THE BOOK
Some of the ideas discussed in this blog are published in my book called "The Bluestone Enigma" -- available by post and through good bookshops everywhere. Bad bookshops might not have it....
To order, click
HERE

Thursday, 5 January 2012

This nonsense is official -- so it must be true.....



On the Culture 24 web site, sponsored by the Dept of Education,  Arts Council England, MLA Museums etc, we find the following nonsense:

"Archaeological investigators from National Museum Wales say "99%" of rhyolite rocks found at Stonehenge can be matched to ones found in a 70-metre stretch of land in North Pembrokeshire."

How wrong can you get?  This wasn't a National Museum of Wales investigation -- it was a bit of cooperative work involving Rob Ixer and Richard Bevins.  They weren't archaeological investigators - they were (and still are) geologists. They did not say that 99.9% of rhyolites at Stonehenge can be matched to Rhosyfelin.  They said that at least 99.9% of the rhyolite DEBITAGE (from those parts of the site from which flakes and fragments have been collected) could be matched to samples collected in the Rhosyfelin area -- and they specifically said that the rhyolite orthostats at stonehenge are NOT from this locality.

This would be funny, if it were not for the fact that this site is heavily used by teachers and students, who presumably accept that what is on the site is authoritative and accurate.  Oh dear oh dear.....

Source:

Stonehenge rocks pinpointed to Pembrokeshire in National Museum Wales investigation 

By Culture24 Reporter | 04 January 2012

 http://www.culture24.org.uk/history%20&%20heritage/archaeology/megaliths%20and%20prehistoric%20archaeology/art371879#.TwVwxlN9jIc.twitter 

44 comments:

Anonymous said...

Brian,

I share your frustration!

More 'convenient lies' to mask over an 'inconvenient truth'.

Truth does not go away! But the more lies people are fed, the more painful truth gets to 'true believers' of all the lies!

Kostas

Tony H said...

Lies, damned lies, and (incorrectly requoted) statistics!!!

And to yet again recall minstrel Paul Simon's lines:-

A man sees what he wants to see
AND DISREGARDS THE REST..............[ Lie de lie, Lie de Lie lie lie lie lei....]

Barrie Foster said...

Andrew Lang said something about using research/statistics "as a drunkard uses lamp posts: for support rather than illumination".

BRIAN JOHN said...

and dogs have an even better use for them....

Alex Gee said...

Brian
I'm getting rather confused!!. Would you mind clarifying what Bevins and Ixer actually claim?

Having re-read your posts.

My current understanding of the paper, is that they have chemically matched rocks from a specific outcrop to 99.9 percent of some rocks in a shoebox marked 1947?

According to some of the comments there was no excavation at Stonehenge in 1947?

Do you know the provenance of the rocks in this shoebox?

BRIAN JOHN said...

Not surprised you are confused, Alex! The function of the media is to spread confusion! Rob and Richard have looked at as many rhyolite fragments as they could lay their hands on -- from the Cursus (including the shoe box samples, I assume!) and from the Darvill / Wainwright dig and other post-war digs. All of the fragments have come from the soil and from the Stonehenge Layer -- none from the stumps or standing stones. As Rob has already agreed, that percentage figure is meaningless -- it just refers to the fragments they happen to have looked at, which were already heavily pre-selected.

Chris johnson said...

I think you may be being over sensitive here, Brian. After all, glacial transport and human transport are mentioned as being equally plausible theories, which I see as being a big step forward for your thesis.

It would be nice to live in a world where writers research their filler pieces for maximum accuracy, but there are not enough hours in the day and, with all the iffing and butting needed, it would be as unreadable as an academic paper and end up with a riveting "still don't know".

In this context the writer is being paid to plug Wales and to make an interesting link (tourism?) to Prescelly. On these main points he or she is basically accurate. A Welsh University was involved and there is a link. Expecting more is wishful thinking. We might be glad that he or she got as much as he or she did get right, including the theory about glacial transport (maybe).

The onus is on the originator to think carefully about the initial pitch, given the way the publishing machine works. Had Ixer said "I analyzed a fairly unrepresentative and fairly random sample of bluestone fragments gathered opportunistically, and I discovered a link with Rhos-y-felin" then it would have been a different story, perhaps not even a story at all. The fact that the bluestones came from Prescelly is not news.

As it is, Ixer and Bevins announcement should ensure that they get their next grant and sell their next book. And I am happy about this. I think they do solid work.

BRIAN JOHN said...

