| Author | Bluehenge unearthed: Prehistoric site that could be famous stone circle's little sister |
cropredy
Joined:
01-01-2006
Messages: 7179
from Oxon
 OFF-Line
|  Posted 04-10-2009 at 16:25
Quote:
|
On 2009-10-04 16:01, Andy B wrote:
Yes, end of dowsing argument and back to the point please.
|
|
What is the point?
Nobody is arguing by the way, it's only been mentioned by one, you can't have an argument with Yourself, can You?
A point will be in the centre of a circle, and here suddenly is a circle with enough bits of dolerite to assume that it was composed of such stones, possibly the ones now in SH.
thats gleaning what information is available until the pay as you view masters release more.
I can't remember the diameter of the dolorites at SH, is it a match for the said found secret sockets?
kevin
Why are none of them that knew, saying now't?
Or are they.
Are they under oath, a secret coven.
 Profile
 Reply
|
MikeParkerPearson
Joined:
04-10-2009
Messages: 1
from Turkey
OFF-Line
| Posted 04-10-2009 at 16:54
Hi, my first appearance here, ever. Has this got unneccesarily heated, or are these forums always this tough?
OK - my feathers ARE ruffled, but only because the Daily Mail journalist didn't bother to check any of his article with any of the project team. (He emailed me on Friday lunchtime, with no subject mentioned - didn't get the email till after the paper came out on Sat, so obviously couldn't reply). I'm not in the least ruffled or having ego problems that the information is out there, where it should be.
Yes, we've all got the right to know about what's happening in archaeology. The excavation wasn't secret, it just wasn't publicised. For the first time, the project was digging in a residential area, on private land. It seemed perfectly reasonable not to annoy the kindly farmer and the patient residents by advertising for even more visitors. Lots of volunteers dug, lots of people visited.
Yes, National Geographic do have a tough line to grant-holders on publicity and press, but they're very, very good at getting precise information disseminated worldwide - they check their facts. Great shame we didn't get to do a press release for this new site (Bluestonehenge), with information, photos etc. We were holding back till the end of the year to get the radiocarbon dates. Only then will we know exactly what the site means - we wanted some facts to tell people, not just theories! C14 dates take months for the labs to process. They have already been submitted. Nat Geo's team have been working the weekend to agree a press release (which will probably be ignored, in favour of the Daily Mail's version - oh well). I'll send it to Andy tomorrow, I hope.
We're not deliberately drip feeding information - we had absolutely no idea the Mail journalist was preparing this article. It's reasonably accurate (come to think of it, it sounds a bit like me giving a site tour, about halfway through the dig. Funny, that).
Research grants - we've got just enough money to do the post-ex. To dig this year, it was on a shoestring, Nat Geo's contribution was essential to make it happen (all the supervisors worked for free, for example, to get the site dug).
The site was mentioned in the Time Team special. Final filming this year was for an American science documentary company called Nova, who are a serious bunch. I will let you know when/if the finished documentary gets to British TV (they've been filming for 2 years now - very patient).
I have enormous differences of opinion with Arthur and Frank (primarily about the cremated remains excavated in 2008 from the Aubrey Holes) but won't hear a word of criticism against them for how they handled our digging the new circle. Absolute gents at all times - their ceremonies may not be my thing, but I think we were all comfortable with each other this year. But we'll carry on arguing about other stuff! Dennis Price at Eternal Idol also sat on 'the story' for months - for which, many thanks.
Best thing about this season was our colleague Ramilisonina came all the way from Madagascar to dig (he's 70 now).
Sorry if this has looked like some sort of media manipulation. Can I just point out that I wouldn't choose the Daily Mail if that was the plan! I mean - !! Mike
Profile
Reply
|
cropredy
Joined:
01-01-2006
Messages: 7179
from Oxon
OFF-Line
| Posted 04-10-2009 at 17:32
MikeParkerPearson,
Brilliant to see you here, You are most welcome.
Good for you for standing Your ground, but I fundementaly deplore the need for monies to have to be sought in this manner.
I consider that a major fault in our sociteies is this very subject.
It means that many research projects are basically owned by the giant corperations of this world, We the people are the ones who should stand up and STOP this.
The report in the said newspaper was comical, fancy anyone thinking that the stones were hauled and sailed from Wales.
