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

Sunday, 17 March 2013

Observer regurgitates bluestone lies





A number of us who are Observer readers will have seen the big double-page spread today on Stonehenge -- another rather lazy piece of journalism by Robin McKie, whom I have had cause to mistrust on a number of previous occasions.  Anyway, he bases his piece rather unquestioningly on the Channel 4 documentary of the other day, and it's difficult to discern whether he has actually bothered to talk to any of the protagonists. 

He cites Tim Darvill:  "The sick and wounded would come here (ie to Stonehenge) for cures from the monument's great bluestones, which had been dragged from Wales to Wiltshire because of their magical healing properties."  Hmm -- a little circumspection and even inquiry might have been appropriate there, for a start....... but McKie seems not to have heard of glaciers or glacial transport.

Then he cites Darvill again:  "Darvill points to the quarries in the Preseli Hills in Wales, the source of Stonehenge's bluestones. "These are all associated with sacred springs today," he said.  "That association is a very ancient one....."    WHICH quarries?  ALL of the bluestones?  And as I have pointed out many times before, the springs in the general neighbourhood of Carn Meini have NO traditions of sanctity attached to them, and there are NO associated ancient traditions at all.   I have checked this with a number of local historians, and they all agree with me on this.  Sheer fantasy -- why does Tim Darvill carry on repeating this absolute nonsense?  Answers on a postcard please......

------------------------
Stonehenge remains a mystery as scientists ask: was it a health spa, or a cemetery?

Robin McKie, The Observer, Sunday 17th March 2013
http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2013/mar/16/stonehenge-conflicting-theories-spa-cemetery

Archaeologists back conflicting theories on Britain's greatest prehistoric monument

It already attracts more than a million visitors a year. Yet these numbers could be dwarfed once Stonehenge, one of the world's greatest prehistoric monuments, completes its radical facelift
Over the next year, the nearby A344 will be closed and grassed over. A new visitor centre will be built a mile and a half from the monument and tourists will be encouraged to explore the ancient landscape around the 5,000-year-old complex.
The makeover falls short of plans, since scrapped, that would have seen all major thoroughfares in the area diverted through tunnels. Nevertheless Stonehenge should be returned to something like its past glory, it is hoped, and then attract even greater numbers of visitors seeking to understand the purpose of this vast, enigmatic edifice.
For centuries, historians and archaeologists have speculated about the reason for the monument's construction. Suggestions have ranged from the proposal that it was built by Merlin to commemorate knights slain in a battle against Saxon invaders to the idea that Stonehenge was a highly sophisticated astronomical observatory.
Earlier this month, the latest salvo in the debate was fired by archaeologists, led by Professor Michael Parker Pearson, of University College London, who published research indicating that the original Stonehenge was a graveyard for a community of elite families. "This was a place for the dead," Parker Pearson said.
The notion – that Stonehenge is essentially a large funerary temple created between 3000 and 2500BC – does not find favour with every scientist, however. Indeed, the other main group of UK researchers investigating the site – archaeologists led by Professor Tim Darvill of Bournemouth University – believe the place was an ancient Lourdes. The sick and wounded would come here for cures from the monument's great bluestones, which had been dragged from Wales to Wiltshire because of their magical healing properties. "This was a place for the living," Darvill said.
Such divergence of views would seem to suggest we are as far from understanding the purpose of Stonehenge as we have ever been. English Heritage historian Susan Greaney counselled caution, however. We should not place too much emphasis on our ignorance about the monument, she said. "We know who built it and when they built it and have a good idea how they built it. It is only its ultimate purpose that still remains unresolved," she said.
Detailed radiocarbon dating of Stonehenge has shown that work on its construction probably began with the huge circular ditch that still surrounds the monument. Inside several dozen bluestones were erected along with various timber posts and other structures. It was a relatively modest construction by the standards of the remains we can see today. Then, around 2600BC, the site was transformed. A ring of giant upright stones called sarsens were erected and capped with huge rock lintels. Inside five huge trilithons – pairs of rock columns capped with a single slab – were erected and many of the magical bluestones from Wales that had been erected near the edge of the monument were moved inside this inner sanctum. Crucially, the rays of the setting midwinter sun and the rising midsummer sun would shine through the heart of the monument and down the avenue that leads into it.
Over succeeding centuries, the bluestones were rearranged for purposes that still mystify scientists. In short, Stonehenge is not one monument, built at one moment in history, but many built and rebuilt over many centuries. By that definition, it had no single purpose but had many. Even today it performs many functions – as a touristattraction, a religious site (for Druids), and a place for scientific study, for example.
As to the identity of the builders of Stonehenge's great rings of sarsens and trilithons, that appears to be far less of a mystery. Work at the nearby site of Durrington Wallsindicates it was occupied by thousands of individuals at exactly the time the great stone rings of Stonehenge were being erected. The remains of the cattle they slaughtered have been studied and by careful analysis of the chemical makeup of their teeth, their place of origin in Britain has been determined. Remarkably, the animals appear to have been brought to Wiltshire from almost every part of the country. Even more intriguingly, most were killed during two peak periods: midwinter and midsummer.
"People were coming from all over the country at these times," said Parker Pearson. "It was partly a religious festival and partly a construction site: a combination of Glastonbury and a motorway building camp. The crucial point is that this was the first and only time in British prehistory that the country was united in a common cultural activity."
The issue is: what was that common cultural activity? Parker Pearson believes Stonehenge was erected as a monument to the ancestors of all Britons. The aim was to unify the different peoples of the British Isles by honouring all their dead. Stones were taken from west and east and erected together to solidify alliances that had been struck up between these different people. "Stone is eternal and was used to represent the dead," said Parker Pearson. "That is the purpose of Stonehenge.
Darvill does not agree. "I think that very early on Stonehenge was a burial ground but after 2600BC these burials stop. So how can this be a place of the dead?" By contrast, Darvill points to the quarries in the Preseli Hills in Wales, the source of Stonehenge's bluestones. "These are all associated with sacred springs today," he said.  "That association is a very ancient one. These stones were brought to Stonehenge because they were thought to have healing properties. That is why all that effort went into its construction. It was a place where people thought their illnesses might be cured and their lives saved."

