@@ThePrehistoryGuys I think that could be debated... But anyway, have you seen this from last Nov ? ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-IEFTJvC4r4A.html
The fascination for me lies in the routes they took, be it the blue stones or the larger from the West Woods. The route surveyors of the time if you will. Now that I would love a video of!... if not I'll make one myself... ;-).
Hi Paul and Rebecca, You may be interested in an (unfinished) post I have been writing, regarding the route of the bluestones through Wales, on my blog Mabinogion Astronomy. The Mabinogion is a collection of 11 tales written in middle Welsh to be found in two manuscripts: The White Book of Rhydderch and The Red Book of Hergest. The oldest of these tales is called Culhwch and Olwen. It predates Geoffrey of Monmouth's 'History' and is the earliest known prose tale in any language which tells of King Arthur. Part of this tale concerns a hunt for a magical boar known as the Twrch Trwyth. Arthur, his men, horses and hounds chase the boar across the south Wales landscape from the river Nevern in the west to the river Severn in the east. Many places names are mentioned in between these rivers, these places can be pinpointed on Google Earth and the route can therefore be traced with some certainty. Whilst compiling this route I noticed with some surprise that the route passes through and incorporates Craig Rhos y Felin, Carn Goedog and Cerrig Marchogion, the recently discovered sources in the Preselis for the Stonehenge bluestones, the boar's route also passes through the valley at the eastern end of the Senni Beds where the Altar Stone is now thought to have been sourced. There are several other coincidences. Does this route commemorate the Welsh leg of the route of the bluestones? You can read more about my findings here: mabinogionastronomy.blogspot.com The relevant post is titled: The Route of the Twrch Trwyth and the Bluestones
The BBC documentry was very good and the work done by Mike Parker Pearson is beyond question, however the more you discover the more you realise you don't know. Keep it up guys.
That Geoffrey of Monmouth connection is hilarious. It sounds like something straight out of a Graham Hancock book. Except this time, it's from the mouth of Mike P Pearson. I love it!
My father who is a bricklayer and is 80 years old used to have to build demonstration walls to show brick and mortar combinations so people could decide what they liked once they saw it. As far as I know they didn't have 3d modeling back then so maybe that's why.
The BBC programme ignored the small bluestone circle which was erected at the River Avon end of the Avenue and was subsqeuently dismantled and reportedly incorporated in Stone Henge proper.
I think what’s important is that there was something very special about the bluestones, not the stones in and of themselves, but the place, the ground, they came from, to the people who built Stonehenge. Obviously, the area in the immediate vicinity of the bluestone quarry was a sacred space. The question is why. Is there any special or odd things left in the landscape to indicate why? Is there a spring, a river, a hill, cave, a gorge, an unusual rock formation near that quarry or that potential original circle to be so important that the people absolutely had to transfer the stones?
I heard that in the early medieval period, Western Wales was considered to be part of Ireland... which gets the noggin joggin even more when you read that Merlin moved the 'giants dance' from Ireland - adds some credence to it I suppose.
Maybe it was like those pre made log houses, the ones that are built at factory site, then each piece is numbered it is then disassembled and shipped. lol
History and pre history are all about the telling of the story, the narrative, therefore we must consider who, what, why and where the story is being told.
Enjoyed the discussion, the 4 stones left behind puzzled me too when I watched that recent video, but on an entirely different subject matter from Wales can you put the 'Red Lady of Paviland' in to some perspective
Always good to step back and apply a bit of critical thinking, food for thought there chaps. Of course, the BBC have a programme to make and a very wide audience to appeal to. I notice you provide a link to the programme but not to the published research involved (sorry, not my field but I assume this is now published and if so, I hope open access?). Since you are debating these interpretations but caveat with your respect for Mike Parker Pearson, it would be great if you could point us to where we can find his own write-up (and ideally try to get him involved in your podcast, that would be a fascinating g discussion I'm sure).
What if they were doing a mock up build to have a general blueprint, before moving the lot to the site on Salisbury Plain? Or maybe a sort of ritual process to signify this is where we were from, and then when they arrived where the stones currently reside, a sort of this is where we have brought our ancestors to be honored, is done before doing the annual solstice celebrations using Woodhenge and the stones.
