tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post3002787988249185660..comments2024-03-28T22:13:17.139+00:00Comments on Stonehenge and the Ice Age: This nonsense is official -- so it must be true.....BRIAN JOHNhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00413447032454568083noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-77338144682334011782012-01-12T15:16:20.341+00:002012-01-12T15:16:20.341+00:00Chris you write,
“I wonder why some official acad...Chris you write,<br /><i><br />“I wonder why some official academics seem intent NOT to weave natural processes into their story.”</i><br /><br />Such stubborn refusal to recognize natural truth even in part only confirms sensible truth even in whole!<br /> <br />KostasAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-53771355748485251212012-01-12T10:21:15.588+00:002012-01-12T10:21:15.588+00:00Catherine, I read your blog last night and enjoyed...Catherine, I read your blog last night and enjoyed it. I was caused to reflect that our ancestors would not have been at all bothered that glaciers had moved some of the stones - it probably seemed propitious, even a reflection of some laws of nature that we have long forgotten.<br /><br />I wonder why some official academics seem intent NOT to weave natural processes into their story.chris johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16210890033354730381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-74839604633660098372012-01-12T09:25:42.959+00:002012-01-12T09:25:42.959+00:00Kostas,
You are obviously correct as you are, or a...Kostas,<br />You are obviously correct as you are, or at least you think you are, correct with every point you make on every thread. <br />I fear your statements are as far fetched as your hypothesis.<br /><br />And so ends our discussion.Ben Nevisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-87519273077293657262012-01-12T01:32:07.244+00:002012-01-12T01:32:07.244+00:00Ben,
If I try to move statues at Easter Island I ...Ben,<br /><br />If I try to move statues at Easter Island I will also certainly fail! So what does that prove? <br /><br />If you think a time difference of some 4000 years between Stonehenge and Easter Island is irrelevant to any discussion on the technological capabilities of people, than you must also believe 4000 years ago people could fly!<br /> <br />You write,<br /><i><br />“Moving heavy loads by human effort was clearly achievable in the past but we have now lost both the ability and knowledge to duplicate the accomplishments. “</i><br /><br />So not only people 5000 years ago had the same technological capabilities and tools people at Easter Island had 900 years ago, but had even greater capabilities! Now lost to us over the passage of time and the 'fog of ancestor worship'.<br /><br />KostasAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-54436844723603031742012-01-11T16:55:08.122+00:002012-01-11T16:55:08.122+00:00Kostas,
In modern times Parvel Parvel and others h...Kostas,<br />In modern times Parvel Parvel and others have tried to duplicate statue moving on Easter Island with little success, making the time difference for Easter Island and Stonehenge irrelevant. <br />Moving heavy loads by human effort was clearly achievable in the past but we have now lost both the ability and knowledge to duplicate the accomplishments. <br />Invoking natural phenomenon is unnecessary for it is obvious that no ice, whether it be in a glacier or a mush, could accuurately shape stones and construct a monument with such precise dimensions. <br /><br />Prehistoric Brits 5000 years ago didn't build a Parthenon but they certainly constructed Stonehenge.Ben Nevisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-20412861784757685372012-01-11T15:39:24.217+00:002012-01-11T15:39:24.217+00:00Brian, this sort things drives me crazy too...Cast...Brian, this sort things drives me crazy too...Castell Henllys is my latest gripe, a precious site with beautifully reconstructed huts, a tribute to the archaeology and to the ancient people who lived there...and then I find neo-pagans burning a wicker man in the middle of it all. This is a ritual that is hardly documented and certainly has nothing to do with spiritual or religious activities in Iron Age Britain. Grrrrr...Catherine Perigohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09934094856103017372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-14627043958363839042012-01-11T14:51:40.347+00:002012-01-11T14:51:40.347+00:00Dear Ben,
The inhabitants of Easter Island moved ...Dear Ben,<br /><br />The inhabitants of Easter Island moved megaliths some 900 years ago. Stonehenge was presumably built some 5000 years ago! The comparison you are making is no different than saying since a handful of Greeks built the Parthenon, prehistoric Brits 5000 years ago could have built a Parthenon too.<br /><br />I wont go into so many other points of distinction between Easter Island and Stonehenge! Suffice it to say, Easter Island is no Stonehenge!<br /> <br />KostasAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-84490358652667998892012-01-11T13:05:40.045+00:002012-01-11T13:05:40.045+00:00Dear Kostas,