AND THE OTHER THEORIES ARE...
According to the 12th-century cleric Geoffrey of Monmouth, Stonehenge was built by Merlin to mark the place where knights, slain in the fight against Saxons, were buried.
Other historians have argued that the Romans or Danes built it.
In more recent times, scientists have argued that Stonehenge's alignment suggests it could have been used to calculate astronomical movements and to predict lunar eclipses. However, the feasibility of performing such measurements in prehistoric times has been questioned.
In 2003, writing in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, University of British Columbia researcher Anthony Perks claimed the great stone circles were erected as a giant fertility symbol, constructed in the shape of the female sexual organ.
In 2008 the Telegraph columnist Oliver Pritchett argued, tongue-in-cheek, that Stonehenge was really built to house Britain's first public inquiry.

Link source: Robin McKie, The Observer,

47 comments:

Anonymous said...

A current technique for palaeo reconstructions, is to work backwards from an established modern baseline.

We have concrete evidence (We've all seen the summer solstice on the telly) that currently the monument is utilised as a place of pilgrimage for flakes,wierdos, charlatans and the mentally disadvantaged.

From this it is quite apparent that the opinions of Darvill aren't that far from the truth.

Stonehenge was indeed some form of healing centre, most probably a Mesolithic Psychiatric Hospital.

Cheers
Alex Gee


Constantinos Ragazas said...

Brian,

All these various theories for the purpose of Stonehenge assume the monument was completed. The easiest debunking for all these would be to conclusively demonstrate Stonehenge was never completed.

What do you think!

Kostas

geocur said...

No theory entails a finished monument whether assumed or not . An unfinished monument does not debunk any of them including the wackiest aliens or natural “explanations “ .

BRIAN JOHN said...

