Last month’s bit of fun about Frittenden set me thinking of
some of the other archaeology-based trickery that has been perpetrated over the
years. Recently the National Trust tried to persuade us that twice every year
they move one of the stones at Avebury to allow for British Summer Time which,
of course, the original builders of the monument did not know about. Effective
April foolery often relies on the po-faced establishment status of the National
Trust or English Heritage and other august bodies – we trust them implicitly.
A
similar hoax was perpetrated in 1991 when the Daily Mail reported the following
under the headline: Stonehenge faces a new dawn today.
“To correct the
misalignment caused by the gradual slowing of the Earth's rotation, the
world-famous monument is to be dismantled and re-assembled on another site of
similar prominence. The plan to transport the stones, which attract 700,000
visitors every year, has outraged conservation groups and caused a split in the
Ancient Society…. A consortium of Tokyo businessmen is
believed to have offered 484billion yen (2billion) for the monument, saying it
will enhance Japan's status as the Land of the Rising Sun when re-sited on top
of sacred Mount Fuji…. So sensitive are
the stones that archaeologists have ruled they must be moved in exactly the
same way they were erected. Thousands of labourers will be hired and trained in
prehistoric building techniques.”
Photos can be helpful in making hoaxes more convincing (I've
no idea where Rob found his tourist sign for the treacle mine article but it
added a satisfying veneer of veracity to the tale). Even being on social media
can add to a story’s weight. In 2015 Justbod pasted a story on Facebook
claiming that Stonehenge was having a roof installed over it to protect it from
the weather, with some pretty convincing architect’s impressions. Others have
used early photographs of renovation work at Stonehenge to claim that it was
erected between the 1930s and 50s and even claim that the whole monument is
made out concrete. In 2013 a furore was caused when it was announced by English Heritage that adverts would be projected against the stones at night to increase revenue. There was a strange compulsion to believe this simply because many people feel that EH is becoming too commercial – too worried about chasing the cash and turning its sites into theme parks.
If astrological alignments are the ‘in’ thing, then we will want to explain sites in those terms. And if space race tragedies are your bag, here is a preview of next year’s SHAAS April Fool hoax – the wreckage of a failed Russian Voshkod mission of 1964, photographed at a secret location near Lamberhurst earlier this year. The crew miraculously survived because the capsule first landed on a hayrick before sliding into a muck heap. Unbelievable eh?
In hindsight we can all spot a hoax but at the time it may not be quite as easy.
Piltdown Man worked as a hoax because Darwinism was a new science and people felt the need to find fill in the ‘gaps’ in the historic record. In the end we believe what we want to believe. If we want to explain an archaeological site we can construct any theory we like and then search for the facts to prove it.
By Charlie Bell