THE BOOK
Some of the ideas discussed in this blog are published in my new book called "The Stonehenge Bluestones" -- available by post and through good bookshops everywhere. Bad bookshops might not have it....
To order, click
HERE

Monday, 21 June 2021

More on the Stonehenge dolerites — multiple sources and no quarries

One of the unspotted dolerite samples from Stonehenge probably came from near here. This is Cerrigmarchogion.  The other dolerites — spotted and unspotted — came from many different places.

There’s a big new paper from Bevins, Pearce and Ixer. As with their other papers, the intention seems to be to find common sources for multiple samples from Stonehenge, and to identify the locations of “bluestone quarries” — but with every paper they publish they inadvertently demonstrate that almost all of the samples are unique and that they have come from different places.  This is exactly what we would expect of a collection of glacial erratics.  The idea of bluestone quarrying is dead, and it’s about time the geologists admitted it.

 Anyway, here are the details of the new publication.  It’s difficult to do a proper review right now because of the constraints of using an iPad in the wilds of Sweden, rather than my very versatile iMac at home. (Copying and pasting is difficult on an iPad.......). It’s a highly technical paper intended for specialists, and it continues the efforts by these three authors to study very intensively all the categories of rock found at Stonehenge and its environs, and to find provenances for all of the samples on the record. Unfortunately, there is no new fieldwork here — it appears that the sampled rock fragments and cores are the same ones that have popped up over and again in the literature from Bevins, Ixer and Pearce, mostly collected more than 30 years ago. Those samples have effectively been worked to death, and one has to wonder why there has been no new sampling around Mynydd Preseli which is more suited to the “bluestone debate” as it currently stands.

There are a couple of things that significantly detract from the value of this new study.

First, as mentioned above, the underlying assumption on the part of the authors that the bluestones at Stonehenge were quarried and transported by Neolithic tribesmen from the Preseli area to Stonehenge, rather than being collected up and used more or less where found. That forces them into other assumptions, including the assumption that two quarries have already been found, and the assumption that there are other quarries waiting to be found. This forces them, in their interpretations of the evidence, to assume a modest number of sources, whereas for any independent reader the evidence clearly points to multiple scattered sources, as one would expect of a collection of glacial erratics.

Second, the authors still refuse steadfastly to acknowledge that their ideas about quarrying and stone transport are hotly disputed in my book on the Stonehenge bluestones and in two peer-reviewed papers. I have said it before, and I will keep on saying it — this is reprehensible and is tantamount to scientific malpractice. I’m amazed that the referees and the editor responsible for the publication of this paper did not insist on proper careful citations of “inconvenient” papers and a consideration of pros and cons in the discussion and interpretation of the evidence.

Quote:

The accurate identification of the sources of stones used in the construction of stone circles has the potential to play an important role in understanding the movements of people in ancient times, having a particular relevance and potential significance when long-distant transport has been involved. Tracing of sources to particular rock outcrops provides the opportunity for focussed archaeological excavations which might inform questions such as why particular stone sources were selected and exploited, as well as potentially revealing material evidence as to how the stones were extracted and subsequently transported from site. In the context of this paper, recent detailed provenancing of particular Stonehenge bluestones (see Ixer and Bevins, 2010, Ixer and Bevins, 2011, Bevins et al., 2011, Bevins et al., 2012, Bevins et al., 2014) has led to the discovery of two Neolithic quarry sites in the Mynydd Preseli area of north Pembrokeshire, at Craig Rhos-y-Felin (Parker Pearson et al., 2015b) and Carn Goedog (Parker Pearson et al., 2019). It has also recently been suggested that some of the bluestones may have been part of an earlier stone circle in the Mynydd Preseli area, at a location called Waun Mawn, which was partially dismantled, with some of the stones transported to Stonehenge (Parker Pearson et al., 2021).

