The collapse of the Preselite Myth: axe studies show that spotted dolerite was NEVER considered special or sacred

 

Stone axes come in many shapes and sizes.  Those that were made of "bluestone" were  strictly used as tools and were broken, re-fashioned sometimes, maybe sharpened, and then thrown away, having zero value or ritual significance.  In contrast, stone items from elsewhere that were prized evolved over time into ritual or ceremonial items, in highly polished versions, and associated with high status.  Such prized items are significantly missing from the British Preselite or bluestone axe catalogue, demonstrating that the very few bluestone axes that were made were throwaway items that had no value.  

=================

I have been digging deeply into the geological and archaeological debitage (appropriate word) at Stonehenge, and am appalled by what I have discovered.  So what is it?  Nothing less than the smashed up and discredited remains of a grandiose and totally false narrative.

Let's start with the Wilsford G54 ceremonial battle axe.  I have dealt with it briefly in another post, but on digging deeper I found this, from the English Heritage text:  

"Material: Spotted dolerite... It is made of the same material as the bluestones at Stonehenge and may well have been fashioned from a piece of one of these stones." 

The Wilsford ceremonial battle axe -- not Neolithic, and not Preselite......

As EH must know, this is a falsehood. The South-West Implement Petrology Group classified it in the County Register WILTS44 as an unspotted, medium-grained dolerite (diabase), lacking the characteristic macrophenocrysts of altered plagioclase feldspar that define the "spotted" Preselite (Group XIII) facies. While it is geochemically a dolerite within the broader Welsh/regional igneous spectra (Group XXIII), it is visually and texturally unspotted. It's also dated to the Bronze Age, not the Neolithic.

Back in 1999 (and in later years) Olwen Williams-Thorpe and others had already targetted museum pieces labelled visually as "Preselite" and had proved that multiple implements in Wiltshire collections —including unspotted variants like the Wilsford battle-axe—did not demonstrate a single provenance. Instead, they matched a wider, fragmented geological signature perfectly consistent with raw material collection from naturally scattered glacial drift deposits..

Williams-Thorpe, O., Potts, P.J., and Webb, P.C., 1999. Field-portable non-destructive X-ray fluorescence analysis of stone axe-heads. Journal of Archaeological Science, 26(2), pp. 215-237.

So EH is peddling a false narrative concerning the sacred or special nature of spotted dolerite at Stonehenge, as others have promoted the label "Preselite" for a special rock type from a specific place in West Wales and used for the manufacture of prized stone axes.   This has all the makings of a very murky business.  So where did the myth of the Preselite axes  come from?

I have been confused about this for some time.  In many of my posts I have referred to "Preselite" and to group XIII axes, but specific literature is distinctly lacking, and there are hardly any images of Preselite axes in circulation.  So where are these axes, and why are they apparently all being hidden away in museum cardboard boxes rather than being displayed as sacred or ritual objects?

More to the point, if bluestones (and especially those referred to as spotted dolerite or Preselite) were deemed to be special or sacred enough to be quarried in West Wales and for 80 of them to be hauled to Stonehenge, where are the axes that demonstrate their ritual significance?   Well, it turns out that there are very few of them in existence -- maybe 30 or 40 at the most -- and that these are not sophisticated works of art like the Wilsford Axe, but rough and ready items that had no ceremonial or ritual value at all.  Also, many of the axes which were originally referred to as Preselite (group XIII) have now been shown not to be in that category at all.  Some of those are now referred to as group VIII axes (rhyolites and tuffs), and others as group XXIII (assorted dolerites or diabases).  Within group XXIII there are subdivisions relating to the varying plagioclase-pyroxene mineral textures found across the igneous intrusive complexes of West Wales).

What are the physical characteristics of the few "Preselite" axes that actually are made of spotted dolerite?  

