tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post5831659042602318357..comments2024-03-28T00:46:01.084+00:00Comments on Stonehenge and the Ice Age: Dancing with the Dartmoor fairiesBRIAN JOHNhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00413447032454568083noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-34652071982275360732010-04-15T08:59:33.162+01:002010-04-15T08:59:33.162+01:00Thanks for bringing this to our attention, Kostas....Thanks for bringing this to our attention, Kostas. It's an interesting piece -- and I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand. It does raise some interesting points about stone frequencies etc -- but of course, like all statistical or mathematical analyses, it is only as good as its assumptions. And some of the assumptions that underpin the analysis seem to me to be pretty dodgy. I'll come back to this in another post.<br /><br />It's worth pointing out that in another statistical analysis a few years ago, Prof Chris Jones came down strongly on the side of the glacial transport theory. That was in an article called "Don't mention Stonehenge!" published in "Significance" magazine, March 2008.<br />That was also quite limited in its scope, and looked particularly at stone axe provenances.BRIAN JOHNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00413447032454568083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-88703464632922685162010-04-14T23:52:46.989+01:002010-04-14T23:52:46.989+01:00Brian, I just came across this web site that tries...Brian, I just came across this web site that tries to make a “statistical argument” in favor of the “human transport” theory for the Bluestones. I don't know if you are already aware of this but I just wanted your take on this. To me, this is a perfect example of how statistics can be used to prove anything. <br />http://standingstones.tv/theories-thoughts-essays/bluestones-bell-curves/Constantinos Ragazashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11368374316165533910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-28766618685546617862010-04-12T17:39:34.568+01:002010-04-12T17:39:34.568+01:00I completely agree! Makes my arguments disputing t...I completely agree! Makes my arguments disputing the evidence mild in comparison!Constantinos Ragazashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11368374316165533910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-58456911394547326442010-04-12T08:07:30.124+01:002010-04-12T08:07:30.124+01:00Funny in a grotesque sort of way, I suppose. But ...Funny in a grotesque sort of way, I suppose. But the word "sad" might be more appropriate! As Stephen Briggs has pointed out, senior archaeologists are so obsessed with "investing stones with significance" these days that their stories appear to be getting more and more fanciful, and to hell with that bothersome thing called "evidence." They have learned long since that wacky stories make good headlines and grab media attention -- so one might ask whether archaeologists are nowadays more interested in communication with journalists than they are in communicating with their peers......BRIAN JOHNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00413447032454568083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-36430978104552922742010-04-12T01:22:09.102+01:002010-04-12T01:22:09.102+01:00I enjoyed your post, Brian! Very funny.I enjoyed your post, Brian! Very funny.Constantinos Ragazashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11368374316165533910noreply@blogger.com