I just came across this -- it's quite entertaining. The article contains all the usual stuff, based on the media blitz by MPP and his colleagues (including Colin Richards) on February 12, 2021. Comments were allowed originally, but then for some reason shut off. Somebody decided to "terminate" the thread sharpish, before any more damage was done to a very senior member of staff. There was no reply to Tony's point from Colin Richards, and no response from anybody else to the perfectly valid points made by Kate Corwen.
Remember that this is from an official university web site, from a reputable Archaeology Institute. Whatever happened to academic debate and academic standards? In certain quarters dissent is clearly not allowed, and the statement "Comments are closed" says it all.......
=====================
https://archaeologyorkney.com/2021/02/12/researchers-suggest-stonehenges-first-stone-circle-was-transplanted-from-welsh-hillside/
Researchers suggest Stonehenge’s first stone circle was transplanted from Welsh hillside
by SIGURD TOWRIE
by SIGURD TOWRIE
Friday, February 12, 2021 (7:00am)
3 comments
Tony Hinchliffe
SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2021 (1:57PM) AT 1:57 PM
Why is it that those archaeologists ( who include Prof Colin Richards of your Institute) fail to acknowledge that there are academic dissenters to the prehistoric quarrying hypothesis made for e.g.Craig Rhosyfelin? I refer to glacial geomorphologists. Please reply. Tony
katecorwen
SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2021 (3:53PM) AT 3:53 PM
Looking at the dig plan, it is clear MPP’s team only dug where they wanted to find things, no control digs, all based on a very dubious ‘arc’ (described by Tim Darvill as a ragtag bunch of stones unlikely to be a circle). MPP discarded those dates that didn’t fit the hypothesis, the dates at Carn Goedog range from 7000BC to 1940 AD, and yet only the dates that support his hypothesis were emphasised. Choosing four out of 25 strontium isotope results from Stonehenge to back up some theory of migration or connection, when those strontium results could apply to many areas across the UK. Its a mountain of speculation, selected evidence, fantasy and assumption. He might be right, but this is not the scientific method!
katecorwen
SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2021 (5:23PM) AT 5:23 PM
Seems a far fetched theory balanced on a house of cards built of unfounded assumptions.
The dating for the quarry at Carn Goedog, which gives rise to this ‘gap’ in the chronology during which the stones are meant to have been in a circle in Wales, is totally arbitrary. The dates for that site range from 7000 BC to 1940 AD. MPP has cherry picked a date that suits his narrative.
Then at the proposed site of said circle, at Waun Mawn he has extrapolated an arc from the flimsy evidence of a handful of stones, many of which are not in alignment, and then dug only where his imaginary arc runs, literally digging only where he wants to find evidence with no control digs as far as I can tell from the dig map!
And then he takes 25 sets of strontium isotope results from cremated remains at Stonehenge, throws out 21 of them, and then uses selective interpretation to claim the remaining 4 results as evidence of a connection to South West Wales when there are many parts of the UK those results could apply to.
This is really quite shocking, and not the scientific method one expects.
Comments are closed.
3 comments
Tony Hinchliffe
SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2021 (1:57PM) AT 1:57 PM
Why is it that those archaeologists ( who include Prof Colin Richards of your Institute) fail to acknowledge that there are academic dissenters to the prehistoric quarrying hypothesis made for e.g.Craig Rhosyfelin? I refer to glacial geomorphologists. Please reply. Tony
katecorwen
SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2021 (3:53PM) AT 3:53 PM
Looking at the dig plan, it is clear MPP’s team only dug where they wanted to find things, no control digs, all based on a very dubious ‘arc’ (described by Tim Darvill as a ragtag bunch of stones unlikely to be a circle). MPP discarded those dates that didn’t fit the hypothesis, the dates at Carn Goedog range from 7000BC to 1940 AD, and yet only the dates that support his hypothesis were emphasised. Choosing four out of 25 strontium isotope results from Stonehenge to back up some theory of migration or connection, when those strontium results could apply to many areas across the UK. Its a mountain of speculation, selected evidence, fantasy and assumption. He might be right, but this is not the scientific method!
katecorwen
SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2021 (5:23PM) AT 5:23 PM
Seems a far fetched theory balanced on a house of cards built of unfounded assumptions.
