Thanks to Tony for drawing attention to this -- OK, this is one of a multitude of lectures being given here, there and everywhere by "eminent archaeologists" -- but the good people of Kansas have been treated to a lecture by David Dawson, Director of the Wiltshire Museum. What was in it? Well, if you go to this site you can listen to a podcast. Oh dear -- the Dawson narrative is that it's all sorted out and established as fact as a result of the wonderful work of assorted experts -- and all he has to do now is tell the world about it. Not a mention of any dispute over bluestone transport, but much excitement over how clever those old stone hauliers were. And when it got to the bit about "teeth evidence" showing that the people who lived around Stonehenge came from Wales, I began to wonder whether he and I have been reading the same articles and looking at the same evidence.
At that point I decided that I could use my time more effectively in the garden, and turned the podcast off........
http://northeastnews.net/pages/northeast-newscast-episode-101-look-mysteries-stonehenge-british-archaeologist-david-dawson/?fbclid=IwAR3PK3oMibbWpubQx82ZrJphloY7aPosXJzx6FeTU6rJG1ptD1_lseW0ol8
Why is it that these people just cannot bring themselves to accept that the narratives that they hold so dear are actually DISPUTED?
32 comments:
David Dawson is singing from the same Him - Sheet as MPP: David now has a role at UCL, where Mike lectures and is based.
These two gentlemen are primarily working very hard as marketing men for the Wiltshire Museum [Devizes] and the Stonehenge Visitor Centre - let's get the punters through the doors or onto the Stonehenge transport vehicle. The details don't matter.
David is no doubt singing the lyrics of the song from "Oklahoma" as he walks the streets of Kansas City as the new kid in town, on his lecturing trip:-
"Everything's like a dream in Kansas City
It's better than a magic lantern show...."
Well, David, your narrative may be 'rather like a magic lantern show' with respect to what you've sai about Preseli bluestones. But magic tends to have no link to reality! The punters deserve the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before they spend their hard - earned dollars in Wiltshire.
I have never understood why archaeologists (or at least this particular bunch) should refuse to acknowledge that their ideas are disputed. In geomorphology, if you are on one side of a dispute, that is something to be relished -- you argue, present counter-evidence, and hope that your view will prevail when everything is scrutinised by your peers. If that does not happen, you shrug your shoulders, accept the evidence of your adversaries with good grace, and modify your hypotheses. There is no loss of face. That's one of the things I admire about Prof Danny McCarroll -- on a number of occasions he has simply said "This is what I thought, but in the light of new information I have to admit that I was wrong......"
So why is this so difficult for MPP, David Dawson and others? To completely ignore ideas which are contrary to your own is not only scientifically indefensible, but it is deeply disrespectful to others who are well qualified in their own fields. Why, if I show them respect by examining their ideas carefully and citing them in my own publications, is it apparently impossible for them to reciprocate?
Perhaps it's simply that certain involved archaeologists, not only now but also through the previous, Twentieth Century, have just been enraptured by the claims of geologist H H Thomas and others, have swallowed that 'Story' hook, line and sinker, and indeed, incorporated that entire claim into their understanding of Stonehenge's "evolution" in prehistoric times.
And then, there's also the not inconsiderable magnetic 'pull' of Stonehenge the monument upon Visitors to the United Kingdom from all around the world, and the concurrent desire to tell a good, exotic Origin tale to them, thus perpetuating Stonehenge's reputation for future tourists, and ensuring the flow of not just tourists but also revenue.
i think I'm right in saying that EH has to become a free-standing independent charitable organization (like the National Trust) in a couple of years' time? So the commercial imperative is everything now -- I reckon that neither EH or the Wiltshire Museum is prepared to dilute the "purity"of the narrative for fear of losing punters and income. Pathetic -- but that's probably how it is.......