Tell that to Anthony Johnson and many other authors! Of course they have assumed that Stonehenge was finished -- and this assumption has been particularly important for those writers who have assumed (a) a highly sophisticated purpose for the monument, and (b) a great degree of mathematical precision in the setting of the stones. Of course all these people are reluctant to admit to the monument being an unfinished shambles, because that calls into question both the organizational abilities of the builders and their technical knowledge. Thankfully, this old obsession with "Stonehenge Complete" is breaking down, as we see in some of the more recent EH literature....

geocur said...


The point was unfinished or not it has no bearing on any of the listed theories . Proving that the monument was never like some images only impacts on that belief not the theories for it's "purpose " .

Constantinos Ragazas said...

Geo,

So … Neolithic Brits from the SW did not bring stones to Stonehenge? How does that not debunk the “purpose” of Stonehenge as uniting the Isles? Or is it the modern state MPP is talking about!

Purpose per se is not logically equivalent with 'completion'. But in the minds of people 'completion' is often needed to make 'purpose' and the narrative it spins credible. Analogous to a “real story” being real and not fiction. Ask any “man in the street”.

MPP and others seek to win the hearts and minds (and money) of people. Nothing to do with logic. I wish it wasn't so!

On a side note: I have been looking up Gobekli Tepe further. I have some starling discoveries about it! I believe I can prove it wasn't build 12,000 years ago. But more likely around 600 BC. Where can I find out about the method used for dating it?

Kostas

Anonymous said...

"unfinished shambles"

To make such a claim you will need to know the intended design.

Therefore, are you claiming to know with any degree of certainty the 'finished' design or are you guessing?

If you are guessing then the above statement is inaccurate as it is founded on incomplete information or speculation.

Jon Morris said...

Of course all these people are reluctant to admit to the monument being an unfinished shambles, because that calls into question both the organizational abilities of the builders and their technical knowledge

Not all.

We know that the monument was constructed to a precision of about 3"-6": Though this is not very precise to modern builders: You're not questioning that it was built with these sort of tolerance are you? (tolerance = precision in builder's jargon).

Myris of Alexandria said...

Kostas please tell more of your starling discoveries.Will these be myna or major.
M

geocur said...

Kostas , I have already explained that I will not be responding and I appreciate by doing so now I am contradicting myself .

However the Gobekli comment , will live with me for a long time and I have to thank you for that . As well as being a side splitter it exemplifies what I have been talking about . I had already given you a link to the method of dating Gobekli i.e. RC dating , did you not look at it or understand it ? Here it is again plus another on the same lines .
http://www.exoriente.org/associated_projects/ppnd_site.php?s=25 http://www.academia.edu/1035267/A_Radiocarbon_Date_from_the_Wall_Plaster_of_Enclosure_D_of_Gobekli_Tepe

After your revolution at Gobekli could you turn your attention to the economy .

Stonehenge like many monuments underwent changes in it's architecture ,and consequently probably it's function(s) .
We don't know whether any of the various phases of the monument were ever “completed “ and as we don't know what the final plan may have been we can't tell to what extent the remains are of a completed monument . Whether the outer sarsen circle was ever a complete circle or not has nothing to with any theory that was mentioned in the blog associated with these comments and proving it was never complete will not debunk any them . If it can be shown that the circle was never completed it only debunks the idea that it was completed .
There are some glacial /human transport hybrid explanation proponents who might believe that some of the stones were brought from the SW .If you have a problem with that you don't explain why . Even if it can be proven that they didn't (which would be difficult ) it still doesn't debunk any of the theories , (including the uniting of the Isles or whatever it's called ) , other than the glacial/ human transport from the SW one . Even your “nature wot did it “ remains unscathed .

BRIAN JOHN said...

Anon -- I am not alone in referring to Stonehenge as unfinished and as a shambles -- many experts on various aspects of Stonehenge have said the same thing. It would be stretching things to consider that the Stonehenge we see today was more or less what was intended by the original designers and builders - an empty third to the sarsen circle and only about half the number of stones that Atkinson and many others assume to have been present at one stage. Of course, if you insist, I suppose one could argue that it was intended from the beginning to be a "romantic ruinous folly -- on the model of the things so beloved of the Victorians. we had one such close to where we lived once in County Durham -- a ruinous Greek temple in the middle of the Durham Coalfield, built by a coal baron for reasons best known to himself.