Is it oversensitive to ask that the media so their homework properly and have some respect for accuracy? I think not.

OK -- I accept that stories that are nuanced and contain careful wording -- with the odd qualification here and there -- may appear boring and may not even get published.

But the problem with a lot of archaeology these days is too much hype and not enough respect for proper academic rigour. Maybe we should call it "tabloid archaeology" and be done with it? The authors have to carry some responsibility for the press releases that go out in their name -- but I know that they often have battles with their university press officers, who don't know much about anything and who will be dealing with a chemistry story today and an astronomy story tomorrow.

Chris johnson said...

I completely agree with your basic premise. The media is driving some strange archaeology - like those professionals who were persuaded to dig up stonehenge against the clock, like a cookery competition, and with a readily digestible hypothesis of healing stones. If this is professional work then bring on the amateurs.

As a reality check on the media situation I will tell a personal anecdote. This week I was asked to do a monthly column for a magazine; they want to pay 8 dollar cents per word for 850 words - 44 Pounds an article to include expenses - pay peanuts, expect monkeys, was my reply.

Alex Gee said...

Its all about personal integrity.
Some have it some don't. Some will grovel in the dirt for a few crumbs of fame some will say F*ck you.

Some scientists (the one's I respect)have no interest in fame or the spotlight, just the quality of their work.

Constantinos Ragazas said...

Brian,

Going back to Rob and Richard's paper … I too share with Alex Gee's confusion over this. If as you say,

“Rob and Richard have looked at as many rhyolite fragments as they could lay their hands on -- from the Cursus (including the shoe box samples, I assume!) and from the Darvill / Wainwright dig and other post-war digs. All of the fragments have come from the soil and from the Stonehenge Layer -- none from the stumps or standing stones.”

and if all of these rhyolite fragments found wide spread over the Stonehenge landscape all trace to the same Rhosyfelin outcrop, how does this prove anything about the megaliths at Stonehenge?

We have fragments from a narrow rhyolite source found wide spread over the Stonehenge landscape. What conclusion can we draw from this? The more logical conclusion is Nature brought these fragments to Stonehenge! Dr Ixer and others got this half-ass backwards by concentrating on the “narrow source” rather than the “wide spread” of these rhyolite fragments! Especially since other possible sources along the same ridge as Rhosyfelin may also match! A point you have often made but never properly responded to by the authors!

At the very minimal, the science here is not complete! Such “rush to judgment” betrays other motives.

Kostas

BRIAN JOHN said...

Kostas -- you do not know how "widespread" the Rhosyfelin rhyolites may be in the Stonehenge landscape. the authors of the paper have not told us that -- and we have no map of their collecting locations. It's quite possible that the preferential collecting has been done in a few spots where rhyolite fragments were concentrated, because that's where stones have been broken up.

It's quite possible that in other parts of the Stonehenge landscape, there are either no Rhosyfelin rhyolite fragments, or else rhyolite fragments of a quite different type.

Anonymous said...

Brian,

If some tested rhyolite fragments came from the Cursus and others came from the Stonehenge Layer, I would say these came from a wider area than Stonehenge proper.

Whether such rhyolite fragments also exist at yet other places may be an open question. But it is a very crucial open question resulting in perhaps a different conclusion.

As I say in my last comment, the science here is incomplete! And the question is “why rush to judgment?”

How did the rhyolite fragments get to the Cursus?

Kostas

Chris johnson said...

Brian.
I am becoming a bit obsessive about this issue and trying to answer my own questions, severely handicapped by the fact I know next to nothing about glaciation.

Let me try some ideas:
1) Could a glacier have moved some 250 tons of bluestone from Prescelly to Stonehenge?. Answer probably yes, either in one load or two or three. Plenty of evidence for long distance transport of "erratics".
2) Do we know of such a glacier? Not really, the accepted wisdom seems to be that glaciers never extended beyond a notional Bristol-London line. However Stonehenge is only 20 some miles south of this line so pretty close, and we are talking hundreds of millions of years, and it is something not fully researched. As far as I know the Bluestones formed some 450-500 million years ago.
3) Might this big erratic theory explain the lack of other Bluestone en-route to Stonehenge or around Stonehenge. Answer: yes, the Bluestone erratic(s) were consumed completely to build Stonehenge, and maybe Boles Barrow.

Is this where you are coming from or am I completely on the wrong track? Help please.

BRIAN JOHN said...

