Wales was mentioned as a fertile place for some deeply unpleasant characters to spread their ideas -- capitalising on the isolation that many in the farming community feel, and their innate conservatism and susceptibility to some of the propaganda put out by the right-wing press. In a weird twist, the groups pretend that they are environmental or conservation organizations, and promote the concept of "eco-nationalism" -- whatever that may be. Another manifestation of the Brexit madness sweeping the country. We should all pay attention to what is going on......
There was also mention in the programme of the hijacking of megalithic sites like Avebury for meetings and for filming promotional videos by these groups. Some clips from these videos were featured in the programme. The National Trust is clearly very worried.
As we mentioned in our previous posts on this disturbing subject, these groups are always on the lookout for symbols -- and it is all too easy for them to promote the bizarre idea that our iconic sites like Stonehenge, Pentre Ifan, Silbury Hill and West Kennet are the high points of some mythical "pure" episode in British prehistory prior to racial contamination from outside. MPP has been suckered into this style of thinking, going on about Neolithic political unification and the symbolic representation of "the ancestors" before the arrival of the continental hordes which messed everything up. And Herbert Thomas did it too, in the years following the First World War, when he promoted the bluestone human transport hypothesis at a time when it was deemed desirable to demonstrate that the British Neolithic tribes were cleverer and more sophisticated than those of Germany.
Dangerous territory, and I hope that the archaeology establishment makes it clear to all practicing archaeologists that they will have nothing to do with it.
It's 'beyond a joke': Fury at BBC Countryfile over political segment on rise of far-right
COUNTRYFILE sparked controversy last night as it highlighted the rise of extreme political groups in the countryside and how some are using Britain's national monuments to reinforce their message. The BBC One programme however gained mixed reviews with viewers questioning the segment placed within a 'farming show'.
The predictable Daily Express response to Charlotte Smith's report:
COUNTRYFILE sparked controversy last night as it highlighted the rise of extreme political groups in the countryside and how some are using Britain's national monuments to reinforce their message. The BBC One programme however gained mixed reviews with viewers questioning the segment placed within a 'farming show'.
And so on ...... following the paper's hate agenda and stirring the pot for all it is worth.
Charlotte Smith was dropped from the Countryfile Programme a few years ago for being too old, along with 4 other female presenters. In an outbreak of common sense and decency, she was re - hired.
ReplyDeleteHow often have you seen archaeologists from ethnic minorities on TV programmes? I can think of only ONE. She was on Time Team.
ReplyDeleteRaksha Dave, is her name, a field archeologist.
ReplyDeleteit's been going on at Avebury for decaded now. NF and BNP doing stupid stuff on St Georges day. Back in the 1930's Alexander Keiller was worried that Hitler was said to be very interested in the excavations there. Once WW2 broke out there was a sugar shortage so Mr Keiller couldn't sell his marmalade and the money dried up, hence Avebury being left only half excavated.
ReplyDeletePeteG
Am not sure what "the bluestone human transport hypothesis" has to do with modern day politics.
ReplyDeleteI've taken a close look at the proposed site of origin of those bluestones (Craig Rhosyfelin) with the aid of Google Street view. It suggests easy Neolithic pickings aka "quarrying" - a misnomer if ever there was - from above-ground exposure from an unusual outcrop (the latter being a freakish outsprouting in otherwise pastoral scenery , quickly seized upon as first entry implants at Stonehenge , "quarrying" of the megalithsnot required, mere freeing and dislodgement from the side of a crumbling rock-strewn ridge
Craig Rhosyfelin is little over an hour's walk from the west Wales seashore, where the long-distance migrant Anatolians are reckoned to have first made landfall in Britain after sailing in finally from Brittany in search of new pastures (the latter available in abundance at or close to Craig). They quickly spotted and took a liking to those protruding megaliths (for reasons that remain speculative, though ideas have been mooted, mine and others included).
I'm minded to suggest we stick strictly to the objective science - I do not understand this posting's attempt to link Neolithic history with modern day anti-EU politics - least of all that with a racial slant...