You say,
"I have no doubt the M...Dear Kostas,<br /><br />You say,<br />"I have no doubt the Moai of Easter Island were made and moved by people around 1200 AD. Just as I have no doubt the Pyramids were built by people and the Apollo mission to the moon actually landed men on the moon.<br /><br />What is your point? Are you arguing I am arguing people cannot move big stones? I question if prehistoric people lacking the proper tools and technology and purpose could or would move 53-ton stones up an incline. And leave no evidence behind of the great skill and technology needed to do such tasks."<br /><br />The point is that the inhabitants of Easter Island were not 'superhuman', yet over a period of 250 years they achieved the transportation of extremely large loads, with basic equipement and no assistance from glaciation. Why can the same not apply in Neolithic Britain.<br />I suppose it could be argued that the statues were moved by tsunamis but that would be stretching credibility a bit.Ben Nevisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-57548141572199386492012-01-11T10:48:50.785+00:002012-01-11T10:48:50.785+00:00Geo -- we are in danger of political incorrectness...Geo -- we are in danger of political incorrectness here! So moving swiftly on, I didn't say Old Keig was in Buchan. Anyway, I feel a new post coming on....BRIAN JOHNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00413447032454568083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-46891234658634443372012-01-11T00:50:44.265+00:002012-01-11T00:50:44.265+00:00Hello Brian,
I shall just have to continue ducking...Hello Brian,<br />I shall just have to continue ducking and diving, dodging and weaving.<br />Thankfully, the ford wasn't too deep.Ben Nevisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-57087481291019812022012-01-10T23:42:04.170+00:002012-01-10T23:42:04.170+00:00Dear Ben,
I have no doubt the Moai of Easter Isla...Dear Ben,<br /><br />I have no doubt the Moai of Easter Island were made and moved by people around 1200 AD. Just as I have no doubt the Pyramids were built by people and the Apollo mission to the moon actually landed men on the moon.<br /> <br />What is your point? Are you arguing I am arguing people cannot move big stones? I question if prehistoric people lacking the proper tools and technology and purpose could or would move 53 ton stones up an incline. And leave no evidence behind of the great skill and technology needed to do such tasks.<br /><br />KostasAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-3640587624613593782012-01-10T23:11:48.322+00:002012-01-10T23:11:48.322+00:00I thought it poor archaeology with next to nothin...I thought it poor archaeology with next to nothing about what they actually knew about , supposedly geology . Burl always was a supporter of possible glaciation of bluestones although I’m not sure if that extended as far as Salisbury Plain but he did take them task ,again , on the Sarsen glaciation . <br />Relax , re read and spot a bit of mickey taking re Americanisms , how could I be offended (although I must admit to to being a bit touchy about americanisms ,particularly from the 30's until the 90's ) ,maybe if you find it difficult to believe humans moved large stones long distances you might imagine other humans could be offended about remarks about a something that happened 5000 years ago , I know the Celts are pretty narrow minded when it comes to their history but that might be taking it a wee bit far . <br />Old Keig is not in Buchan , it’s in Gordon , Does Chris Clarke have a map showing glaciation moving northwards from the Don towards the coast ? OWT didn’t mention anything but it was in relation to Old Keig that she wondered about evidence for human transport conveniently forgetting that she had never noted any for some of the examples she had accepted .Geo Curhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03616965043116389325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-66694762384849635542012-01-10T23:06:51.817+00:002012-01-10T23:06:51.817+00:00Dear Ben
I can see a list of extremely large ston...Dear Ben<br /><br />I can see a list of extremely large stones from Brittany, Mexico, South America etc etc coming over the horizon at a rate of knots....... not to mention Old Keig!BRIAN JOHNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00413447032454568083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-33372970591607767642012-01-10T22:54:42.210+00:002012-01-10T22:54:42.210+00:00Dear Kostas,
