Head To Head
Log In
The Modern Antiquarian Forum »
Modern not antiquarian
Log In to post a reply

280 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
5758 posts

Re: The finished circle
Aug 04, 2012, 17:20
bladup wrote:
tiompan wrote:
bladup wrote:
tiompan wrote:
bladup wrote:
tiompan wrote:
bladup wrote:
Littlestone wrote:
Well said that man.

This is a subject in which we share such a common interest and such a common passion – gawd knows then why it attracts so much agro. Is it because so much is improvable, so consequently we fill the vacuum with our own pet theories, experiences, likes and dislikes? Then get ratty when those things are challenged?


That is better than this place been like some boring academic paper, i really think the idea of this place was against that world as cope wasn't academic , take the truth from that world and add to it with are wonderful imaginations, it all seems to me that it's all got a little too academic, this site has less and less great mystics like paul1970 and the angle people like that come from in his fieldnotes , it would be really really bad if those peolple felt pushed away because of the closed soul world of academics, i feel this may be happening, which is such a shame as even the modern antiquarian could be pulled apart by so called academics, and look what a wonderful book that has been for so many of us.

Giving rein to the imagination is fine and as long as nothing is said that is falsifiable there is nothing to say e.g. “prehistoric stone circles were built on energy grids detectable only by the initiated “ might be pompous mystic nonsense but difficult to disprove and best left alone . If a comment is falsifiable e.g. “ the Stonehenge avenue is aligned on the major standstill “ then expect to be put right .Allowing them to propagate in the public domain is unfair to lay readers and muddies the water .
Rudeness is in inverse proportion to content and a sure sign that the “ruder “ has little to argue with ,because of that , whilst not welcomed , it can be viewed positively and usually is .
The same can be applied to any work whether religious or otherwise . Evidence ibased understanding is not the same as being academic .
Is a "closed soul " someone who disagrees with scripture / what you happen to believe .

A closed soul is just someone who only uses their mind even though the soul may be saying something else, and sometimes rudeness comes into play not because the "non rude one is right" but because the non rude one has been rude by not reading properly and is acting very condescendingly, like i said the modern antiquarian itself could be pulled apart by so called experts but look how it's helped lots of us - just because something may be wrong in parts DOES NOT make it invalid, so much of what people thought in the past was proven wrong and so will a lot of things the so called experts think now be proven bollocks in the future- this to me is a true fact, everyone should keep an open mind, hinduism was around when the last stonehenge was built and they have lots of mystics and colour, our country may have been colourful like there world , but the colours may never be proven and the ancients world to a lot of people would be a bit grey, just because they can't prove the colour, doesn't mean you can't imagine all the colours.

Thats the point , get rid of the mistakes . e.g. "Stone circles have nothing left in them " and "Archaeologists don't like excavating them because not a lot is going to be there" . Dyes were limited but the important colours of nature were the same as they are today (even the 1940 's weren't all grey and smoke ) and we are finding colour, not imagining it , i.e. paint in Orkney to go along with the choice of axe heads and stone used in monuments .

NO NO - the point is the so called mistakes are sometimes right [and colour the debate], who decides it's a mistake and what right do they really have, like i said the so called experts are proven wrong time and time again [often with technology], that in itself is clearly enough to take what they say with a pinch of salt, the same as with a layman [who are sometimes proven right].

There are mistakes of interpretation that are superceded by new information which provides a better model than the previous one , e.g. "Stonehenge was built by the Mycenaeans "etc . There are other mistakes that are just simply wrong and due to a misunderstanding of information that was available at the time e.g. “Stone circles have nothing left in them “ . After all these posts do you still stand by that ?

You can't prove it wasn't built by the mycenaeans, like in the old books everything was built by the danes, they may have been for all we know as it's hard to prove otherwise [ they --the danes-- would have been here by then... their boats were big enough] , this is something that has been rubbished on rubbish grounds, and yes of cause i stand by it because it's right-- the stone circle builders had their circles kept clear the earlier and later peoples did not.

The original belief that Stonehenge was built in the Bronze Age led to the association with Mycenae which was flourishing at that time . Colin Renfrew ,without the aid of RC dating destroyed that myth in “Wessex without Mycenae “ the sort of paper that only an expert could write . Mycenae didn't exist when Stonehenge was built , Renfrew didn't need them but RC dates put paid to that idea . Mycenaeans built Stonehenge is a mistake as is “Stone circles have nothing left in them “ or in a different category of mistake "Archaeologists don't like excavating them because not a lot is going to be there"
Topic Outline:

The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index