Alex Bayliss, an archaeologist and dating expert at English Heritage, said: "a lot of what we have been taught in the past is complete bollocks."
just sayin'
PeteG
Well,that sounds like a sensible enough statement. But I am intrigued that DD, in his radio interview aimed at a "not terribly knowledgeable" audience, should have asserted, in perfectly unequivocal terms, that the teeth evidence from Stonehenge show that people came from West Wales -- probably carrying stones. If he is a serious archaeologist who knows what he is talking about, he MUST know that that assertion is false -- the strontium isotope and other "scientific" evidence simply shows that some people whose remains ended up at Stonehenge probably spent some part of their lives in areas of Palaeozoic rocks, somewhere to the SW, W, NW or N of Salisbury Plain. There is not a shred of evidence to show that the people came from West Wales. Throwing out falsehoods like this must be ultimately counterproductive -- and if members of the public become cynical about the lack of respect for the truth among people they should trust (including museum curators) then why should they be expected to pay good money to listen to them or look at the exhibits that they create?
"he MUST know that that assertion is false -- the strontium isotope and other "scientific" evidence simply shows that some people whose remains ended up at Stonehenge probably spent some part of their lives in areas of Palaeozoic rocks, somewhere to the SW, W, NW or N of Salisbury Plain."
There's been more than a few papers out recently with a questionable logic. But I doubt David Dawson would, or should, know about them: it's not up to him to challenge the evidence. I like it that it's "always engineers" who come up with the bonkers ideas. Stonehenge itself is a bit bonkers.
The connection to Stonehenge seems to attract false assumption papers (but not from engineers). I've seen 3 or 4 in the last 12 months or so which contain errors that are easily falsified but that were obviously not reviewed by people with the specialist skills to know that an error existed. One contained two sets of assumptive errors without which the main hypothesis of the paper would become junk. Perhaps people can't be bothered to comment? I felt sorry for the junior archaeologist involved in the double-error one.
Of course DD should read the literature and show enough intelligence to work out whether the evidence supports the assertions! Curators of museums should not peddle falsehoods.
if you want to subject any of the recent Stonehenge papers to critical scrutiny, I'll give you some space to do it!
Thanks Brian
You've already written about two of those errors and to some extent they rely on opinion (for example the opinion of some authors is that Strontium isotopes are good evidence, the opinion of others is that they are not). The one that contains the double error is a bit different because the evidence which shows the paper to be incorrect is self evident and doesn't rely on opinion, so hierarchical authority won't be usable as a rebuttal.
But it's a lot of work and I'm not sure that there's a great deal of benefit at the present time. Perhaps after Brexit, the community will start to question some of the stuff that's been used to push the British Identity in the Neolithic narrative.
As Brian has already stated, Jon, the strontium isotope evidence shows that some people whose remains ended up at or near Stonehenge probably spent some part of their lives where Palaeozoic rocks are located. These rocks are found ACROSS the English Channel, as well as in SW England, Scotland, etc, etc, and also as, yes, West Wales.
Aye Tony. That combined with the agricultural lime finding (that it disturbs natural strontium isotope variations) seems to cast a bit of doubt on the speculation in recent papers: https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/3/eaav8083.
But the speculation caught the imagination of the press in the period prior to Brexit and in turn that's been noticed by the White Pride lobby (eg https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1214238/). More recently we've had the whole "Nazis at Avebury and Wayland Smithy" debacle. It's difficult to know if the archaeological speculation contributed to some of this. (Google Keywords: "Stonehenge Unification Brexit" to see some of the early sequence). If it did, great care would be needed when reviewing the science.
OMG! Is this really going on, Jon? Must admit it had passed me by....... is there really a sort of "white supremacist" view of the Stonehenge narrative? Our Neolithics were cleverer than your Neolithics?
Of course, I mention in my book -- and have posted on this blog as well -- that one of the reasons tor HHT's original human transport narrative was the First World War imperative to show that our ancestors were more intelligent and capable of greater engineering feats than those of the Neolithic tribes based in Germany. Childish and naive though this now seems, there was clearly a resonance in the early 1920's -- and this may help to explain why HHT's ideas were never properly scrutinised or criticised by the scientific establishment of the day.
https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2011/02/herbert-thomas-and-bluestone-heresy.html
Some sort of "English resistance" movement Brian. Google "Nazis at Avebury and Wayland Smithy" to get a flavour of the latest turn of events.
