I would love to know what you all think of this.
It seems to be widely accepted that the so-called bluestones at Stonehenge were transported deliberately from sites in the Preseli Hills in Pembrokeshire. In a recently published paper, Mike Parker Pearson et al claim to have found the source quarry for some flakes and, possibly, one of the buried monoliths found at Stonehenge. They even claim to have identified the precise recess in the quarry wall from which the monolith was extracted. This is such a romantic notion that it's no surprise that so many news outlets have reported it unquestioningly.
Here's a press release from UCL:
http://ift.tt/1Y0b37u
Here's a link to the paper:
http://ift.tt/1Y0b37w
Personally, I find this all rather fanciful. Some of the claims made by the authors don't seem to be supported, at least in this paper (examples: the artificiality of the 'dry stone wall'; the artificiality of the 'recess', etc). In fact they seem to have set out with a conclusion in mind, and worked quite hard to fit their observations accordingly.
I rather subscribe to the idea that the bluestones, as diverse as they are, were brought to (or near to) Salisbury Plain by flowing ice, and incorporated into the monument simply because they were available. In this, I am strongly influenced by a book that I found compelling: The Bluestone Enigma, by Brian John.
Any thoughts?
It seems to be widely accepted that the so-called bluestones at Stonehenge were transported deliberately from sites in the Preseli Hills in Pembrokeshire. In a recently published paper, Mike Parker Pearson et al claim to have found the source quarry for some flakes and, possibly, one of the buried monoliths found at Stonehenge. They even claim to have identified the precise recess in the quarry wall from which the monolith was extracted. This is such a romantic notion that it's no surprise that so many news outlets have reported it unquestioningly.
Here's a press release from UCL:
http://ift.tt/1Y0b37u
Here's a link to the paper:
http://ift.tt/1Y0b37w
Personally, I find this all rather fanciful. Some of the claims made by the authors don't seem to be supported, at least in this paper (examples: the artificiality of the 'dry stone wall'; the artificiality of the 'recess', etc). In fact they seem to have set out with a conclusion in mind, and worked quite hard to fit their observations accordingly.
I rather subscribe to the idea that the bluestones, as diverse as they are, were brought to (or near to) Salisbury Plain by flowing ice, and incorporated into the monument simply because they were available. In this, I am strongly influenced by a book that I found compelling: The Bluestone Enigma, by Brian John.
Any thoughts?
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/1PWFbS4
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire