Saturday, 23 August 2014

The Stonehenge Hidden Landscapes Project by Vincent Gaffney Online

Lot of chatter online about a new film coming this autumn revealing new discoveries in the landscape at Stonehenge - http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-lies-beneath-Stonehenge-180952437/ - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2731994/Why-Stonehenge-built-Discovery-15-new-monuments-suggests-answer-lie-BENEATH-ground.html - much of it is based on Vincent Gaffney et al's research.

(The research has continued since this paper was released but it seems to cover all the "new" discoveries that are being reported.)

The Stonehenge Hidden Landscapes Project by 


Click to enlarge - but follow link below to get full paper.

Available online at :


Gaffney, C., Gaffney, V., Neubauer, W., Baldwin, E., Chapman, H., Garwood, P., Moulden, H., Sparrow, T., Bates, R., L√∂cker, K., Hinterleitner, A., Trinks, I., Nau, E., Zitz, T., Floery, S., Verhoeven, G. and Doneus, M. (2012), The Stonehenge Hidden Landscapes Project. Archaeol. Prospect., 19: 147–155. doi: 10.1002/arp.1422
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/arp.

12 comments:

  1. Love the tag line "Two pits at either end of the Curcus could have been used for ritual fires"

    Sums it up really - the reporter was thinking circus as the authors of this dribble have turned it into one!

    Visited Whitehawk yesterdayon an open day with the UCL archaeologists who were excavating - the wrong place to find any credible evidence of occupation. And with every every inquiry such as "why the hell are you excavating here?" there answer incorporated either the words 'ceremonial' or 'religious' like this papers here.

    It reminded me of the old saying "Monkey See, Monkey Do!" How can we expect quality archaeologists to be turned out from university when the Professors are complete idiots teaching ceremonial and religious nonsense?

    RJL


    ReplyDelete
  2. It reminded me of the old saying "Monkey See, Monkey Do!" How can we expect quality archaeologists to be turned out from university when the Professors are complete idiots teaching ceremonial and religious nonsense?

    A bit harsh Robert. As far as I can tell, archaeology is about recording and preserving the past: Interpretation is just a fun sideline. If you don't have an explanation that makes sense, 'ceremonial and religion' are good working hypotheses: Nobody really has the financial backing to be able to devote resources to interpretation.

    The other Robert Langdon, at Rosslyn, asks whether knowing an uncomfortable truth or maintaining a misleading ideal is preferable (paraphrasing). All fictional of course, but maybe there is something to be said for 'ceremonial and religious nonsense' ?

    ReplyDelete
  3. It maybe a bit harsh - but sadly it's the truth.

    Archaeology claims to be a science - in my humble view 'ceremonial and religious nonsense' has no place in science, as my old professor A.C.Graying and his colleague Dawkin would testify. If you don't know why something is so - you say so - you don't pretend you do know by applying words that have no substance or meaning.

    So if Whitehawk was a so called 'causeway enclosure' what ceremony did the dry ditch evoke? Did it appease the God of the dry ditch? Or the chalk goddess? Was the spirit of the fence offended so they built a pointless ditch to try and keep the animals in?

    And where does this dangerous throw away line end? Would Ron Hubbard identify the ditches as a religious landing platform for his aliens??

    So to answer my counterpart - you tell the truth as people are so gullible that a lie can easy become accepted as 'gospel' and you accept without question the falsehood that is our history.

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  4. So to answer my counterpart - you tell the truth as people are so gullible that a lie can easy become accepted as 'gospel' and you accept without question the falsehood that is our history.

    Perhaps. But we haven't established what useful purpose this would serve. If there is no useful purpose, then one does not devote resources to making 'the truth' available. Scientific investigation generally has a goal which might produce a useful result (social, environmental, economic etc). The result might not be the result you want to see, so the funding towards that goal is dependent on the possibility of a useful outcome.

    If a 'scientific investigation' has no end goal, why fund it? Criticising people who can not get funding to do what you would like them to do is, frankly, a bit harsh.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The 'purpose' of truth as a virtue of morality. Without morality we have no purpose. Scientific investigation should serve no financial purpose it is a discipline of fact and not a 'for profit' tool.

      "If there is no useful purpose, then one does not devote resources to making 'the truth' available." - it reminds me of the atrocities of the past under a similar banner 'the ends justifies the means'

      All scientific investigation has an end goal - information. What we do with that information is influenced by our morality - make money or to increase knowledge of who we are or how things work.

      The funding is there - hence the excavation, but the scientific knowledge is lacking hence the position they are digging and the position was dictated by this religious/ceremonial fallacy.

      RJL

      Delete
    2. Scientific investigation should serve no financial purpose it is a discipline of fact and not a 'for profit' tool.

      Wow. Not sure that that will convince anybody in the scientific investigation world. Nice idea though.

      However, Chris puts up a fairly convincing argument for benefit (below).

      http://brian-mountainman.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/review-of-mike-parker-pearsons-2012-book.html?showComment=1409046585592#c3990230989431300111

      Delete
  5. "And with every every inquiry such as "why the hell are you excavating here?" there answer incorporated either the words 'ceremonial' or 'religious' like this papers here."
    As might be imagined the paper referred to doen't use either the terms religious or ceremonial once .

    "Sums it up really - the reporter was thinking circus as the authors of this dribble have turned it into one!"
    It's not good enough making antagonistic remarks without actually supporting them .If you think something is wrong you have to prove it . There are multiple examples where you have made remarks that have been shown to be wrong ,in this case there was a simple explanation of the problems with the pits and associated suggestions elsewhere and an even simpler one here ,see "Under the Stonehenge Landscape " ,simply sticking out your tongue and blowing raspberries doesn't count .

    ReplyDelete
  6. "However, the area around the henge, while containing many symbolic and ritual elements,"

    Perhaps you could explain what is this 'ritual element' is without using the words religious or ceremonial?

    Moreover, could you let us know what exactly was this ritual? Who did it involve? How long did it last? what time of year did it begin and end? male or female? young or old? with or without pets? dressed or naked? complete nonsense or just gobbledygook?

    RJL




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You can never own up can you ? even to the most blatant damning evidence .

      "And with every every inquiry such as "why the hell are you excavating here?" there answer incorporated either the words 'ceremonial' or 'religious' like this papers here."
      As might be imagined the paper referred to doen't use either the terms religious or ceremonial once .

      Delete
  7. I have already pointed out the nonsense associated with the claims using supporting evidence . This contrasts with your your evidence free and error full approach .
    In case you didn't understand the first time ,read slowly and note the latest error .
    "why the hell are you excavating here?" there answer incorporated either the words 'ceremonial' or 'religious' like this papers here."
    As might be imagined the paper referred to doen't use either the terms religious or ceremonial once .

    ReplyDelete
  8. I see as you can't explain what is meant by 'ritual element' so you've clearly opted for the "complete nonsense or just gobbledygook?" option?

    In the paper did Gaffney use the words: git, old or senile??

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  9. What are you on ?
    I have already pointed out problems with the Gaffney Chapman ideas when they were first presented ,using data to show the errors , long before you were aware of them .
    Why should I explain the use of their terminology ?
    It has been shown that your earlier comments was ,as usual ,wrong and you can't defend that error ,in common with that error also missing from the paper was , laughable, waste of time and idiot .

    ReplyDelete