Hmmm, as you put it in that way, I'd have to say gospel, certainly not. However, I believe that a true "open mind" does not subsequently resort to making churlish sport of the thoughts of others, but rather takes all potentially relevant information as a whole . . . I believe this presentation falls short in that regard. This of course by way of trying to exercise MY "open mind". Perhaps there is an intent here that I do not understand.
Because some of the blue stones (the tonge and groove and the lintel ones) strongly appear to have been in a different setting before ... are you suggesting 1) they may have been set up at Stonehenge as a previous circle ... 2) They were set up previously in Wales or somewhere else, but not where proposed by MPP ... 3) They never was a previous setting? Or is your point that MPP just doesn't have sufficient evidence for his interpretation?
Michael here. We're not suggesting anything here beyond looking further than the point that the BBC show arrived at. We believe there are positions that are far more nuanced than the one presented (including in MPP's own paper). We're just highlighting that there are questions to be answered about the evidence that weren't presented in the documentary, not that the conclusions can't be right. For our more considered take on the whole thing - as we said - the podcast will be coming soon.
@@ThePrehistoryGuys cheers thanx for prompt reply - i get your point (its easy to be beguiled and as you said they gotta make a TV programme with a story) I just wondered ... anyway I'll try and get to podcast
I saw the bluestones last year in Tenerife while on holiday, we had a few rum and cokes together and they got on the karaoke. They were quite good, sung with Welsh accents, quite sweet.
@@ThePrehistoryGuys In prepre history their were rolling stones that gathered no moss, like cyclists shaving their legs it reduced wind resistance. The question is how stationary does a standing stone have to be before it's classed as a rolling stone. This could explain why henges had a ditch. It being formed either by the rolling stone or for the rolling stone, a circular posthole or technically a rut .
Hi guys...do you think the apparent correlation between Thornborough orions belt and the pyramids coincidence or evidence of a deep connection between ancient civilisations? Best wishes and take care
I couldn't make sense of the dating evidence in the original paper. Both the luminescence and C14 data showed a huge range of dates, most of which they just discarded (they discarded 27 C14 dates and kept four - all of which gave the answer they wanted). I hope you'll be breaking that down.
The dating is a mess. As at Rhosyfelin and Carn Goedog, the dating falsifies the hypothesis. You cannot just cherry pick the odd date that suits you -- such as the dating of the famous hazel nut!!
@@angelmountain1832 Right, but I don't want to get preoccupied with the hazelnut, daft though it is. It's the central dating that I can't understand from the paper. Maybe it's legit, but I can't see how they chose the tiny subset of sample dates, and ignored others - ranging from the early stone age to the mediaeval period..
@@johnwinward2421 It's not legit at all to cherry pick just a few dates that happen to be convenient to your central hypothesis. The same team did the same thing at Rhosyfelin and Carn Goedog -- out of a mass of radiocarbon dates they ignored all the inconvenient ones and homed in on those that fitted the ruling hypothesis. Unacceptable -- and as some of us have pointed out, the hypothesis is falsified by the dating. All that vis shown at all 3 sites is a long history of intermittent occupation by the local residents from the Mesolithic to modern times.
Wee question if anyone can pick it up for me.... In the docu, the point was made or alluded to that the South/South West of the UK was the start of this Stone Circle 'Culture' which was always the given thought or perception (probably due to stonehenge's stature) but my understanding of the UK's Prehistory is that it's now believed this 'culture' started in the North and moved South? I maybe miss understood so please clarify for moi. Many thanks ☺️
Hi Steven, Rupert here. I'm not sure exactly what we were talking about for this reference, but we do know that Coldrum in Kent, at nearly 6,000 years old, is the oldest known megalithic structure in Britain. As for oldest circles, this is constantly being reassessed because so few of them have been scientifically dated.
