Tuesday, 10 July 2012

Stonehenge - Mike Parker Pearson

By Robert John Langdon

At last I've been able to get a hardback copy of the book that news reports to 'reschedule' Stonehenge.  As this new schedule is about 5,000 years different to my hypothesis,  clearly someone is wrong!  So I was interested in seeing if it was me or Mike.

MPP's book


When I first opened the book, I headed straight for the content page to cut the waffle and get the detail, but then the disappointment started!!

This book was the conclusion of four intensive years of archaeological excavation at Stonehenge and should bring new evidence to the discussion table on not only the date of the monument but moreover the nature for its construction.  Alas in the content section they was Chapter 11 'The Druids and Stonehenge'... the druids are iron age people some 3000 after the monument was abandoned - clearly I was in danger of reading a book that could be regurgitation outdated unimportant dogma!

So I made tracks for Chapter 20 'The new Sequence for Stonehenge' - 3000 - 2920 BC "the first features to be constructed were the other bank, ditch inner bank and Aubrey Holes with Bluestones in them" So far so good, I didn't like the dates, but the features were as I perceived them. " Cremation burials accompanied these early feature..."  Hang on!! were did this come from?

Cremations are interesting, but without doubt burials preceded any cremations as the Long Barrows testify.  In fact MPP dedicates a whole page of his 400 page book to them and states that these are the oldest monuments in the British Countryside, numbering over 2,000 sites "which only a fraction has been archaeologically excavated with modern methods" even so without hard evidence they believe they are 500 to 800 years older than Stonehenge. They are also full of bones - not cremations - so is MPP suggesting that the Long Barrow builders are not the Stonehenge people - MPP avoids this key question completely, although it is fundamental to the understanding of why such monuments are first built.

So what is he's evidence for 'Cremations' at the time of Stonehenge's construction?

This came from a 'new' cremation found in the re-excavated Aubrey Hole number 7.  "we trowelled around the edges of the pit to find out whether there were other features - post holes and stakeholes - IN THE VICINITY.  There was a small stake hole on the west side and to our surprise, a complete unexpected cremation burial CLOSE to the western edge of the hole.  We'd seen the dark spread of its SURFACE as soon as we took off the TURF, but had straight way assumed that it was something already investigated - two previous groups of very competent archaeologists had already dug here, after all."

Some earlier reports suggest this cremation was found in Aubrey Hole 7 - IT WAS NOT!!  It was found to the West of the hole in the top soil - This is very interesting as MPP associates it with the construction date of the Aubrey Holes which clearly - IT DOES NOT!

To understand the analysis of this new find we need a better idea of where the cremation was found, the best diagram to date is from Hawley.

Hawley's Diagram of the Aubrey Holes
Hawley's Diagram of the Aubrey Holes
 Notice the ridge to the west side of Hole number 7 and the extent of top soil to the left of the diagram - MPP did not help us with the location of the hole with diagrams but accidentally his photos give us the exact location.

One working four watching - modern archaeology in practice!!
One working four watching - modern archaeology in practice!!
The photo shows were the hole is in relation to the Aubrey Hole and the relative height.

  The 'new' cremation highlighted in red at the top - not side as suggested by earlier reports
The 'new' cremation highlighted in red at the top - not side as suggested by earlier reports
If we superimpose this onto Hawley's original drawing we can get an exact location.

Hawley's Drawing showing the new find.
Hawley's Drawing showing the new find.

Hawley did not miss it - for it was not 'in the hole' it was buried NEXT TO THE HOLE!  Now with this new discovery, the wise men of the dig must have asked the question - why there?

Before I answered the question these world famous archaeologists failed to answer, I would like to quote another passage of the book, which should have been a warning to this 'band' of scientists about bad analysis.  It involved another group of archaeologists just a few years ago who jumped to the wrong conclusions based on limited evidence.

"The wet summer of 2008 had at times made our excavations a miserable experience.... Tim and Geoff were gearing up for a big press announcement on the BBC six o'clock news that Stonehenge had finally been dated with certainty... 2300BC.... a carbonised cereal grain from 2008 excavation of a Q hole had provided a date.."

