That was one of the most informative lectures I've ever seen here! It has changed my mind about a very great deal of things on a subject I thought I knew well, and put the reasons for those changes. in historical and cultural context
Fantastic critique of contemporary notions of Progress and Modernity. I would suggest reading The Racial Contract by Charles Mills, Orientalism by Edward Said, and Restating Orientalism by Wael Hallaq.
I too watched to the end, and was interested in much of the content. But Mike's scrutiny of Stonehenge beliefs was very selective -- and he accepted without any scrutiny at all the quarrying of bluestones at so-called "bluestone megalith quarries" in West Wales, the imagined pillar shapes of the bluestones used in Stonehenge settings, and the imagined transport of 80 or so bluestones from West Wales to Stonehenge. He also rather too easily accepted that the sarsens had come from West Woods. The jury is still out on all those matters, and he should have informed his audience of that.
I wasnt going to bother with this just now but the rather nasty comments changed my mind. Why can folk not disagree using valid reasoning rather than sneering?
An interesting presentation, but it's worth noting that the word 'primitive', properly used, is not pejorative but descriptive. At about 33.10 Mr Pitts says that Bryony Orme's definition of anthropology as "the study of primitive societies" is "unconscious". He seems to mean that it's unconsciously pejorative, but she could easily have been using the word "primitive" with its proper meaning. Why wouldn't she? That, presumably, is her area of study. This is what even Google gives me for the meaning of the word: "relating to human society at a very early stage of development, with people living in a simple way without machines or a writing system". More simply, I also find, ""of or belonging to the first age". Then, at 33.34, Pitts says, "one person who made no bones at all about the primitive nature of the prehistoric world, was a popular writer on stone circles, the late Aubrey Burl". In other words, he is accusing Burl of being judgemental by thinking of prehistoric people as primitive. But 'prehistoric' and 'primitive', though not having exactly the same meaning, are near synonyms. By definition, what is prehistoric, or further back in time, is more likely to be primitive. It's embarrassing that an expert on archaeology apparently doesn't know the meaning of the word 'primitive'.
The people who raised the first stone at Stonehenge experienced an 80-90% genetic displacement that millennium. The Celtic culture Caesar encountered were something very different. This incorrect POV is an important reason why academics have been missing the mark for so long It would be like than saying that Angles, Saxons, and Jutes encountered the people who built Stonehenge and all of those nice Roman baths There was lots of conquest and displacement between the first building of Stonehenge, and the druid culture that Caesar ran into
Excellent presentation! The egotism of modern man has ever been thus. I do not doubt that one of the people working on stonehenge looked over at his colleague and commented how the primitives who made the woodhenge they were replacing were little better than savages.
The reason they compared native Americans to the ancient British is that they didn’t see any themselves as descendants of the “Celts” we now know that the modern English are in fact partly descended for these cultures. They were also in the midst of wiping out the Celtic languages and cultures on the island at the same time they were colonizing the Americas. So this depiction was a story about “civilized” and “uncivilized” used to justify the belief in their own racial superiority and the oppression of the people they were colonizing.
This talk isn't about Stonehenge itself, the lecturer is only concerned with "uncovering" racial biases in the Stonehenge scholarship of previous centuries, and his only evidence for this "racism" is the usage of words like "primitive", which, in reality, were originally neutral and only acquired a negative connotation much later.
Stonehenge: A History 1418pm 2.3.23 i had the misfortune t watch channel 5's expose of sink holes or fire pits as set out near about to the site... 50 minutes musing on what they could be... plague pits? mass cremation pits? chalk mines.. i was left wondering if a set of tunnels could be located beneath the site as a whole? i say unfortunately, as it does seem like these experts are somewhat afraid to ever get to the point... they could come to a conclusion - if only to suggest what it is they think as opposed to mumbling and buggering about and bumbling along to no end. we love the henge those who love it seemingly never having visited it. that's irony, that is........... p.s those modern savages are still with us - driving cars and desiring and craving the bling of the ages - but still savage.
30:13 Someone's been reading his Bible... 50:12 Well, they _were_ primitive and sometimes savage (by modern Western standards). But that's obvious. 51:10 This just reinforces the notion that ancient peoples _were_ primitive (and sometimes savage). 51:48 There's a big difference between "sinful" and primitive (or even savage). 53:04 You British are really big on "primitive means qualitative failings", when it's obvious that primitive means an early stage of development.
I was quite disappointed by this - my fault for misinterpreting what the content would be. I was expecting an update on recent discoveries about Stonehenge based on new scientific data but instead it was a modish and fairly unconvincing attempt to decolonise the history of the site by suggesting that historical interpreters got it wrong because they based their ideas on prejudices formed by their place in the British Empire. This may be partly true but replacing it with an interpretation based instead on present day liberal academic prejudices is probably wrong too. Cancelling the word "primitive" to describe prehistoric people because it is "nonsensically judgemental" and replacing it by the suggestion they were simple "different" to us is an idea but probably best not then to have confusingly quoted with approval from the repressive dictator Hastings Banda who suggested that indeed the builders of Stonehenge were "primitive".
I take the opposite view and saw it as a fascinating and convincing rejection of many of the universally held beliefs about how Stonehenge was built, illustrating where those ideas came from and how they became accepted, at the expense of genuine observation and science. There were no A-Frames and probably no many dozens of coerced people pulling 30 tonne stones over rollers etc. It isn't based on liberal academic prejudices but on practical observations.
The builders of Stonehenge had more primitive technology than we do today but they were the same as us. They had the same intelligence. They were exactly the same species as you. Can you build say a table even using modern power tools? From scratch? Choose the right trees? Cut them down. Season the wood etc. No? But you feel able to comment on peoples skilled enough in using and building with stone to be able to build Stonehenge.
@Play Google How are you defining "Woke"? If by woke you mean a seriously interesting discussion on how the idea of Stonehenge and the people who built it have evolved over time and where those ideas came from, then you're missing out. If you're using "woke" as a pejorative, then academic lectures probably aren't your speed anyway. The UFO and bigfoot channel is to your left as you go out the door and two hallways down.
One might want to discover the connection of Northern painted peoples often called barbarians by peoples closer to the equator. The problem is that nowadays peoples closest to the equator cannot stop the persistent wars & killing from ancient times.
Why is describing ancient cultures as 'alien' any less judgemental than describing them as'primitive'? If only this lecturer had provided as many 'right' answers as he sneered at 'wrong' ones, and acknowedged that guesswork still dominates, informed by contemporary prejudice of course. Disappointing.
@@fullmontyuk a The historical migration theories of British travelers and thinkers during the empire period have been mostly validated by recent DNA discoveries. Said science has also blasted holes in the Marxist theories that followed Throughout history, every tribe has always seen themselves as the greatest. Conquest was seen as proof. Spare everyone the virtue signal hand wringing As imperialist nations go, the British empire was the most humane large scale empire in history.
@@fullmontyuk It's very fair to point out how tedious that is. What other culture has ever played this game of looking into it's own past, then trying to connect any dots, no matter how absurd, for the sake of painting it's own history as a perverse and unjust series of events, driven by a contrived idea of racial superiority that existed nowhere else? So, a great example of this would be...... ...... Wait for it .... Stonehenge. No, seriously For centuries, British children were taught in school that they were the superior, rulling race of the world because Stonehenge. Or who hasn't heard Churchill's famous speech? "We shall fight them on the beaches. We shall fight them in the sky. Remember, we are the builders and keepers of Stonehenge"
Ssnoore.. say Stonehenge 3 x.. 10 x . @ podium you get a degree or a grant or look like a fool repeatedly babbling about stones you don't have or know about about .. tired of this pfft lol
Extraordinary presentation! The best and most informative explanation of the largely parochial myths surrounding Stonehenge.
It was a pleasure to listen to Mike Pitts, and to meet him after when he signed my copy of his book 🙂
That was one of the most informative lectures I've ever seen here! It has changed my mind about a very great deal of things on a subject I thought I knew well, and put the reasons for those changes. in historical and cultural context
Great lecture on archaeology thanks
I enjoyed the historiography in this talk. Very interesting.
Love to listen to you.
Brilliant. Thanks.
Fantastic critique of contemporary notions of Progress and Modernity. I would suggest reading The Racial Contract by Charles Mills, Orientalism by Edward Said, and Restating Orientalism by Wael Hallaq.
Fascinating stuff!
I too watched to the end, and was interested in much of the content. But Mike's scrutiny of Stonehenge beliefs was very selective -- and he accepted without any scrutiny at all the quarrying of bluestones at so-called "bluestone megalith quarries" in West Wales, the imagined pillar shapes of the bluestones used in Stonehenge settings, and the imagined transport of 80 or so bluestones from West Wales to Stonehenge. He also rather too easily accepted that the sarsens had come from West Woods. The jury is still out on all those matters, and he should have informed his audience of that.
I wasnt going to bother with this just now but the rather nasty comments changed my mind. Why can folk not disagree using valid reasoning rather than sneering?
An interesting presentation, but it's worth noting that the word 'primitive', properly used, is not pejorative but descriptive. At about 33.10 Mr Pitts says that Bryony Orme's definition of anthropology as "the study of primitive societies" is "unconscious". He seems to mean that it's unconsciously pejorative, but she could easily have been using the word "primitive" with its proper meaning. Why wouldn't she? That, presumably, is her area of study. This is what even Google gives me for the meaning of the word: "relating to human society at a very early stage of development, with people living in a simple way without machines or a writing system". More simply, I also find, ""of or belonging to the first age". Then, at 33.34, Pitts says, "one person who made no bones at all about the primitive nature of the prehistoric world, was a popular writer on stone circles, the late Aubrey Burl". In other words, he is accusing Burl of being judgemental by thinking of prehistoric people as primitive. But 'prehistoric' and 'primitive', though not having exactly the same meaning, are near synonyms. By definition, what is prehistoric, or further back in time, is more likely to be primitive. It's embarrassing that an expert on archaeology apparently doesn't know the meaning of the word 'primitive'.
The people who raised the first stone at Stonehenge experienced an 80-90% genetic displacement that millennium. The Celtic culture Caesar encountered were something very different. This incorrect POV is an important reason why academics have been missing the mark for so long
It would be like than saying that Angles, Saxons, and Jutes encountered the people who built Stonehenge and all of those nice Roman baths
There was lots of conquest and displacement between the first building of Stonehenge, and the druid culture that Caesar ran into
Excellent presentation! The egotism of modern man has ever been thus. I do not doubt that one of the people working on stonehenge looked over at his colleague and commented how the primitives who made the woodhenge they were replacing were little better than savages.
The reason they compared native Americans to the ancient British is that they didn’t see any themselves as descendants of the “Celts” we now know that the modern English are in fact partly descended for these cultures. They were also in the midst of wiping out the Celtic languages and cultures on the island at the same time they were colonizing the Americas. So this depiction was a story about “civilized” and “uncivilized” used to justify the belief in their own racial superiority and the oppression of the people they were colonizing.
This talk isn't about Stonehenge itself, the lecturer is only concerned with "uncovering" racial biases in the Stonehenge scholarship of previous centuries, and his only evidence for this "racism" is the usage of words like "primitive", which, in reality, were originally neutral and only acquired a negative connotation much later.
Stonehenge: A History 1418pm 2.3.23 i had the misfortune t watch channel 5's expose of sink holes or fire pits as set out near about to the site... 50 minutes musing on what they could be... plague pits? mass cremation pits? chalk mines.. i was left wondering if a set of tunnels could be located beneath the site as a whole? i say unfortunately, as it does seem like these experts are somewhat afraid to ever get to the point... they could come to a conclusion - if only to suggest what it is they think as opposed to mumbling and buggering about and bumbling along to no end. we love the henge those who love it seemingly never having visited it. that's irony, that is........... p.s those modern savages are still with us - driving cars and desiring and craving the bling of the ages - but still savage.
30:13 Someone's been reading his Bible...
50:12 Well, they _were_ primitive and sometimes savage (by modern Western standards). But that's obvious.
51:10 This just reinforces the notion that ancient peoples _were_ primitive (and sometimes savage).
51:48 There's a big difference between "sinful" and primitive (or even savage).