What we see are  crude, heavy-duty engineering tools.  They stand in stark contrast to the elegant, glassy, highly polished "prestige" stone axes seen elsewhere in Neolithic Europe.   Because spotted dolerite (diabase) is a coarse, intrusive igneous rock, its physical composition dictated exactly how prehistoric craftspeople had to handle it.   The body of a fresh axe varies from a dark greenish-grey to a deep, near-black tone. When weathered or exposed to acidic soil for millennia, the surface oxidizes into a dull, light-grey or pale-greenish crust (patination).  The defining visual trait is a scattering of irregular, creamy-white or buff spots. These are altered crystals of plagioclase feldspar. In some axes, these spots are dense and conspicuous; in others, they are completely sparse, bleeding directly into "unspotted" facies of the same rock in many exposures.  Unlike flint, chert, or tuff, dolerite lacks a highly fluid, predictable conchoidal fracture. It does not peel off in elegant, razor-thin flakes.  Consequently, known Group XIII axes feature deep, stepped, blocky flake scars. The edges are naturally jagged and irregular rather than smooth.  True to their utilitarian nature, these tools were rarely polished across their entire surface. Grinding and smoothing were almost exclusively confined to the cutting edge (the bit) to produce a working wedge. The main body or "butt" of the axe was left roughly pecked, uneven, and coarse to provide a high-friction grip when lashed into a wooden handle.

Group XIII axes are notably thick and heavy relative to their length. They feature broad, oval, or sub-rectangular cross-sections. Because the stone is prone to breaking if knapped too thin, craftspeople left them bulky. They were designed to rely on raw mass and momentum for chopping, clearing brush, or crushing, rather than acting as fine, sharp slicing blades.  The overwhelming physical characteristic of nearly every recovered specimen is severe wear and tear. They look like tools that were used hard and pushed to their mechanical limits.  The cutting edges are frequently uneven or lopsided, showing clear evidence of repeated, ad-hoc re-sharpening after the blade chipped or blunted on impact.  The back end (poll) of the axe head often exhibits heavy crushing, splintering, and impact fractures. This indicates they were frequently used as heavy wedges and directly struck with wooden or stone mallets to split timber or pry open rock fissures.  They are rarely found in pristine, perfect condition. They are typically recovered as broken fragments or completely exhausted, stunted stubs that were casually discarded into domestic rubbish pits or left scattered in agricultural topsoils once they could no longer be re-sharpened.

In short, the physical profile of a known Preselite axe is that of an ugly, rugged utilitarian tool. Its design prioritized survival against heavy mechanical shock, completely lacking the aesthetic artistry, glassy finish, and delicate proportions associated with prehistoric items of high value or spiritual status like the jadeite or Langdale axes which are found in great abundance.

=================

The spotted dolerite / Preselite myth already looks very shaky indeed, so let's just look at its origins.  Probably the myth started with Rev Done Bushell who thought that megalithic monumente were so abundant in eastern Preseli and the mid-Pembrokeshire foothills were that there must have been a sort of "Prehistoric Westminster" there.  Around 1911 he coined the term "land of mystery and enchantment" although there was nothing in the Mabinogion or in any other Welsh documents to support that designation.  He was wrong about the density of monuments too........  but let that pass for a moment.  Then along came HH Thomas, who in 1923 distorted the geological and geomorphological evidence and managed to convince himself and the world that the glacial transport of the bluestones would have been impossible.  So he invented the human transport myth, and argued that the bluestones (as they were later called) were chosen for transport to Stonehenge because of their prominence as tors and upstanding crags in the landscape of Neolithic Pembrokeshire.  So the idea of reverence and a "sacred landscape" appeared in his work.   He speculated that Preseli must have been the home of a deeply revered and long-established stone cult in which certain stones were venerated and considered irreplaceable.  This theme, concentrated later on into "the sanctity of spotted dolerite", was developed further by Richard Atkinson (who argued for a great and heroic national effort of bluestone transport) and then by Geoffrey Wainwright and Tim Darvill, who brought in the idea of the magical or healing nature of the rock.  By the time Mike Parker Pearson and his colleagues appeared on the scene, it was already established in archaeological circles and it was widely accepted -- on the basis of zero evidence -- that spotted dolerite and other Preseli rocks as well were special if not sacred, and that they came from a sacred landscape.

By this time, as the reader will appreciate, we are well into circular reasoning territory.  Not that that has ever worried the archaeological establishment.  So the bluestones (especially the spotted ones) were sacred because they came from Preseli, which was a place greatly revered.  So they were quarried and taken to Stonehenge because they had inestimable value as sacred objects.  Because they were used at Stonehenge they became sacred, even if they were not sacred already, and that demonstrated that Mynydd Preseli must have been a very sacred place.  Round and round.  Onward and upward, to the heights of absurdity, as represented in the wildly convoluted bluestone narrative currently promoted by Parker Pearson, Ixer, Bevins and assorted others......

