Here is an interesting example of how small and rather innocent myths expand and turn into monsters. The original bluestone human transport myth, invented by Herbert Thomas in 1921, was pretty simple. But over the years, through the involvement of Richard Atkinson and assorted others, and more recently of Mike Parker Pearson and his merry gang, it has expanded in to a myth involving ancestor worship, quarrying, feasting, political unification, the carrying of bluestones (and I mean CARRYING, not dragging), lost circle building and dismantling, and all sorts of additional details. The myth has become an all-consuming monster, protected by its slaves who fight off all-comers and who feel that the myth monster enhances their own status and the academic institutions to which they belong. They have become a powerful tribe of myth worshippers. The myth has become sacred, and woe betide anybody who steps out of line of questions any of the articles of faith........
For those of us who do not belong to the cult, it all appears more than a little pathetic, and we look on in wonderment at the unquestioning loyalty of the devotees.
Now here is another interesting development. When the Express published the breaking story of the giant bluestone erratic at Mumbles, and dared to mention that the glacier transport theory was now greatly enhanced, and the human transport theory greatly diminished, certain of the devotees took to the Comments column and vented their fury. This was all too predictable. This is what one of them said, filled withy righteous anger:
They have found the original quarry and the original stone circle site in Wales. Every blue stone in Stonehenge matches every stone in the Welsh circle site, identified by the unique foot print impression left by the individual stones. None were dropped on the way.
It would appear that at least one person, or maybe many people, think that this is true -- but it is of course complete nonsense. In fairness to MPP, he has never claimed this or encouraged anyone to believe it. But here we go. It's insatiable. The myth monster multiplies malevolently, and will continue to do so, until somebody gets round to slaying it.........
=====================
PS. Adding this less that 24 hours later. Quite Bizarre. Today, on a Facebook thread, a lady who shall be nameless (but who claims to be quite knowledgeable on archaeological matters) posted this:
What about the chemical signature of the stones at Craig Rhos-y-felin identical with some in Stonehenge, and those stones can be precisely located in the former quarry?
None of this is true, but I don't doubt the sincerity of her beliefs. For a start, none of the stones at Rhosyfelin have identical chemical signatures with any of the monoliths at Stonehenge. In fact there are no standing stones at Stonehenge made of foliated rhyolite. The truth of the matter is that some of the debris or debitage at Stonehenge has a signature that is similar (NOT identical) to that of some of the samples taken from the Rhosyfelin area by geologist Richard Bevins. And not one of the standing or recumbent stones at Stonehenge can be "precisely located" in a former quarry. The whole idea is nonsensical. As for the quarry itself, it does not exist, as has been demonstrated by two colleagues and myself in two peer-reviewed papers that geologists Ixer and Bevins choose to ignore -- because they are simply too inconvenient to the myth manufacturing process.
Isn't in intriguing, in this world of Chinese whispers, how people simply hear what they want to hear, and develop their fantasies to an extraordinary degree? And how often do we hear MPP and geologists Ixer and Bevins telling these fantasists off, and asking them to stick to the facts? Sadly, the answer to that is "Never."
==================
12 comments:
You may be amused by my remarks at the top of my Faceook Share of your Post....... I try to demonstrate the analogy there is between your Myth Machine and how I learnt that the local legend of a Dragon where I grew up was just that - a legend - rather than a real Dragon that I thought I encountered aged 4 at a local pageant, when in fact it was a Yorkshire bloke in a dragon suit!
At some point everybody has to face up to Myths in their lives OF their hobbies/interests!
Yes, that lady on Facebook is relying too much on what she reads on Wikipedia. As you replied to her, people make additions to Wikipedia that frequently are completely inaccurate.
At some stage in our lives we have to start looking at facts instead of beliefs. But some people are, unfortunately, very slow learners...... and the older you get, the more reluctant you are to drop the long-held ideas that have become a part of your life!
Hundreds of millions if not billions of Christians, Jews and Muslims are biblical literalists. Testing notions and beliefs against real evidence is a foreign concept for many people. To paraphrase Mark Twain it is easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled.
That is very true, and I accept that people will believe what they want to believe in the field of spirituality / morality and where they are seeking guidance as to how to live a good life. But I have a problem when myths such as the "Stonehenge bluestone myth" are developed and promoted by people in university departments who purport to be using science in their research and who purport to encourage critical thinking.......
After the dust has settled. There'll be a word for the 'con.' The 'fake human transport theory of Stonehenge' and 'hoax Welsh Stonehenge' are too long : -)
Bluestonegate?
Being very close to the action, I couldn't possibly comment. But that does have a nice ring to it......
.... and MPP just can't just let a sleeping myth lie. The latest element to be added to the bluestone myth is reported in today's Observer, in the context of a write-up about the new BM Stonehenge exhibition. He says that the giant circle at Waun Mawn (which he has already admitted never existed) did actually exist, and was there for perhaps several hundred years, while it "acquired holiness." Not a shred of evidence, of course, but who needs evidence anyway? Oh dear --you couldn't make it up. But MPP can, and does......
The other interesting thing in the Observer article was the preference for the latest Mike Pitts opinion on the "sea route" for the bluestones. Perhaps that is now official EH / BM policy, in preference to the A40 land route preferred by MPP and his merry men and women?
Please tell us, has Mike Pitts reacted to the Gower erratic discovery then, if he is now preferring the " sea route"? ....Whichever route these "experts" favour, they are all showing a sad lack of appreciation of how landform processes in the UK often have an important component: glaciation!! They appear to show remarkable academic laziness, effort and inertia. Perhaps, because most of the academics claiming expert knowledge of Stonehenge LIVE in the South of England, they are content in their apathy when anyone mentions the likelihood of the Irish Sea Glacier intruding into parts of the Somerset/ Wiltshire landscape.
All I know is that in a review of his new book (which I haven't bought -- one can't buy everything that comes out about Stonehenge) it says he favours the sea transport idea, and explores various routes. I have sent Mike a copy of the "giant erratic" press release and invited him to publish a note based upon it. No response thus far.....
Post a Comment