This photo shows the Floss Stone in the foreground, slap in the middle of the forecourt or portal area as designated by earlier archaeologists. The green grassy area between the Floss Stone and the "giant capstone" is where most of the digging was concentrated in 2011 and 2012. Naturally enough, not much attention has been paid to the Floss Stone in the past, because the "giant capstone" is the one featured in all the books! We would probably agree that the huge "capstone" has not been moved, but there has been some excavation beneath it. As I understand it, Vicky Cummings and Colin Richards think that the Floss Stone may have originally been closer to its massive relative at the "focal point" of the forecourt, where the horns come together, but that it slid or fell over before landing in its present position.
Hope I've got that right.......
ReplyDeleteNo competition when it comes to raising the big ones .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownshill_Dolmen
ReplyDeleteShould point out that neither are a match for johnny foreigner , particularly Korean examples .
On Brownshill Dolmen ... the evidence it is man-made is? "self-evident" to all "true believers" .
ReplyDeleteWhich is ok, as far as I am concerned. But "they" need to proclaim their "beliefs" by not claiming these are "facts".
Kostas
Back to the same old argument: "Because other people did big things somewhere else, this proves that our people could have done it here if they had wanted to." Not a good substitute for actual evidence.....
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteBrownshill is closer to Garn Turne than Garn Turne is to Stonehenge .
Looks like the Irish managed the big things easily enough .
As did the Koreans .
What it proves is that the the local Pembroke lads and lasses didn't manage to do as well at the heavy stuff , despite the attempt .
Maybe they were better suited to elegance i.e. Pentre Ifan .Although again the Koreans ,particularly , and some Irish examples take a bit of beating in that regard .
ReplyDeleteBecause you find natural "dolmens " elsewhere is not an argument that Brownshill is natural .
No substitute for actual evidence .
Ask the geologists .
Geo,
ReplyDeleteIt is your argument these are man-made! To argue these are man-made you need to show us the indisputable evidence these are man-made. Otherwise, your claim is only a belief.
More distractions and deflections by you from the central issue here!
Kostas
Who considers Brownshill or any other portal dolemen to be natural ?
ReplyDeleteFor those who do any evidence will be interesting .
Geo,
ReplyDeleteSo your evidence is other people think so too.!
All that says is you live among a community of "true believers".
Without indisputable evidence, "human agency" can only be a belief. Why don't you admit to it and all your intellectual pain will be over.
Kostas
You avoided the question ."Who considers Brownshill or any other portal dolmen to be natural ? "
ReplyDeleteIt's only you .
The pain and ignorance is all yours .
Geologists , geomorphologists , geographers and archaeologists ,all realise that the portal dolmens and Stonehenge and many other stone circles and other prehistoric monuments like chambered tombs , cursus , Henges etc were built by people in prehistory , they are not natural .
The reason that you don't accept any of this is due to a bizarre belief which is not knowledge based and consequently has no supporting evidence , never mind any indisputable evidence .the above have a belief that is based on knowledge of their subject and the monuments .You have neither .
Geo,
ReplyDelete"the above have a belief that is based on knowledge of their subject and the monuments .You have neither ."
Beliefs are used to support our knowledge based on them. Does not make them any less a belief! Quite often in Mathematics these are called "self-evident assumptions". "Ruling hypothesis" in Science.
And when these "self-evident assumptions" we make change, we get another "theory". Which provides more and better explanations of all the 'facts on the ground'.
In the case of Prehistory, that would be going from "human agency" to "natural processes". Example at hand here would be going from "human transport" to "glacial transport" of bluestones. When we make that transition in our thinking, the fog lifts!
Kostas
ReplyDeleteYour’e confusion about knowledge explains a lot .
The “self evident assumptions “ in maths are based on deductive reasoning , it is a prioristic , it is unchanging because it is necessary . 1+1=2 , it doesn’t change , it is necessary and true .
Science uses inductive reasoning working with contingencies and it never gets to the truth because we can always discover something new that will change our understanding .
You attempt to use induction without realising there are no axioms ,this is real life ,if you want to say anything meaningful you must be aware of the contingencies ,you don’t even bother investigating the subject .
“In the case of Prehistory, that would be going from "human agency" to "natural processes" .
That is nonsense ,there is no such axiom , reversing it would be equally idiotic , it is not maths , if only it were so simple . We look at each case and consider the contingencies , something you fail to do because you believe axioms will solve the problem for you , that is why you get so much wrong in the real world .
GeoCur,
ReplyDeleteIn your clumsy attempts to "correct" my understanding of Math and Science (two subjects I have spend most of my professional/intellectual life studying and reflecting on) you expose your short-sighted credentials for all to see.
I really don't need any such lessons from anybody. But especially from a musician! You will do better in these discussions if you spend less time and keystrokes on me personally than on my arguments and reasoning.
The "human agency" assumption (and it really is an assumption) has not and cannot answer some very basic questions on Prehistory and Stonehenge in particular. It is not able to answered the "how, when and why" of Stonehenge. But asks us to take "who" on Faith based on "expert opinion". The many made-up stories invented by archeologists attest to that inability.That is not good enough for any sensible mind committed to objective truth.
But if there is another "hypothesis" that can provide sensible and consistent explanations to all the 'facts on the ground' (and not interpretations of these facts based on "human agency" assumption), shouldn't we seriously consider it?
That is all Brian (and I) iasking repeatedly of archeologists. And they have repeatedly turned a cold shoulder to all his overtures. This is intellectually dishonest and dishonorable. We should all feel indignant at such treatment!
Kostas
ReplyDeleteYou made the epistemological errors , ,my comments were not personal but about the content ,noteworthy you couldn’t actually respond to that content .
You cannot distinguish between the a priori with the a posteriori , deduction with induction and the necessary and the contingent .
You continue in the same vein . There is no general “human agency “ assumption , each case is taken on it’s merits , that is what induction and the scientific method is about , it is not as simple as using axioms . Similarly there is no “ it is natural “ assumption by reasonable people . When something is natural the reason for believing that is based on evidence not axioms or nonsensical beliefs .
You are on your own , are you really suggesting that there are others that agree with your beliefs ?
There is nobody who believes that the prehistoric monuments like Stonehenge , the chambered cairns , henges ,cursus ,stone circles etc were not built by people in prehistory . To believe otherwise is not only an assumption ,and in your case , accompanied by a made up fantasy , it is comical and ridiculous at the same time .
re the Kostas and Geo Show -- stopping this now. It's all getting very repetitive. Kostas - blocking your latest post. I have no intention of going back over ancient territory and justifying past editorial decisions. Please carry on arguing somewhere else, if you must.
ReplyDelete