Just as the term "bluestone" has no geological meaning or value, the word "Preselite" is an invented term which has probably caused more trouble than enlightenment.  It was invented in 1936 by Alexander Keiller who was working hard to establish a centralized and systematic framework for the study of British prehistoric stone tools.  Ironically, the two stone axes from County Antrim which Keiller labelled as being "Preselite" from the spotted dolerite outcrops of Mynydd Preseli turned out later to be unspotted dolerite, possibly not from Preseli at all.  Similarly, other axes initially labelled as belonging to the Preselite group XIII have turned out not to belong to it at all.

But the geologists and archaeologists know that by calling a rock Preselite" they imply that it is  an exotic, rare mineral—providing the perfect, stylized vocabulary which has allowed promoters like Atkinson, Wainwright, and Darvill to build their romanticized "magic talisman" narratives.

==============

To conclude, we already know that in West Wales the terms bluestone, spotted dolerite and Preselite have no value whatsoever, since there is nothing in the archaeological record to show that any of the rock types found in the Stonehenge erratic assemblage were revered in any way.  They were not preferentially used either in megalithic structures or in the manufacture of axes or other implements.  They were not deemed special or valuable -- and this removes any rationale for them to have been targetted, quarried, removed and used by our prehistoric ancestors.

Now the same can be said of Stonehenge, which was clearly used as a stone quarry in late Neolithic and early Bronze age times.  The axes that were made at Stonehenge and maybe also in Pembrokeshire were rough disposable tools made from rock types which were not easy to work with.  If spotted dolerite and rhyolite (for example) had been venerated or highly prized, they would have been used for the production of highy polished and stylised ceremonial or ritual objects.  And these would by now have been found in burial and other contexts.

Axe studies, which should be underpinning the fantastical narrative of Parker Pearson and others, show us that it is not really worth a moment of anybody's time.  The tragedy is that this has been said before, by Kellaway, Briggs, Williams-Thorpe and others -- who have been steadfastly ignored by an academic and commercial establishment which has been blindly indifferent to the facts of the matter.

Conclusion:  spotted dolerite has NEVER been considered special or sacred, either in Pembrokeshire, at Stonehenge, or anywhere else.

West Angle Quaternary exposures

 

This is a nice oblique aerial photo of West Angle Bay, taken fairly recently by a drone camera.  The rocky embayments in the middle and left foreground hold a number of exposures of  Late Devensian (LGM) till and periglacial deposits.  The main bay, right of centre, holds one of the most important Quaternary sequences in Wales.  Between the sandy beach and the big caravan park there used to be a brick pit -- now largely destroyed, partly infilled with rubble.  On the seaward edge of this brick pit there was a wonderful exposure of Quaternary sediments, including last Interglacial (Eemian / Ipswichian) silts, clays and peaty beds, and a sequence of glaciasl and periglacial sediments related to the LGM ice advance across western Pembrokeshire.

We get a nice impression from this photo of the quiet estuarine environment that must have existed in this embayment and through valley during the last interglacial.

I have multiple posts about this site, concentrating on the controversy of the Pre-Ipswichian glacial deposit.  DQ Bowen and others claim to have seen it, and so the site has been used by BGS as a "type locality" for the Penfro Till formation.  This is a huge mistake, perpetrated to this day in the literature.  Dave Unwin and I are the only two people to have excavated this site properly, and we found no trace of any till beneath the raised beach.  Other casual observers at this site have failed to recognize the extent to which glacial tectonics have redistributed slabs of sediment. Bits and pieces of peat beds and interglacial sediments have been detasched and thrust over parts of the Devensian glacial sequence, in effect inverting the key layers.  See my posts for further information:

https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/1228690739485734684/1824604806378202597

Carn Meini / Carn Menyn -- where some of the bluestones might have come from

 

I've been doing a few water colours recently, and this one is an impression of Carn Meini, seen from near the Waldo Williams memorial stone.  The skyline arrangement of crags is rather impressive -- and of course this " dominance" of the landscape was one of the reasons why Herbert Thomas, Atkinson and more recently Darvill and Wainwright argued that Carn Meini must have been s "special place" for our ancestors -- and therefore worthy of providing "special stones" destined for Stonehenge.