The date for the grain was not 2300BC it was 780AD  - 990AD other dates from charcoal in the same hole was 3370 - 3090BC and a pig bone from the bottom layer was 1480AD - 1620AD MPP concluded that "if we had accepted the new dates then the Sarsen stones were erected somewhere between King Charles II and the Beatles".

So has MPP learnt something from this normal archaeological mess?

No for he has dated the construction of the Aubrey Holes around a secondary hole next to the original.  If you was to dig a hole and leave a memento (human of otherwise) would you not put it in the bottom?  The only 'good' reason that you bury something beside a hole is IF THE HOLE WAS OCCUPIED, then it is second nature to bury things next to it in ASSOCIATION.

Consequently, MPP findings are important as it shows that the Aubrey Holes were in place and still in existence in 3000BC.  Which supports my hypothesis that Stonehenge is much much, older than this rag bag bunch of amateurs known as archaeologists will tell you.

Thanks MPP, don't give up the day job!

Addendum - Feb 2013

We now have a date for this LATER cremation (SUERC - 30410) 3330BCE  - 2910BCE

Just come across a much better photo of the cremation at the side of the stone hole 'not in it' confirming my views and dating hypothesis for Stonehenge.  How anyone of intelligence can believe that this was not added when the Stone was STILL in the post hole, I will never know!

Julian Richards excavating

Therefore MPP's 'new dating' of Phase I (Audrey Bluestone erection) 3000BCE - 2875BCE seems totally unlikely, especially when you consider that we have all manner of other carbon dating objects from Stonehenge that have dates that have not been explained to date.

Stonehenge -unexplained samples

And lets us not forget the Post holes in the Visitor's car park that shows the unloading date of the Bluestones 8500BCE - 7500BCE.

RJL

(by Robert John Langdon)

45 comments:

  1. Excellent analysis Robert, Keep up the methodical work.

    Dr Stuart Love

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you Stuart!

    I will be posting other 'views' based on the books findings this month - the new shop is very time consuming.

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  3. The usual mix of shouting , misunderstanding ,misrepresentation and errors . It would take too long to go through them all . Taking one short typical paragraph .
    “Some earlier reports suggest this cremation was found in Aubrey Hole 7 - IT WAS NOT!! It was found to the West of the hole in the top soil - This is very interesting as MPP associates it with the construction date of the Aubrey Holes which clearly - IT DOES NOT! “
    There was nothing from MPP suggesting what you say about “earlier reports “ . You mistakenly believed the cremation to be in the hole , despite being corrected on four occasions .The cremation wasn’t found in the top soil , it was 10 cm into the chalk . MPP does not associate the deposit with the construction date of the Aubrey holes ,if anything he associates it with the start of the monument’s construction .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geo

      "Although Hawley hadn't fully excavated AH7 the cremation was not found in the bottom but to the side in a 10cm deep hole with a small piece of covering sarsen"

      The earlier report was FROM YOU on Brian's blog!! As always you was wrong yet AGAIN!! Hawley's diagram shows he did excavate the entire hole as the hole is not in the side but BESIDE the hole - buy yourself a dictionary for Christmas.

      MPP does date the Aubrey Holes with these cremations, including the cremation from Hole 32 found in the fill - you either need to buy a copy of the book or re-read it slowly!

      "We'd seen the dark spread of its SURFACE as soon as we took off the TURF, but had straight way assumed that it was something already investigated"

      If you can't read accurately then look at the pictures!! The cremation is at the bottom and IN the top soil as shown from Hawley's drawings - which at present is the only scientific reference diagrams of the AH we can refer too.

      Clearly you are a source of 'tainted' information.

      RJL

      Delete
  4. Stuart , have you read the original ,on which the "analysis " is based ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geocur

      I have not read the book,but I trust Robert's quotes to be accurate, unlike your own.