Constantinos Ragazas said...

Myris,

Do you think I would ever open myself up to such criticism and ridicule if I did not think I had the cover of Truth and Reason? But for now, please keep laughing along with Geo and others. All will be revealed in time!

Kostas

TonyH said...

Myris

Eery and startling jackdaw voiceovers during Channel 4 archaey shows, especially before commercial breaks, have become de rigeur. But we really need the appearance of at least one of Salisbury Plain's Great Bustards (though some would claim there are already too many holding microphones & filling the Place of the Ancestors to capacity).

Myris of Alexandria said...

Kostas it was the chance of a pun I could not resist. No ridicule of you.
I do not for one moment expect to believe or be enlightened by anything you write but do so anticipate reading your grasping at the truth. You are never glume y sic and I fear have become my secret pleasure.
I know it is Lent but what the hell.
Great bustards are they doing well.
M.

Jon Morris said...

I am not alone in referring to Stonehenge as unfinished and as a shambles -- many experts on various aspects of Stonehenge have said the same thing

Could be Brian. But unless the expert knows what was intended (and can prove it), it is surely premature to state that it was unfinished?


All will be revealed in time!

Is there a benefit in knowing Kostas? Have you costed out how much of your resources it will take to deliver your explanation? If so, does the benefit to you or others exceed the cost of delivery? If the benefit to you or others is greater than the cost, is there any mechanism which would allow you to break even?

How are you planning to test the water: Perhaps a book or paper?

Anonymous said...

I have to agree with Brian on this 'shambolic' finishing of prehistoric buildings. There are countless examples of these poor methods employed by the uncivilised plebs of the past.

Skara Brae springs immediately to mind with houses without roofs for goodness sake and this 'shambles' is not just limited to Britain. During a recent visit to Rome I noticed that the Colosseum (like Stonehenge) was again only partially finished.

This is no surprise as I have yet seen a whole prehistoric building still fully standing any any village in Britain. This clearly proves Brian's point that the ancients lacked the planning and organisational skills to run an event in a brewery.

Lord Foster

BRIAN JOHN said...

Glad you agree with me on all of this, Anon. There is a grand tradition in the UK (and indeed elsewhere) of designing and building unfinished enigmatic structures intended to cause total confusion. Only wimps build things that have roofs on them, and which have some sort of structural and design symmetry....

Constantinos Ragazas said...

Myris,

Best to keep an open mind and not anticipate or not, anything! Truth has no personality! That is why it is true. But if anything I argue or suggest is not true, wont it be more intellectually honorable and honest to set that record straight?

I have made many proposals. Many may be wrong. Which you think? And why, pray tell!

Kostas

BRIAN JOHN said...

This may or may not be relevant, but Kostas's comments remind me of the famous US court case in which two of the reporters from Fox News took the corporation to court when it refused to broadcast a programme they had been commissioned to do -- on GM crops. They argued that the programme should have been broadcast because everything in it was true. They lost the case -- and the court ruled that there is no such thing as truth. In effect, the judges said that truth is whatever you want it to be.....

Constantinos Ragazas said...

Lord Foster,

Your arguments betray you, Robert! No need to hide! Brian is ever welcoming of everyone. Look at me!

Though the Colosseum today is in ruins, at one time it was complete. And though we have no iPhone photos to prove it, there is plenty of written historical record to attest to its completion. Including some dead Christians. Had we some such irrefutable evidence for Stonehenge, I would not be arguing as I am.

Though we may not know the intent of prehistoric people for Stonehenge, they intended it to be complete. Otherwise, there is no “purpose”. And though “purpose” and “completion” are not logically equivalent, it is not logic that motivates people to such great works. But passion with purpose.

Kostas

Constantinos Ragazas said...

Brian,
“truth is whatever you want it to be“.

MPP and others are banking on that!

Kostas

Myris. said...

Kostas I said that I do not expect to be enlightened.I do not question your truth. It is just unlikely to coincide with my version.
However I do love your skewed visions. There but for ....
Keep blogging.
M

Constantinos Ragazas said...