Post glacial Britain, 6000 years ago, could be seen as an Eldorado to any migratory racial groups - eastern Med included- looking for fresh green pastures in which to grow their crops, raise their livestock. But how best to dispose of their dead? Cue Stonehenge, cue those standing stones cue, dare I say, excarnational bird perches! Oops, nuff said...
See my posting tomorrow on the proposed origin of the first stage bluestones from Craig Rhosyfelin, a mere few kilometres from the Welsh shoreline. No, NOT a "quarry" if immediately to be talked down with references to a supposed need for anachronistic "engineering" to expedite stone extraction! No, merely tug loose from their insubstantial settings, previously exposed and eroded over the course of millennia by natural agencies (weakening via air, water, frost, vegetation etc etc).
Look forward to what you have to say about Rhosyfelin, Colin. But bear in mind this from a post in 2014:
ReplyDeleteDavid Keys, in the article copied above (from The Independent, 22nd April 1990), said: "But then came the Great War, twilight of Empire, and the supremacy of man. Out went natural explanations as to how Stonehenge's monoliths arrived on Salisbury Plain. In came a theory that made prehistoric engineers look, in their own Stone Age sort of way, every bit as capable as the ancient Egyptians............. The idea that the monument was constructed by ignorant savages directed by engineers from some superior civilisation struck a chord with 20th century Britons who lamented the passing of Empire, but cherished what they perceived to be Britain's civilizing role in the world."
Stephen Briggs, in an unpublished paper called "Preseli, Stonehenge and the Welsh Bronze Age", said this: "Because archaeology in the post-War years (ie after 1918) demanded our forebears to have been intrepid and sophisticated, and since it could be demonstrated that a bunch of schoolboys were able to devise a method to move the stones, therefore if it were possible, therefore it was probable........."
... and then this: ".........British prehistory has been anxious to own an important proof of early human prowess, but instead of being satisfied with the achievement represented by the erection of the stones at Stonehenge, we have cast Neolithic and Bronze Age man in our own mould, as a man of extensive geographical knowledge, a man of taste and one who left behind remains from which his political systems and trading routes could easily be traced."
As Briggs, and Keys, and MPP have reminded us, social and political imperatives can never be completely dissociated from archaeological research -- because we are dealing with human beings and their motives.
"See my posting tomorrow on the proposed origin of the first stage bluestones from Rhosyfelin...." 'Origin' - did you mean destination, Colin?
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, we await your posting of tomorrow. Rather like waiting for one of Mike Parker Pearson's "next pronouncements"...... I expect your excarnations in the Rhosyfelin neighbourhood were inspired by photogenic Pentre Ifan? Your last couple of sentences have echoes of Mike Parker Pearson's shouts of proclamation "Eureka! Smoking gun!"
ReplyDeleteHere's the link to my latest posting, one that's been going up throughout the day in bite-size instalments.
https://sussingstonehenge.wordpress.com/2019/10/01/why-is-the-probable-site-of-origin-for-the-stonehenge-bluestones-persistently-termed-a-quarry-in-the-media-read-unscientific-confusion-creating-semantics/
It's still short of some additional observations, but the photogallery and captions are complete. There should be enough there to convey my message regarding the use, nay misuse of the term "quarry" for Crag Rhos-y-felin, which has generated much needless and self-defeating talking at cross-purposes in my view.
Colin Berry
There does seem to be a lack of data on cause and effect on this Colin and Brian.
ReplyDeleteThe Unification thing started in mid 2012 and was published in the press, in somewhat more colourful terms, shortly thereafter (eg Stonehenge was built “to unify the peoples of Britain”). The researchers (Stonehenge Riverside Project) rejected all other theories "after the largest programme of archaeological research ever mounted on this iconic monument". There's little in the way of evidence published for this as yet, but I understand that the evidence is likely to be made available in this publication:
https://www.sidestone.com/books/stonehenge-for-the-ancestors-part-1
The “Aryan Warrior” groups (as they call themselves but referred to as Neo-Nazis by investigators) took up “Torchlight Rites” at various monuments shortly after that and according to them “The Flame of Freedom was lit in 2013 with these rites”. After that, they started survivalist training up in various isolated woods and photographed it all for their websites. If you're interested in Neolithic sites, you'll occasionally stumble across the remains of all that (probably best not to say where). They say on their websites that they pack knives; so it's best to avoid them (bit of a worry if you happen to live near to the goings-on).
