Here is a fascinating new video made by Coral Jackz -- at last, something that takes a long, hard look at both sides of the bluestone transport debate. It's over an hour long. But big congratulations to the team for putting it together and for doing some serious homework......
------------------
PS. The video has attracted almost 9,000 views after just three days. Does that mean it has gone viral? Anyway, congrats to Jacky and Coral, who must feel really chuffed that all their hard work has not been in vain....... The discussion on YouTube is also rather interesting -- the usual mix of well informed comment, prejudice, supportive remarks and weird and wild fantasy!!
PPS. on 12 August 2024. Views of the video are now up to 21,000. That is an amazing figure which attests to the abiding interest in Stonehenge, and the power of personal recommendations. Coral and Jacky must be both surprised and delighted! So more power to their elbows. From a personal point of view, this is very gratifying since 21,000 more people have now become acquainted with my work and have discovered that Alice Roberts, MPP and the BBC are not uniquely in possession of the truth. Virtually nobody in the comments list has a kind word to say about that appalling BBC TV programme.
25 comments:
I quickly looked at this video's first few minutes and found the first mistake. Flinders Petrie was not the first to produce an accurate plan of Stonehenge; that was John Wood senior.
I look forward to viewing this video during daylight hours when I can hear the audio.
Sod this terraced house.
Well, of course there are errors of fact and errors of omission. It's not a perfect documentary, but at least it is honest and contains some hard scrutiny of "the truth" as it is portrayed by many people who should know better. The "double act" involving Alice Roberts and Mike PP is shown up for what it is -- a stream of falsification and bias.
I am highly impressed by this refreshing, open-handed and honest video, Brian.
It looks as if we are about to be overtaken by the younger generation.
... and I'm happy to wave them past and give them a thumbs up. What we really need is some capable PhD students to take on some serious work, building on what we have already published.
That's very well made. But question: why do you say that the probable sourcing to Cerrig Lladron is speculation? (of the stones at Waun Mawn, together with the chips found in the base of the pits)
Because the geologists are preoccupied with sampling prominent tors rather than less prominent outcrops. There is not a perfect geological match between Cerrig Lladron and Waun Mawn, and they have not even bothered to sample the rock outcrops in the immediate vicinity of the Waun Mawn standing and fallen stones. That's very careless.
What you are saying about the geologists and Cerrig Lladron is that they are showing the confirmation bias, am I correct?
Correct. The unspotted dolerite fragments at Waun Mawn are "local", as I have been saying all along. But there are probable source outcrops on the moor itself, which they clearly have not bothered to investigate. They chose Cerrig Lladron because they need to demonstrate that the fragments -- and the fantistical "missing stones" -- came from somewhere prominent, from which they might have been quarried. A fine example of pseudo-science,.
I've watched about 45 minutes of this documentary so far, and am pleased this person, who lives in the vicinity of Parker Pearson's main Preseli sites, has taken the trouble to put his thoughts together in such a considered and reflective manner. I noted that his parents have been mentioned as participating in experimental archaeology , namely prehistoric replica boat - building , therefore he has that in his background Well done!
Another, rather annoyed and exasperated comment: the so - called documentary, fronted by a staggered presenter called Alice [ in reality lured down a deep rabbit hole by MPP], is being repeated endlessly by the BBC despite the frequent complaints of its biased and speculative content by 29th Brian and myself [ and probably others]. The BBC employs Marianna Spring as its Specialist Disinformation Officer, by the way:- marianna.spring@bbc.co.uk
They chose Cerrig Lladron because they need to demonstrate that the fragments -- and the fantistical "missing stones" -- came from somewhere prominent
That's a bit of a stretch Brian. The Cerrig Lladron finding put a nail in the coffin for the idea that the Waun Mawn site could have been a proto-Stonehenge. If they wanted to try to promote the original ideas of Stonehenge quarries etc, that finding could have just been kept quiet?
Jon -- I stand by what I said. Of course itv was incumbent on them to try and find out where the bits of unspotted dolerite at Waun Mawn came from. It's blatantly obvious to anybody who cares to look at the site that the standing and prostrate stones are entirely local --- but instead of testing the outcrops within a couple of hundred metres of the Waun Mawn site they insisted on sampling somewhere prominent from which the mythical standing stones might have been "fetched' and even quarried. Very unscientific.
