Ancient and ArchaeologyΜύ permalink
stonehenge, preconceived findings
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Μύ
Posted by zaleski (U11517468) on Monday, 22nd September 2008
> looks like I am not the only one who is dismayed at the New Age attitude of Darvill and Wainwright. They say they are "convinced" the site was a "prehistoric Lourdes", without the slightest foundation given, and seem to be going about the excavation in the manner of Erich von Daniken with the purpose of finding evidence "proving" this.
I can't say they give me much confidence in either their scientific impartiality or their seriousness. <
I posted that in April when the excavations started. I've just read on the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ site the findings and guess what, they have proven, by finding bluestone chips, and ignoring everything else, that Stonehenge was "indubitably" a place of healing attracting pilgrims from all over Europe including the "Archer" who was buried in the centre.
Didn't heal him much did it?
Am I the only one in despair? -
Message 2
Posted by Robin Goodfellow (U3326594) on Monday, 22nd September 2008
Nope.
I am, however, waiting to read their papers before writing them off completely. -
Message 3
Posted by Harry Webb (U1988656) on Monday, 22nd September 2008
I cannot believe this ludicrous assertion that shards of "blue" stone around Stonehenge indicate an ancient clinic. Have the academics been smoking wacky baccy?
What about the simplest, most straightforward of theories? That some of the Sarcens weren't quite the right size or shape - with no written language, there couldn't have been any engineering drawings to work from in the Welsh quarries - when they arrived on the Plain and, had to be cut/trimmed to size and shape.
-
Message 4
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 22nd September 2008
I agree Zaleski.
From the start of this particular exercise the tone and language used has owed everything to sensationalism and advertising, and nothing to actual archaeology or to increasing our knowledge of the site in question.
The ease and frequency with which speculation was posited as fact waiting to be verified, and now (even worse) verification has been claimed using even more speculative interpretation of subjectively chosen data, has been alarming.
I have never seen an archaeological "dig" so badly presented and so transparently subjective a modus operandi outside of those undertaken by religious zealots on occasion and which blight modern archaeology with their inaccuracies. Whether the fault lies with the archaeologists or the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is something I have yet to figure though. The best one can say about it however based on the reports so far is that it has been a colossal waste of time. -
Message 5
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Monday, 22nd September 2008
Am I the only one in despair?
Μύ
Going by Julian Richards body language on the box this morning, "no".
It's a big jump from stone mason's rubble to the Trevi Fountain! -
Message 6
Posted by Jim Reuss (U10298645) on Monday, 22nd September 2008
And your opinion as to the dating of the construction?
-
Message 7
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Tuesday, 23rd September 2008
And your opinion as to the dating of the construction?..."
Well, apparently, according to last night's TV, they dated it to the exact year. Using vegatation residue from under one stone. And carbon dating.
They failed to say whether it was a weekend. -
Message 8
Posted by Mick_mac (U2874010) on Tuesday, 23rd September 2008
The date 2300BC is undoubtedly an important development although it is not to be taken that the first Stonehenge ring was first erected in that year. The year 2300BC represents a central tendency of a date range of a couple of hundred yeers.
If the media reporting is true then I am surprised that archaeologists consider the bluestones more valuable (for whatever reason) than the sarsen stones because of the preponderance of bluestone chippings over sarsen chippings in the vicinity of the monument. They speculate that people chipped the stones to take away souvenirs of the healing power of the stones. If this was true there should be NO chippings in the locality of the monument. -
Message 9
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Tuesday, 23rd September 2008
Here is a link to the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ story. I suspect that at least part of the problem here is that the archaeologists are playing up to the usual TV hyping up of the story. The 'medical site' angle is, it seems supported by the analysis of burials from the same date as the construction.
The 'Timewatch' episode is on Saturday 27 September.
-
Message 10
Posted by Penske666 (U9181113) on Wednesday, 24th September 2008
From this I conclude the Berlin Wall was also a religious monument 'cos people chipped bits off that as well!!!
Archaeologists really are stupid sometimes. -
Message 11
Posted by peteratwar (U10629558) on Wednesday, 24th September 2008
Not really they are just saying thast because dead bodies who are buried there and who may have had some illness then Stonehenge was a hospital. Dodgy connection it seems to me.
People die all over the place. -
Message 12
Posted by Ruth (U5282052) on Wednesday, 24th September 2008
but a larger than normal amount of people who had serious injuries / illnesses dying in one place does seem to suggest that there was *something* there which was thought to have some kind of healing properties.
obviously they weren't healed, as they didn't know much about medicine at that point.
but who will ever know what happened at stonehenge? there are so many theories.
we should just be pleased that this media coverage will get more people interested in it and therefore interested in history
-
Message 13
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 24th September 2008
If I had a quid for every time bad history was justified with the "ah well, it will get the kids interested" line I'd be a rich little nordmann!
There are two great fallacies lying at the heart of this latest piece of foolishness. The first is the almost naive presumption that Stonehenge retained continuity of meaning to people over its long life. We have far too little information to draw such a conclusion, but the information that we do have suggests not only that the structure survived and was used through several cultural upheavals and demographic shifts, but that even its construction period could well have done so too. The chance that it meant quite a lot of things to quite a lot of its contemporary societies is great.
The other fallacy is even worse - the inference that archaeological deductions of great magnitude can be arrived at using the skimpiest of retrieved data, or worse, that archaeology should be conducted primarily with a view to establishing speculative theory as fact and by the speculators themselves. Both of these attitudes do a disservice to the discipline and its practitioners, and the latter is not far removed in fact from that of the buried treasure hunter with his metal detector and his shovel. One destroys and pollutes the context of his find with indiscriminate excavation, the other pollutes the context just as assuredly with his jaundiced and biased reporting of his finds. Both leave the subject of their endeavours in need or reparation and subsequent researchers left wondering what a more thoughtful excavation might have uncovered. The only difference between the two crimes is one of degree. -
Message 14
Posted by Ruth (U5282052) on Thursday, 25th September 2008
but its not "bad" history - theres no reason why it *shouldn't* have been somewhere where they healed people - really we will never know, but its always interesting to hear the theories.
people will be reading the articles about it and it will encourage them to read more about the subject, to go and see stonehenge, to find out about the period etc. whats wrong with that?
if i was an archaeologist and found something interesting, i'd want to talk about my find and speculate as to what it was for, why it was there, what it was used for. thats almost the point of archaeology! they don't come there to destroy anything, they're curious and interested in the area so want to find out what happened there. -
Message 15
Posted by Jim Reuss (U10298645) on Thursday, 25th September 2008
Perhaps archaeologists/historians should be required by law to render a range of the most plausible reconstructions of the past to inquiries, rather than profess a single viewpoint, or perhaps they should be required to preface their instruction with some caveat, such as, "Well, the jury is still out as to the true nature of the place, but my best guess is..."
-
Message 16
Posted by NCH (U9519230) on Thursday, 25th September 2008
I don't think they should be allowed a 'best guess' about a monument as old and enigmatic as Stonehenge.
We can't even agree about Hadrian's Wall, which is recognisable as a structure under modern conditions. When is the last time someone in the world built a new henge? Any records? Any inklings why? Well, no.
We can all guess, but for a historian to go on national TV and give some etherical theory of nonesense is really, really unprofessional!
I wouldn't want anyone who got 'interested' in 'history', following this adventure, talking to me.
(Nordmann - 'little', never had you pictured that way). -
Message 17
Posted by Ruth (U5282052) on Thursday, 25th September 2008
We can all guess, but for a historian to go on national TV and give some etherical theory of nonesense is really, really unprofessional!Μύ
anyone with any intelligence knows that its only a theory, not solid "truth"!
I wouldn't want anyone who got 'interested' in 'history', following this adventure, talking to me. Μύ
why on earth not? if they did have any ideas which you believed to be wrong, you could introduce them to other ideas, books to read, other things to think about, you could open their mind to other possibilities. -
Message 18
Posted by Jim Reuss (U10298645) on Friday, 26th September 2008
I know this is the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ message board, but over at the Guardian, a similar discussion has been ignited by the columnist Simon Jenkins.
-
Message 19
Posted by Aylett_Sammes (U12611534) on Saturday, 27th September 2008
No your not the only one dismayed...my brain hurts
-
Message 20
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Saturday, 27th September 2008
The Timewatch program spouted so much wild speculation that it was hard to get any facts out of the program at all.
Apparently Stonehenge was protected by armed guards who killed anybody foolish enough to enter areas deemed off limits, the proof for this is a body with apparently wounds from arrows that was found in one of the ditches!
Healers, doctors and magicians were healing the sick and injured, we know this because a deformed skull has been found near the site which must belong to a healer because people who experience trauma at a young age become healers. At least they used solid facts to back up that argument!!!!
The Aylesbury archer repeatedly went to Stonehenge to receive treatment for his bad knee and infected teeth, we know this because he was buried 3 miles away and obviously must have been treated by the healers at Stonehenge, stands to reason!!!!
Oh and he got his broken knee by falling off a horse, now I would have thought that coming from an Alpine region may give opportunity for serious falls, but no he broke his knee falling from a horse, demonstrated by a stunt man.
Bluestone chips have been found in greater numbers than sarsen chipppings, so obviously people were taking away the blue stone chippings! Sorry but I find it hard to be sarcastic on this one it is so daft! If people were taking away the chipping why are the archaeologists finding them?
Apparently the bluestones come from a quarry that was very important to the Celts! The Celts in the 3rd millennium BC!!!!