Some of the other growing band of Neo Nazi groups are becoming bolder with time and in the last week or two have threatened a police officer:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/neo-nazi-group-publishes-online-20102327
However, there's no direct evidence that archaeology theories caused any of that, and there is an argument that archaeology (or pseudo-archaeology) has no impact on the public and is therefore harmless. People who specialise in this sort of thing appear to think that no studies have been done.
The problem as I see it, Jon, is that the media can be guaranteed to make the most of whatever is fed to them in press releases issued by archaeology departments. They want big headlines and spectacular claims -- and the archaeologists are feeding them fodder because they want those things too. So ultimately it is their (the archaeologists') faults -- they can't plead innocence, and they need to be MUCH more circumspect in what they say for global consumption.
ReplyDeleteYou say, Brian, that the National Trust is clearly very worried about the dodgy activities of extremist right wing groups, potentially hijacking megalithic sites under its care for their own dubious disruptive purposes (they include Avebury and, in part, Stonehenge).
ReplyDeleteSurely the National Trust is regarded as a National Treasure by most of its paying members and is therefore in a very strong position to expect guardianship of its sites by the UK police in the event of anticipated trouble and anti - social behaviour by the far - right. The N.T.'s membership and visitors must run into TENS OF MILLIONS.
National Trust has over FIVE MILLION MEMBERS currently.
ReplyDeleteProbably Brian.
ReplyDeleteBest to err on the side of caution, but there's no evidence that the groups (such as the one run by "Wulf Ingessunu") used archaeological evidence from the (2012) "British Unification" findings to support their views about these ancient sites.
It's also possible that none of them took any notice of what the papers and archaeologists were saying and just came up with all this stuff entirely separately. Difficult to tell.
Of course -- we may never know what these people read or what influences their opinions -- but it is a reasonable speculation that they may not read the same newspapers as we do!
ReplyDeleteTony -- armed police guarding our ancient monuments round the clock? Heaven forbid....... they have enough problems as it is with all those lovely people who turn up to celebrate peace, love, and the solstices.....
ReplyDeletePerhaps Brian. But there doesn't seem to be any evidence that the "Aryan" groups take any notice of archaeologists. As you say, it's just a speculation that they might have. Some of the papers have mentioned that their leader ("Wulf") gets his ideas from dreams and it's also possible that the "Taking back ancient monuments" movement came about as a result of a few too many pints of homebrew.
ReplyDeleteIt's a bit annoying that the date for the production of the final archaeological evidence keeps on getting put back (the publication date has now been set back to March 2020).
As indicated, I'm not sufficiently up-to-date with modern trends to comment on alleged hijacking by the extreme right. But there are two things of which I am certain re hijacking of megalithic sites, whether Stonehenge or its more rustic forerunner - the dolmen (whether referred to as having a "lintel" or a "capstone").
ReplyDeleteThe first is hijacking of Stonehenge by medieval and later Church, determined to consign pagan Britain practices, known or suspected, to obscurity, e.g. by reference to that so-called Heel Stone (invoking fanciful friar and Devil) despite its scary beaked-bird-like appearance - hint, hint, surely no accident and deserving of appropriate description ("bird stone"?).
In the modern age, the narrative hijacker must surely be English Heritage/Stonehenge Visitor Centre, with their 300-year old yarn re "solstice alignment and worship", almost certainly a false correlation by William Stukeley, now expanded to include tourist-magnet Spring and Autumn equinoxes, and now even lunar phases!
See Brian John's 2011 posting on the Pentre Ifan dolmen, a short distance from rocky megalith-exposing outcrops (notably the controversial bluestone-generating Craig Rhos-y-felin) juxtaposed vertically with the trilithons of Stonehenge. That posting's common feature (elevated megalithic flat table) should supply the answer to what both earlier dolmens and later Stonehenge were truly about, the first a rustic two-star version of the five star grand ceremonial second.