So this article is hugely devalued by the ongoing adherence of the authors to a very silly ruling hypothesis which should have been abandoned years ago.  It’s also devalued by a lack of comparative sample analyses; I should like to have seen some analytical data from unspotted dolerites in other parts of the UK.    How similar, or how different, are they from the analyses presented in this paper?

All that having been said, it is of some interest in that it brings a new technique to the table — the analysis of rare earth elements.  It is suggested that one Stonehenge sample (SH45) probably comes from the Cerrigmarchogion area, but the other unspotted dolerite samples from the Stonehenge area are difficult to fix.  They are most likely to have come from eastern Preseli, around Carn Ddafad-las.  But the samples are different — they have not all come from the same place.  Sample SH44 is an anomaly — unlike anything else found at Stonehenge and different from all of the Preseli unspotted dolerites sampled.  

So once again, as with the studies of spotted dolerites, sandstones, rhyolites and ashes, the conclusion is that there are no preferred and identified sources which can be identified as quarries, but rather multiple scattered sources, not one of which has yet been “nailed down” by hard evidence.  I have made the point over and again over the last decade that there are around 30 different sources for the Stonehenge bluestones and the “bluestone debitage” — and every geological study published by Ixer, Bevins and their colleagues supports this contention.  They claim to have fixed some foliated rhyolites as having come from a quarry at Craig Rhosyfelin to “within a few square metres”, but the presented evidence does not support that claim.  They also claim that there was a spotted dolerite quarry at Carn Goedog, with “evidence” that is even more equivocal.  It is high time that they faced up to reality, as presented in their own papers.  


================================
Details:

Revisiting the provenance of the Stonehenge bluestones: Refining the provenance of the Group 2 non-spotted dolerites using rare earth element geochemistry

Bevins, RE, Pearce, NJG and Ixer, RA

Jnl of Archaeological Science: Reports Vol 38, Aug 2021, No 103083.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X21002959?via%3Dihub

Abstract

The doleritic bluestones of Stonehenge, sourced from the Mynydd Preseli in west Wales, have been previously classified into three geochemical groups on the basis of compatible element geochemistry (Bevins et al., 2014). The majority of Group 1 (spotted) dolerites were identified as coming from the outcrop of Carn Goedog, Group 3 (spotted) dolerites were linked to the outcrops Carn Breseb, Carn Gyfrwy, outcrops in the vicinity of Carn Alw and an un-named outcrop west of Carn Ddafad-las and Group 2 (non-spotted) dolerites were identified as coming from either Cerrigmarchogion or Craig Talfynydd. A sub-set of the samples used by Bevins et al. (2014) have been re-analysed by solution nebulisation ICP-MS, including analyses of the rare earth elements (REE).

Analysis of the REE data reveals that Groups 1 and 3 dolerites from both Stonehenge and the Preseli have very similar REE patterns which strongly suggests that they are derived from a single intrusive body. Group 2 non-spotted dolerites are now divided, on the basis of their REE contents, into four Preseli and two Stonehenge sub-groups, (Groups 2i-2iv and Groups 2v-2vi, respectively) while Stonehenge orthostat sample SH44 plots apart from all other Stonehenge and Preseli samples in all discriminant diagrams used. The new data show that Preseli Group 2i dolerites have very distinct concave down “humped” patterns and bear no resemblance to any analysed Stonehenge dolerites. The source of Stonehenge Group 2v dolerites remains equivocal; they plot close to Preseli Group 2ii dolerites from Carn Ddafad-las and Garn Ddu Fach and have in common the presence of notable positive Eu anomalies, but they show minor differences, especially in relation to their Gdn/Ybn ratios. However, Stonehenge orthostat sample SH45 shows a near identical REE composition to Preseli Group 2iii dolerites from Cerrigmarchogion.


In terms of the interpretation of REE contents and chondrite-normalized patterns we found no differences whether using the ‘standard’ techniques used by geochemists, based on chondrite-normalized elemental ratios and values, or the quantitative approach using shape factors derived from polynomial curve fitting.

