tiompan wrote: From that article in answer to the question “Have archaeologists found Stonehenge quarries? “ he answers “they certainly thinks so “
Not a resounding yes from a source we might expect to be supportive of the team
The archaeos seem little better than the glacial proponents when it comes to hubris and narrative creation , although they do have much more going for them and ultimately are more likely to be seen to be correct or at least the glacial proponents will have never provide the evidence to support their moribund theory whilst the petrographers will slowly make the human transport one more likely to all but the most obsessive .
There are a quite a few problems though June .
One is the 500 years , where does that fit in ?
There are various dates from the site from Mesolithic to 780 AD (no doubt beyond too but they are not relevant ) and none can provide dates from the removal of the rocks , if they were indeed removed . There is no certain date for their arrival or erection at Stonehenge either , so the 500 years is completely manufactured to fit in with one particular narrative .
Thanks for your always measured comments Tiompan, especially the one about the 500 years. Have to admit when archaeologists talk about such precise timescales in the context of millennia I start to feel a little bemused. Stonehenge is, and probably always will be, an enigma.
Reply | with quote | Posted by tjj 10th December 2015ce 08:41 |
Stonehenge is second hand (nigelswift, Dec 07, 2015, 08:55)- Re: Stonehenge is second hand (tiompan, Dec 07, 2015, 09:34)
- Re: Stonehenge is second hand (Monganaut, Dec 07, 2015, 20:11)
- Re: Stonehenge is second hand (tiompan, Dec 07, 2015, 21:06)
- Re: Stonehenge is second hand (Monganaut, Dec 07, 2015, 21:42)
- Re: Stonehenge is second hand (tiompan, Dec 07, 2015, 22:13)
- Re: Stonehenge is second hand (Monganaut, Dec 07, 2015, 22:21)
- Re: Stonehenge is second hand (tiompan, Dec 07, 2015, 22:36)
- Re: Stonehenge is second hand (Monganaut, Dec 07, 2015, 23:22)
- Re: Stonehenge is second hand (Evergreen Dazed, Dec 07, 2015, 23:51)
- Re: Stonehenge is second hand (Monganaut, Dec 08, 2015, 00:09)
- Re: Stonehenge is second hand (Evergreen Dazed, Dec 08, 2015, 00:20)
- Re: Stonehenge is second hand (Evergreen Dazed, Dec 08, 2015, 00:28)
- Re: Stonehenge is second hand (Monganaut, Dec 08, 2015, 00:53)
- Re: Stonehenge is second hand (Evergreen Dazed, Dec 08, 2015, 07:55)
- Re: Stonehenge is second hand (moss, Dec 08, 2015, 07:59)
- Re: Stonehenge is second hand (Evergreen Dazed, Dec 08, 2015, 07:59)
- Re: Stonehenge is second hand (tiompan, Dec 08, 2015, 08:31)
- Re: Stonehenge is second hand (goffik, Dec 08, 2015, 13:55)
- Re: Stonehenge is second hand (tjj, Dec 09, 2015, 10:00)
- Stonehenge wasn't first second hand monument (thesweetcheat, Dec 12, 2015, 13:33)
|
|