      Robert's analysis of the burial of the 'new cremation' which is 'beside' the stone hole clearly indicates that the hole was in use at the time of burial. Therefore, we can assume the Blue stone was resident, which make phase I older than current estimates.

      Dr Stuart Love

      Delete
    2. Stuart , if you have not read the book how can you judge an analysis of it ?
      What basis have you for not trusting my quotes ? Can you give some examples where they are untrustworthy ?

      Delete
  5. You misunderstand simple prepositions , to the side does not mean inside . It took four attempts to explain before the penny dropped .If the earlier “report “ was mine , note that I never used the term “ in “ as you claim when you say “Some earlier reports suggest this cremation was found in Aubrey Hole 7 “ Reread and point out where I said "in " ,once again typical misrepresentation .
    As also mentioned in that comment Hawley did not full excavate Aubrey Hole 7 . If you had read the book you might have noted the comment “ He’s left (Hawley) a thin spread of chalk rubble undisturbed in the bottom “ .Also note that you cannot tell from a diagram whether something has been fully excavated .

    You said “MPP associates it with the construction date of the Aubrey Holes “ where the “ it “ is the recently discovered cremation . He does not . If he did quote him .
    You also misunderstand the term top soil ,the cremation was 10 cm into the chalk which was under the top soil . I have pointed out various errors in two sentences , where is my “tainted “ info ?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Geo

    Your pedantic nature makes your comments pointless as they misrepresent the truth and 'taint' the facts with irrelevance.

    As for "Also note that you cannot tell from a diagram whether something has been fully excavated ." shows a total ignorance of field archaeology.

    Your observations do not add to the debate as they are puerile nonsense and quite frankly a waste of my valuable time.

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  7. It’s telling that there is no response to any of the points , only a resort to mild abuse and nothing of substance in relation to .
    1)“MPP associates it with the construction date of the Aubrey Holes “ where was the quote to support that comment ?
    2) “Hawley's diagram shows he did excavate the entire hole “ This has been shown not to be the case i.e. refuted by this comment “ He’s left (Hawley) a thin spread of chalk rubble undisturbed in the bottom “ . No response to that .
    3)” It was found … in the top soil “ As had been pointed out it was not found in the top soil . Have a look at this image , (you may have to scroll down ) .
    http://mikepitts.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/aubrey-hole-2008.jpg , you can see the site of the new find in relation to AH 7 , note the stripped turf including the top soil in the background ,the top soil immediately behind the bucket and the old chalk ground surface , i.e. not the top soil where the deposit was dug into .

    4)“Some earlier reports suggest this cremation was found in Aubrey Hole 7 “ .This earlier “report “ was supposedly from me , where was the quote showing I had suggested the cremation was “in” the hole ?. This was a blinkered misconception of your own , anyone ,Stuart ? reading this who is interested can read the discussion at
    .http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=1228690739485734684&postID=4629844108726517314
    Where it will be clear that you believed the new cremation was in the hole before I had even contributed , and all my contributions were attempts to disabuse you of the that error . When you eventually understood you skulked off without no response ,as can often be seen when the truth finally dawns or more likely your errors are pointed out on that blog .
    Mistakes are mistakes , face up to them , they confuse and worse , edifices get built upon them .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geo

      1) "So I made tracks for Chapter 20 'The new Sequence for Stonehenge' - 3000 - 2920 BC "the first features to be constructed were the other bank, ditch inner bank and Aubrey Holes with Bluestones in them" So far so good, I didn't like the dates, but the features were as I perceived them. " Cremation burials accompanied these early feature..." Hang on!! were did this come from?"

      2) What's your point? We talk about Hawley's Diagram when you gave me your disinformation - now we know the truth its irrelevant.

      3) "We'd seen the dark spread of its SURFACE as soon as we took off the TURF," - if its on the surface its in the turf as well, otherwise it be UNDER the surface - that dictionary will be handy when you get it!

      4) If you quoted the book: " "we trowelled around the edges of the pit to find out whether there were other features - post holes and stakeholes - IN THE VICINITY. There was a small stake hole on the west side and to our surprise, a complete unexpected cremation burial CLOSE to the western edge of the hole." There would have been no problem and you (for once) would have made a POSITIVE contribution alas your puerile cryptic clue was designed to mislead.

