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

Monday, 27 June 2016

Page views go over 900,000

I have just noticed that the number of page views on this site has crept over 900,000.  Next milestone -- the million mark.......


Mitch von Alexanderplatz said...

How many from the Vatican City??

BRIAN JOHN said...

None, as far as I know. The Pope may well be interested in the Ice Age, but he has not informed me about it. No page views either, as a matter of interest, from my West Wales HQ, since page views by the blog owner are not counted.

TonyH said...

Is this is what is called "going viral"?

How does this differ from a "viral", or "wild", goose chase on the Preselis for the quarry, or quarries??

TonyH said...

Don't it make my brown EYES BLUE.......and both ma eyes are a - watering, guess they need some HEALIN' water!

Howdy, Brian.


Phil Morgan said...

Seven hundred thousand of the posts were from Kostas, but well done nevertheless. :-))

BRIAN JOHN said...

.... and that's not even counting the posts that were dumped! And not counting the unknown number of "anonymous" posts (many from known sources) that are automatically dumped by my spam filter. I don't even get to see most of those, thank goodness.

Phil Morgan said...

Hello to all,
Something that's niggled since the quarry theory was put forward is the use of the term 'quarry'.

Cambridge Dictionaries Online adopt the meaning that a quarry is "a large artificial hole in the ground where stone, sand, etc. is dug from the ground for use as a building material".

I suggest that whereas Craig Rhos-y-Felin, Carn Goedog, and Carn Menyn would have been capable of producing one or two monoliths, they fail to fulfill the requirements of a 'large artificial hole in the ground' as defined above.

If I remove a single large stone from my garden, would the hole in the lawn then be classed as a quarry?; daft I know, and I fear Mrs Morgan would take a dim view of it.

Therefore, proving the existence of a quarry in the Preseli Hills, would also require evidence that the large artificial hole in the ground, could not have been formed by ice action.
End of the niggle.

BRIAN JOHN said...

Fair point, Phil. Yes, archaeologists have been using the word to mean "any rock outcrop from which -- in our opinion -- stones have been taken either for building purposes or for the manufacture of tools." One can understand that since Neolithic stone collecting went on before the use of metal tools, the EVIDENCE cited is always going to be rather thin, if not non-existent. Hence the trend nowadays for the likes of MPP and Phil Bennett to say "If I say it is a quarry, it is a quarry."

TonyH said...

Phil, the real "quarry" [at least for those of us who tend to favour the Glacial Theory on this Blog], is surely the likes of 'certain Senior Archaeologists' who, with their stubbornly closed hypothesis, are like a dog with a bone and won't let it go, despite all the evidence produced to the contrary, AND non - evidence they insist on "seeing" to bolster their own hazy hypothesis and, more especially, to massage, substantially, their hyper - inflated egos.

To support them in their decision to hang on ruthlessly to their "bone", is the vast flood of Harry Secombe - type rhubarb generated by the world's journalists, scribblers and tweeters who just enjoy a good Story, told convincingly to all the boys and girls of the world, in the style of our lod Cockernee chum, Max Bygraves, R.I.P.