No, the Pentre Ifan site allegedly lack's Stonehenge's cremated bone deposits, but there are plenty of dolmen sites that do have that give-away cremated bone - the telling clue if ever there was to real function. Read soul-releasing "sky burial", with on-spot cremation as final clean-up stage, with local interment of the final package - or maybe later take-away memento for non-elite grieving relatives, spared the decision between instant/problematical burial and equally less-than-instant crude, problematical whole-body cremation.
"Sky burial" with secondary cremation of excarnated remains provided a compromise, especially if given ceremonial status, with transport of deceased bodies (plus local pyre fuel) from afar, conferring dignity on the otherwise unspeakable..
Will English Heritage/Stonehenge Visitor Centre ever buy into my ceremonial sky burial narrative? No way! Now why might that be I wonder?
Forget about right-wing extremists for now. Think guaranteed ££££, each and every year...
Pentre Ifan's not actually level on top Colin. It slopes upwards towards the south (Preseli mountains) and has a bevelled top surface.
ReplyDeleteThere are some 35,000 dolmens in Korea alone, but even that vast number still accounts for only 40% of the world's total, Jon. Despite that, the wikipedia entry provides no firm answer as to their function (why not???):
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dolmens
I don't see why a slope on the capstone, if present, should argue against their serving as excarnation platforms, nor why the texture of that surface, natural or man-made, should be a crucial consideration.
Who's to say a slope of the capstone, gentle or otherwise, is not merely the result of some five millennia or more of unequal subsidence between one or more of the supports? In any case I doubt whether excarnating bird life is that fussy about angular imperfection if/when there's a free meal on offer....
Colin, take a look at Terence Meaden's Posts on, for example, the Silent Earth website. Terence was a Professor of Physics before his interests turned in more recent years to archaeology/ anthropology.
ReplyDeleteSo he is, fundamentally, a Science Bod like you (and Brian).
There may well have been excarnation platforms near Woodhenge and Durrington Walls. Josh Pollard thinks so. He knows a great deal about the Neolithic.
Colin Berry [continued]:-
ReplyDeletewww.bristol.ac.uk/news/2008/212017945353.html
See the paragraph beginning "Along the cliff top south of.... Woodhenge......
I tried responding to your points re the distinctly patchy literature background to Neolithic "sky burial" in some detail, tonyH, but the reply looked rather too long to be accepted as a single instalment here on Blogger Blogspot. For that (plus one or two other technical reasons) I've tacked it as a comment onto the end of my own latest posting.
ReplyDeletehttps://sussingstonehenge.wordpress.com/2019/10/01/why-is-the-probable-site-of-origin-for-the-stonehenge-bluestones-persistently-termed-a-quarry-in-the-media-read-unscientific-confusion-creating-semantics/
Here's hoping that you and Brian don't object to my taking this liberty:
My concluding message on this site (barring a new posting right HERE of my own 7-years-in-the-making-solution!)
ReplyDeleteStonehenge was simply a super-dolmen, with hugely-elevated cross-piece lintels serving the same function as the lowlier capstones on earlier rustic dolmens.
That function? Supplying a safe secure elevated platform for excarnating bird life, invited in via a prominent man-made landscape feature to procure first stage defleshing aka excarnation of the recently deceased, as a preliminary to final fuel-efficient disposal of the remains by cremation.
No, it's not an attractive narrative that can be promoted to (fee-paying) tourists by the likes of English Heritage/Stonehenge Visitors Centre. But I believe it to be the plain, unadorned truth. Forget all the cosmetic enhancement regarding "solstice celebration". If intentional (?) the north-east alignment of the Stonehenge trilithon horseshoe was merely designed to illuminate the new offerings at first light on the midsummer (or thereabouts) crack of dawn.
That's my final comment on this site, bar a new posting from the site's host, geomorphology-focused Dr. Brian John, one that highlights the new, repeated NEW thinking from this retired science bod. re Stonehenge alone, stripped of geomorphology.
New ideas, new thinking need exposure, especially where the internet is concerned, given the way search engines operate via their so-called "impartial" algorithms (groan!).