That theory took a bit of a knock when Bevins and Ixer suggested that none of the spotted dolerites at Stonehenge came from here -- their location of preference was Carn Goedog, on the northern flank of the upland ridge.  I'm not sure that a Carn Meini source for some rock fragments has been entirely ruled out, since there are great petrological variations within the many Carn Meini outcrops.  And of course Darvill and Wainwright persisted with their belief that this site was more important to the Neolithic tribesmen than Carn Goedog......... no matter what the geologists might have said in their papers.......

Preseli roches moutonnees.......

 

Thanks to Hugh 360 for this photo, showing very beautifully the very large roche moutonnees that dominate the northern flank of Mynydd Preseli.  On the mountainside here we can see Carn Alw, Foel Drygarn, and Carn Goedog.  This is a clear indication of ice flow from the north -- probably during the course of several glaciations.  I think the capacity for the creation of large-scale erosional features was rather limited during the Devensian -- so probably we are looking at the results of more prolonged ice inundation during the Wolstonian and Aglian glacial episodes.

The Preseli landscape change paper scrutinized: another MPP hypothesis bites the dust

This is getting embarrassing.  The framing of the prehistory of Pembrokeshire as "an essential component of the Stonehenge narrative" always was absurd, but now, surely, it has to be consigned to the scrap heap.  Archaeologists working in West Wales always were worried about it, but by and large they have maintained a stoical silence, cowed by the immense power and influence of people like Richard Atkinson, Geoffrey Wainwright and Mike Parker Pearson..........

One after another, the hypotheses of external influence have been dismissed in the peer-reviewed literature.  First, the Craig Rhosyfelin "Stonehenge megalith quarry" flagged up as "the Pompeii of prehistoric stone quarries" and then shown to be just a figment of a fertile imagination.  Then the spotted dolerite "megalith quarry" at Carn Goedog, also flagged up as a massive industrial complex and then shown to be nothing more than a dolerite tor affected by assorted cold climate processes.  Then the magnificent "lost stone" circle at Waun Mawn, given the full treatment as the last piece of the Stonehenge jigsaw puzzle in an appalling TV documentary and then dismissed with disdain by Tim Darvill and many others.  The stone circle never existed.  Now comes the hypothesis of West Wales population decline following the removal of 80 bluestones monoliths from Preseli, via Waun Mawn, to Stonehenge during the late Neolithic.  That too bites the dust following the publication of this new study.

When you use wildly extravagant phraseology like "the IKEA of Neolithic quarries", "the original Stonehenge", "monolith extraction on an industrial scale", "proto-Stonehenge" and "a monument of unification" you are asking for trouble, especially if your evidence is so thin that it does not withstand scrutiny.........

Anyway, back to the new pollen analysis / landscape change paper.  Thanks to Daisy Spencer for sending me the PDF.  It's a real curate's egg of a paper -- excellent in parts (particularly on the data collection and analysis side) and deeply flawed in others.  One of the biggest problems is that it completely ignores one of the greatest duties placed on all researchers -- ie the duty to hear dissenting voices, to acknowledge their existence and expressions in the peer reviewed literature, and to assess what influence they might have on your conclusions.  None of my work in a string of recent papers is cited, although it is 100% relevant to the matter in hand.  There are no citations of Kellaway, Williams-Thorpe, Briggs or Darvill -- which is extraordinary.  

Daisy Eleanor Spencer, Karen Molloy, Mike Parker Pearson, Ralph Fyfe & Aaron Potito (19 Oct 2025): Prehistoric Landscape Change Around the Sources of Stonehenge’s Bluestones in Preseli, Wales, Environmental Archaeology, DOI:10.1080/14614103.2025.2574741

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14614103.2025.257471

Over and again, assumptions and speculations are portrayed as established facts.  Some examples.

On the first line of the article the landscapes of Preseli are claimed to have been "connected since the Neolithic".   Have they really?  Not in my book they haven't.......

Then also on page 1:  "up to 80 bluestones were transported from the Preseli Hills to Salisbury Plain."  Speculation, not fact.

P 1:  "Bluestones were erected in the Aubrey Holes and in Bluestonehenge".  Speculation, not fact.