Geo,

Thanks for the links. They are helpful and well worthwhile.

Nothing in the links convinces me I am wrong. Seriously, what can plaster from a wall tell us about the date of the construction? It can only tell us something about how old the plaster material may be. Can organic material dating 12,000 BP be found somewhere mixed in soil and in plaster? I think so. But this in my mind does not necessarily show the age of the construction. But I reserve final judgment.

Kostas

Constantinos Ragazas said...

Jon,

“how much of your resources it will take to deliver your explanation?”.


There cannot be a “cost analysis” for truth. And truth bears no cost for those that want to know. Only for those that don't want to know, but need to believe in fantasies!

Kostas

Constantinos Ragazas said...

Myris,

I would not respond were it not for the belief beneath your thinking. Namely, we can all have many individual 'truths'. That there exists no real and objective truth.

Such relativism I find dangerous and corrupting of our values. It makes deception and propaganda Nobel sciences.

Sensible reason can lead us all to the same truth. We owe it to ourselves and one another to try find it!

Kostas

Jon Morris said...

"There cannot be a “cost analysis” for truth. And truth bears no cost for those that want to know. Only for those that don't want to know, but need to believe in fantasies!"

It's worth factoring in the possibility that you may be wrong? Archaeologists are the experts in this sort of thing and you and I are not. A paper or a book showing the starting point for your ideas would give them the opportunity to study the concept.

If there is any benefit to their profession in knowing what the extended ideas are, for example by increasing public support for archaeology, (severely needed given the cutbacks which are coming), they will probably help you to break even on the costs of delivering your theory providing you have set up a mechanism to allow this to happen.

If they consider the starting concept wrong or to have no benefit, then the ideas should perhaps be abandoned or put to use in other fields?

Constantinos Ragazas said...

Jon,

You are right, of course, in what you say. But if I am wrong, it's not truth. I was only talking about truth! I believe in real, objective and absolute truth. Do you?

Kostas

geocur said...

I hope this is appropriate and not off topic but there appears to be a problem in understanding the nature of the Gobekli Tepe and the content of links re. the RC dating . The site is a tell with three layers , the lower two of which by the nature of tells are sealed to the allow the construction of the next layer .
All the dates from the various sources and types of dating material fit into the stratigraphic and chronological sequence .i.e. nothing in layer 2 is older than that found in layer 1 , Even within the the layers the dating follows the staratigraphy , charcoal in wall plaster is older than charcoal in the backfill and a terrace built to contain the backfill ais only slightly older .
The sources vary from the discovery in the oldest layer of projectile points that are typologically dated to the PPNA (Pre Pottery Neolithic A ) approx 8000 BC . Charcoal in plaster and backfill, , plant material , material under a collapsed pillar ,pedogenic carbonates , bone and humus .
Nevali Cori is also producing similar dates and architecture .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neval%C4%B1_%C3%87ori

BRIAN JOHN said...

Not off topic at all, Geo. Interesting debate..... I'm interested to know the status of the evidence.

Constantinos Ragazas said...

Geo,

I am not questioning the 'science' per se. But the suppositions archeologists make about the dates. Clearly, there is much I don't know about Gobekli Tepe. Much archeologists even don't yet know. But what I do know (and have been reading more about this) all fits well with a hypothesis I am working on and hope to be able to talk about here when the time is right.

But in response to your “stratigraphic” argument. Let me just say this may not always be right. The argument that Level III was first backfilled and sealed before Level II was constructed on top of this is only an assumption. It may not have been so. And if it wasn't so, than all the conclusions about dates would also be wrong. Thus, as I argued in my previous post, though the plaster material may carbon-date to 12,000BP the construction and site itself may not.

I don't believe Gobekli Tepe was what archeologists claim it was. Surprised? Once you have stopped laughing, consider having some healthy skepticism over this topic. But then, that would require you to question your beliefs of the capabilities of prehistoric people.

Thanks for the new link. I will check it out. Where can I get more info (besides Wiki) about the actual and detailed excavation findings at the site?

