tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post7197600999551710870..comments2024-03-28T22:13:17.139+00:00Comments on Stonehenge and the Ice Age: Unfinished businessBRIAN JOHNhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00413447032454568083noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-22196481331741664832011-11-07T12:39:57.771+00:002011-11-07T12:39:57.771+00:00Kostas (and I hope EVERYONE is reading this and ta...Kostas (and I hope EVERYONE is reading this and taking note of this occurrence) I APOLOGISE, YOU WERE RIGHT about the so-called empty sector.My compass and/ or my bearings went a trifle askew. Not sure that has any bearing on how many of us will be won over to your hypothesis, but good luck!<br /><br />D. AtterburyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-85128310326981523092011-11-06T23:04:07.296+00:002011-11-06T23:04:07.296+00:00Anon,
I have! I even have photos to prove it!
T...Anon,<br /><br />I have! I even have photos to prove it! <br /><br />Though the exact geographical directions may be off, the point to my argument is that the “empty quarter” is empty because the stones could not get to that side of the retention basin from where they were coming and because of the obstruction of the hill limiting access to that section.<br /> <br />My recollection is that the hill was to the West of Stonehenge and the stones came from the North and Northwest. But I could be wrong on this. The argument stands, however!<br /><br />KostasConstantinos Ragazashttp://knol.google.com/k/constantinos-ragazas/the-un-henging-of-stonehenge/ql47o1qdr604/16#noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-2691753611866081072011-11-06T21:17:43.860+00:002011-11-06T21:17:43.860+00:00You really ought to come over from the USA and tak...You really ought to come over from the USA and take a look at Stonehenge, Kostas. It's the North-West part of the monument that may or may not be unfinished, not the SW.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-74367473031165776062011-11-06T17:53:06.761+00:002011-11-06T17:53:06.761+00:00Geo,
Since you asked, I will answer!
Take, for e...Geo,<br /><br />Since you asked, I will answer!<br /><br />Take, for example, the “empty quarter” at the SW section of Stonehenge. <br /><br />'Human intentionality' would argue that's how the Neolithic builders intended to leave it. Or, the great sarsen circle was really a crescent and the Neolithic people really worshiped the moon and not the sun. Or the builders ran out of stones or just plain got tired or just gave up. <br /><br />These are made up 'intentions' we attribute to people whose intentions we know nothing about! Since they left no records behind.<br /><br />Contrast that with the simple, sensible and consistent explanation for the “empty quarter” my hypothesis provides.<br /><br />If we consider the stones were brought to Stonehenge by Nature on the surface of an ice sheet and at Stonehenge was a meltwater retaining basin, it makes sense that the SW quarter of Stonehenge would be 'free of stones' since the stones were coming from the North and Northwest while to the West of Stonehenge we have the hill. Thus, by natural action the SW section of Stonehenge will not be 'complete'. <br /><br />Simple, sensible, consistent explanation. Ask me about explanations of other 'facts on the ground' using this hypothesis!<br /><br />KostasConstantinos Ragazashttp://knol.google.com/k/constantinos-ragazas/the-un-henging-of-stonehenge/ql47o1qdr604/16#noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-61700586306096933362011-11-06T15:34:50.864+00:002011-11-06T15:34:50.864+00:00Kostas ,I was hoping you would be more specific th...Kostas ,I was hoping you would be more specific than just "... in the context of prehistoric monuments! ??? <br />Which prehistoric monuments and what about them ?Geo Curhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03616965043116389325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-67558833914829595112011-11-06T14:39:24.156+00:002011-11-06T14:39:24.156+00:00Brian,
Though you may question my hypothesis (fai...Brian,<br /><br />Though you may question my hypothesis (fair enough) you cannot question its ability to provide simple, sensible and consistent explanations to all the indisputable 'facts on the ground' (like the concentric designs, outer circular ditches, alignment of avenues, etc. etc. etc.)<br /><br />As to 'evidence' for a hypothesis? Often it is in the very explanations that it enables! <br /><br />The 'evidence' Brian is 'out there' in the 'facts on the ground' this hypothesis can consistently explain. This is no less 'evidence' than Copernicus heliocentric hypothesis.