On p 2 there are references to "bluestone quarries", "the transportation of the bluestones" and "the Waun Mawn stone circle."    All speculation.

On p 5:  Reference to "the bluestone sites"........ and on the same page, reference is made to the empty holes used for standing stones at Waun Mawn.  All speculation.

In Table 1 on page 6, Rhosyfelin and Carn Goedog are referred to (and elsewhere in the text) as "bluestone quarries."

On p 6 reference is made to a "Middle Neolithic artificial stone platform" -- that's just a figment of somebody's imagination.

On p 16 there is again a reference to "the quarrying of bluestone" -- speculation, not fact.

On p 18 in referring to Waun Mawn the authors talk of the time  "when the stones were first erected at the site."  This is just a dodgy assumption.

On p 20, the authors talk of  "the movement of c 80 bluestones from Preseli c 3000 BC."  It didn't happen, as MPP has himself conceded.

Then the conclusion:  "The pollen data does not support the abandonment of this area when the bluestones were taken to Stonehenge."  For the umpteenth time, they were NOT taken by human beings to Stonehenge.

And so we could go on.  I can excuse the authors for some of this bias, some of the time, since they were at least testing a hypothesis that needed to be stated -- but they have strayed far beyond the hypothesis and have demonstrated a naive acceptance of many very dodgy components of the narrative developed by Parker Pearson over the years.  Why did they not demonstrate a greater critical faculty?  I think we know the answer to that one.........

The fundamental flaw with this paper is that it insists on examining environmental change in West Wales strictly in the contect of a Stonehenge timeline that is assumed to be "correct" or "relevant."  What we see is a classic case of a "monument obsession"—forcing complex, independent regional data into a famous monument's box just to keep a high-profile theory on life support.  Instead of treating the Preseli landscape as an important cultural landscape in its own right, the authors have treated it as a mere supply yard for the Stonehenge builders.  When their own data proves that the local population stayed put and kept farming right through the "Stonehenge migration" window, they still choose to interpret the local story as a minor chapter in the Stonehenge narrative.    This type of framing creates a distorted view of prehistory by implying that nothing of importance happened in Neolithic Wales unless it was dictated by events in Wiltshire.

For 1782, read 3,000 BP

TO SUMMARISE:  Palynological data from the Preseli Hills reveals a narrative of local agricultural continuity, with continuous cereal cultivation and a lack of large-scale abandonment between 3000–2200 BC, contradicting theories of a mass migration to Stonehenge

The local builders were purely pragmatic. The idea that Preseli was a "sacred landscape" uniquely obsessed with bluestone—to the point where they would pack up their entire society and ship their monuments 240 kilometres away to Wiltshire—is an entirely modern invention.  The new palynological and macrofossil data proves that the people of Preseli probably knew nothing whatsoever about Stonehenge.  If there had been a monumental, multi-generational project to dismantle local stone circles, construct massive transport infrastructures, and conduct a mass migration to Salisbury Plain around 3000 BC, it would have left a catastrophic scar in the local environmental record.  Instead, the pollen cores show absolute indifference to the Stonehenge timeline. The local farming families simply carried on clearing small patches of woodland, growing their crops, and grazing their livestock according to their own domestic routines.  The records show a gradual, self-contained ecological evolution rather than a abrupt transformation, with major deforestation not appearing until the Late Bronze Age

As argued by Stephen Briggs, the Neolithic tribes of west Wales were opportunists, utilitarians and pragmatists.  They were also quite sophisticated in that they knew a great deal more about cost / benefit analysis than many modern archaeologists!

So congratulations to Daisy Spencer and her colleagues for killing off another piece of the Parker Pearson narrative.  Thankfully, there is now hardly any of it left.

=====================






. 

Eisteddfod y Garreg Las -- the bluestone eisteddfod

 

On 1st August the Welsh National Eisteddfod -- the biggest annual cultural festival in Wales -- comes to Llantwd near Cardigan.  Over the course of a week or so they expect  180,000 visitors onto the site -- competitors, supporters, families and friends, and expats back home for the occasion.  Almost all of the transactions will be through the medium of Welsh, which is as it should be.