Saturday, 5 June 2021

Outwash gravel sheets in Central Pembrokeshire

 

Did a braided river like this once flow from the Trefgarn Gorge exit and then southwards across the site of Haverfordwest?

Extract from the geology map showing the main gravel occurrences in pink.  The present course of the Western Cleddau river can be picked out by the yellow band on the image, showing where the present flood plain is located.

I have long been intrigued by the extensive sheets of glaciofluvial gravel found in the Haverfordwest area, especially on the "plateau" incorporating Prendergast, on the NE edge of the town, and running up through the site of the Withybush Aerodrome (where of course they are massively disturbed) towards Rudbaxton and thence towards the southern exit of the Trefgarn Gorge.

There was an outcrop of these gravels on the bank that dropped away beneath Cherry Grove, where I lived as a child, and I was intrigued by them even at that tender age! 

But why does this "gravel sheet" not run along the present route of the Western Cleddau river and to the west of the A40 road?  Was there a braided outwash river to the east of the road?  That would have been a strange situation, since much of the land to the east of the road is above the 50m contour whereas much of the land to the west of the road is below 50m.  Or might the river have migrated westwards and removed vast quantities of glaciofluvial material in the process?

Various attempts have been made to recognize river terraces in the Haverfordwest area, but they have never been very successful, partly because of the extent of the built-up area and partly because terrace remnants are small and difficult to identify.  Traditionally, the gravels in the Haverfordwest area have been interpreted either as pre-glacial river gravels laid down at a time of higher sea-level, or as glaciofluvial gravels associated with one of the earlier glaciations (Anglian?).  This would make sense, if the Gwaun-Jordanston channels are assumed to have been formed by vast torrents of meltwater flowing under the ice and flowing first westwards and then southwards, through Trefgarn Gorge and towards Milford Haven.  This too makes sense, with an ice surface gradient sloping down from NW towards SE.   If the gravels are stained and even rotten -- and hence very old -- this would support the Anglian glacial hypothesis........ and the assumption that Devensian or LGM ice could not have affected central Pembrokeshire.

On the other hand, I have been thinking for some time that Devensian ice did not simply skid to a halt along the coast of St Bride's Bay, but pushed well inland.  To his credit, Prof Dai Bowen was the only person to have suggested this in his Devensian / Weichselian ice limits maps:


Recently some big exposures have been opened up in association with the building of a new Haverfordwest High School on the site of the old Sir Thomas Picton School.  Near Prendergast Cemetery and the County Archives building there is a huge mound of excavated gravels, incorporating large boulders which suggest to me either a very powerful meltwater torrent or the close proximity of glacier ice.  Sadly, I have not been able to examine any in situ gravels which might indicate the direction of meltwater flow.........

Another braided river plain (sandur), showing the complexity of anastomosing channels and suggesting the frequent lateral displacement of the dominant water routes.  We should not strictly refer to this as a "flood plain" since the "flooding" is going on for much of the time during the melting season, here, there and almost everywhere........  Multi-channel rivers like this are a nightmare to cross on foot with a heavy pack!


Kaldalon braided river and sandur in NW Iceland.  We crossed this one many times in 1960, usually in the middle of the "night" when the water level was low.

When I examined the apparently fresh glaciofluvial gravels at Picton Point, I became convinced that they were Devensian in age, and that they were laid down nor far from an ice edge:


It would be logical for the gravel sheet north of Haverfordwest to be the same age, and to have formed in similar circumstances.

If we look at the topographic map of north Pembrokeshire we can see where the main drainage routes are.  The Gwaun-Jordanston meltwater channel system has flummoxed researchers for well over a hundred years, but most people nowadays accept that they are very old, having been cut (and then modified) by sublgacial meltwater during several glacial episodes.  But they must have been used by huge torrents of meltwater at the end of the Devensian (LGM) glaciation as well.  If Lake Teifi and the other features in the Teifi Valley were created in the WAXING phase of the LGM ice advance, that makes it quite likely that meltwater escaped westwards through Cwm Gwaun and the other big rock-cut channels prior to the LGM and after it as well.  All very confusing.  That means a complex history of meltwater flow and landform development, between 30,000 and 20,000 years ago.