If You ever want a dowsers opinion, I will be there, but I say as I find.
There are more things in heaven and earth than meets the eyes.
Turkey?
Kevin
Profile
Reply
|
Andy B
Joined:
13-02-2001
Messages: 12312
from Surrey, UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 04-10-2009 at 18:59
Mike, welcome, this is our 'letting off steam' area, especially if dowsing comes up.
Thanks for setting us right on the whys and wherefores.
Andy
Editor / Moderator
Profile
 Email
Reply
|
cropredy
Joined:
01-01-2006
Messages: 7179
from Oxon
OFF-Line
| Posted 05-10-2009 at 18:18
So it has a ditch and embankment around it, is that correct?
Kevin
Profile
Reply
|
mountainman
Joined:
30-08-2008
Messages: 41
from Pembrokeshire
OFF-Line
| Posted 05-10-2009 at 21:05
Had a chance to look at the authorized version, for which many thanks, Mike. I fear that I am not impressed. No need to use up lots of space here, but I've put some points on my blog:
http://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2009/10/bluestonehenge-some-science-much.html
There is clearly a lot of useful information coming out of this dig -- but why does it have to be spoiled by so much woolly thinking and so much repetition of hoary old fantasies dressed up as facts?
[ This message was edited by: mountainman on 2009-10-05 21:06 ]
Profile
Reply
|
cropredy
Joined:
01-01-2006
Messages: 7179
from Oxon
OFF-Line
| Posted 05-10-2009 at 21:44
Mountainman,
Just read Your blog, well said.
PeteG has posted on the stonespages forum the technical details, and a fantasy version of the events surrounding this place and SH and durrington.
There is talk of the dead been ferried from one to the other etc etc.
Why do they do this, are they under instructions from masters of some sort?
If they find some bones they cannot seem to contemplate any other reason other than burial.
I can.
kevin
Profile
Reply
|
cropredy
Joined:
01-01-2006
Messages: 7179
from Oxon
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-10-2009 at 09:10
Quote:
|
On 2009-10-06 06:35, AlbertResonox wrote:
[quote]
On 2009-10-04 17:32, cropredy wrote:
If You ever want a dowsers opinion, I will be there
|
|
I believe Andy requested we lay off the dowsing angle on this thread it's been done to death here as well as on other threads!
[/quote]
Albertresonox,
Welcome as a moderator, is this official or self appointed?
Andy's message was surely a request for no arguing about dowsing, not about dowsing.
Correct me if I am mistaken.
Andy has the magical powers similer to merlin, he can at a waft of his magic wand transport this thread up into the stones section, thus the dreaded word can be eliminated.
This of course would be ever so in keeping with the proposed theory that this new stone circle was moved from it's position near the avon , and then incorperated into a larger circle called Stonehenge.
Maybe this is a reinactment of a former occurance, a band of wandering dowsers sailed along the avon and merlin and his merry men became fed up of their constant tales of strange invisable forces, so they packed up this stone circle like we pack up a tent, and went away from the river where these dowsers sailed along?
Kevin
Profile
Reply
|
Andy B
Joined:
13-02-2001
Messages: 12312
from Surrey, UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-10-2009 at 13:36
I have just barred Mike Croley, not for anything he posted but for lying to me when under a temporary bar. I told him not to use any other IDs and he came back as 'sparksy' as some of you may have seen. Which was borrowing an account of a friend of his. He then denied he had done so. I know it was him from the site logs.
This is only the second time in almost 10 years I have barred someone. Everyone had a warning last month to behave themselves. I now intend to do what it takes restore some level of reasonableness to this forum.
Who's next?
[ This message was edited by: Andy B on 2009-10-06 13:50 ]
Profile
Email
Reply
|
karloff
Joined:
20-10-2006
Messages: 633
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-10-2009 at 13:56
Quote:
|
On 2009-10-05 21:44, cropredy wrote:
Mountainman,
Just read Your blog, well said.
PeteG has posted on the stonespages forum the technical details, and a fantasy version of the events surrounding this place and SH and durrington.
There is talk of the dead been ferried from one to the other etc etc.
Why do they do this, are they under instructions from masters of some sort?
If they find some bones they cannot seem to contemplate any other reason other than burial.