Chris -- re =your "glacial questions" --

1. yes -- it's quite possible for a glacier to have moved a very large erratic or a cluster of erratics from one quite smell area all the way to Stonehenge. There are good examples in the literature of similar things happening (see some of my earlier posts). I assume we are talking of ONE glacial episode here -- the chances of several glacial episodes dumping stones from the same source in the same dumping zone would be very slim indeed.

2. The Pleistocene glaciations that we know about have all been within the last few million years. I'm assuming that the one responsible for the transport of the Stonehenge bluestones was the Anglian -- around 450,000 years ago.

3. Correct -- you do not need a continuous trail of erratics from A to B. I have tried to explain this over and again, but many archaeologists seem to be impervious to the point I am trying to make. I wonder why?

Chris johnson said...

Thanks Brian for taking the time. The penny has finally dropped.

Anonymous said...

Chris,
... is it "heads" or "tails"? Imagine using coins to decide archeology! Hmm ...

Kostas

Chris johnson said...

Hi Kostas,
I started into Saturday being a firm believer in human transport, and emerged Sunday being a firm believer in glaciation as the most probable solution to at least 80% of the transport riddle. No coins tossed.

Now I am feeling incredibly stupid. I read Brian's book a couple of years back and have followed this blog, admittedly a bit superficially, for several months. Am I really that dumb that I did not see the "evidence" Brian has been putting in front of me? Perhaps it is time for me to retire and grow tomatoes while seeking medical assistance.

Today I am content to take as a working hypothesis that a super-erratic of a few hundred tons was moved by the Anglian close to Stonehenge. Once you accept one super-erratic then it is not a big stretch of imagination to think of more; e.g. the altar stone. The glaciers moved in this general direction.

A massive bluestone in the Stonehenge area would have been fascinating for neolithic stone conscious people. A veritable gift from heaven. Might even explain the Cursus - but I am getting ahead of myself.

I am still trying to figure why it took me so long to see something that is so obvious to Brian. If I can crystallize into a shortish post, I'll let you know, meanwhile I need to phone my GP.

Anonymous said...

Chris,

No doubt Brian's hypothesis of a 'massive bluestone quarry' brought to Salisbury Plain by glaciers (time perhaps uncertain) does help to answer many questions. But not all!

I'll let a 'peer review' process settle the glacier transport of 'bluestone quarries'. But Brian's hypothesis still leaves the rest of the Stonehenge enigma in place. To start with, why so many (all?) of these prehistoric monuments are “incomplete”? Why is the SW quarter of Stonehenge “incomplete” instead of say the NE quarter? How did the Avenue stripes form? Clearly these are not glacial or periglacial since these run parallel along the Avenue and not some other random pattern as you would expect if these were formed by the freezing and thawing of the exposed soil. Why does the Avenue run straight in the direction of the summer solstice sunrise for about 500 meters and then abruptly veers off at the “elbow” towards the River Avon? And why is there a boggy bottom not far from where the Avenue bents at the Cursus? And why the 'debitage' of chips formed by the working of the orthostats not form a distinct layer at the base of these orthostats but is uniformly spread throughout? And how did the foliated rhyolite fragments that trace to Rhosyfelin outcrop but do not trace to any of the standing stones at Stonehenge get to Stonehenge? And if the prehistoric builders of Stonehenge were able to 'move megaliths' even just a short distance and had the “cranes” and technology to “maneuver megaliths” to erect them with solid foundations lasting 5000 years, why didn't they use such technology to build dwellings and palaces with foundations, walls and lintels?

These are just a few of the many many questions still begging answers. Archeologists seek to answer such questions by 'making up stories' in a fabricated narrative that is just a patch work of explanations with no falsifiable consistent theory and no historical records. The latest of course being the “discovery” of the tomb of the Stonehenge architect! Brian has devoted much space in his blog to totally repudiate such nonsense! Search his blog! Read our comments!

In a backdrop where everyone 'wants to believe' on human agency, it's hard to ask honest questions and engage in a reasoned respectful discussion. I credit Brian for his courage to even try. But the pressure must be intense!

Kostas

BRIAN JOHN said...

Chris -- far be it from me to put a damper on anybody who sounds enthusiastic about glaciation and super-erratics, but a word of caution is in order. A super-erratic might explain a large number of stones and vast quantities of "debitage" at Stonehenge, but we still have the problem of the very large quantities of dolerite, ashes, sandstones etc to account for. They have come from different places -- most likely from a strip of land coinciding with a streamline in the ice -- and we are back with the "erratic assemblage" idea.....