OK Colin -- time to move on. I was about to admonish you and ask for a return to the matter in hand.....
ReplyDeleteAye. Was wondering whether the irony of hijacking a thread about hijacking would become apparent.
ReplyDeletehaHa -- yes, it was apparent some time ago, but I am in a very benign mood just now.....
ReplyDeleteHijacking a narrative? Maybe, but it's nothing as compared with the, er, monumental hijacking of an earlier narrative, one that's been going on largely unchallenged for some 300 years!
ReplyDeleteAt what point in time did a certain compass-alignment correlation, articulated by an 18th century clergyman, one that was almost certainly spurious, being totally bereft of independent supporting evidence, turn into a gigantic modern-day money-spinning lie?
"... totally bereft of independent supporting evidence"
ReplyDeleteJust spit-balling - maybe go there and see for yourself?
Colin, we've been here before. Don't make me get out of this chair ...
Neil
Comfort is everything, Neil, now that these autumnal days are upon us. Mind you, it was like midsummer yesterday when I was out on the cliffs.......
ReplyDeleteNeil: I could quote you passages from "The Megalithic Monuments of Britain and Ireland" by Professor of Archaeology, Chris Scarre at Durham University which would show that far from being out on a limb, my deep scepticism, nay outright rejection of solstices as having any importance or indeed relevance, now reflects mainstream academic thinking.
ReplyDeleteThe solstice correlation, based merely on a NE pointing of the trilithon horseshoe, is simply a spurious correlation. There are other more credible explanations, ones that have at least 22 lines of independent supporting evidence, as distinct for ZERO by my reckoning for the 1723 Stukeley brainwave (read brainstorm?).
Any time you wish to see a listing of those 22 points, then you simply have to go to the current posting on my own site and ask to see them. (There's no point my listing them here, given the manner in which comments get rapidly overlaid here by lack of "Latest Comments" on Blogger BLogspot, to say nothing of rapid overlaying and concealment by Brian's new voluminous geomorphological postings). ;-)
Colin, you sound like a broken record. You ought to give other, developed, theories consideration, that don't rely totally on "an 18th century clergyman", or any other single individual for that matter.
ReplyDeleteOK -- that's it. No more posts accepted on this topic.
ReplyDeleteAs aside (I know thread is finished), it appears that the Neo Nazis do reference specific archaeologists for their ideas. Will let you know more when I have a full picture and references.
ReplyDeleteHello Brian
ReplyDeleteBy way of a very belated postscript, this link (to a post at Almost Archaeology, by Kenny Brophy, aka @urbanprehisto) just drifted throught my Twitter timeline and I wondered if it might be of interest? It's a longish read but contains much to mull over; this particular passage caught my attention:
"The prehistoric story of stone circles should not be used to score political points."
"Arguments that stone circles such as Stonehenge and Stanton Drew were 'built by immigrants' and had close connections to Europe and therefore we should retain those relationships today and into the future are, to my mind, as problematic as contrary arguments that, for instance, we have a long tradition of turbulent relationships with Europe, and that Brexit-like schisms are not a new thing."
[...]
"Such arguments have become increasingly fuelled by ancient DNA (aDNA) and stable isotope studies that suggest mobility in prehistory was commonplace especially when converted into newspaper headlines and stories. Yet our understanding of prehistory is complex and contested, and contrary views also exist. It is possible for instance to argue that at least some elements of Stanton Drew were constructed in the late Neolithic period (30th to 25th centuries BC), a time of 'late Neolithic isolation', even a Neolithic Brexit, according to archaeologists such as Richard Madgwick and Mike Parker Pearson. If we follow this line of argument, Rees-Mogg was correct - Stanton Drew is a leave monument. And, suggestions that stone circles are a common monument type across Europe, thus suggesting cultural connections, smacks of culture-historical thinking. No idea exists in isolation and the Brexitisation of prehistory is becoming tortuous."
The full post may be found here:
"The Moggalithic antiquarian: party political broadcasts from stone circles"
https://almostarchaeology.com/post/189644783963/moggalithic
Wishing you and your readers a peaceful festive break,
Helen