It started a few years back (noticed it cropping up in searches). The 'take back ancient monuments thing" first appeared in 2013. A curious date as Brexit wasn't even on the agenda then. If you want to go deep into the rabbit hole to see how that developed, email me (I really don't want to put a link up to this.. "Stormfront" was bad enough).
Ey up, Jon, curiouser and curiouser that is.........
My general feeling on the UCL Dawson/ "Poker" Pearson assumptive narrative is:-
NEVER MIND THE QUALITY/ACCURACY,.......... FEEL THE WIDTH!
Is it right they're soon to be installing TURNSTILES at Stonehenge, just to enjoy the sound of cer - ching, cer - ching?
Wonder if our friend Dennis Price has picked up on what Jon's telling us on his site, Eternal Idol?
When I visited rhos-y-felin a few years ago I did pick up a strong nationalist vibe - you know the unification of the island and the exceptionalism of the culture. I am reminded regularly of the undertone when I hear some of the weirder Brexiteers talk.
David Dawson has now said, on Facebook, that he he has been employed by UCL for 8 years, which, he wishes to point out, therefore pre - dates the appointment there of MPP. I was happy to point out my inaccuracy, as he requested, and do so again here.
Rather a lot of people seem to have links with the UCL Institute of Archaeology -- Rob Ixer is also shown as an affiliate on assorted publications. I'm not at all sure whether this is some sort of "honorary" arrangement, or whether any payments are made to them for services rendered.......
"I am reminded regularly of the undertone when I hear some of the weirder Brexiteers talk.
Yes I see that too. Old friends in some cases. They seem to be in a weird mindset. It's difficult to know if the archaeology contributed to some of this, but I closed down my Facebook pages on Stonehenge so don't see much of that now. It's hard when it's old friends doing it. I didn't publish why, but the "Geocentric hypothesis" suggests almost the polar opposite of the "unification" ideas and that probably would not go down well on Facebook.
As an aside, I went to Sheffield and my company used to provide specialist services to UCL: That's just a coincidence so I strongly suspect that the other people's links to it are too!
Well, it adds gravitas to a university department to have lots of names attached to it -- and to a degree I suppose those who are named are expected to toe the line and not say anything rude about those who are the head honchos.........
I have only just seen this thread which consists of a large dose of #fakenews. I am an Honorary Lecturer at the Institute of Archaeology at the invitation of Tim Schadla-Hall. I teach a session at the museum each year to his Public Archaeology MA course and often to a couple of other courses as well. I am not paid - the clue is in the word 'Honorary'. I say what I think and there is no line to toe.
There is plenty of evidence for the movement of stone in the Neolithic - eg
* New Grange - large quantities of stone from north and sout and the megalithic stones from near the East Coast
* West Kennet long barrow - Jurrassic limestone for the dry stone walling from near Bath - some 20 miles
* stone axes from as far away as Italy
* 30kg flint core from Suffolk to Avebury
* sarsens from the Marlborough Downs to Stonehenge - 'only' 500 years or so later but 30-40 tonnes rather than the 3 or 4 tonnes of the bluestones
I have read your book, but I have not seen the following evidence:-
1 for glaciation on Salisbury Plain
2 glacial erratics on Salisbury Plain
3 erratics from Pembrokeshire on the S Wales coast to the East of the Gower
I note that there are erratics from Pembrokeshire on the Scilies - which makes sense to me. I cannot see how a glacier would travel east against the flow of ice from the Black Mountains and then up and over the scarp slope of both the limestone and chalk.
If there is evidence, then I would be happy to consider the theory.
In the meantime, an apology for the statements made on this page and any other similar comments elsewhere in the site would be polite. Even better would be for them to be removed. You will note that I do not make personal comments about individuals.
David -- thanks for the comment. Sorry you are upset by some of the comments -- but I try to allow participants in the discussions to have their say, and I'm not sure that there is anything here that is any more outrageous than any of the other threads on this blog! I can assure you that I have had to put up with far nastier insults than anything contained on this thread! And they are still here, as a testament to my tolerance!