<br /><br />KostasConstantinos Ragazashttp://knol.google.com/k/constantinos-ragazas/the-un-henging-of-stonehenge/ql47o1qdr604/16#noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-11308217850660611742011-11-06T14:28:13.927+00:002011-11-06T14:28:13.927+00:00Kostas -- that's a bit rich, coming from you! ...Kostas -- that's a bit rich, coming from you! If ever there was a theory in search of some facts, it's your theory about sheets of ice and sliding stones. Forget about "intentionality" -- let's just think about EVIDENCE.....BRIAN JOHNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00413447032454568083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-60710602080235624232011-11-06T14:23:21.123+00:002011-11-06T14:23:21.123+00:00Anon, what is your point? You say: "What ex...Anon, what is your point? You say: "What exactly is the material evidence that it was never finished?" By "it" I assume you mean Stenness? Ritchie assumes that there must have been some sort of pattern in the minds of the builders, and says that the stone gaps and lack of holes where we might expect them suggests that the project was never completed. do you have a problem with that?BRIAN JOHNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00413447032454568083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-62560514789070604162011-11-06T14:23:09.148+00:002011-11-06T14:23:09.148+00:00Anon, you write
“... they are theories around whi...Anon, you write<br /><i><br />“... they are theories around which only carefully selected evidence fits”</i><br /><br />I couldn't agree with you more! Especially the <i>“carefully selected evidence”</i> part.<br /> <br />Though all theories are only “theoretical”, the theory that's more persuasive is the one that can provide 'clear and convincing' explanations to ALL 'facts on the ground'. Not just invent new patches to stitch together a fabricated narrative further. <br /><br />That's where 'human intentionality' arguments are especially weak, in my humble opinion.<br /><br />KostasConstantinos Ragazashttp://knol.google.com/k/constantinos-ragazas/the-un-henging-of-stonehenge/ql47o1qdr604/16#noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-77445232217313058272011-11-06T14:03:36.152+00:002011-11-06T14:03:36.152+00:00The archaeology of human thought and intention, wo...The archaeology of human thought and intention, wow! What exactly is the material evidence that it was never finished? What we see is simply a ruinous structure, was the Acropolis ever finished, or Tintern Abbey? Looks more like folk are running out of sensible PhD topics. Stonehenge was a sophisticated computer, a Neolithic Lourdes, a royal cemetery, a cenotaph, a seaside temple (oh yes I’m serious try Google) and the latest a great open ‘barrow’; more than complete apparently - but now with missing walls between the uprights. All break the first and fundamental rules… they are theories around which only carefully selected evidence fits, or worse.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-51910057871659477932011-11-06T13:58:26.674+00:002011-11-06T13:58:26.674+00:00Geo,
... in the context of prehistoric monuments!
...Geo,<br />... in the context of prehistoric monuments!<br /> <br />I thought that was understood. Hope that helps.<br /><br />KostasAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-72103851495934426242011-11-06T12:42:45.427+00:002011-11-06T12:42:45.427+00:00Alex ,that is what I was alluding to in the "...Alex ,that is what I was alluding to in the "the Priddy circles are henges not stone circles and despite the recent damage couldn’t be described as incomplete " comment . A bloke has been charged recently too .Geo Curhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03616965043116389325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-31179608695777292272011-11-06T10:43:04.800+00:002011-11-06T10:43:04.800+00:00Sadly the Priddy circles are even more incomplete ...Sadly the Priddy circles are even more incomplete now. <br /><br />In the Summer, approx one third of one circle was bulldozed level with the ground.Alex Geenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-37684990152752668632011-11-06T10:32:50.929+00:002011-11-06T10:32:50.929+00:00Kostas , do you really believe Mt Everest is not m...Kostas , do you really believe Mt Everest is not man made ? <br />Rather than make sweeping statements why not be specific ?<br />Agency does the work intentionality only provides the spur .Geo Curhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03616965043116389325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-50517359405399934972011-11-06T03:43:09.304+00:002011-11-06T03:43:09.304+00:00Geo,