      As for 'sulking off' Brian blocked (yet again) my responses - like you he has his own agenda, which is little to do with the truth or archaeological debate.

      BY THE WAY, how is the care in the community project going?

      Nice to see they are giving you computer time again - they might even give you plastic knives and forks soon,if your good boy!

      RJL

      Delete
    2. 1) The comment from chapter 20 is very broad and tells us nothing new ,it
      doesn't specify a direct association with the new burial and AH 's and the
      comment would have been exactly the same even if the new burial had never
      been found . You may as well have said the he associates any other
      cremation with any other early feature .
      2) The point is that I mentioned that Hawley did not fully excavate the AH
      7 to which you replied “Hawley's diagram shows he did excavate the entire
      hole “ this was shown to be wrong by the quote from MPP ie “ He's left
      (Hawley) a thin spread of chalk rubble undisturbed in the bottom “
      Anyone reading the comments on Brian's blogs can clearly see that you
      believed that the new find was in the AH . I was putting you right , as
      usual it takes time to sink in ,when you realised the mistake you skulked
      off (note , skulked not sulked which wouldn't make sense ) . If you
      believed it was disinformation why didn't you say so at that point , even
      better as I keep pointing out where did I say “in “ . See 4)
      3) No ,read more carefully , the dark spread was not on the turf , it was
      under the turf on the chalk surface .
      4) You failed to understand a simple preposition , not disinformation or
      cryptic . eg “the deposit was to the side of the hole not in it . “ “but it
      was not in the hole or part of the hole .” This info had long been
      available there was no need to quote the book. Some posts have not been
      arriving at Brian's blog , probably due to where he is at the moment rather
      than any blocking . What is my agenda ?

      Delete
    3. Geo

      1. The book claims a new sequence, this sequence are based on a couple of cremations found either in the in fills or beside Phase I features - if anything it proves that the features were there prior to the 3000 to 2920BC dates quoted.

      2.Is immaterial now as it does not add to the debate just you psychosis

      3. Is plain nonsense and shows a lack of awareness in field archaeology

      4. Even more nonsense see 2.

      RJL

      Delete
  8. In MPPs account it would seem their dating work was concluded before the discovery of the new deposit and points to 3000 BC and is based on earlier archaeological work retrieved from museums. The basis for the analysis is a wide variety of cremation remains. Lots of cremation deposits in and around Aubrey Holes - and none dated to 4th century BC., 3100 BC is as early as you can get.

    This is why I never thought it that critical exactly where the new find was made around AH7. Re-reading MPP's description I am not that clear either. I assumed the dark impression under the turf led to a suspicion about a post hole. How far down the cremation deposit was is not 100% clear from his description, nor is it clear whether it was originally inserted from the side or the top. It was at least under the chalk layer, however deep that is. Perhaps we need to wait for the full description? I don't think it matters that much but he could have been more precise. It seems to be associated with the Aubrey Holes and the date fits too.

    Your theory about Stonehenge needs an earlier start-date. One positive you might take from MPPs book is the increasing importance of the mesolithic, another is the importance he gifts to the supposed periglacial stripes.

    From MPP it seems the Aubrey Holes were dug in the first phase of the monument around 3000 BC. They contained cremations and bluestones. He hints at an earlier date for the monument based on mesolithic remains and periglacial stripes and bluestone fragments from the cursus which might indicate an even earlier bluestone monument. Plus we have the supposed Bluestone circle near the Avon for which no dating exists as yet. So whether the Aubrey Holes are the first phase would seem open to debate. Plenty of scope, Robert, for your theories without bad-mouthing GeoCur or MPP .

    I agree with you about the puzzle of the long-barrows with an apparently different funerary practice. This must have been a different culture, imo. Shame MPP does not offer any opinion on the historical sequence but then I criticize him for having too many opinions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chris

      I have welcomed MPP findings - but I disagree about his analysis. I meet MPP by accident (he made a bee-line for me when I was chatting to his students) when he first discovered Bluehenge and I was researching my first book in 2009.