The dating for the quarry at Carn Goedog, which gives rise to this ‘gap’ in the chronology during which the stones are meant to have been in a circle in Wales, is totally arbitrary. The dates for that site range from 7000 BC to 1940 AD. MPP has cherry picked a date that suits his narrative.
Then at the proposed site of said circle, at Waun Mawn he has extrapolated an arc from the flimsy evidence of a handful of stones, many of which are not in alignment, and then dug only where his imaginary arc runs, literally digging only where he wants to find evidence with no control digs as far as I can tell from the dig map!
And then he takes 25 sets of strontium isotope results from cremated remains at Stonehenge, throws out 21 of them, and then uses selective interpretation to claim the remaining 4 results as evidence of a connection to South West Wales when there are many parts of the UK those results could apply to.
This is really quite shocking, and not the scientific method one expects.
Comments are closed.
10 comments:
Hmmm......I suppose Vladimir Putin would probably award a Medal to any comrade who approached political science in this manner.
Yes, the thought police are hard at work. "We have ways of making you think, and we require that nobody rocks the boat......"
It is very disappointing that the University of the Highlands & Islands Archaeology Institute should choose to behave in this manner.Of course, it is clearly Englishman Colin Richards who has in effect unilaterally closed the Comments box. If you can't t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen, Colin! ( I have a lot more time for his colleague Nick Card, a Facebook Friend, who is in charge of the wonderful excavations taking place in Orkney at Brodgar).
Dear Brian
I've just returned from a holiday in Pembrokeshire and had a chance to visit some of the key localities mentioned in your great blog. Having read the MPP papers I agree with you that his work appears to be an exercise in collecting circumstantial evidence to 'prove' a popular story that makes good TV, rather than trying to robustly test a hypothesis.
Would you be able to point me in the direction of supporting evidence for the glacial transport theory? There have been many glaciations and during the Anglian glacial period ice may well have flowed from the Preseli Hills into the direction of the Salisbury Plain. But do you know if any bluestone erratics have been found on the Salisbury Plain? If the builders of Stonehenge picked up the big bluestones one would expect that smaller erratics are also there. Has there been a study on the distribution of bluestone erratics or is this still the missing link?
I would be grateful for some more information on this.
Many thanks and best wishes
Roland Gehrels
Hi Roland -- thanks for the message. All of these issues are covered in my book "The Stonehenge Bluestones." Chapter 8 in particular deals with the evidence.
Hello Roland, forgive me for responding ahead of Brian, but I'm d just like to point out to you that one of the problems involved with studying the ground landscape of the majority of Salisbury Plain's hectares is that it is generally " out of bounds" to the general public because of the activities of The Army. There are a number of Training Areas ( SPTA's). Although there are Archaeological Conservation Areas where volunteers are able to liaise with the SPTA 's what is really needed is the opportunity to fieldwalking in the MOD landscape, in effect with a fine tooth comb. David Field used to be English Before he's Field Archaeologist and is now retired. He has been involved in writing publications, one of which was with the MOD's archaeologist Graham Brown. I recommend Dave Field's " The Making of Prehistoric Wiltshire " (2017), co - written with David McOmish, if you were interested in visiting The Plain neighbourhood.
Apologies! Beware predictive text!! The 6th line from the end should read "to be English Heritage's Field Archaeologist....
Like a latter - day spiritualist, I sense a presence in the Online Room of Someone from the Other Side.......could it be a non - believer in physical geography and geomorphology, one who can see no further than the end of his nose? Time, surely, for a re - orientation.....? The Times, and the Runes, They Are a Changin'....
We are a broad church on this blog -- I don't mind the presence of sceptics and cynics, as long as they follow the rules of civilised behaviour. After all, I am somewhat sceptical about a great deal of published material relating to Stonehenge and the bluestones, and am happy to present my views quite forcefully at times. Debate is always good! Better than nuclear warfare, anyway.......
Yes debate is always good.....following on from my last comment, eventually Bob Dylan was awarded the ultimate accolade for Services to Music. He' almost become part of the Establishment!
Post a Comment