This is a common phenomenon in archaeology,Raymond, attributing wild claims
based on little or no substansive evidence. There is a large rock
assemblage on Salisbury Plain to which has been attributed the label of
ritual though there is very little evidence to support the notion. Worse
still it has been attributed a name without any verification that it was
originally called it. People who now visit the site are led into the false
belief that it is its original name, but it could have been anything.
Looking at the monster sized rocks and the apparently popular namings of
bronze age man it might be more logical to call it 'Frankenstone'.
On 15 Dec 2014 19:37, "Raymond Nilson" <[log in to unmask]>
> This sort of story is interesting up to a point. However, to put it
> colloquially, it really winds me up when I see these stories in the media.
> Why do we persist to allow such pontificating reporting regarding
> archaeology? How on earth do we know this human was a chief? Did they build
> a time machine and go back and ask him? Moreover, modern western
> superficial conceptions of 'seniority' would most-likely have been
> completely dichotomous to these groups in the past. The article states,
> nonetheless, that the information they have provided is 'fact' advocated by
> science. It appears that they know everything about this man. Do they also
> know his name? Was it Frank?
> Ray (BA, MA).
> Doctoral Research Student
> Archaeology, School of Arts, Languages and Cultures,
> University of Manchester
> From: British archaeology discussion list [[log in to unmask]] on
> behalf of John Wood [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 15 December 2014 16:20
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [BRITARCH] Racton Man
> A nice little write up on the BBC website:
> And will be appearing on BBC South Today tonight.
> Particular interest to me as I used to live in the parish.