Main meltwater routes used during the Late Devensian.  It is assumed that meltwater flowed westwards and then southwards through Trefgarn Gorge when the ice was far advanced, and then escaped northwards into Cardigan Bay once the ice edge had retreated to the north of the present coastline.

So where should we draw the Devensian ice edge at the time of the LGM?  I am inclined to think we are talking of retreat phases here, rather than a terminal of "end moraine" position.  Watch this space.......




Rock avalanche


A fabulous image.  A rock avalanche onto the surface of Scud Glacier, British Columbia, June 2020.

 

Sunday, 23 May 2021

The isotope analysis debate gets vicious

 



Thanks to Jon for drawing attention to this, published just a few days ago.  

A veritable confusion: use and abuse of isotope analysis in archaeology
Richard Madgwick, Angela Lamb, Hilary Sloane, Alexandra Nederbragt, Umberto Albarella, Mike Parker Pearson & Jane Evans

Archaeological Journal, 18 May 2021

https://doi.org/10.1080/00665983.2021.1911099

ABSTRACT
The expansion of isotope analyses has transformed the study of past migration and mobility, sometimes providing unexpected and intriguing results. This has, in turn, led to media attention (and concomitant misrepresentation) and scepticism from some archaeologists. Such scepticism is healthy and not always without foundation. Isotope analysis is yet to reach full maturity and challenging issues remain, concerning diagenesis, biosphere mapping resolution and knowledge of the drivers of variation. Bold and over-simplistic interpretations have been presented, especially when relying on single isotope proxies, and researchers have at times been accused of following specific agendas. It is therefore vital to integrate archaeological and environmental evidence to support interpretation. Most importantly, the use of multiple isotope proxies is key: isotope analysis is an exclusive approach and therefore single analyses provide only limited resolution. The growth in isotope research has led to a growth in rebuttals and counter-narratives. Such rebuttals warrant the same critical appraisal that is applied to original research, both of evidence for their assertions and the potential for underlying agendas. This paper takes a case study-based approach focusing on pig movements to Neolithic henge complexes to explore the dangers encountered in secondary use of isotope data.

The abstract looks innocuous enough, since it does not mention anybody by name, but it is actually a full-on and rather vicious attack on the authors of this paper:
Barclay, G. J., and K. Brophy. 2020. “‘A Veritable Chauvinism of Prehistory’: Nationalist Prehistories and the ‘British’ Late Neolithic Mythos.” Archaeological Journal 1–31. doi:10.1080/00665983.2020.1769399.

.... and a forthright defence of this one:
Madgwick, R., A. L. Lamb, H. Sloane, A. J. Nederbragt, U. Albarella, M. Parker Pearson, and J. A. Evans. 2019a. “Multi-isotope Analysis Reveals that Feasts in the Stonehenge Environs and across Wessex Drew People and Animals from Throughout Britain.” Science Advances 5 (3)
doi:10.1126/sciadv.aau6078.

I have read through the new article, and am intrigued.  I guess a "robust defence" of the isotope analysis research was inevitable — and Barclay and Brophy would have expected it.  MPP, Madgwick and Co have clearly worked long and hard on this — but it's far nastier than I anticipated! On a quick reading, it's a classic defence based on a lot of selective citations and much nit-picking on the minor details of phraseology.  It sometimes assumes meanings or intentions that were not necessarily there. It pulls in a lot of additional isotope analytical detail, claiming that it supports the points originally made by Madgwick, Evans and others (and then questioned by Barclay and Brophy) but it is difficult here to see the wood for the trees, and does not invalidate the point made by the Scottish duo that the presented evidence of "feasting connections" did not support the 2019 conclusions.