      At the time I did point congratulate him on his historical find but warned that his 'original' idea that it pre-dates Stonehenge maybe incorrect as its location was at the lowest altitude of the 50+ prehistoric monuments I was studying and therefore would probably post-date Stonehenge as there was a mysterious correlation between prehistoric dates and altitude of these sites in the area (at that stage I had not fully understood or researched the hydrology of the area)

      Which at that point he ran away from me claiming a prior appointment - shame! But I like him and found him very pleasant and quite engaging.

      I believe that Bluehenge was dated at 2469-2286BC in the book (i'm sure geo will correct me if i'm a year or two out!) So I could have saved him many months of wonderment and a few bob.

      You probably right about MPP's suspecions on an earlier date - but he plays safe with the carbon dating cremations, which now we know there exact location show that they were buried after at least Phase I of Stonehenge.

      RJL

      Delete
  9. To begin with you believed that the “new “ find was in AH 32 ,then when you finally realised it was in AH 7 commented on 26 /6/12 “no-one noted the black stuff at the bottom of the hole.” .This clearly shows that you now mistakenly believed the cremation to be in the hole and more importantly it was before any “earlier report “ which I sent a day later . .As mistake it is minor compared with the large numbers regularly found here but the manner in which you have attempted to squirm out of it is telling .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geo

      MPP's ew 'dating sequence' IS based on the cremation in AH 32 - as for your cryptic clue suggest it was actual in the side of the hole which (like most of your observations) was incorrect and deliberately puerile and misleading.

      The fact you hide behind an anonymous name tells us all we need to know about you Colin.

      RJL

      Delete
  10. 1) The new sequence is not based on the “new” cremation dating the Aubrey Holes as you suggested , it is not even specified in that sequence .As far as the sequence goes it is simply a new cremation among others .
    2)3)4) A complete inability to respond . Abuse , shouting and saying something is nonsense without including any content is not an argument .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geo

      Either inform or go away!

      If you believe MPP based his 'new sequence' on 'other' dating evidence - then tells us your thoughts (god help us!) on what or remain silent.

      Enough of this nonsense - I have better this to do with my time than entertain people with 'problems' I enjoy informed scientific debate, but this is turning into a monty python sketch:

      " is this the right room for an argument? .... this is not an argument its just contradiction.. "

      RJL

      Delete
  11. Geo

    Comment deleted - I'm bored by your repetition!

    If you wish to inform us on your view of MPP's 'new sequence' and were he gets his dates, I will publish the comment.

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  12. Ah , deletion is the new “ time to move on “ , to avoid facing up to embarrassing mistakes , and whilst we are it let’s change the subject to “ what do you think the new sequence MPP might be suggesting ? ” as if it wasn’t clear enough .
    I am here to point out your errors not help you understand basic text . As mentioned in the deleted post you have woken up to the fact that it is AH 32 that is associated with the dating of the Aubrey Holes not the “ new “ cremation which never being in an Aubrey hole in the first place might be not be too useful for dating one . Anyway in the spirit of putting you on the right path as was done on the other Blog here’s a wee snippet of the new sequence from the British Chalcolithic .The large pit dug into the north side of the great trilithon , mistakenly identified as a ramp for Stone 56 by Atkinson , supplied two associated dates of 2470-2210 BC (antler picks ) but as has been demonstrated the pit was dug after the erection of the trilithon these are therefore not the dates of the erection of the sarsens in phase 3 ii .You can re-read the rest to find out what the new date in the sequence might be ,see pp128-129 .There is much to discuss in this but as I have said many times I am not interested in discussion but merely pointing your factual mistakes .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I am here to point out your errors not help you understand basic text ."

      What a twat

      Annie Other

      Delete
  13. Don't know what Geo did to get blocked but MPPs case for the dating is supported by lots of snippets of information throughout the book. I don't want to spend the time to make a summary and I think you have read the book, but broadly there is a lot of use of RC dates and some contextual finds like arrow heads and pottery.