Throw in a few chanting druids and it all made for a complete travesty of what history and archaeology is supposed to be about. Not once did they quantify their statements by saying this is speculation, or conjecture, no everything was proclaimed as proven and factual. -
Message 21
Posted by teradactyle (U13445120) on Sunday, 28th September 2008
Lets speculate shall we;
If you were living on a plain or scrubland wouldn't you want a very strong defensive place, built out of stone that arrows and spears would not penetrate. -
Message 22
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Sunday, 28th September 2008
It was a travesty of the scientific process. I don't know whether the program was fair on Darvill and Wainwright; I certainly hope that they are not as childishly naive as they appeared. But it was a poor show.
The problem is, of course, that while the theories that were proposed might be defensible, the way in which they were presented certainly was not. The evidence offered was unbelievably thin, and there was no attempt to discuss alternative explanations, study objections, or challenge the theories in any way.
This was simply bad science, or at least a bad presentation of how science is supposed to work. It was borderline pseudo-scientific. If this was the result of dumbing down by the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ, then it was dumbed down to the point where it lost its meaning and became an expensive form of babytalk.
I've read Simon Jenkin's defense of it in the Guardian too, and it brought to my mind Chesterton's quip that you don't need intellect to be an intellectual. Perhaps that is harsh, but at the least it seems to show the grudge of the layman versus the scientist, expressed as the rather forlorn hope that people who are ignorant might still be right.
Perhaps the same mechanism is at work within the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ, a certain disdain for the scientific process by people who are not schooled in it. Translated in a willingness to present vague speculation as if it is of equivalent value as real research.
Or perhaps just disdain for a public that is not supposed to be able to think.
Or both. -
Message 23
Posted by artstudent2008 (U13447849) on Sunday, 28th September 2008
I'm getting very angry with how most Archaeologists over the Stonehenge question because why can't Stonehenge have a multi purpose use like buildings and monument of today like the Millennium Dome and any of the hundreds of stadiums out are country.
Why do most Archaeologists just want Stonehenge to have only one use?? -
Message 24
Posted by ermoontrude (U13449837) on Monday, 29th September 2008
Archeology isn't a science though it sometimes uses science.
The archer in the show also invented stirrups - well done to him -
Message 25
Posted by Curlylox1308 (U13453990) on Monday, 29th September 2008
It's shocking that the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ aired this drivel, even more shocking that English Heritage let those two idiots dig Stonehenge up in the first place.
None of their fantastical theories made any sense. The Archer was buried 3 miles away and its likely he was thrown from a horse injuring his knee, therefore he must have gone to Stonehenge to be healed and therefore Stonehenge must be a healing place.... was fantastical at the very least.
The only good thing to come out of the entire program, was the remainder of my evening spent with my husband making each other laugh uncontrollably by coming up with similar veined bizarre and unlikely theories. Maybe the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ would commission a programme for our theories......
Watch this space........... -
Message 26
Posted by Grumpycarver (U13468995) on Wednesday, 1st October 2008
I agree with you. Our learned friends are dreamers. I am a monumental mason with 60 years experience. I have worked on churhes, catherdrals and monuments all over the U.K. As masons worked in past history,in Asia, Mid.East. and Europe, the rough stones were dragged from the quarry to the site where they were shaped or finished before placing in position. If the blue stone chips were so amazing the people would not have discarded them. What the Team have found is the spoil from the carvings
-
Message 27
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Tuesday, 21st October 2008
Just as a matter of interest the latest edition of Material World features a riposte to the recent Horizon documentary from Mike Parker Pearson as well interesting data from the analysis of cattle teeth found at Durrington Walls.
There is also a longer interview with members of the Durrington Walls team in 2007 on the intute website.
Anyone interested in a good chuckle should also look up "Stonehenge Theories with Nigel Tufnel of Spinal Tap". The idea that Stonehenge was a kind of amplifier has actually been proposed by Aaron Watson and David Keating. The sustain, listen to it.
-
Message 28
Posted by HantsCricketFan (U5158421) on Friday, 21st November 2008
As a friend of Tim Darvill's and someone who has worked on this project I can say without doubt that they knew what they would find before they excavated but sadly that is the way of academic archaeology. Mike Parker Pearson is the same as is Francis Prior (must be something about prehistorians!)
We should probably count ourselves lucky however as in other cultures (particularly Italy) archaeologists will go as far as to dispose of evidence that does not fit their theory (and I know of at least one high profile archaeologist who has done the same thing recently)
Now that Tim and Geof have done their work and said their piece it is up to everyone else to pick that theory apart and suggest their alternatives. I for one remain largely convinced that there is evidence under the henge itself from the mesolithic relating to the post pits in the car park but I can't imagine EH will allow me to dig the lot up!
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Μύto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.