Kostas

geocur said...

Brian , 10 th post down gives links to the "status of the evidence" .

BRIAN JOHN said...

Tjhanks Geo. Yes, I looked at that info -- I don't have a problem with any of it, although I must try to learn more about the debate in academic circles about what it all means. What we have is the evidence, but not its status.

geocur said...

Brian ,I'm not sure what you mean by "Status of the evidence " ? The quality , state of the bone/plant/humus/ pedogenic carbonate samples , the labs doing the dating , Sigma 1 or 2 ,the methodology etc ?

BRIAN JOHN said...

Quality control. The degree of acceptance of the evidence, preferably following peer review.

geocur said...

The excavations have been led by Prof of archaeology Klaus Schmidt since 1994 . He has written various papers and a book on the excavations which have a long way to go before anything comprehensive might be attempted . I am not aware of any misgivings from professionals about the quality of the excavations or the results . His peers may or may not disagree with his interpretation or even methodology but not the evidence , not dissimilar to what is found in relation to the evidence and interpretation at any major excavation whether the Stonehenge Riverside Project Orkney or Catal Hoyuk .

BRIAN JOHN said...

It's OK -- don't get me wrong -- I don't have any reason the doubt the good professor. But please don't mention the Riverside project -- the place where bluestone fragments were assumed and even written about, but never actually found. And as you might have noticed, Professors are not immune from making mistakes and talking nonsense -- just like ordinary mortals.

geocur said...

Professors get it wrong in all sciences and disciplines ,although maybe not as much as Phd's or BA's .When nonsense is spoken in relation to evidence it is usually an interpretation of evidence that has a dubious status not the evidence itself e.g. Geoffrey Kellaway although he was obviously not a Prof .
Any evidence related to bluestones fragments is falsifiable .If none were found then the evidence =0 . This was the case at Bluestonehenge where it was suggested that bluestones had occupied the sockets but that was a belief not evidence .The most obvious evidence at Gobekli Tepe is visual not much of a problem with the status of that .

Constantinos Ragazas said...

Geo,

you write, “The most obvious evidence at Gobekli Tepe is visual”.

I agree with that. That also being the case with Stonehenge and other prehistoric sites.

The most obvious visual evidence at Gobekli Tepe are the huge T-pillars. Their function and purpose I find especially intriguing. At any period! The claim that period was 12,000BP makes these pillars even more enigmatic. All explanations for these pillars in my opinion are absurd and not convincing.

So I question the date. And seek to find some sense for these T-pillars at a later period. While reconciling the facts that have produced these dates.

Kostas

Anonymous said...

"Professors get it wrong in all sciences and disciplines ,although maybe not as much as Phd's or BA's"

So much for peer review!

BRIAN JOHN said...

Well, the peer review process can be corrupted, like everything else. An editor can always choose his peer reviewers in order to obtain the desired advice -- to accept or reject a paper. All of us in academia have seen that process in action.

Does seniority bring with it better science? Hmmm -- not sure. If one is to generalise, I wouldn't expect great sophistication or academic rigour from a BA student. Maybe your researchers in their PhD years, or shortly afterwards, make the best researchers, because if they get it wrong they have a lot to lose, and if they get it right they have a lot to gain. The trouble with Professors is that they tend to pontificate and believe their own fantasies and ruling hypotheses sometimes -- and I am not just talking about archaeology! Happens in my own field -- geomorphology -- as well.

The trouble with high-status or high-profile professors is that they get to make TV programmes and write books, giving them the opportunity to portray fantasies as facts -- using material which has NEVER been through any sort of peer review process.

geocur said...

“ All explanations for these pillars in my opinion are absurd and not convincing. So I question the date.”

Confusing an interpretation of direct scientific evidence with the evidence ,failing to comprehend the function of one aspect of the evidence , and finding the results of the evidence do not suit your view ,does not change the evidence.

Anonymous said...

Geo
What was wrong with Kellaway's evidence and its interpretation?

geocur said...

