why are some of these pebbles <i>'rounded slivers'</i>? These are the questions some would rather not have to answer!<br /><br /><i>”We are speedily using up our generations share of intervention at Stonehenge if not already well past it “</i><br /><br />Does <i>each generation</i> have a limited right and allotment to the truth? Some people just don't want the truth and would use any excuse to avoid it!Deannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-48918675378421315372013-12-28T16:44:00.812+00:002013-12-28T16:44:00.812+00:00To quote the famous Dr Ixer:
"Too often the ...To quote the famous Dr Ixer:<br /><br />"Too often the request to identify and provenance artefacts (especially lithics) appears to have a poorly defined purpose, to be an afterthought or perhaps sought for the appearance of completeness."<br /><br />I think this is a fair description of many of the pleas made here regularly for more digging in the circle. What is the question that needs answering?<br /><br />MPP and the team seem to have their question clear. They look in Pembrokeshire for connections and the science is pointing the way.chris johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16210890033354730381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-60404746513513028622013-12-28T11:32:47.837+00:002013-12-28T11:32:47.837+00:00Brian , it's not a matter of being precious a...Brian , it's not a matter of being precious about a bunch of stones ,it's about being responsible and not interfering unnecessarily .We could have done with people being more precious in the past ,at Stonehenge and elsewhere but curiosity has killed quite a few cats that future generations will never have the pleasure of meeting . <br />I imagine the stones will be provenanced in the next decade , if not sooner ,and I'll be more than pleased to discover the results,but it may mean that something else gets put on the back burner and it is also taking up yet more of this generations share of a finite resource .The results will satisfy the curiosity of small group for a short time ,including myself ,"so they (32 d and or e)came from CRF after all " being my guess ,but whether that guess is right or wrong matters little , they will not answer "how they got from there to here " .geocurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-32530991923735421752013-12-28T10:04:00.147+00:002013-12-28T10:04:00.147+00:00Disagree with you guys on this. You don't nee...Disagree with you guys on this. You don't need big holes -- we know exactly where these stumps are, and very small holes will be fine. Then you just need a core sample -- Myris will no doubt tell us how large that needs to be for provenancing purposes. <br /><br />We are getting too precious about the stones here -- personally, I want to see a small hole drilled in every single stone for the purposes of building a petrology data base for the whole stone monument. You can fill in the sample holes after taking the sample so that you won't even see where the sample has been taken from.<br /><br />Once that data base is in place, we can have a proper scientific debate about where all the stones have come from, and how they got from there to here...... that will be real progress from the endless speculations that we have at the moment. BRIAN JOHNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00413447032454568083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-27743052086911370712013-12-27T23:09:51.478+00:002013-12-27T23:09:51.478+00:00Agree Chris , I’ll be only too happy to discover t...Agree Chris , I’ll be only too happy to discover the results of the provenancing , it will provide a scratch to the mental itch but that’s all .<br /> We are speedily using up our generations share of intervention at Stonehenge if not already well past it , nothing new there though .<br />Geocurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-14850973957829513362013-12-27T18:25:32.910+00:002013-12-27T18:25:32.910+00:00The "rounded slivers" would be interesti...The "rounded slivers" would be interesting to know more about, and non-intrusive.<br /><br />Personally I do not think we will learn anything significant by doing keyhole surgery on 4 buried orthostats. We might in fact do harm. My limited experience of seeing geologists in action is that they whack off of big bit of whatever it is they want to look at and, in this case, after digging a big hole.<br /><br />What might they find? 1) No connection to Rhosyfelin. This will not prove that another orthostat is not linked - we do not know how many bluestones there were even. 2) A connection to Rhosyfelin. This takes us no further. 3) A connection to somewhere else entirely. This would be interesting but hardly likely after looking at 4000 pieces of debitage and finding no new connections.chris johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16210890033354730381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-68354056680278788432013-12-26T16:56:13.070+00:002013-12-26T16:56:13.070+00:00Good point, Dean.I wonder if a shape analysis has ...Good point, Dean.I wonder if a shape analysis has been done on these fragments and slivers? I suppose that anything anthropogenic should be angular and sharp-edged -- but rounded or sub-rounded fragments are difficult to explain by human processes -- and we have to ask therefore whether some of the debitage might be derived from gravels incorporating water-rounded of glacially-rounded materials......BRIAN JOHNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00413447032454568083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-1298093374234493262013-12-24T05:00:25.578+00:002013-12-24T05:00:25.578+00:00Quoting Myris on 19 September 2013 12:59 ( http:/...Quoting Myris on 19 September 2013 12:59 ( http://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-2013-rhosyfelin-dig.html )<br /><i>”...only I have seen vast amounts of debitage, most is small, less than 15 grms in weight,(the volcanics with sub-planar texture are almost all smaller than that) and rounded slivers.</i><br /><br />What explains the <i>rounded slivers</i> found in the debitage? Surely these are NOT <i>“chips off the old block”!</i>Deannoreply@blogger.com