Jon, the two principal geologists ( scientists who nevertheless work far too cosily and comfortably with maestro Parker Pearson) are quite content to continue hunting on his behalf for multiple "quarries" here, there, and everywhere if need be. That's because there's multiple geological TYPES of so - called bluestones above or below the ground at the site of this scheduled ancient monument! I think all 3 of them should have gone to Specsavers. You couldn't make this up, it all makes Trump look balanced.
Well. Maybe. But Cerrig Lladron isn't really a quarry. It's a place where bluestones occur naturally as an outcrop. There's still loads of stones lying at surface level and they're not small stones. If one wanted a local stash of stones to make a monument*, this seems a simple place to grab them from. For one thing, most of the journey from Lladron to Waun Wawn is downhill.
(*providing said Waun Mawn monument ever existed in the way described by some srchaeologists)
That's true, Jon -- but a far simpler explanation is that the four stones we know about were simply collected and used where found. We don't need anything more complicated than that.......
Could well be Brian. But there's the debitage found at the base of the holes so there's potentially other stones involved (perhaps taken away to be used as fence-posts rather than used at Stonehenge). It isn't all that difficult to imagine Cerrig Lladron as the local source because it's quite local and relatively easy to transport from.
If other very local outcrops once existed nearby, there's not much sign of them (though I accept that it's possible that if more local sources existed, all those stones were taken, lock stock and barrel, to be used at Waun Mawn).
There's debitage everywhere, Jon -- not just in the slight depressions they describe as sockets.......
Sure, but maybe not debitage with the same signature as Cerrig Lladron (or maybe somewhere very nearby depending on point of view). As you say though, local outcrops would need sampling to confirm. Though having looked at the area myself, it's hard to see where that might be (locally).
Has anyone bothered to check what M Parker Pearson is claiming on his Institute of Archaeology UCL academic achievements site nowadays? Something tells me he'll still be claiming Waun Maun is The Real Thing! And he's still to re-appear over the brow of a Preseli Hill for any new 2024 digging..........
Please tell me where to find this info about MPP's escapades, Tony or Brian.
Hi Anon -- please use your name in any future comments, in accordance with our blogging policy. Anyway, I haven't got the time or the energy to make a long list of "Mike's misdemeanours"! I have an advantage over most other commentators in that I live just a short distance away from Rhosyfelin, Carn Goedog and Waun and have visited them hundreds of times. You need to read Mike's many papers, using due diligence and a degree of scepticism. I have analysed many of them on this blog, and you can find the entries by using the search box. (The Blogger site search engine is very good.)
Here is just one of Mike's articles: https://journals.uclpress.co.uk/ai/article/id/1207/
In this, he portrays himself as the "scientific archaeologist", using modern tools and analytical techniques to separate fact from fiction. But many of the things which he claims -- in the article -- to be based on hard evidence have now been retracted by himself in later articles. This was pointed out in the recent YouTube video. Mike is an enthusiastic and affable storyteller and not a scientist -- that is the crux of the problem. As another senior archaeologist said to me some time ago, "you mustn't take Mike too seriously. He himself doesn't believe half the things that he says." The problem is that we don't know which half that might be!
The article cited by Brian, above, is titled Archaeology and Legend: Investigating Stonehenge, and is dated 2021. Similar to Brian, I haven't the time nor energy to read it all. As bloke late lamented bloke sings in " Come Up and See Me Some Time", we've heard it all before, Mike. In my opinion, he's like the Pied Piper of Hamelin, he'll lead you on a merry dance if you allow him to. Is he the archaeological establishment's equivalent to Graham Hancock? It's for you to decide.
MPP also gave an online talk on the Bluestones etc to the Cambrian Archaeological Society's biennial 2021 Dargenford-Discovery conference. Some of us keenly await any 2025 conference retractions from him!
Pardon my laziness all but did Coral Jack have anything new? It looks visually interesting but I don't really have an hour free to see the same old same old. It is after all Olympics!
On MPP I met him a couple of times on site in Wales and I liked him - affable, knowledgeable, and attentive.. His opinion was that he was mostly engaged with teaching his students techniques and processes. Any narrative should emerge from the evidence. Of course this is complete at variance with his TV appearances and the lectures he gives in which his narrative is driving.
For those of us who have been involved in the debate for years, there is nothing new in the video, in the way of evidence. I assume its purpose was to present two sides of the argument to people who do not read all the literature, who may think that there is only one story out there.....
Post a Comment