    Nobody can prove he is all wrong - he has a consensus view with many other specialists. I am fairly sure there is no solid evidence that contradicts his theory, although we can all be open to new evidence appearing. After all large parts of the area have not been excavated.

    I think you can legitimately challenge some of the evidence. There is no way to be certain that cremation deposits were added at different times, and maybe the entire RC science will be proved invalid - it has happened before. Still, when you want to challenge established positions you should have a few more facts of your own. I recognize this is difficult because you do not have his resources.

    MPPs book is very focussed around the period 3000-2000 BC. He does NOT talk about earlier periods, although there is plenty of evidence from the Long Barrows and the Cursus. He does draw attention to the Mesolithic finds and points to activity in the mesolothic, whether it be post-holes in the car park, periglacial stripes, or lithics. Lurking behind his book is the thought that the history of Stonehenge extends even further into the past,

    I think you have plenty of space to advance alternate theories, even though your facts are few and far between. MPP has no underpinned idea why the monument was built and what might have preceded the remains we see today. He stays away from this pre-history and dismisses the astronomical aspects very casually. He is apparently comfortable with hundreds of years gap between the long barrow time and the first phase of the monument as he sees it.

    As far a chronology goes I don't see how you can undermine the amount of evidence pointing to a 1000 year period for Stonehenge between 3000-2000 BC without challenging the authenticity of RC dating.

    To take issue with Geo, I think MPP is circumspect around the dating for Bluestone Henge. Were I to summarize what his thoughts MIGHT be, it would be for an initial phase around 2900 BC followed by a removal of the stones in 2600 BC. It also seems unclear whether these were indeed Bluestones = stones from Presceli. I suspect he is awaiting more data and keeping his powder dry.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Chris , could you clarify what you are taking issue about?. I didn't mention Bluestonehenge .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry. Rjl brought up the subject i I see looking back.

      Delete
    2. Sorry Anon/Geo,
      Looking back it seems remarks I attributed to you were in fact from Robert. Second time I try to post this apology so I hope it goes through this time.

      Delete
    3. Chris

      The RC dates in chapter 15 of the book show dates of 2460-2190BC, 2469-2286BC and 2460-2270BC. The 2900BC date is for Coneyhenge which (for some strange reason) he associates with the site.

      These dates match the lower water levels of the Neolithic and I would imagine are accurate according to the areas hydrology, during that period.

      It is therefore sensible to believe that some reshaping of Stonehenge happened at this stage - moving of the Bluestones that (in my view would have been left abandoned some millennium beforehand) to the 'horseshoe' ring within the Sarsen stone temple that give us all those 3000 - 2000 RC dates you suggested and to Bluehenge (by the water) which is necessary for them to release there healing properties.

      Strangely, if you combine the findings of MPP and the ideas of Darvill and Wainwright you almost get the true complete picture.

      RJL

      Delete
    4. MPP does not have a lot of evidence for dating Bluestonehenge (BSH). A couple of pieces of antler that may or may not have been deposited when the stones were dug/removed, arrow heads of an early style, and the contextual associations with Durrington, Coneyhenge, and SH itself. He is circumspect about what this might mean and I think even leaves BSH out of his summary chapter on chronology. Even the name Bluestonehenge might prove to be an embarrassment as it seems we do not know for sure what type of stones they were, although they seem to be a similar size to those bluestones still visible at Stonehenge. I find he is very careful to avoid saying anything he might have cause to regret when more digging and analysis is done.

      It is a minor miracle that BSH was discovered - deductive archaeology at its best. Educated opinion forming a theory which is tested on the ground - hey presto a new henge. So I agree that these opinionated archaeologists seem to be getting closer to understanding the neolithic peoples, especially when they can predict where new finds may be made.