It is clearly the intention of the authors of this new article to demonstrate that Barclay and Brophy have "abused" the isotope analyses done by Madgwick, Evans, Lamb and others.  In other words, they are accused of not really understanding it.  Well, that's a bit rich, since in my view the actual evidence presented in the "isotope analyses" papers was abused by the researchers themselves when they over-interpreted and misrepresented what it was showing.  They claim that they simply "used" the evidence --  but that's not the way I saw it!

The whole article seems to me rather disingenuous, and fails to properly address the central point of Barclay and Brophy’s paper, which was that the isotope dating specialists have been seeing everything through a Stonehenge-centred lens instead of seeing the island of Great Britain as one with a high-density traffic map, with multiple centres generating and accepting traffic from elsewhere. And I think it’s a bit rich for Madgwick et al to now claim that the media has “inflated” or misinterpreted their ideas and their press releases. One’s heart bleeds for them! They need to get real. They are the ones who write the press releases, designed for maximum media impact and coverage. They manipulate the media and manufacture myths, and know exactly what they are doing…….

Richard Madgwick, the lead author of the new article

As readers of this blog will know, I have had a go at Richard Madgwick and his friends a few years ago,  2017 - 2019:
https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2020/06/isotope-evidence-not-so-spectacular.html
https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2019/03/neolithic-feasts-and-far-travelled-pigs.html
https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2019/04/was-there-neolithic-mass-exodus-from.html
https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2018/01/affinities-of-sampled-animal-remains-at.html
https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2018/08/could-cremated-foreigners-have-come.html
https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2016/06/stonehenge-cremated-remains-from-west.html
https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2019/03/strontium-isotope-results-may-be-deeply.html
https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2018/10/dem-crem-bones-ca-overwhelmed-and-ba.html
https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2018/10/more-on-strontium-isotope-west-wales.html
https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2018/09/current-archaeology-too-much-marketing.html
https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-mythologising-of-west-wales-role-of.html

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2018/08/could-cremated-foreigners-have-come_4.html
https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2018/08/now-smithsonian-goes-completely-bonkers.html
https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2018/08/strontium-levels-in-cremated-bone-what.html
https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2017/05/strontium-isotope-ratios-in-stonehenge.htm

I found most of the isotope analysis work deeply unsatisfactory and unconvincing, and I was not alone in saying this. I also thought that the points made by Barclay and Brophy (with reference to Scotland) were eminently sensible -- although I was more concerned about some of the dodgy things being said about the "Welsh connection" by the isotope analysis team.  See here:


This one will run and run….




Saturday, 22 May 2021

Sheffield Archaeology Dept under threat?

There's a strange article in The Guardian about the threat of closure hanging over the Sheffield University Archaeology Dept:

 https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/may/21/stonehenge-research-in-jeopardy-if-sheffield-university-archaeology-unit-closes?

It looks like a bit of a rearguard action initiated by Mike Parker Pearson and other "experts" (don't you just love that word?) who have -- or who had in the past -- links with the Department. Of course one is sad to read of the closure -- or possible closure -- of any university department. But as we know, the Sheffield Archaeology Dept has not helped itself through its association with some very dodgy "bluestone" research at Stonehenge, "Bluestonehenge" and in West Wales -- demonstrating rather too much interest in perpetrating elaborate myths of bluestone quarrying and transport, and rather too little interest in sound science. 

Quote:
"Important research on Stonehenge could be put in jeopardy if the threatened closure of one of the UK’s most renowned university archaeology departments goes ahead, leading experts on the prehistoric monument have warned."

Quote:
Parker Pearson directed the Stonehenge Riverside Project, which has made some of the most impressive discoveries about the monument of modern times, including finding evidence of a second Stonehenge a mile away from the great stone circle.

He said: “Colleagues at Sheffield are working right now on material from my project at Stonehenge and if they lose their jobs it jeopardises completion of this project which has grabbed the world media’s attention over the last 15 years.”

