Discussione: Re: Stonehenge
Visualizza messaggio singolo
  #1  
Vecchio 19-09-2014, 13.44.53
Martin
 
Messaggi: n/a
Predefinito Re: Stonehenge

On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 11:00:11 +0100, Mike Swift <mike.swift@yeton.co.uk> wrote:
[color=blue]
>In article <1ls7aca.3qfzrw115aww0N%Howard.not@home.com>, Howard
><Howard.not@home.com> writes[color=green]
>>Fascinating program in parts but infested with romantisisatin and rampant
>>nationalistic speculation delivered as fact. Why can't these archeologists be
>>more like scientists and less like self promoters.[/color]
>
>Indeed, a good programme not ruined but approaching comedy, the chap
>dressed like a native American made me smile, I half expected The Long
>Ranger to ride over the horizon.
>
>I agree they make some huge guesses about its use, what's wrong with it
>being some sort of market/parliament, why religious, I timed it last
>week, it was about 20 minutes in before votive offering was mentioned.[/color]

I wish archeologists would stick to the facts and not attribute everything to
religious ceremonies. The evidence for human sacrifice was flimsy. You could
just as well say that Richard III was killed in a human sacrifice.
The claims that only children could have done the decoration of a dagger handle,
turned out to be the opinion of a nano artist, who said that it had to be made
by people who were under 21, not just children. Not sure where he got 21 from my
eyesight changed to the point where I needed reading glasses, when I was in my
early forties. The long palisade was interesting. How could they know that some
of the posts were seven metres high. The explanation of what it was for was
laughable
--

Martin in Zuid Holland



Rispondi citando Condividi su facebook
Links Sponsorizzati
Advertisement