Anonymous said...

Brian you write,

“ we still have the problem of the very large quantities of dolerite, ashes, sandstones etc to account for. They have come from different places -- most likely from a strip of land coinciding with a streamline in the ice”


Shouldn't these large quantities of dolerite, ashes, sandstones etc. also be found along the 'streamline' of the glaciers that brought them to Stonehenge?

But if these large quantities of 'erratic assemblage' have come from many different places but are concentrated at Stonehenge (and perhaps at other similar select sites, like the Cursus) doesn't this evidence (if it can be properly confirmed by scientific research) suggest such fragments were brought to Stonehenge by meltwater streams on the ice surface collecting at a retaining basin where Stonehenge is?

What is the alternative explanation? Human agency? Prehistoric people going on a 'stone fragments hunt' at diverse and distant places in Wales bringing back stones to Stonehenge?

Kostas

BRIAN JOHN said...

Kostas -- been over all this a thousand times before. Meltwater streams, ice surface, retaining basins? No way -- you are still proposing processes that have never been demonstrated in nature. Please get real.

Anonymous said...

Brian,

Does truth have an expiration date? Must others believe it to be true? And how often can it be repeated before it is no longer true? Can it possibly go away? Can truth ever stop being true?

Kostas

chris johnson said...

Brian,
thanks for bringing me down to earth again. At any rate I discovered Professor Olwen Williams-Thorpe.

I do pity the poor writers trying to find the facts in this internet age. Olwen keeps her head well down, while Dean Talboys pops up all over the place.

Geo Cur said...

Chris , It would be interesting to see what you think of her articles . I have only read two that she has been involved in , the first was “The geological sources and transport of the bluestones etc “where aided by Jenkins , Watson ,Ixter and Thomas it proved to be thorough including chemical analyses of the rocks in question showing that the samples from the bluestones at Stonehenge were very close to samples from various points on the Preseli hills ,e.g. Carnmenyn , carn Ddafad-las etc . there was also a note of the erratics from Preseli that rarely get a mention found near Lampeter Velfrey . The sources and analyses are clearly falsifiable and if there were any problems we would have heard of them by now . The glaciation section is short with arguments that you are well aware of and still with no evidence of glaciation having reached Salisbury Plain . Interestingly ,( in the light of the recent Pont season findings ) in the discussion it is noted that the one carefully selected location has never been found .
The other article was the R.S. Thorpe & O Williams - Thorpe “The Myth of Long distance Megalithic Transport “ which unlike their earlier paper is slight (9 pages compared with the earlier 54 ) has no chemical analysis at all despite covering a much greater area and the content is based on the findings of archaeologists including Burl who later took them to task over the basic premise “that man never moved stones long distances “ . That stone circle , hut circle , tomb builders etc. used what was at hand has always been accepted as the norm in archaeology but it has also always been clear that in some cases stones were moved long distances .One clear example which they include is the Old Keig recumbent ,53 tonnes of sillimanite with the nearest source 10 km away but more importantly the site requires an ascent of 80 m in less than a km . There is no evidence of glaciation in the area and their explanation is “the case for human transport , is unproven “ of course at no point do they actually mention cases where it is proven even in the short distance they accept as being possible . What they have to say amounts to little . Within those areas that we know have been glaciated there is always the possibility that any stones in a megalithic structure that are not local could have been glaciated . There is no chemical analysis and just a superficial mention of the geology . As well as the Burl rejoinder it also led to a paper from Philine Kalb among others who chose an area with no glaciation , Evora in Portugal ,an area rich in megalithic monuments , and showed that chemical analyses of various stones in the structures proved they had been transported well over the limits expected by O.W.T. . Of course just because the Portugese or any other Johnny foreigner from non glaciated areas could do it doesn’t mean that the Brits did , maybe being less capable or more kindly , less macho they relied on nature .
BTW that's the first I have heard of Dean Talboys .

Anonymous said...

“... it has also always been clear that in some cases stones were moved long distances .One clear example which they include is the Old Keig recumbent ,53 tonnes of sillimanite with the nearest source 10 km away but more importantly the site requires an ascent of 80 m in less than a km . There is no evidence of glaciation in the area and their explanation is “the case for human transport , is unproven “ of course at no point do they actually mention cases where it is proven even in the short distance they accept as being possible .”

We can either believe superhuman prehistoric ancestors moved the 53 ton megalith 10 km and on a very steep ascent because the area lacks evidence of glaciation. Or we can conclude evidence of glaciation does not exist in certain circumstances where the area is already covered and so protected by a local ice sheet.