@@ThePrehistoryGuys sorry, I ment in the BBC docu not yours 😉 Thanks for the info ☺️ I'm learning not to take what's said in history TV programs as literally as is said as it leaves you believing a certain theory and as you say, that leads to no more questions being asked 👌
Ahhh, sorry, I misunderstood. Just to add to the confusion, if we're talking about circle culture specifically, the circles generally considered to be the oldest include Castlerigg in Cumbria and Stenness on Orkney - not really very southerly:)
Had to be a customer of Ugh Mawr's Monumental MFI Branch down at Milford Haven then? Collection Only, bring your own transport Packaging provided, but provide your own tools? j/k. tbh though, if it made any sense at all for a prefab unit in the Prescrlli's, the logical route, to me anyway, would be down the Prescelli's Northwest, to Newport Estuary and onto ships there, rather than Milford, due to the tidal access of the Estuary - a Great sailing Bay Newport, then from there sail round to the Bristol Channel and the River Avon. Still with the stone from a failed loading found at Milford, I suppose it's a failed Hypothesis. Bob. 🙂👍🏴
11:30 This definite seems to be referencing Stone Henge but says they were moved from Ireland, not Wales, and in fact possibly as far away as from Africa (!?). This later point seems to be a reference to the Irish origin myth of their people being from Africa (likely Morocco) in pre-Roman times.
Looking forward to the March podcast. I hope you can be less dismissive of the seminal work done by Pearson, Ixer, Bevins and the many others who have conducted this research over many years. The idea of a pre-existing bluestone circle in or near the Preseli's is not new, like the stones themselves, it is a long standing hypothesis. Could you touch upon the route, or routes, the stones may have taken through South Wales, Pearson has suggested the A40 corridor. If you're interested I have an alternative suggestion.
Seminal work? What does that mean? Do you mean the work that is so precious to the research team that they cannot even bring themselves to acknowledge that much of their evidence is heavily disputed? They cannot even bring themselves to cite other peer--reviewed papers they they happen to find inconvenient........
@@angelmountain1832 Ah, Mr Brian John. Spitting teeth as usual. You cannot bring yourself to admit that the glacial hypothesis has been thoroughly debunked, can you? But is this really the forum to conduct this tiresome debate? I think not. You can contact me through my blog or email address if you'd like to have further discussion. Respect and kind regards, (Another) John from Carmarthen.
So, I can't claim you stole my wagon wheel just because it's the same size as the hubcaps on your car? ;-) Joking aside, I thought the Blue Stones take on a blue tinge when they're wet?
Glad you're commenting on this, and now looking forward to your podcast. You guys are great, thank you for all your hard work which you seem to thoroughly enjoy!
Perhaps if Professor Parker Pearson BA, PhD, FBA, FSA, FSA Scot, MIFA had spoken to you before rushing to the press, you could have advised him of his mistakes, backed up by a reference to your own qualifications and background in research.
Ah, the old argumentum ad verecundiam falacy. And anyway, we're not accusing him of making a mistake, merely pushing an interpretation as established fact. Read his own paper on the subject in question - it's a world away from what appeared on the BBC.
@@ThePrehistoryGuys the thing, though, is that in this video, you also fail to give archaeological arguments for what you think is wrong with Pearson's evidence. For example, you don't explain why the hazelnut evidence doesn't work. This would require a simple (but convincing) contextual analysis but you just dismiss it with a joke (argument ad absurdo?). To someone with field experience, though, that strongly suggests that you don't actually understand the concepts of stratigraphy and context (first lesson in an archaeology class) otherwise you wouldn't have dismissed the hazelnut that way. I feel you are actually quite vague in your own explanations which is unfortunate. Saying "that's not how science works" is not enough, I would expect you to explain why.
okay, the blue stones aren't blue, the entire Stonehenge isn't a henge, despite the word henge being derived from stone circle at Stonehenge, it was defined to exclude Stonehenge. I'm starting to get the feeling that archeology is just a way for geologists to work without being bothered while they plan practical jokes on the languages academics.
The thing I really respect about you guys is that you stick to the evidence and don't go slobberingly embracing every fad interpretation. That is, unfortunately, an all too rare quality in the people who inhabit archaeology.
