Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

No, you understood correctly, I just hadn't read about the re-analysis.
Dear oh dear, marks off for me!

The rock art and monuments themselves are evidence enough for me as to what substances the natives were drinking before the beer and mead came [and after], and the first alcohol may well have started in the classic beaker, but people still had drinking vessels before then, what do you think was in them ritually? as normally it would be dandelion tea or something, but not for ritual, you could argue that ALL ritual comes originally from hallucinogens, like Evergreen said a lack of evidence doesn't mean it wasn't happening, and how can anybody know or find anything out if they're not allowed [which you don't] to speculate, it's all really really sad - this prove it or it isn't true lark, why not have it this way - you fucking prove it isn't true - i bet you can't [and we all know why!!!].

The rock art and monuments themselves are evidence enough for me as to what substances the natives were drinking before the beer and mead came [and after], and the first alcohol may well have started in the classic beaker, but people still had drinking vessels before then, what do you think was in them ritually? as normally it would be dandelion tea or something, but not for ritual, you could argue that ALL ritual comes originally from hallucinogens, like Evergreen said a lack of evidence doesn't mean it wasn't happening, and how can anybody know or find anything out if they're not allowed [which you don't] to speculate, it's all really really sad - this prove it or it isn't true lark, why not have it this way - you fucking prove it isn't true - i bet you can't [and we all know why!!!].

I'm going back again now..

Having fully read the paper, it is not the case that Balfarg has been shown not to be an example at all, more that the attempted replication did not prove it.

"It is possible that the residue differed markedly in pollen and macrofossil content across the sherd and this explanation may account for the small cache of henbane seeds identified in the first study (Moffat 1993)."

It seems there is the possibility that the first study correctly identified black henbane, but the 2nd could not confirm it.

Fair?

I think it should be made clear there is only one person being repeatedly, crudely offensive on this thread Roy. Let us not blame the forum.

The conclusion was "Although palaeobotany has the potential to be used in support of theories of hallucinogenic drug use in prehistory in statistically reliable ways, it has not succeeded in doing so at this site."

I was speaking to someone involved with the second paper recently ,and their reaction was one of disappointment about the results .
What is interesting is that the original was 1993 it was refuted in in 1999 yet we only hear of the 1993 comment ,the refutation has been around twice as long .

Well, as you'll know, the more sensational discovery is obviously going to receive more attention on the average megalithic site, thats just the way the world works unfortunately.
It would be nice if things were balanced in that sense, but I suppose its a lesson in choosing sources carefully.
I hadn't read about the 1999 study, but that may be because it was fairly early on in my interest in the subject. But its a shame, info on the re-analysis should be as obvious in any search as the initial claim is in blogs, news sites etc, without having to seek out the individual papers.