Is there anything that cannot be explained b...Geo,<br /><br />Is there anything that cannot be explained by 'human intentionality'? <br /><br />That's the problem! Or you don't see it?<br /><br />KostasAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-10429739563582515932011-11-05T23:14:51.359+00:002011-11-05T23:14:51.359+00:00It is arguable that there are "finished"...It is arguable that there are "finished" monuments e.g. Long Barrows and passage graves that have been backfilled and a closing stone put across the entrance , and some recumbent stone circles where the placing of the recumbent is the final architectural act apart from much later insertions of burials etc .<br />It might help not to think of monuments as being like a contemporary building with a preset plan that is carried out and then completed , many evolve like towns , orthostats are moved/ dismantled , axes changed , rock art defaced , ditches backfilled ,new forms attached to older forms etc . Some were in use for short periods others for millennia .Geo Curhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03616965043116389325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-91753963556922887042011-11-05T19:30:01.726+00:002011-11-05T19:30:01.726+00:00One and even two 'unfinished' monuments is...One and even two 'unfinished' monuments is forgiven. But so many? Any completed?<br /><br />Can this be more of “The Stuff of Nightmares”?<br /><br />KostasAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-50954802166290137182011-11-05T16:01:10.519+00:002011-11-05T16:01:10.519+00:00Agree with you, Geo Cur. Here we are, living in 20...Agree with you, Geo Cur. Here we are, living in 2011, we have no idea how a site that may have started to become significant to Mesolithic folk way back when,gradually took on competely different resonances through the Neolithic and Bronze Ages.Tony Hnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-70875677789542597722011-11-05T14:15:34.214+00:002011-11-05T14:15:34.214+00:00Geo -- doesn't look as if we are disagreeing o...Geo -- doesn't look as if we are disagreeing on anything much here. For the alternative view, see Johnson, Wainwright, Cinliffe, Renfrew, Darvill, Parker Pearson, Castleden etc etc etc....... and of course English Heritage.<br /><br />As with the follies on the eighteenth-century estates, we can always, I suppose, look at a ruin and say "Ah yes, it was MEANT to look like that...."BRIAN JOHNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00413447032454568083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-38943377458606488562011-11-05T14:02:40.341+00:002011-11-05T14:02:40.341+00:00Brian , as mentioned a while ago the incompletene...Brian , as mentioned a while ago the incompleteness of the Sarsen circle was accepted from at least the 1740’s , maybe the assumption that it was intended to a complete circle is mistaken , likewise ,due to the description of the bluestone and sarsen horseshoes we also assume they were complete but maybe they are incomplete ellipses . Like towns , many monuments evolve over long periods , from decades to millennia , what was built in the Bronze Age would be far different from the intentions of the original builders .What we see today at some monuments is the culmination of different cultures imposing their ideas and architecture on a site that may have began as a Mesolithic midden then a mortuary enclosure then a Long Barrow . Stonehenge is no different , starting with the ditch and finishing up with the Y and Z holes 1500 years and there is always the possibility of some as yet undiscovered Mesolithic activity .<br />As we can’t be sure what was intended for a particular monument we can’t say it is necessarily incomplete .I don’t understand why you chose some the incomplete monuments i.e. the Priddy circles are henges not stone circles and despite the recent damage couldn’t be described as incomplete ,Callanish and Rollright , Hurlers , Mitchell’s fold etc . apart from the possibility of stones being robbed what’s missing ?<br />If you do have a plan is it likely that you will start building only to discover that you have ran out of stones ,surely you will build according to what you have and if it is necessary to get others they will always be available with a bit of effort and that would apply to all the examples above .Geo Curhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03616965043116389325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1228690739485734684.post-8000671302474696212011-11-05T12:55:43.975+00:002011-11-05T12:55:43.975+00:00I see you have included Arbor Low (Peak District, ...I see you have included Arbor Low (Peak District, Derbyshire) amongst your list of unfinished stone circles. Arbor Low's stones are all flat to the ground. Seems the local lads ran out of energy. If not, why did they not erect them?<br /><br />Or were they pulled down in more recent times? Someone out there may have a good idea of this.<br /><br />Incidentally, it hasn't stopped BBC's Countryfile programme showing the Arbor Low circle from the air on the opening credits before each show! Gosh, perhaps it was meant to be VIEWED from the air!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com