It's good to have your clarification of your independent status.
On stone transport, of course there was a lot of transport of small bits of stone all over the place -- we have talked about Newgrange and many other sites with that as an undisputed fact. Please tell us about the 30 kg piece of flint that came to Avebury. What is the evidence that it came from Suffolk? I'm afraid I have seen no convincing evidence that Stonehenge sarsens came from the Marlborough Downs -- I know that has been widely assumed, and a part of the narrative for many years, but I am one of a seemingly growing number of people who think that ALL of the Stonehenge sarsens probably came from Salisbury Plain, unless there is powerful geochemical or other evidence to prove otherwise.
Glaciation / erratics on Salisbury Plain? I agree that there are no designated and accepted deposits which we know about which are of glcial origin. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The apparent lack of evidence is no more of a problem than the lack of evidence for the human transport of the bluestones. What is very persuasive in my view is the shapes, surface features and degree of surface weathering on the bulk of the Stonehenge bluestones -- often misrepresented as "pillars." Some of them are pillars but the great majority of the 43 bluestones are most definitely NOT pillar-shaped. Most are perfect glacial erratics which would not look out of place at a glacier snout in Greenland. Why do archaeologists appear to have a problem with that?
I'm not sure that there are any erratics on the Isles of Scilly which I would happily designate as having a Pembrokeshire origin. Where did you get that bit of information from? I have looked at the Scilly glacial deposits in detail, and the best I would say is that some of the erratics (such as limestones and sandstones) MIGHT have come from Pembs. It is much more likely that the Scilly Islands material came from Scotland, Northern England and Ireland, while erratics from North Wales and Pembrokeshire were concentrated in the ice stream that flowed up the Bristol Channel. Geoffrey Kellaway got many things wrong, but I think he got that one right.
Please read all the posts on this blog about ice movement. The idea that there is somehow a problem with an eastward flow of ice up the Bristol Channel was repeated often by Geoffrey Wainwright, and has been perpetrated by Mike PP as well, but it is complete nonsense. The Irish Sea ice stream flowing eastwards would not have flowed AGAINST ice from the Black Mountains. There is no problem with the glaciology. There is at least one big erratic from Northern Ireland in the glacial deposits of Somerset. How do you think it got there?
I DO hope, and trust, that you get a further response from David Dawson, in the interests of public debate. We only very rarely get any comments on the Blog from those Archaeologists who have direct working contact with Stonehenge matters, for example we did have some contact from Julian Richards from his Shaftesbury home.
I have been a Member of Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society for well over 35 years as David may check in his records, have attended lots of talks, visits and walks, and used to be a Volunteer. WANHS itself should welcome freedom of expression WITHOUT censorship in its talks, bookstore, and library collection (on the latter two points, I used to be a Chartered Librarian).
"It's Good to Talk", as BT used to impress upon us! All three of us, i.e. Brian, David and me, are Durham University Graduates, after all! Jaw, jaw, not war, war.
Whoops! Mea culpa. I should have said, David Dawson and I are both Durham Graduates, and Brian used to be a Lecturer in Durham Geography Department, specialising in Geomorphology.
Have we mentioned the psychological expression "COGNITIVE DISSONANCE" in relation to the MPP Team being unable to admit to themselves, let alone others, that their claims for prehistoric Preseli quarries are actually DISPUTED?
What do Brian and others think, please.
May well be something in that. It may be that certain archaeologists simply cannot accept that the evidence which they cite and which they deem to be "solid" may actually be disputed by others and contradicted by other, stronger, evidence. But cognitive dissonance involves -- as I understand it -- a degree of discomfort or embarrassment, since the sufferer knows quite well that what he / she says is not necessarily what he / she believes, in their heart of hearts!! I sometimes think that certain archaeologists simply exist in a state of deep denial, utterly convinced of their invincibility until the evidence piles up to the point where it overwhelms them.