I can.
kevin
|
|
Hi
Try reading stuff properly before ranting! The statement clearly says:
"It could be that Bluestonehenge was where the dead began their final journey to Stonehenge..."
and:
"Maybe the bluestone circle is where people were cremated before their ashes were buried at Stonehenge itself.”
The important words being, "could" and "maybe"...
Mike is putting forward ideas and acknowledging that they are only possibilities.
This is in stark contrast to your statements because you always KNOW the answers.
AS for YOUR RIGHT to know about all archaeological finds. You don't have that right. Just like you don't have the RIGHT to know when every fossil is found, or every time somebody finds something with a metal detector, or when someone digs in their garden.
Why should there be an "extra" right of citizens that all archaeologists must inform everybody at once when they carry out a project!
In fact advertising a site can lead to it being raided by nighthawks and attract unwanted attention. For example, members of the public unwittingly walking across just cleaned areas or standing on fragile deposits and requiring large amounts of time from staff answering questions (time much better spent digging as time is always limited).
I agree that whenever possible members of the public should be invited on to sites to se for themselves the archaeology and to question archaeologists but its not anybodies RIGHT to know about archaeological sites.
Your attacking attitude without knowing the facts, and your well known cavalier attitude to allowing damage to monuments through climbing on them and not managing visitors highlights exactly why sometimes sites are not announced!
Profile
Reply
|
cropredy
Joined:
01-01-2006
Messages: 7179
from Oxon
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-10-2009 at 16:39
Karloff,
before spouting off as much as you just did, perhaps You could actually also highlight exactly just what I did say, that is the bit where I said that there is talk etcetc.
I didnt as you have tried to imply state contrary to their statements anything.
They do declare such things in such a way that i don't blame the newspapers from writing what they do.
And i did say that I have a different idea as to why the bones are to be found under the stones at SH.
They are clearly portraying a funeral only concept of the whole environs, they even state that the river avon was central to this, oh yes, under what evidence?
Your post is typically aggressive and unpleasant, a candidate for banning me thinks?
kevin
Profile
Reply
|
karloff
Joined:
20-10-2006
Messages: 633
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-10-2009 at 17:26
Quote:
|
On 2009-10-06 16:39, cropredy wrote:
Karloff,
before spouting off as much as you just did, perhaps You could actually also highlight exactly just what I did say, that is the bit where I said that there is talk etcetc.
I didnt as you have tried to imply state contrary to their statements anything.
They do declare such things in such a way that i don't blame the newspapers from writing what they do.
And i did say that I have a different idea as to why the bones are to be found under the stones at SH.
They are clearly portraying a funeral only concept of the whole environs, they even state that the river avon was central to this, oh yes, under what evidence?
Your post is typically aggressive and unpleasant, a candidate for banning me thinks?
kevin
|
|
Hi
The point is that Mike is putting forward an IDEA and he clearly states that by using could and maybe, therefore he is not portraying a funeral only concept, he is describing his ideas in terms which allow discussion and correction.
As for the importance of rivers in late Neolithic monument groups, this is an idea which is based on the relationships between landscapes (monument groups) and rivers, which has been observed in many areas (Cambridgeshire for example). If you tried reading around subjects instead of just attacking archaeologists because they don't accept a cropredy own made version of the past, you might KNOW the answer to your own question.
Yes, lets just ban anybody that questions cropredy! I thought you were all for freedom and thinking for yourself. I had no idea you were into the control of free speech in order to silence your critics. My post my have been unpleasant for you to read but all I did was highlight attitudes expressed by you in earlier posts. The nature of debate is frequently robust (its actually one of the joys of free discussion). I would never ask for you to be banned, in fact I would argue to allow you to post because I believe in free speech, I may not agree with your views but I would fight for your right to express them.
I'm actually disappointed that you call upon a sanction instead of allowing free debate and facing up to criticisms of your posts!
Profile
Reply
|
cropredy
Joined:
01-01-2006
Messages: 7179
from Oxon
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-10-2009 at 17:58
Karloff,
I jokingly put your name forward for banning as Andy had asked "Who's next"
Your post was aggressive, and I normally reflect and mirror back any such, I will not anymore.
Those who create the aggression can't see that I am just reflecting it back at them.
Wherever You focus, the energy will flow.
I am impressed with the technical detailing and measurements obtianed at this dig and find it very refreshing, the devil is in the detail.