@Brad Lyttle Do you mean read the science or read the interpretations of the science? Which is rather our point: prehistoric archaeology, more than other ‘ologies’, relies on interpretation and the creation of narratives in order to fulfil its purpose. That’s where it gets messy and sometimes critical thinking gets left behind in the battle to win the honours that go along with the ‘best’ interpretation.
@@ThePrehistoryGuys At times, I've noticed scientists following some popular line of thought for a decade or longer, only to find newer scientists shifting the direction of the dialogue into a different, newer popular line of thought. I suppose it's because i am old enough to have lived through a number of such shifts that i tend to be a tad bit...skeptical (for lack of a better word) sometimes.
@@ThePrehistoryGuys On this we agree. This archeologists hypothesis seems rather optimistic and precariously built on tenuous data, but he admits the challenges of having a severe lack of datable evidence in his paper and pursues his line of reasoning as a working hypothesis. Scientific methodology requires tireless testing and data collection. They still have a lot of work to do. He and his team may well reach (some day) a Eureka moment, or not. Exciting times in prehistoric archeology.
Archeologists always say "I Believe" before any statement they make. In this is is a bit like religion. There is belief, and there is fact. Fire burns, fact, God exists, belief. Is the archeology surrounding the new discoveries about the blue stones fact, or belief. If archelogy is only a perpetually speculative pastime, then I am not sure it should be called a science at all.
pp really is a person of his time, in 20 years all this 'inventive' archaeology will be discredited and replaced with something entirely new, reflecting that particular time. It is the way.
That would be me. Just look at these comments smearing MPP's reputation by people who didn't even bother reading the scientific paper. This was to be expected.
Of course the BBC documentary is vulgarized and easy to shoot down. However, the scientific paper itself is not so easy to debunk. Some of you watching this video might think the whole theory as described in the scientific paper is bonkers or tenuous. I can tell you it is not. At least one stone from Waun Mawn was moved to Stonehenge, this is at this moment in time the most valid hypothesis. If anyone has a better hypothesis for this specific bluestone standing at Stonehenge today then let's see their argumentation. Contrary to what this video tries to make you believe Parker Pearsons theory is not falling or standing with the carbon dating of some hazel nuts. It's very thoroughly argumented and framed into a much larger theory of migration. The fact only one stone was moved from Waun Mawn is addressed in the paper and will require more research - it does not invalidate the theory whatsoever. I encourage anyone to read the scientific paper itself before throwing it out the window as some wild goose chase by an archaeologist who read the tales of Geoffrey of Monmouth.
There is a much more logical and sensible hypothesis in that the bluestone boulders are glacial erratics deposited in the west country during some ice age or other. There is published research to suggest that the ice sheets moved from west to east. The bluestones at Stonehenge are mostly rounded stumps, not the tall pillars found at Carn Goeddog. There is nothing magical about these particular rocks that would warrant dragging them anywhere, never mind following some imaginery ancient A40. They were rocks found in the locality and used close to where they found. Everything else is just nonsense and make believe. Nobody needs to quarry rocks from anywhere in the Preseli Hills, boulders and outcrops litter the place. MPP has has wasted 10 years of his life on this paricular wild goose chase.
@@cysgodycastell Seems you didn't bother reading the paper at all. There is evidence of migration from this region to the Salisbury Plain region documented in that paper. On top of that it makes a strong case for the architecture and dimensions of the Bluestone circle at stonehenge having been inspired by the configuration at Waun Mawn. These stones ending up there by glacial forces is just laughable. The odds nature would by accident deposit this many bluestones suitable to create what we see today is tremendously slim. There is general consensus these bluestones were quarried in Wales. That's not even disputed by anyone. Read the paper or even better write a peer review of MPP's work which you seem to consider a lunatic and a man wasting his time. What are your qualifications that permit you to make such a gratuitous smear (except for being inspired by this video which I consider to be one of the Prehistory Guys worst)?