Anon , your question may provide an example of what I was puzzling over in relation to Brian's “status of the evidence “ .
In the case of Kellaway's suggestions of glacier transportation of bluestones to the Stonehenge site or English Channel glacier there is no direct evidence . Further , even if there were evidence for glaciation , at or close to the Stonehenge site it doesn't mean that it was necessarily the cause of the bluestone presence . The argument that humans are perfectly capable of moving stones much bigger than a bluestone great distances doesn't meant that they did so in a particular instance , also applies to glacial entrainment . Importantly there was opposition from peers to the idea and when a later suggestion also involving the putative movement of bluestones by ice but from a different direction , literally and metaphorically it became apparent that the the agenda was no longer in his own domain , a perfect basis for dodgy interpretation if not science .
Another example , from this blog , was the comment where GK noted that the bluestones were never referred to as Bluestones by the early site visitors and would have been referred to as Blau stones ,meaning striking or different .Not only is there no explanation as to how he knew that Stonehenge visitors would have used that term , with his meaning , rather than blue in it's colourful sense ,but the etymology was very unlikely too .
If we contrast that type of evidence with what has been found at Gobekli , where the evidence has come from a variety of sources and types , built up over the years , and with no conflicting evidence we might suggest a relative status of poverty to , comfortably off .

BRIAN JOHN said...

Geoffrey Kellaway was, in his heyday, a very good geologist, but (as he would probably accept himself) not a very good geomorphologist. So his papers were unfortunately rather strange mixtures of good science and wild speculations....... just like many other papers by other authors, which come to mind......

Constantinos Ragazas said...

Geo,

You write, “finding the results of the evidence do not suit your view ,does not change the evidence”.

I have no problems recognizing and accepting 'raw facts'. What I refer to as 'evidence'. I distinguish these from 'interpretations of the facts'.

For example, carbon-dating plaster from pillars at Gobekli Tepe to 12,000BP is a 'raw fact'. Claiming therefore Gobekli Tepe was built 12,000BP is 'interpretation'. I do accept the science that some organic material in the plaster used was 12,000BP. I question the interpretation based on this (just to keep it simple for the sake of this argument of how I deal with 'evidence') the building of Gobekli Tete was 12,000BP.

Further, it's not whether or not the evidence suits my views. It's not about me and my views. Does it suit sensible reason?

As for the economy, the answer is simple. Just as we have recapitalized our broken banks to keep our system functioning, we need to capitalize our broken people to keep their lives functioning. So what stands in our way? An ideology that seeks to serve and protect the interests of the 1%. But don't get me started on this. I have enough problems!

Kostas

geocur said...

“All explanations for these pillars in my opinion are absurd and not convincing.” Is a view that led to questioning not just the interpretation , (only another view but at least an informed one ) but the evidence .

“ carbon-dating plaster from pillars …....Claiming therefore Gobekli Tepe was built 12,000BP is 'interpretation' “ The plaster was not from the pillars and the date of build abandonment etc was not based on one date but as I had pointed out , evidence that was convergent i.e. the typological association and RC dating (PPNA projectile points , charcoal in plaster and backfill, , plant material , material under a collapsed pillar ,pedogenic carbonates , bone and humus ) , complemented by the stratigraphy . That is not an interpretation it's the evidence .

Constantinos Ragazas said...

Geo,

As I said in my previous post, “(just to keep it simple for the sake of this argument of how I deal with 'evidence')”.

I am aware there are other 'corroborating evidence'. But I believe each of these can similarly and sensibly be explained as being flawed. At least consider that possibility and keep an open mind. This is not so unusual in science or archeology. What is thought to be 'evidence' can turn out to be faulty.

I believe this is the case with Gobekli Tepe and hope to make arguments to support my view. Furthermore, consistency among flawed evidence is not evidence of truth. Somewhat analogous to a consistent story being told by a liar. No conspiracy theories implied here. Since no one really knows the truth of Gobekli Tepe.

I don't believe the T-'bithlons' of Gobekli Tepe represent gods worshiped by people 12,000 BP. And nothing I have read convinces me Gobekli Tepe was a prehistoric temple. But that's me.

Kostas