Bone is a strange substance that I test in my own little way, thus I may be able to "SEE" other reasons behind utilising bones into megalithic structures.
I am glad you think that banning is a backward step, so do I especially as I am banned off TMA for airing my views and then reflecting back the the flows of aggression directed at me.
It would be very instructive if those who made the statements in that report could come and explain their reasoning, if this place is not below them of course.
kevin
Profile
Reply
|
Chyknel2
Joined:
27-05-2007
Messages: 2258
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-10-2009 at 18:30
Quote:
|
On 2009-10-06 17:58, cropredy wrote:
It would be very instructive if those who made the statements in that report could come and explain their reasoning, if this place is not below them of course.
|
|
It would. But I fear you'll have frightened them off with this:
"The report in the said newspaper was comical, fancy anyone thinking that the stones were hauled and sailed from Wales. "
Human transport is the main current consensus although glaciation has many supporters. Either way, hauling and sailing from Wales is not comical nor is it a matter of wonderment that anyone should think it may have happened.
I suspect your level of knowledge on both possibilities is less than anyone else's here (having only ever read one book) which is why you feel able to believe in your "third way" (what is it, antigravity?) and to speak in a patronising and arrogant fashion to a professor of archaeology just back from digging Bluestonehenge.
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 3186
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-10-2009 at 18:34
Quote:
|
On 2009-10-06 17:58, cropredy wrote:
It would be very instructive if those who made the statements in that report could come and explain their reasoning, if this place is not below them of course.
kevin
|
|
You could always do a bit of research and find out what that reasoning may be yourself . I doubt that the last phrase is likely to encourage any takers .
George
Profile
Reply
|
Andy B
Joined:
13-02-2001
Messages: 12312
from Surrey, UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-10-2009 at 18:58
> Your post was aggressive, and I normally reflect and mirror back any such, I will not anymore.
Thank you. If we can all stop the tit for tat bickering we will be 90% there. Most of the other 10% is for all sides not to keep repeating themselves or subverting threads.
Profile
Email
Reply
|
AlbertResonox
Joined:
17-03-2008
Messages: 1280
from Sussex
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-10-2009 at 19:08
Are there any old records,pictures or sketches(even CGI) available of how wide or deep the river was thought to be when SH was built or if it even followed the same course????
Profile
Reply
|
cropredy
Joined:
01-01-2006
Messages: 7179
from Oxon
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-10-2009 at 20:02
Quote:
|
On 2009-10-06 18:30, Chyknel2 wrote:
[quote]
On 2009-10-06 17:58, cropredy wrote:
It would be very instructive if those who made the statements in that report could come and explain their reasoning, if this place is not below them of course.
|
|
It would. But I fear you'll have frightened them off with this:
"The report in the said newspaper was comical, fancy anyone thinking that the stones were hauled and sailed from Wales. "
Human transport is the main current consensus although glaciation has many supporters. Either way, hauling and sailing from Wales is not comical nor is it a matter of wonderment that anyone should think it may have happened.
I suspect your level of knowledge on both possibilities is less than anyone else's here (having only ever read one book) which is why you feel able to believe in your "third way" (what is it, antigravity?) and to speak in a patronising and arrogant fashion to a professor of archaeology just back from digging Bluestonehenge.
[/quote]
Hopefully a professor is more than capable of answering for Himself, without Your wonderfull wisdom needed.
Any thoughts about why there is a ditch and probable embankment around said stone sthat are admittadely from afar?
Your encyclopedic knowledge of such is most eagerly awaited.
Kevin
Profile
Reply
|
AlbertResonox
Joined:
17-03-2008
Messages: 1280
from Sussex
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-10-2009 at 20:16
Quote:
|
On 2009-10-06 20:02, cropredy wrote:
Any thoughts about why there is a ditch and probable embankment
|
|
I know you asked if these features were there..did you get an answer?(I've obviously missed it if you did!)
Profile
Reply
|
Andy B
Joined:
13-02-2001
Messages: 12312
from Surrey, UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-10-2009 at 20:30
The details of the site as excavated are lower down on this page:
http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=23928
please read this.
It appears there is a bank and ditch although the Mail report originally said there wasn't
[ This message was edited by: Andy B on 2009-10-06 20:31 ]
Profile
Email
Reply
|