Perhaps you can explain, in the absen...Dear Kostas,<br />Perhaps you can explain, in the absence of glaciation, how the Moai statues of Easter Island, weighing up to 80 ton, were transported?<br />What makes sense -- nature or superhuman ancestors?Ben Nevisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-18784833044856087272012-01-10T22:39:49.162+00:002012-01-10T22:39:49.162+00:00Actually I thought that the paper on long-distance...Actually I thought that the paper on long-distance megalith transport was rather good -- with a lot of useful material in it. All a matter of opinion. and I thought Burl agreed with the central hypothesis that large stones are generally not carried very far? He certainly agreed with Richard and Olwen that the bluestones at Stonehenge are much more likely to be glacial erratics than humanly-transported stones.<br /><br />You seem to me more than a little offended that I should even doubt that Old Keig, at 53 tonnes (or whatever) was pushed and pulled uphill by those heroic Grampian Neolithics. Well, I do doubt it, and think it much more likely that the transport was achieved by ice. Chris Clark and many others have shown that ice movements across NE Scotland were highly complex, with many shifting ice centres. They have also shown that the idea of an "ice-free Buchan" -- once firmly believed in -- is no longer tenable.BRIAN JOHNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00413447032454568083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-26808817390781547902012-01-10T19:37:50.018+00:002012-01-10T19:37:50.018+00:00Brian I did point out that the majority of the fi...Brian I did point out that the majority of the first paper was good stuff and I’m sure any archaeologist reading it would have been more than pleased to read a good scientific report , that the science is now dated shouldn’t detract and I wouldn’t hold that against it , the conjecture and archaeology was weak and just not in the same class . The second was poor , they clearly had a bee in their bonnet and thought they might extend their expertise into another arena , it failed miserably a good example of geologists out of their depth trying to write archaeology and might be better explanation for them being ignored rather the first paper .<br /><br />Hey dude , pulleeese , get real ,these 80's teen americanisms are catching but don't make shifting a 53 tonne rock uphill any less unlikely .<br />Where is your evidence for the glaciation that may have moved the Old Keig recumbent , OWT didn't mention anything specific either and in the spirit of the article simply saying the Grampian area has experienced extensive glaciations . Was it Ferguson who wrote the most extensive model which showed a distinct gap for anything moving north in the area of between the Don and coast ?<br />Regardless do you really believe that the recumbent could not have been shifted by admittedly pretty weak , in comparison with the non glaciated area stone shifters ? Or is that just disrespect for the Grampian bros innit.Geo Curhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03616965043116389325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-28402071784524418952012-01-10T18:54:44.303+00:002012-01-10T18:54:44.303+00:00Geo -- Olwen has written other things as well, in ...Geo -- Olwen has written other things as well, in cooperation with assorted other geologists. The big 1991 paper, published in PPS, was a fantastic piece of work -- very comprehensive and careful -- and involving state-of-the-art techniques. But because it concluded -- perfectly reasonably -- that the bluestones at Stonehenge were an erratic assemblage, the archaeological establishment was not best pleased, and chose to ignore it rather than taking its findings on board as being authoritative and well researched. Since 1991 some of the provenancing has been questioned -- it is quite inevitable that the precise fixing of sources for the bluestones will get more and more accurate over time. That is not to decry the work of Olwen and Rob Ixer and the others -- over 20 years or more, we would expect better techniques and methods to come in.<br /><br />Since when is there no evidence of glaciation in that part of Aberdeenshire where Old Keig is located? Are you suggesting that a 53 tonne chunk of rock was moved uphill by our heroic ancestors rather than by glacier ice? Get real, please.....BRIAN JOHNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00413447032454568083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-25734458162573418032012-01-10T18:16:03.840+00:002012-01-10T18:16:03.840+00:00“... it has also always been clear that in some ca...