Anyway, the theme this year -- as reflected in the title of the eisteddfod -- is bluestone.  This was decided by the organizing committee many moons ago as something giving the community of NE Pembrokeshire its own special character.  Interestingly, this patch of designated territory is not the same as that given the name "Bluestone Country" in the days when I was a committe member of the Preseli Tourist Association........  Never mind.  If the label helps with the marketing of a worthy event, let's just go with the flow.

The two big poetry competitions -- for the bardic chair and the bardic crown -- do not have bluestone themes.  As ever, the themes are rather abstract.  But we can be sure that bluestones will feature heavily in the entries, and it's a fair bet that one or both of the winners will have written about the bluestones and their significance.  And bluestones will feature strongly in the art and craft competitions too.  So there will be bluestone representations on all sides -- and they will be made of wood, metal, wool and any other materials that can be shaped and coloured blue.  Inevitably, many of the representations will be made to look like spotted dolerite.......

========================

So here is my small contribution for the occasion, designed to educate those who may not have kept up with the literature:

THE BLUESTONES

Brian John

Once upon a time our heroic ancestors quarried 80 large monoliths of special stone from a sacred place in Preseli and transported them to Stonehenge, to be used in one of the megalithic wonders of the world. That's the story that we all know and love. But is it more than just a story? Is it supported by real historical records or by sound scientific evidence?  Sadly, the answer to both questions is "No"........

First, the term "bluestone" -- which has no geological meaning. The term has been used for a century or so to describe an assortment of more than 30 different non-sarsen rock types found at Stonehenge, in standing stones, fallen stones, buried stumps and small fragments in the soil. Most, but not all, of the rock types (including several types of spotted dolerite, volcanic lava and ash) are found in Mynydd Preseli. Most of the bluestones are not even blue. In ancient history there is no evidence at all that any of these rock types were considered special or sacred -- local cromlechs and other stone setting were always made of whatever handy stones happened to be lying around in the vicinity. At Stonehenge the majority of the known 43 bluestone monoliths look like (and probably are) battered and far-travelled glacial erratics.

And was Mynydd Preseli a sacred place, revered by the Stone Age inhabitants of West Wales? Apparently not. The label "land of mystery and enchantment" is a modern invention, by Rev Done Bushell around 1911. He mistakenly believed that the area on the south flank of Preseli had a greater density of sacred structures than any other part of West Wales, and he also referred to the area as "a prehistoric Westminster". Picturesque but unreliable. In the Mabinogion there is no mention of Preseli as being a special or magical place, and in his fantastical writings about King Arthur, Geoffrey of Monmouth did not differentiate between the sarsens and bluestones at Stonehenge, and suggested that the monument had been magically transported from Ireland, not Wales.

The story of the human transport of the bluestones was invented by geologists Herbert Thomas around 1920, at a time when the nation was recovering from the traumas of the First World War. There was a need for a "feel good" story that emphasised the high civilisation and technical skills of our heroic ancestors, and Thomas obliged, ignoring the opinions of his fellow geologists who believed that the bluestones had been transported by glacier ice. People loved the story, and it was immediately picked up by archaeologists and built into the educational and marketing strategy for Stonehenge.

Then, ironically, the story was weaponised immediately after the Second Worl War during the "Battle of Preseli", when the local community took on the War Office which wanted to enclose the greater part of Mynydd Preseli as a military training and firing range. It was argued -- tactically -- by influential politicians and religious leaders that Preseli was one of the great sacred cradles of Welsh culture, and that it would be not only disrespectful but actually sacriligious to turn the wild moorlands into a place devoted to warfare. The Stonehenge bluestone link was incorporated into the argument. As explained by historian Hefin Wyn, the government backed off, and the battle was won.  In retrospect, the designation of Preseli as a historic mystical and holy place was nonsense, but all is fair in love and war!

In 1952 the uplands were designated as part of the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park and saved for the nation and for future generations. Mynydd Preseli is still a wild and wonderful place loved by many thousands of people for its wide horizons and quiet beauty.  In that sense, as demonstrated by Waldo Williams in his poem "Preseli", this is truly a special place. The bluestones, in their infinite variety, are still there, exposed in rocky tors like Carn Meini and Carn Alw.

But let's not fool ourselves. The elaborate and fanciful narrative developed by archaeologists and geologists in recent years does not have its roots in prehistory; it is a modern myth, created only about a hundred years ago, unsupported by modern science, and now promoted largely for commercial reasons.