There, in a nutshell, we have it.  A second Stonehenge?  Well, "Bluestonehenge" was claimed ten years ago to hold fragments of bluestones in its supposed stone sockets -- and that was shown to be incorrect. But it is still marketed by MPP and others, regardless of the dodgy nature of their claims.  And as for grabbing the attention of the world's media,  that's something MPP knows all about -- promoting completely outrageous theories and myths that are essentially unsupported by any evidence that can withstand scrutiny.  If that is still one of the priorities of the Sheffield University Archaeology Dept, with myth making in the foreground and sound science pushed into the background, how sound is its claim that it should be taken seriously, and spared from the axe?

Of course, the size and success of a university department can always be measured by the size of the student demand for its courses and its degrees.  This is a more effective measure than the size of banner headlines in the tabloid press.

Reputations are hard to come by, and are all too easily destroyed.........

See also:


PS.   27 May 2021

It looks as if the department's fate is sealed.  The real issue was clearly the lack of student demand.  Without students, no university department can survive, even if it specialises in developing elaborate myths and capturing the attention of the media........




Wednesday, 19 May 2021

New dating for LGM Irish Sea Ice Stream


Maximum extension of the Irish Sea Ice Stream (ISIS) at the time of the Last Glacial Maximum, 
with dated retreat stages.

Here is a big new paper from the BRITICE-CHRONO project, reporting on new dates for the retreat (with occasional readvances) of the ISIS through St Georges Channel and the Celtic Sea and the "Irish Sea Glacier" which is deemed to have pressed through the Cheshire Gap and into the Midlands of England. This new terminology is a bit confusing -- but no matter. This is a very intreresting and useful paper.



ABSTRACT

The BRITICE-CHRONO Project has generated a suite of recently published radiocarbon ages from deglacial sequences offshore in the Celtic and Irish seas and terrestrial cosmogenic nuclide and optically stimulated luminescence ages from adjacent onshore sites. All published data are integrated here with new geochronological data from Wales in a revised Bayesian analysis that enables reconstruction of ice retreat dynamics across the basin. Patterns and changes in the pace of deglaciation are conditioned more by topographic constraints and internal ice dynamics than by external controls. The data indicate a major but rapid and very short-lived extensive thin ice advance of the Irish Sea Ice Stream (ISIS) more than 300 km south of St George's Channel to a marine calving margin at the shelf break at 25.5 ka; this may have been preceded by extensive ice accumulation plugging the constriction of St George's Channel. The release event between 25 and 26 ka is interpreted to have stimulated fast ice streaming and diverted ice to the west in the northern Irish Sea into the main axis of the marine ISIS away from terrestrial ice terminating in the English Midlands, a process initiating ice stagnation and the formation of an extensive dead ice landscape in the Midlands.

In the dating, using a variety of techniques, there are a few anomalies (as one might expect) but the pattern and timing of ice retreat now seems pretty well established, following a rapid advance of thin ice right out to the Celtic Sea shelf edge at about 25,500 BP.  the authors say "this may have been preceded by extensive ice accumulation plugging the constriction of St George's Channel."  I'm not sure how strong the evidence is for this, and I'm not sure how this "plugging" might have worked, but that's a minor point.

Some of the dates now published are around a thousand years adrift from those published by the same team of researchers a couple of years ago, but there is now a much more sophisticated analysis of the data.   As we can see from the map, the ice edge retreat was remarkably rapid, progressing across terrain which is now mostly sea floor over a distance of more than 700 km from shelf edge to the Isle of Man in little more than 5,000 years.  That's extraordinary if correct -- a rate of around 7 km per year.  The key positions were:

Shelf edge  25,500 yrs BP
West of Scilly 25,300
Outer Bristol Channel  25,000
Outer St Brides Bay (off Pembrokeshire) 24,700
North Pembs coast  24,300
Cardigan Bay  24,000
North Cardigan Bay  22,700
Llyn Peninsula 21,000
Anglesey 20,900
Isle of Man c 19,000