<i>“... it has also always been clear that in some cases stones were moved long distances .One clear example which they include is the Old Keig recumbent ,53 tonnes of sillimanite with the nearest source 10 km away but more importantly the site requires an ascent of 80 m in less than a km . There is no evidence of glaciation in the area and their explanation is “the case for human transport , is unproven “ of course at no point do they actually mention cases where it is proven even in the short distance they accept as being possible .” </i><br /><br />We can either believe superhuman prehistoric ancestors moved the 53 ton megalith 10 km and on a very steep ascent because the area lacks evidence of glaciation. Or we can conclude evidence of glaciation does not exist in certain circumstances where the area is already covered and so protected by a local ice sheet.<br /><br />I believe in Nature! Others believe in superhuman ancestors! What makes sense? Nature or superhuman ancestors?<br /><br />KostasAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-47676254932068239242012-01-10T14:25:23.615+00:002012-01-10T14:25:23.615+00:00Chris , It would be interesting to see what you t...Chris , It would be interesting to see what you think of her articles . I have only read two that she has been involved in , the first was “The geological sources and transport of the bluestones etc “where aided by Jenkins , Watson ,Ixter and Thomas it proved to be thorough including chemical analyses of the rocks in question showing that the samples from the bluestones at Stonehenge were very close to samples from various points on the Preseli hills ,e.g. Carnmenyn , carn Ddafad-las etc . there was also a note of the erratics from Preseli that rarely get a mention found near Lampeter Velfrey . The sources and analyses are clearly falsifiable and if there were any problems we would have heard of them by now . The glaciation section is short with arguments that you are well aware of and still with no evidence of glaciation having reached Salisbury Plain . Interestingly ,( in the light of the recent Pont season findings ) in the discussion it is noted that the one carefully selected location has never been found . <br />The other article was the R.S. Thorpe & O Williams - Thorpe “The Myth of Long distance Megalithic Transport “ which unlike their earlier paper is slight (9 pages compared with the earlier 54 ) has no chemical analysis at all despite covering a much greater area and the content is based on the findings of archaeologists including Burl who later took them to task over the basic premise “that man never moved stones long distances “ . That stone circle , hut circle , tomb builders etc. used what was at hand has always been accepted as the norm in archaeology but it has also always been clear that in some cases stones were moved long distances .One clear example which they include is the Old Keig recumbent ,53 tonnes of sillimanite with the nearest source 10 km away but more importantly the site requires an ascent of 80 m in less than a km . There is no evidence of glaciation in the area and their explanation is “the case for human transport , is unproven “ of course at no point do they actually mention cases where it is proven even in the short distance they accept as being possible . What they have to say amounts to little . Within those areas that we know have been glaciated there is always the possibility that any stones in a megalithic structure that are not local could have been glaciated . There is no chemical analysis and just a superficial mention of the geology . As well as the Burl rejoinder it also led to a paper from Philine Kalb among others who chose an area with no glaciation , Evora in Portugal ,an area rich in megalithic monuments , and showed that chemical analyses of various stones in the structures proved they had been transported well over the limits expected by O.W.T. . Of course just because the Portugese or any other Johnny foreigner from non glaciated areas could do it doesn’t mean that the Brits did , maybe being less capable or more kindly , less macho they relied on nature .<br />BTW that's the first I have heard of Dean Talboys .Geo Curhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03616965043116389325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-12361787478432230232012-01-10T10:59:15.156+00:002012-01-10T10:59:15.156+00:00Brian,
thanks for bringing me down to earth again....Brian,<br />thanks for bringing me down to earth again. At any rate I discovered Professor Olwen Williams-Thorpe.<br /><br />I do pity the poor writers trying to find the facts in this internet age. Olwen keeps her head well down, while Dean Talboys pops up all over the place.chris johnsonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-91955472182538684172012-01-09T23:27:17.355+00:002012-01-09T23:27:17.355+00:00Brian,
Does truth have an expiration date? Must o...Brian,<br /><br />Does truth have an expiration date? Must others believe it to be true? And how often can it be repeated before it is no longer true? Can it possibly go away? Can truth ever stop being true? <br /><br />KostasAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-52409784953750347312012-01-09T18:27:21.683+00:002012-01-09T18:27:21.683+00:00Kostas -- been over all this a thousand times befo...Kostas -- been over all this a thousand times before. Meltwater streams, ice surface, retaining basins? No way -- you are still proposing processes that have never been demonstrated in nature. Please get real.BRIAN JOHNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00413447032454568083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-66274855879459154762012-01-09T18:22:17.767+00:002012-01-09T18:22:17.767+00:00Brian you write,