53:04 You British are really big on "primitive means qualitative failings", when it's obvious that primitive means an early stage of development.
Let down by the ridiculous questions chosen at the end.... Honestly.
I was quite disappointed by this - my fault for misinterpreting what the content would be. I was expecting an update on recent discoveries about Stonehenge based on new scientific data but instead it was a modish and fairly unconvincing attempt to decolonise the history of the site by suggesting that historical interpreters got it wrong because they based their ideas on prejudices formed by their place in the British Empire. This may be partly true but replacing it with an interpretation based instead on present day liberal academic prejudices is probably wrong too. Cancelling the word "primitive" to describe prehistoric people because it is "nonsensically judgemental" and replacing it by the suggestion they were simple "different" to us is an idea but probably best not then to have confusingly quoted with approval from the repressive dictator Hastings Banda who suggested that indeed the builders of Stonehenge were "primitive".
Thank you for listening to the end!
I take the opposite view and saw it as a fascinating and convincing rejection of many of the universally held beliefs about how Stonehenge was built, illustrating where those ideas came from and how they became accepted, at the expense of genuine observation and science. There were no A-Frames and probably no many dozens of coerced people pulling 30 tonne stones over rollers etc. It isn't based on liberal academic prejudices but on practical observations.
The builders of Stonehenge had more primitive technology than we do today but they were the same as us. They had the same intelligence. They were exactly the same species as you.
Can you build say a table even using modern power tools? From scratch? Choose the right trees? Cut them down. Season the wood etc. No? But you feel able to comment on peoples skilled enough in using and building with stone to be able to build Stonehenge.
I can dislike the word primitive without cancelling it
@Play Google How are you defining "Woke"? If by woke you mean a seriously interesting discussion on how the idea of Stonehenge and the people who built it have evolved over time and where those ideas came from, then you're missing out.
If you're using "woke" as a pejorative, then academic lectures probably aren't your speed anyway. The UFO and bigfoot channel is to your left as you go out the door and two hallways down.
One might want to discover the connection of Northern painted peoples often called barbarians by peoples closer to the equator. The problem is that nowadays peoples closest to the equator cannot stop the persistent wars & killing from ancient times.
Why is describing ancient cultures as 'alien' any less judgemental than describing them as'primitive'? If only this lecturer had provided as many 'right' answers as he sneered at 'wrong' ones, and acknowedged that guesswork still dominates, informed by contemporary prejudice of course. Disappointing.
I have never heard anyone invoke Stonehenge in times of national crisis.
@@fullmontyuk As in “we English [Britons] go back a long way” and all that implies? That makes sense to me.
Watching intelligent people reflexively regurgitate trendy and ridiculous ideas can be very disheartening
@@fullmontyuk Yes""
@Brien Forester 🎯
@@fullmontyuk a
The historical migration theories of British travelers and thinkers during the empire period have been mostly validated by recent DNA discoveries. Said science has also blasted holes in the Marxist theories that followed
Throughout history, every tribe has always seen themselves as the greatest. Conquest was seen as proof.
Spare everyone the virtue signal hand wringing
As imperialist nations go, the British empire was the most humane large scale empire in history.
@@fullmontyuk
It's very fair to point out how tedious that is.
What other culture has ever played this game of looking into it's own past, then trying to connect any dots, no matter how absurd, for the sake of painting it's own history as a perverse and unjust series of events, driven by a contrived idea of racial superiority that existed nowhere else?
So, a great example of this would be......
...... Wait for it
.... Stonehenge.
No, seriously
For centuries, British children were taught in school that they were the superior, rulling race of the world because Stonehenge.
Or who hasn't heard Churchill's famous speech?
"We shall fight them on the beaches. We shall fight them in the sky. Remember, we are the builders and keepers of Stonehenge"
Not really about Stonehenge.
Ssnoore.. say Stonehenge 3 x.. 10 x . @ podium you get a degree or a grant or look like a fool repeatedly babbling about stones you don't have or know about about .. tired of this pfft lol
Deep.
Thanks for that,...now here's Jim with the weather! 🤣
@@nikbear
🤨"Weather machine""
Complex-HARRP"" 🙄