I believe in Nature! Others believe in superhuman ancestors! What makes sense? Nature or superhuman ancestors?

Kostas

BRIAN JOHN said...

Geo -- Olwen has written other things as well, in cooperation with assorted other geologists. The big 1991 paper, published in PPS, was a fantastic piece of work -- very comprehensive and careful -- and involving state-of-the-art techniques. But because it concluded -- perfectly reasonably -- that the bluestones at Stonehenge were an erratic assemblage, the archaeological establishment was not best pleased, and chose to ignore it rather than taking its findings on board as being authoritative and well researched. Since 1991 some of the provenancing has been questioned -- it is quite inevitable that the precise fixing of sources for the bluestones will get more and more accurate over time. That is not to decry the work of Olwen and Rob Ixer and the others -- over 20 years or more, we would expect better techniques and methods to come in.

Since when is there no evidence of glaciation in that part of Aberdeenshire where Old Keig is located? Are you suggesting that a 53 tonne chunk of rock was moved uphill by our heroic ancestors rather than by glacier ice? Get real, please.....

Geo Cur said...

Brian I did point out that the majority of the first paper was good stuff and I’m sure any archaeologist reading it would have been more than pleased to read a good scientific report , that the science is now dated shouldn’t detract and I wouldn’t hold that against it , the conjecture and archaeology was weak and just not in the same class . The second was poor , they clearly had a bee in their bonnet and thought they might extend their expertise into another arena , it failed miserably a good example of geologists out of their depth trying to write archaeology and might be better explanation for them being ignored rather the first paper .

Hey dude , pulleeese , get real ,these 80's teen americanisms are catching but don't make shifting a 53 tonne rock uphill any less unlikely .
Where is your evidence for the glaciation that may have moved the Old Keig recumbent , OWT didn't mention anything specific either and in the spirit of the article simply saying the Grampian area has experienced extensive glaciations . Was it Ferguson who wrote the most extensive model which showed a distinct gap for anything moving north in the area of between the Don and coast ?
Regardless do you really believe that the recumbent could not have been shifted by admittedly pretty weak , in comparison with the non glaciated area stone shifters ? Or is that just disrespect for the Grampian bros innit.

Anonymous said...

Geo Cur,

Aliens did it!

BRIAN JOHN said...

Actually I thought that the paper on long-distance megalith transport was rather good -- with a lot of useful material in it. All a matter of opinion. and I thought Burl agreed with the central hypothesis that large stones are generally not carried very far? He certainly agreed with Richard and Olwen that the bluestones at Stonehenge are much more likely to be glacial erratics than humanly-transported stones.

You seem to me more than a little offended that I should even doubt that Old Keig, at 53 tonnes (or whatever) was pushed and pulled uphill by those heroic Grampian Neolithics. Well, I do doubt it, and think it much more likely that the transport was achieved by ice. Chris Clark and many others have shown that ice movements across NE Scotland were highly complex, with many shifting ice centres. They have also shown that the idea of an "ice-free Buchan" -- once firmly believed in -- is no longer tenable.

Ben Nevis said...

Dear Kostas,
Perhaps you can explain, in the absence of glaciation, how the Moai statues of Easter Island, weighing up to 80 ton, were transported?
What makes sense -- nature or superhuman ancestors?

BRIAN JOHN said...

Dear Ben

I can see a list of extremely large stones from Brittany, Mexico, South America etc etc coming over the horizon at a rate of knots....... not to mention Old Keig!

Geo Cur said...

I thought it poor archaeology with next to nothing about what they actually knew about , supposedly geology . Burl always was a supporter of possible glaciation of bluestones although I’m not sure if that extended as far as Salisbury Plain but he did take them task ,again , on the Sarsen glaciation .
Relax , re read and spot a bit of mickey taking re Americanisms , how could I be offended (although I must admit to to being a bit touchy about americanisms ,particularly from the 30's until the 90's ) ,maybe if you find it difficult to believe humans moved large stones long distances you might imagine other humans could be offended about remarks about a something that happened 5000 years ago , I know the Celts are pretty narrow minded when it comes to their history but that might be taking it a wee bit far .
Old Keig is not in Buchan , it’s in Gordon , Does Chris Clarke have a map showing glaciation moving northwards from the Don towards the coast ? OWT didn’t mention anything but it was in relation to Old Keig that she wondered about evidence for human transport conveniently forgetting that she had never noted any for some of the examples she had accepted .