      I see you support the healing theory. MPP gives some good opinions why this might not be so simple as healing, but there is little doubt in my mind that the stones had a faith meaning and the association with water is important. Durrington, BSH, Avebury are all built close to rivers and the Presceli area is the headwater of three rivers - Cleddau, Taff, and Nyfer. Carn Menyn is surrounded by springs feeding the Cleddau. Gors Fawr is up to its ankles in spring water, as is Glandy Cross. As for healing, there are plenty of folk tales about pouring water over stones for healing effects. In this sense SH is a bit enigmatic because it is not actually close to river water or springs, although in your theory it might have been once.

      Delete
    5. Thanks Chris .
      Fwiw , yes MPP does suggest BSH built around 2950 BC .

      Delete
    6. A more accurate source of information and the evidence for MPP's book is the paper: "Who was buried at Stonehenge"

      http://dro.dur.ac.uk/5849/

      Where they detail why Cleal et al 1995 were wrong (surprise, surprise) and actually also shows why MPP's new sequence is also questionable - page 27 fig 4 shows Aubrey hole 32 and the exact location (note Geo very important aspect of information!!) of the cremation - for its NOT on the bottom of the in-fill its half way up.

      This proves that it was added sometime AFTER the stone was removed - the date of the cremation is 3080 - 2890BC. Consequently, how can the Aubrey Holes (Stonehenge Phase I) be dug between 3015-2935BC ?? - its a complete nonsense.

      So as for "This area might have been a gathering place for people building the cursuses around 3500BC and perhaps, for building Bluestonehenge and the first stage of Stonehenge around 2950BC" is more wishful thinking that evidence based science and can therefore be dismissed.

      RJL

      Delete
    7. It looks like you have just discovered this paper . “Who was buried at Stonehenge “ is simply a paper from Antiquity 2009 written by MPP et al and informing some of the content of the new book , any one interested in the monument would have known of the content when it appeared .By paying attention to MPP ‘s papers any misunderstanding and confusion about the site of the “ new “cremation would have also been understood long before the book appeared .
      Why should I note Piggot’s drawing of the exact location of the cremation in AH 32 ? This info was available a long time ago .Did I say anything to the contrary ?

      Delete
    8. Thanks for this link. It is reassuring to see the experts working together to form consensus. I find the idea of a hereditary elite unconvincing, although it perhaps fits your theory?

      It will be interesting to see what emerges from the detailed analysis of all the bones Hawley reburied in a big pile.

      Delete
    9. Geo

      As always, so wise and wonderful after the event - shame your comments do not reflect the extensive knowledge you claim.

      Consequently, would you recommnd 'others' read the other 240 references before attempting the book?


      RJL

      Delete
    10. Lots of good refs in the bibliography ,not the paper which mentioned the "new " cremation though .

      Wise and wonderful after the event ? What are you talking about ? What comments ? If there is something wrong , quote it .

      "Why should I note Piggot’s drawing of the exact location of the cremation in AH 32 ? This info was available a long time ago .Did I say anything to the contrary ?" Bump

      Delete
    11. Ye gods!

      You're banging your head against a brick wall Robert.

      Annie O

      Delete
    12. Annie

      Geo is a typical academic with a considerable knowledge of facts and not much else.

      We should leave him in his comfort zone to dot the i's and cross the t's leaving the real analytical work to other people.

      It's a question of strengths and weaknesses.

      RJL

      Delete
  15. Well I find this a complete muddle!!

    The original Phase I dates were based on the NINE antlers picks for the ditch. Which were dated at 3000BC - on page 310 in 'Third Stage' MPP agrees with my evidence (Stonehenge Enigma 2010 page 132) that the ditch was cleaned out over the period of use.

    He dates the last clean out at 2560 - 2140BC, but there are antler pick dates from the fill are before his date?

    Consequently if the fill had dates of 3000BC from cleal et al 1995 then the ditch must have been dug before 3000BC. Yet another archaeological mess which he illustrates in chapter 19.

    The only antler pick that can be possibly be linked to the construction as it was found in the 'packing of a for Sarsen Stone 27. This gave a carbon dating of 4175 BC +/- 185 - which was dismissed by the Geo's of this world as it did not fit their simplistic model.

