In his commentary, Richards says: "Did the glacier just conveniently deposit about 80 stones of just the right size here on Salisbury Plain, and nothing else? Where are all the other stones? Where's the evidence?"
That's the classic straw man tactic. Invent an assumption that you would like other people to have held, and then rubbish it. As far as I know, nobody has ever claimed that "80 stones of just the right size" were dumped on Salisbury Plain. And where does the figure of 80 come from? Answer -- inside Richards's head. He does not know that the Stonehenge bluestone or sarsen stone settings were ever completed. We know about 43 bluestones, and maybe that's all there ever were. And the most parsimonious explanation for the apparent abundance of stone sockets is to say that there never were enough stones, and that the builders used them in one experimental setting after another before finally giving up on the project.
As for the silly blank pages stunt, he jokingly refers to "a complete guide to all the glacial erratic stones such as Welsh bluestones known on Salisbury Plain to have been naturally deposited." So who decides what is naturally deposited, and what is not? If I tell him that bluestone 32 was naturally deposited before being used in a stone setting, how is he planning to prove me wrong?
This is not good science. But are we surprised?
What's been said? (it's not clear: I haven't looked at any of these videos so difficult to know what the issue is.)
ReplyDeleteA bit added to the post by way of extra info, Jon.
ReplyDeleteAha. Julian once told me he was 50/50 about wanting to know what Stonehenge was for (on basis that it would kill the mystery) so it's a bit odd he's making all these videos. Seems better to leave it alone if you're not that interested.
ReplyDelete