“ we still have the problem of t...Brian you write,<br /><i><br />“ we still have the problem of the very large quantities of dolerite, ashes, sandstones etc to account for. They have come from different places -- most likely from a strip of land coinciding with a streamline in the ice”</i><br /><br />Shouldn't these <i>large quantities of dolerite, ashes, sandstones etc.</i> also be found along the 'streamline' of the glaciers that brought them to Stonehenge?<br /> <br />But if these large quantities of 'erratic assemblage' have come from many different places but are concentrated at Stonehenge (and perhaps at other similar select sites, like the Cursus) doesn't this evidence (if it can be properly confirmed by scientific research) suggest such fragments were brought to Stonehenge by meltwater streams on the ice surface collecting at a retaining basin where Stonehenge is? <br /><br />What is the alternative explanation? Human agency? Prehistoric people going on a 'stone fragments hunt' at diverse and distant places in Wales bringing back stones to Stonehenge?<br /><br />KostasAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-4551226235334843422012-01-09T17:28:07.807+00:002012-01-09T17:28:07.807+00:00Chris -- far be it from me to put a damper on anyb...Chris -- far be it from me to put a damper on anybody who sounds enthusiastic about glaciation and super-erratics, but a word of caution is in order. A super-erratic might explain a large number of stones and vast quantities of "debitage" at Stonehenge, but we still have the problem of the very large quantities of dolerite, ashes, sandstones etc to account for. They have come from different places -- most likely from a strip of land coinciding with a streamline in the ice -- and we are back with the "erratic assemblage" idea.....BRIAN JOHNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00413447032454568083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-26026175316909735672012-01-09T15:13:47.374+00:002012-01-09T15:13:47.374+00:00Chris,
No doubt Brian's hypothesis of a '...Chris,<br /><br />No doubt Brian's hypothesis of a 'massive bluestone quarry' brought to Salisbury Plain by glaciers (time perhaps uncertain) does help to answer many questions. But not all! <br /> <br />I'll let a 'peer review' process settle the glacier transport of 'bluestone quarries'. But Brian's hypothesis still leaves the rest of the Stonehenge enigma in place. To start with, why so many (all?) of these prehistoric monuments are “incomplete”? Why is the SW quarter of Stonehenge “incomplete” instead of say the NE quarter? How did the Avenue stripes form? Clearly these are not glacial or periglacial since these run parallel along the Avenue and not some other random pattern as you would expect if these were formed by the freezing and thawing of the exposed soil. Why does the Avenue run straight in the direction of the summer solstice sunrise for about 500 meters and then abruptly veers off at the “elbow” towards the River Avon? And why is there a boggy bottom not far from where the Avenue bents at the Cursus? And why the 'debitage' of chips formed by the working of the orthostats not form a distinct layer at the base of these orthostats but is uniformly spread throughout? And how did the foliated rhyolite fragments that trace to Rhosyfelin outcrop but do not trace to any of the standing stones at Stonehenge get to Stonehenge? And if the prehistoric builders of Stonehenge were able to 'move megaliths' even just a short distance and had the “cranes” and technology to “maneuver megaliths” to erect them with solid foundations lasting 5000 years, why didn't they use such technology to build dwellings and palaces with foundations, walls and lintels? <br /><br />These are just a few of the many many questions still begging answers. Archeologists seek to answer such questions by 'making up stories' in a fabricated narrative that is just a patch work of explanations with no falsifiable consistent theory and no historical records. The latest of course being the “discovery” of the tomb of the Stonehenge architect! Brian has devoted much space in his blog to totally repudiate such nonsense! Search his blog! Read our comments! <br /><br />In a backdrop where everyone 'wants to believe' on human agency, it's hard to ask honest questions and engage in a reasoned respectful discussion. I credit Brian for his courage to even try. But the pressure must be intense!<br /><br />KostasAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com