    Consequently, I'm sure Stonehenge was in use until the Roman period - hence the RC dates 3000 to 2000BC - but not one RC date has been proven to be in association with the exact construction rather than a 'alteration'.

    As for the so called re-sequencing, nice PR MPP, but after 4 years I would expect something more tangible.

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  16. Annie , incisive and informative as ever . Sherlock was recognised on Stonehenge thoughts by characteristic spelling mistakes ,as opposed to typos. Interestingly you also suffer from the same problem as well as a few other tell tale signs .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry Annie message deleted.

      The site is for archaeological debate not personal attacks on contributors - however justified.

      RJL

      Delete
  17. So what is happening Robert? All quiet in Cro-Magnon land?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Chris

    Sorry for no blogs over the summer, I've been researching new evidence in the local chalk on the south downs and as a consequence rewriting the introduction to my hypothesis for The Stonehenge Enigma as it confirms the flooding of the British Isles during the Mesolithic Period - blog on these finding to be released in the next week or so.

    I have also been inundated with visitors to the shop to look at the book, maps and posters and answer questions on a 1-2-1 basis which I do find very rewarding as the abusive and absurd comments are missing from these personal conversations even with the old school archaeologists who resist change but eventually accept my hypothesis when shown that evidence of water can not only be seen at Stonehenge but moreover, in the local landscape in graphic detail via as the cliff faces as they act as a visible cross section to the terrain that is underneath Stonehenge, disproving the existing geological assumptions.

    Meanwhile, I have tried to add some information to Brian's blog as its less time consuming, sadly he has taken to not publishing my comments that questions his ideas about erratic's - even if I use a pseudonym, which is a shame. For the south downs are littered with 'erratic's' from sarsen to granite but with no ice age sheets to push them, but lots of man made Long Barrows and Waterless Dykes.

    Stay turned!!

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  19. Nice to hear from you.

    Brian has had some problems with posts while travelling. I doubt he is censoring your inputs.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Sadly Chris he has done so many times in the past. One of my pseudo comments were eventually published but too late for any comment or debate - very fortunate if your arguments are weak.

    As for Erratics these can be easily dated by radio carbon dating the soil 'directly' under the stone resting points or investigating the Mollusca in the soil to obtain a date - as in theory the soil trapped under the stone must be the same it originally landed upon, for if the soil could be washed away the stone (prior to any new soil replacing the old) the weight of the rock would drop the stone until it was buried on the bed rock.

    As far as I know most of these so called erratics have been found on soil rather than the natural bed rock.

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  21. Robert. You did well to note the cut-out at the side of A7, and your opinion of it. A couple of things bother me though. If Hawley found and cleared it out, how come PP found something to date? Furthermore, with Stonehenge being a vast cover-up - for a little dirty profit - and archaeologists proven to have been lying for at least the last 48 years, why should we believe any dates they come up with anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Tom

    Wikipedia answers this interesting question.

    "The work was carried out between 1919 and 1926 largely by Hawley working alone although at other times assisted by Robert Newall, a draughtsman from the Office of Works. The weather and the confusing stratigraphy of this site made work difficult but Hawley was able to make numerous breakthroughs regarding the history of activity on the site."

    He was not a professional as we would perceive. This is not his fault but archaeology's as it has always been underfunded unlike other sciences. This is because of a simple profit motive - you can make good money as we have seen in Biology, Physics and Chemistry, you'll make 'bugger all' in Archaeology. Therefore its poorly funded with 'self funding' enthusiasts rather than top notch salaried scientists - hence my reference to it as a 'club' rather than a science.

    So did "Hawley find and cleared it out"- probably not and he surmised the outline away from the hole from the AH7 cut.

    So have they "been lying for at least the last 48 years"?

    I would not call it a deliberate lie, but institutionalised deception. As with the reference to Galileo in a previous blog, I don't believe the cardinals knew they were wrong and Galileo was right. But the institutional thinking they had been indoctrinated into, just did not allow 'free thinking' and the possibility they could be wrong!!

    RJL

    ReplyDelete