"...….utterly convinced of their invincibility until the evidence piles up to the point where it overwhelms them"
A bit like Climate Change and the USA Presidential ostrich head - buriers. Or President Donald Trump in particular, and many issues including Climate Change, Ukraine and impeachment.
Wiltshire Museum Director David Dawson said above, on 17th November, that he has not seen evidence for glacial erratics on Salisbury Plain.
David, take a look at your Facebook Friend Simon Banton's website on the Stones of Stonehenge. Dr Brian John highlights in his own Blog Post, dated 3rd November 2015.
There you will see the bluestones of Stonehenge photographed individually and itemised as to shape, geology and size by Simon Banton.
Dr John, a respected glacial geomorphologist, has interpreted what these individual bluestones' probable origin is, i.e. glaciation. MOST of them are NOT large or pillar - shaped. Shame for a good human transport story, but rather spoils it. You need to accept not all answers on the stones of Stonehenge may be fully explained by geologists helping Stonehenge archaeologists, particularly when apparent hubris is involved with how conclusions are reached by certain geologists. Geologists (and archaeologists) should be working in tandem with glacial geomorphologists where explanations for the provenance and appearance and shape of the bluestones of Stonehenge are being considered.
Director David Dawson gave his talk at Kansas City. The musical, Oklahoma! had the song about Kansas City in it, which I mentioned some time ago on this Post.
On the subject of Geologists and Glacial Geomorphologists listening to each other's points of view, this has parallels with this "Oklahoma!" song.
"Territory folks should stick together, territory folks should all be pals". Is it asking too much on the academic work on the Stonehenge stones, particularly the so - called bluestones?
Rob Ixer, Mike Parker Pearson's main Geologist, used to contribute regularly to this blog. It's a pity he no longer does.
Those of us who are the proponents of the glacial transport theory are exasperated by the lack of any respect paid by the human transport theorists who consistently turn a complete blind eye to glacial transport as a reasonable alternative to their own ideas. Their ideas have no basis in fact. But they have a ruling hypothesis! They seem to think that excuses them from even acknowledging, for example, that their claims of having unearthed "prehistoric quarries" are disputed by glacial geomorphologists who have in numbers looked at e.g. Rhosyfelin and found only a glacial landform feature with some evidence for human usage which has not included the removal of large quantities of stone. The human transport theorists will find it extremely hard to come up with evidence for human quarrying of ALL the many different geological compositions of "bluestones" that are known to occur at the Stonehenge stone circle itself OR in the wider Greater Stonehenge Landscape.
Details of the myriad of geological compositions of stones, and their wide geographical distribution within and beyond the Preseli hills, are in Brian's 2018 book, "The Stonehenge bluestones". Look carefully at Chapter 7, The Science of the Stones, and elsewhere. What is particularly telling is the far greater variety of geological composition of primarily Pembrokeshire bluestones identified in fragments found within the soil layer at Stonehenge, the so - called "Stonehenge layer". It is surely vanishingly unlikely that these fragments, the majority of which are not of any of the recognised geological compositions from the visible or buried stone megaliths, have ALL arrived at Stonehenge via human transport?
The explanation for their existence in the Stonehenge location is far more logically explained when glacial movement is considered.
David Dawson has implied above that certain statements, and also personal comments about individuals on this Blog should be removed. I think the lack of any proper respect for the continuing, dynamic revelations of glacial geomorphology on this Blog and in either of Brian's books is the justifiable reason for our exasperation with certain senior Stonehenge and Preseli archaeologists. At least we are challenging their human transport ideas out in the open, and not hiding behind a Ruling Hypothesis. Sometimes others may claim that we get "personal". But what we do is we sometimes try to make out what the archaeologists' motives are for their own analyses, e.g, the archaeological carbon 14 datings findings at Rhosyfelin and how they've attempted to convince themselves and others that bluestone "pillars" were removed from there and then spent 500 or more years in 'cold storage' somewhere in Preseli prior to their human movement 170 miles or more away by land to Stonehenge. That is just ONE example!
Post a Comment