============

The Stonehenge bluestones and our heroic ancestors: time to stop flogging the dead horse

OK -- the time has come for the Stonehenge establishment, and a vast array of academics from assorted disciplines, to stop this seemingly endless search for evidence in support of a wild fantasy invented by HH Thomas in 1923.  Before 1923, most experts accepted that the stone monument at Stonehenge was built of an assortment of stones, some large and others smaller,  some local and others from far away, that happened to be lying around in the landscape.  Geologists argued that some of the stones had come from the west, and that they had probably been transported by glacier ice.  For a variety of reasons already enumerated on this blog, Thomas wanted a much more complex and heroic narrative, and he falsified the known evidence of glacial activity in the Bristol Channel in order to support his story of long-distance bluestone transport by humans as "the only reliable alternative".  That became, in no time at all, the ruling hypothesis, and for a century academics from many different disciplines have desperately been trying to confirm it.  Without success.  There is still not a shred of hard evidence to show that there was any link between Stonehenge and Preseli, apart from a few small traded objects such as those that might link any two small parts of a large island........

After an investment of thousands of hours of research time and the expenditure of many millions of pounds of taxpayers money, it's time for academics to get real and for the research funding organizations to stop throwing good money after bad.

Just a reminder of where we are.  There are no strong cultural links between West Wales and Stonehenge; as demonstrated by Wainwright and Darvill, the megalithic structures demonstrate instead a strong link between West Wales, North Wales and Ireland.  There is no evidence that bluestones were revered or used preferentially in West Wales in monument construction.  There is no evidence of strong trading links or social connections between Stonehenge and Preseli.  Although we now know approximately where many of the bluestones at Stonehenge might have come from, the claims made by Bevins and Ixer about precise "spot provenencing" are unacceptable and unreliable.  There are no bluestone monolith  quarries at Rhosyfelin, Carn Goedog or anywhere else, and it is in any case bizarre to think in terms of quarrying activity or even "extraction points" for all of the many bluestone types represented at Stonehenge.     (The only bluestone quarry known to the author is near the summit of Foel Drygarn, where small slabs were collected for use in burial mounds and defensive structures, starting in the Bronze Age.  )

There is no evidence of haulage routes, trackways, ropes, sledges, rafts or boats that might have been used   in a multi-generational stonen haulage operation.  The idea promoted by Parker Pearson of a "lost stone circle" at Waun Mawn which was linked to Stonehenge has been systematically dismantled by many reviewers, and is now quite rightly abandoned.

Finally, in one last desperate attempt to demonstrate that the sequence of land use, landscape change and settlement in Preseli was somehow linked to a Stonehenge chronology,  Parker Pearson and co-workers in a new article have demonstrated instead that the people of the far west had not the slightest knowledge of, or interest in, what was going on over on Salisbury Plain:     

Spencer, D. E., Molloy, K., Pearson, M. P., Fyfe, R., & Potito, A. (2025). Prehistoric Landscape Change Around the Sources of Stonehenge’s Bluestones in Preseli, Wales. Environmental Archaeology, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/14614103.2025.2574741

Isotope work, pollen analyses, radiocarbon dates and other indicators of  environmental change and cultural linkages have also failed to turn up anything that might help to confirm the ruling hypothesis, whatever claims there may have been to the contrary.

As suggested by Stephen Briggs many moons ago, the prehistoric tribal groups of West Wales were opportunists and pragmatists who quietly got on with life,  no doubt with trading contacts in all compass directions but blissfully unaware of the existence of Stonehenge and other monuments which were far, far away over distant horizons.  The locations of megalithic monuments were determined above all else by the availability of stone resources -- in rock outcrops, scree accumulations, blockfields and glacial erratic scatters.   And as suggested by Barclay and Brophy, the network of contacts was essentially local, determined above all else by local geography and resource distribution and with occasional forays further afield -- with no sign at all of  centralised organization or political power exerted from Wessex, Salisbury Plain or Stonehenge.  Parker Pearson's fantasies on this front just do not withstand scrutiny.

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2023/01/deterministic-and-opportunistic-stone.html

The truth is a foreign country.  A somewhat imaginative AI image published by RJL on his blog.........