Anonymous said...

Dear Ben,

I have no doubt the Moai of Easter Island were made and moved by people around 1200 AD. Just as I have no doubt the Pyramids were built by people and the Apollo mission to the moon actually landed men on the moon.

What is your point? Are you arguing I am arguing people cannot move big stones? I question if prehistoric people lacking the proper tools and technology and purpose could or would move 53 ton stones up an incline. And leave no evidence behind of the great skill and technology needed to do such tasks.

Kostas

Ben Nevis said...

Hello Brian,
I shall just have to continue ducking and diving, dodging and weaving.
Thankfully, the ford wasn't too deep.

BRIAN JOHN said...

Geo -- we are in danger of political incorrectness here! So moving swiftly on, I didn't say Old Keig was in Buchan. Anyway, I feel a new post coming on....

Ben Nevis said...

Dear Kostas,

You say,
"I have no doubt the Moai of Easter Island were made and moved by people around 1200 AD. Just as I have no doubt the Pyramids were built by people and the Apollo mission to the moon actually landed men on the moon.

What is your point? Are you arguing I am arguing people cannot move big stones? I question if prehistoric people lacking the proper tools and technology and purpose could or would move 53-ton stones up an incline. And leave no evidence behind of the great skill and technology needed to do such tasks."

The point is that the inhabitants of Easter Island were not 'superhuman', yet over a period of 250 years they achieved the transportation of extremely large loads, with basic equipement and no assistance from glaciation. Why can the same not apply in Neolithic Britain.
I suppose it could be argued that the statues were moved by tsunamis but that would be stretching credibility a bit.

Anonymous said...

Dear Ben,

The inhabitants of Easter Island moved megaliths some 900 years ago. Stonehenge was presumably built some 5000 years ago! The comparison you are making is no different than saying since a handful of Greeks built the Parthenon, prehistoric Brits 5000 years ago could have built a Parthenon too.

I wont go into so many other points of distinction between Easter Island and Stonehenge! Suffice it to say, Easter Island is no Stonehenge!

Kostas

Catherine Perigo said...

Brian, this sort things drives me crazy too...Castell Henllys is my latest gripe, a precious site with beautifully reconstructed huts, a tribute to the archaeology and to the ancient people who lived there...and then I find neo-pagans burning a wicker man in the middle of it all. This is a ritual that is hardly documented and certainly has nothing to do with spiritual or religious activities in Iron Age Britain. Grrrrr...

Ben Nevis said...

Kostas,
In modern times Parvel Parvel and others have tried to duplicate statue moving on Easter Island with little success, making the time difference for Easter Island and Stonehenge irrelevant.
Moving heavy loads by human effort was clearly achievable in the past but we have now lost both the ability and knowledge to duplicate the accomplishments.
Invoking natural phenomenon is unnecessary for it is obvious that no ice, whether it be in a glacier or a mush, could accuurately shape stones and construct a monument with such precise dimensions.

Prehistoric Brits 5000 years ago didn't build a Parthenon but they certainly constructed Stonehenge.

Anonymous said...

Ben,

If I try to move statues at Easter Island I will also certainly fail! So what does that prove?

If you think a time difference of some 4000 years between Stonehenge and Easter Island is irrelevant to any discussion on the technological capabilities of people, than you must also believe 4000 years ago people could fly!

You write,

“Moving heavy loads by human effort was clearly achievable in the past but we have now lost both the ability and knowledge to duplicate the accomplishments. “


So not only people 5000 years ago had the same technological capabilities and tools people at Easter Island had 900 years ago, but had even greater capabilities! Now lost to us over the passage of time and the 'fog of ancestor worship'.

Kostas

Ben Nevis said...

Kostas,
You are obviously correct as you are, or at least you think you are, correct with every point you make on every thread.
I fear your statements are as far fetched as your hypothesis.

And so ends our discussion.

chris johnson said...

Catherine, I read your blog last night and enjoyed it. I was caused to reflect that our ancestors would not have been at all bothered that glaciers had moved some of the stones - it probably seemed propitious, even a reflection of some laws of nature that we have long forgotten.

I wonder why some official academics seem intent NOT to weave natural processes into their story.

Anonymous said...

Chris you write,

“I wonder why some official academics seem intent NOT to weave natural processes into their story.”


Such stubborn refusal to recognize natural truth even in part only confirms sensible truth even in whole!

Kostas