I hope we didn’t come across as debunking either the film or MPP’s paper. The doc was excellent. It told its story well. However, it’s not nearly as nuanced as the paper (I wouldn’t expect for t to be) and must inevitably gloss the narrative. In doing so, it came across as more certain in its conclusions that any reading of the paper would lead you to believe. I think you’ll find we’ll be referring the paper in out upcoming podcast and lauding the years of research that have gone into it. We will certainly not be debunking it. As the paper does, we’d like the audience to be left with a far more nuanced understanding of the facts and a more open ended set of possibilities than the film.
@@anonymous-rj6ok I suggest you do some serious reading this. The "Antiquity" paper does not do what you claim -- it's assumption piled on assumption, with no evidence of any link between Waun Mawn and Stonehenge. The proto=Stonehenge idea is completely unnecessary, and only emerged because of the chaotic jumble of radiocarbon dates at Rhosyfelin and Carn Goedog. There is not a general consensus that the bluestones were quarried anywhere. You misunderstand the glacial transport hypothesis.
@@ThePrehistoryGuys "I hope we didn’t come across as debunking either the film or MPP’s paper." You can just read the comments here and find out it did come across that way. A lot of people think they got a free ticket to ridicule MPP's work now. No link to the paper either which one would expect if you are aiming to offer a nuanced point of view. Seems like this video needs some nuancing. Not to mention you are misrepresenting the papers content. You guys keep saying "the stone circle was moved", "the stones" (plural), "the circle transported as one". The paper does not make any assertion whatsoever the entire Waun Mawn circle was dismantled and moved. Then why present it like that? It only speaks on one stone from that specific site. This is at least misleading if not deliberately creating a straw man. Then you go on casting shade on the theory by stating "what about the other stones at Waun Mawn?" "the maths don't work" while the paper itself acknowledges that fact and offers a plausible hypothesis to explain that away which you neglect to mention. Next you go on stating the dating of a hazel nut shell is the hinge of the entire theory which is just false. "It's a reach, it's sketchy, it's tenuous, not scientific reasoning" - not debunking you say? I could go on, this upload just wasn't your best and I think if you read these comments you might agree. You totally misrepresented MPP's theory and you know it.
Am I the only one who put this 'revelation' into the category of ,' just another theory' without watching the programme or going beyond the headlines? My time spent reading the many learned books about Stonehenge taught me that they cannot all be right because their theories conflict. In truth they probably all are wrong. My serious doubts started when I read Professor Thom's work on astronomical alignments. His theories, which I still warm to but do not wholly accept, rely on stones over a metre wide being reduced to a point from where a measurement is taken. I use my brain when reading such stuff now. Is it arrogance, from someone without any qualifications, to 'know' that the experts are often anything but. Perhaps it is the child in me looking at the emperor with no clothes on. Who knows? What I do know is that neolithic man was anything but a savage. I wish I could time travel. I could learn a lot from him. On the other hand, perhaps he was as driven,as many stupid people are today,- spending huge amounts of time and effort on projects that make no sense to anyone other than the designer and promoter. I look at our wonderful churches and the elite priests running the show and see a great similarity. Perhaps the skulls found on archaeological digs with their brains bashed in were the unbelievers who could not be tolerated by the rich controllers. Now there is a lesson to learn from that eh!.?
Hello John, Rupert here. I agree with you on every point. It is certainly not arrogance for any educated layperson to disagree with any expert. Michael and I disagree with an uncomfortable amount of the accepted theories and in the absence of solid evidence, any practical theory is as valid as any other. Your point about lack of precision, using Thom as an example, is absolutely crucial here. The simple truth is that the rest of the structures have all rotted away. There are always missing horizontals. It is those long-vanished ingredients that would help to clarify much of this and who knows what new technologies might reveal in the future? All best, R
yeah a lot more work needed , a little observation few early neolithic tombs in lakes and peak districts but lots of late neolithic stone circles , wales hundreds of early neo tombs very few circles in comparison does this show signs of large movement of poeple ? something major seems to happen around 3300bc , attaking and destruction of causeway enclosures in the west county , the change to passage tombs , stone circles and grove ware pottery along the whole west coast of britain and east coast of ireland ,with the possible large movement of people . fascinating mystery.
