Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

But the comment has shown to be wrong .That's how science works , it is never "right" just continually providing better models of reality . It's only the those who use non falsifiable comments that can't be wrong .No our opinion is worthless compared to those who anything about it .

We have to rely on excavation and RC dating to find the actual sequence , guesswork and estimations even from the experienced expert can be shown to be wrong .
Getting a date for the Boskednan cist does not date the circle .
Stone circles have been erected at sites that had seen earlier activity that the builders would have been aware of , and that activity may well have been the reason for choosing to build the monument at the site in the first place . Stone circles built within clearly visible earlier monuments are obvious examples e.g. Arbor Low , Stonehenge , Broomend of Crichie (where burials were also found in the stone sockets ) , Newgrange , Moncrieffe ,Clava (where the sequence shows that the stone circles were erected soon after the ring cairns were built ) .
Neolithic pottery was found in a shallow scoop underneath the recumbent and in the socket of a fallen orthostats as well as other contexts at Daviot . Excavations from the 1990's showed that at Tomnaverie the old land surface was covered with burnt soil , comminuted charcoal and fragments of human bone , this was covered by a cairn and platform in which monoliths were stood , under the recumbent charcoal produced a date of 2498-2432 BC. Although there were further use of the site in the Late Bronze Age and 16&17th C ad the last structure was the RSC with the recumbent being last of that . The sequence and date was not what was generally expected and the findings were repeated at Cothiemur Wood where the the ring cairn was seen as the first structure followed by the stone circle similar results were discovered at Aikey Brae . It would only take one example to refute “Stone circles have nothing left in them “ . And clearly the effort put in and interest shown by the archaeologists who chose to excavate these places including the findings of earlier and contemporaneous material refutes “thats why archeologists don't like them]
and when they do find stuff it's from a different age [romans liked leaving coins] to when the circle was built, “

No silly you would have to date the circle as well [boskednan] - the recumbents are a class of their own as i think the stone circle is always secondry to the recumbent itself, like the stone circles are secondry to the clava cairns [sometimes they don't even have the circle do they?]. In other places the stone circle [the "true" ones] was all important. Of couse archeologists interested in prehistory would like them [as we would- it's the same], the average archeologist less so - as there's not going to be much there [oh no i said it].

Now we're getting somewhere and i proudly stick to everything i have wrote, i think you are wrong and the the future will prove me right-- i am entitled to my opinion as are you.

We might be entitled to an opinion it doesn't mean it should be necessarily meaningful or worth considering .
Where was I wrong ?
According to you "....will probably be proved bollocks in 500 years, because that's how history works " and "the future will prove me right " therefore with that reasoning what you were proved right about will probably be proved bollocks 500 years later .

Your'e the one who said "boskednan's cist/cairn would probably have been put there a 1000 years after the circle stones [ we'll have to wait for it to be dated to prove one of us right] " i.e. prejudging the date of the circle from the date of cist . Hence "Getting a date for the Boskednan cist does not date the circle . "
You might think /believe /imagine the stone circle to be secondary to the recumbent or the stone circle to be secondary to the ring cairns at Clava ( all the ring cairns at Clava have stone circles around them , some Clava cairns i.e. those named after the Clava site don't necessarily ) but that does nothing to change what we know from excavation which among many other suggestions refutes your “Stone circles have nothing left in them “ . I see that
"Stone circles have nothing left in them thats why archeologists don't like them] “ has been moderated to “ Of couse archeologists interested in prehistory would like them “ where the “them “ are stone circles .