Head To Head
Log In
Register
The Modern Antiquarian Forum »
Myths, truths and theories - Stonehenge
Log In to post a reply

110 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
nigelswift
8065 posts

Re: Myths, truths and theories - Stonehenge
Sep 05, 2010, 09:11
mountainman wrote:
Littlestone wrote:
Is it not even more magnificent to think of glacier ice playing a significant role in the Stonehenge story? Why do so many people have a problem with that?


Some people might have a problem with that but I'm not one of them. Nor do I have a problem with imagining that the Bluestones were moved manually. But what about you? Are you saying, categorically, that the Bluestones could not have been moved manually from Preseli to Stonehenge?


I would never use the word "impossible" -- but what we are talking about here is weight of evidence, and probabilities. This is not something one can quantify, but if pressed I would say it is now 90% probable that glacier ice carried the stones from West Wales to the Somerset - Wilts area (up from 80% a year ago, in view of the extra geology now available, showing that there are stones and fragments from even more localities on Salisbury Plain). What is the weight of evidence and probability of the stones having been moved all the way by human agencies? Maybe 10% at best?


No no no no (with respect!) You can't validly put percentages on unknowns.
It's like saying it's 90% (or 10% or 99.9%) likely there are aliens out there.

The only sensible approach is to assess if a particular scenario "could have" happened and I guess both scenarios (and a big spectrum of hybrid ones) could have happened.

To say human agency is only 10% likely is based on what precisely? (bearing in mind there have been scores of successful stone moving exercises worldwide)
Topic Outline:

The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index