One interesting thing is that all of these speculative ice edge positions are convex.  That means they are all interpreted as land-based.  If they had been calving bays with ice breaking free off a floating ice front, as suggested by Ed Lockhart, they would have been concave, like the ice fronts shown in the Irish Sea in the latter phases of deglaciation.  This means -- or so the current authors think --  that the ice occupying the Celtic Sea arena was not an ice shelf but a grounded glacier; and it must have followed the rules of ice physics, with a gradual (if shallow) ice gradient from source to ice front.  I have discussed this before on this blog:



This brings me to my next point, concerning the eastern edge of the Irish Sea Ice Stream.  As shown on the maps in this article, I don't think it makes sense.  it would have been nice to have more information on the interactions between the ice of the ISIS and that of the Welsh Ice Cap, both in Cardigan Bay and on the south Wales coast; maybe that will be forthcoming in future articles from the BRITICE-CHRONO group.   But let's look at the outer reaches of the Bristol Channel, where the authors show streaming ice travelling broadly NE >>SW from the constriction of St Georges Channel towards the shelf edge:


As I have pointed out to the researchers on this team many times before, this is not how ice flows when it is grounded.  Ice always flows perpendicular to the ice edge in situations unconstrained by topography, and if the ice surface was high enough (probably in excess of 350m) off the Pembrokeshire coast to maintain a flow all the way to the shelf edge at -200m, 400 km away, it must also have pushed ice much further to the east across Carmarthen Bay and up the Bristol Channel.  I have discussed this with respect to Ed Lockhart's thesis, here:


I'm gratified that the authors of this new paper have accepted my point that Caldey Island and the South Pembrokeshire coast were glaciated during the LGM, but they have not gone so far as to accept my contention that the ice reached the coasts of west Cornwall and west Devon, and that the Scilly Islands archipelago was a nunatak:





I repeat here that the Bristol Channel ice edge as shown by the authors in this paper is not supported by sound published evidence.  I would have liked more geomorphology in this paper.

But these large research teams are often very reluctant to abandon their working hypotheses.  They will get there in the end........


One of my recent reconstructions of the relationships between the ISIS and the Welsh Ice Cap.  
Here I am suggesting that Preseli was completely inundated by the ISIS; in reality 
it might be that there was a small cold-based ice cap on Preseli which protected it from 
intensive scouring or other glacial effects.  On the north flank of Preseli it is clear that there are traces of Irish Sea ice at least up to the 340m contour.






Monday, 17 May 2021

Byers Peninsula in focus

 


I came across a novel the other day -- called "The Killing Ship" and written by two anonymous academics under the pseudonym Simon Beaufort.  It's set on Livingston Island at the western end of the South Shetlands group in west Antarctica, with the Byers Peninsula at the heart of the story.  Well, this is where I was based with three colleagues for a whole month in late 1965 -- so we got to know it rather well after many miles of trudging back and forth across what was essentially a snow-covered landscape in the early summer season.

So I bought the book and read it -- and it was a massive disappointment.  It was obvious from the outset that the authors had not the faintest idea what the environment was like or what the landscape looked like.  And even less idea of what the practicalities of living and working on the peninsula are or were in recent decades.  The book is flagged up as a thriller, but almost every incident was laughably ridiculous, with cardboard characters who elicited no sympathy from the reader, and dialogue that was unbelievably unlike anything that goes on in real life.  The whole thing was simply a catalogue of absurdities.  How on earth did it ever manage to get into print?  One star out of five, if I'm being generous.  The ending was replete with hints of a sequel.  Oh dear -- if it ever does appear, I for one will not be reading it......




Three recent photos of Byers Peninsula, which is now a protected area frequently visited by research scientists and also by tourists.  When we were there, the landscape was completely unaffected by human activity apart from some small traces of sealing activities on the beaches in the 1800's -- one of the celebrated "last great wildernesses".........

See also: