BBC : "The truth is whatever we say it is........"

"Science is about evidence, not wishful thinking....."

I'm watching the developing crisis at the BBC with some concern, but I must say that I am not all that surprised.  In my own limited contact with the BBC over editorial standards, relating to my complaint about that absurd 2021 "Lost Circle" TV programme, I am appalled by the arrogance and complacency with which my comments were greeted.  First of all, putting in a formal complaint was not that easy.  It was initially not accepted by the BBC, which led to my making the complaint to Ofcom, who then shunted it back to the BBC.  In 2022 I provided even more detail about the nonsense contained within the programme, and the demonstrable falseness of many of the claims made by MPP and Alice Roberts,   At that time the programme had been broadcast six times. The BBC replied: 

".....we've received no information that would lead us to form the view that the film can't be shown again."  As I have pointed out before, that was extremely arrogant and complacent. The BBC did not ask for proof associated with my complaint, and they were clearly not prepared to check things out for themselves. 

As of November 2025, the programme has been broadcast on multiple occasions (at least 14), including a showing on BBC Four just a few days ago.  It has also been continuously available for streaming since it was first shown in 2021.   It is still promoted on Alice Roberts's Wikipedia page, which also quotes her as saying: "science is about evidence, not wishful thinking".  Hmmmmm......

 That notorious programme, based entirely on assumptions and speculations dressed up as responsible and reliable science, falls far short of the standards expected of the BBC. In my view it brings the BBC into disrepute, and I have said this many times before on this blog.

What makes things even more ironic is the latest BBC PR campaign, including lots of hype about "BBC Verify".  The corporation claims a commitment to the unvarnished truth on everything, to the extent that they ruthlessly strip out material that may be classified as misinformation or disinformation.  Well, they do nothing of the sort.  On the basis of my own experience, I can say that they make editorial decisions on the basis of "impact" and  financial benefit, not on the basis of hard science or factual reliability.  And when broadcast nonsense is pointed out to them, they go straight into defensive mode, trotting out platitudes such as that which I have quoted above.

Not good enough, BBC.  But it's rather sad that it takes a threat from that idiot in the White House Ballroom to force the Corporation to face up to its complacency and its highly defective editorial decision making processes.

Ailsa Craig erratics in Ireland

 An Ailsa Craig erratic boulder (much sampled by geologists) on the beach at White Park Bay on the north coast of Northern Ireland.  This is just the tip of the boulder -- it's the biggest Ailsa Craig erratic I have seen.

The pic is from Peter Wilson's interesting video on glaciation and glacial features of the Irish Mountains:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voQYLd5svmc

Peter mentions that Ailsa Craig erratics are found all the way along the eastern coast of Ireland and as far to the south-east as Cork Harbour.  That's 350 miles from the source in the Firth of Clyde.  Perfect spot provenancing?  Well, not quite, since we don't know how extensive the original micro-granite intrusion might have been before thye onset of glaciation and the recent (Holocene) rise of relative sea-level.

The bedrock in White Park Bay is Upper Cretaceous chalk or "white limestone".  As a matter of interest, one of the larger erratics found at Kenn, not far from Bristol, is made of "white limestone" and is assumed to have come from Northern Ireland -- transported by the Irish Sea Ice Stream.

Ken Follett jumps onto the Stonehenge bandwaggon

 

Here we go again.  One would have thought that there were quite enough dodgy Stonehenge novels, but here comes another.  I have not read any of them, but the feedback from those who have does not inspire confidence....

The best-known Stonehenge novel is of course the one by Bernard Cornwell, published back in 2011.  It had mixed reviews, but several reviewers referred to the novel's "well researched historical content" and its "historical authenticity"..........  what that means is that Cornwell has accepted and adopted the standard establishment  mythology about Stonehenge as the basis for his story, going on to build his own fantastical tale on top of it. You take "the truth"and then build on it.  That is what always happens with historical fiction -- I have tried to do it myself with my Angel Mountain novels. 

Of course Bernard Cornwell wanted to use Stonehenge as a setting for a novel because it's a guaranteed money-spinner.    I don't blame him for that........

Anyway, the latest venture into "Stonehenge fiction" is the novel by Ken Follett, published about a month ago and called "Circle of Days".  Again it assumes that the "basic facts" about Stonehenge (including the human transport of stones from Wales) are known and accepted as "the truth", and are then used as an underpinning for the fantastical story invented by the author. He puts people and their interactions into the setting.   Ken is a Welshman who has sold millions of copies of his books, and maybe the link with Wales gave him an extra prod for the writing of the novel.  He was on BBC R4 the other morning playing his part in promoting the book, as all top authors are encouraged to do by their publishers.  Again this novel has had very mixed reviews, but that won't worry either the author or the publisher, since you can't please all of the reading public all of the time.

So I'm not blaming any of the Stonehenge fiction writers for jumping onto the bandwaggon and writing their tales.  But this reminds us of just how successful EH and the archaeological establishment has been in their marketing of Stonehenge mythology, which is endlessly marketed as "the truth".  That marketing is what inspires authors to weave their tales for the entertainment of the novel-reading public -- and every new novel reinforces the myth.  The real truth?  To hell with the truth, when there is money to be made........

Stonehenge and climate change

Two men and a female colleague have been cleared of all charges, following a protest against the fossil fuel industry as part of the "Just Stop Oil" campaign.  They had sprayed some of the Stonehenge sarsens with an environmentally-friendly orange powder.  They had denied all charges of damaging an ancient protected monument and causing a public nuisance, after targeting Stonehenge as part of an ongoing fossil fuel protest by the direct action group.

What a waste of public money!  The trial lasted for 10 days.  Well, good for the jury.  The "public nuisance" was all down to the overreaction by Englishy Heritage, and the "damage" done to the stones was infinitisemally small,  compared with the damage done each year from starling and other bird droppings.

Since this blog site is all about Stonehenge and climate change,  I feel it is my duty to congratulate the protestors........

Could the Stanton Drew stones be glacial erratics?

See these:

https://davidrabram.substack.com/p/decoding-stanton-drew

https://usercontent.one/wp/ramblingon.mendipgeoarch.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Stanton-Drew-Sone-Circles_observations-and-notes-on-rock-types.pdf?media=1712675554

Thanks to Vince Simmonds for the followingn (2023):

Stanton Drew Stone Circles: observations and notes regarding the sourcing of the various rock-types used in the construction of the monuments.

Vince Simmonds BSc PgCert PCIfA FGS

The four main rock types represented in the Stanton Drew circles are as follows:

1.  Oolitic Limestone – Jurassic 205 – 142 Ma (figure 3). These rocks are a pale grey- yellow colour, although this is difficult to fully distinguish due to a substantial lichen cover. The surface of the blocks resembles a limestone pavement and has numerous cup-like depressions and pits that partly fill with water. Many rock art sites have flat slabs of stone open to the elements and, when it rains, the cup-and-ring marks fill with water, rocks with natural cup marks are often utilised for the same effect. It could be that places where rocks ran with water or held water were culturally significant in many ways (Fowler and Cummings, 2003: 10). It is possible that some of these limestone slabs at Stanton Drew were not intended to stand or were used as capstones.

2.  Silicified Dolomitic Conglomerate - Triassic 248 – 205 Ma (figure 4). These rocks have a wide range of colours from pale pink to orangey pink with some bright, sometimes ochreous orange, through to dark rust, and purple-red blotches, the red and orange colour is indicative of the mineral iron content of these Triassic rock types. The rocks have a glassy, metallic appearance and feel and the surface can be described as pitted, pock-marked, frothy, knobbly, and gnarly. There are abundant quartz geodes that make many of the stones sparkle, William Stukeley (cited in Lloyd Morgan, 1887: 39) remarks that “it shines eminently and reflects the sunbeams with great lustre”. Quartz was a highly significant and regarded material in prehistory as indicated through its use in various monuments (Lewis: online accessed 2010). There are some silicified fossil fragments from the remains of limestone clasts within the conglomerate. The varying clasts range from sub-rounded to sub-angular, fine to coarse gravel to pebble and cobble size. The majority of the stones have a substantial cover of lichen with some moss and grass.

3.  Dolomitic Conglomerate – Triassic (figure 5). This is a weathered pale grey-pink and has a lesser degree of silicification. The varying clasts range from rounded to sub- angular fine to coarse gravel, pebbles and cobbles of limestone and sandstone. There are also some silicified fossil fragments from the remains of limestone clasts within the conglomerate and the stones again have a substantial cover of lichen.

4.  Pennant Sandstone – Carboniferous 354 – 290 Ma (figure 6). These rocks are of a pink to fawn colour and distinct bedding layers are clearly visible in particular cross-stratification which is typical of material that has been laid down in deltas. There is a layer of rounded to sub-rounded fine to medium gravel of quartz.

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

Vince and others are very reluctant to get into detailed provenancing, but it appears that the majority of the Stanton Drew stones have come from the SW, in or on the edge of the Mendips, around Harptree and the Chew Valley Lake.  The Stanton Drew studies do refer to stone collection, but Kellaway seems to be the only geologist who has seriously suggested origins as glacial erratics.  In most of the articles I have looked at, Kellaway is not even mentioned, and the only theory being considered is that of human stone collection.  That's not surprising...........

So let's revisit the idea.  Could the stones -- or at least some of them -- have been transported by ice and then gathered up from an erratic scatter?  Answer -- yes. The maximum distance of erratic travel may well have been about 8 km.   I have suggested many times that the Mendips might at one stage have hosted a small independent ice cap, and that this might at one time (or more often) have been incorporated into the far eastern edge of the Irish Sea Ice Stream.  If this was the scenario, ice might well have affected the Chew Valley Lake area and Stanton Drew, flowing from  south-west towards north-east.  If glaciological conditions were right, the entrainment and transport of boulders in this area was quite possible.

Too many "might" and "may have" provisos?   Quite so -- but this does justify some further consideration......... and I need to work out how topographic controls might have been exerted.

Rhosyfelin -- the story is changing

This is interesting.  After 15 years of maintaining the pretence that  the exposed rhyolites at Craig Rhosyfelin are unique, and characterised by a "Jovian fabric", Bevins and Ixer are at last admitting that things are a great deal more complicated than that.

On many occasions I have strongly criticized the use of the invented term "Jovian fabric," arguing that it is misleading and not a unique characteristic.  Similar foliated and lensoidal textures can be found in other heavily deformed rhyolites and volcanic tuffs across Pembrokeshire and other regions, as pointed out in my post:

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2024/02/the-special-rhosyfelin-rhyolite-triumph.html .

Using a non-standard and potentially common texture to claim a precise, small-scale provenance is scientifically unsound.  I also have serious reservations about the widespread use of the term "rhyolite with fabric" by Bevins, Ixer and Parker Pearson.  What on earth does that mean?  It appears to mean -- in the Ixer/Bevins lexicon  -- a particular type of secondary fabric arising from post-depositional deformation or stress.  They refer particularly to foliation and flattened lensoidal clasts, but fail to demonstrate that these features are absent from all the other related ourctops of rhyolite on the north flank of Mynydd Preseli.

In standard petrology, the textures of igneous rocks are classified using widely accepted terms like aphanitic, phaneritic, porphyritic, and vesicular, which describe grain size, crystal formation, and gas content.   Terms like "foliated" and "lensoidal" describe structural characteristics, often related to metamorphic processes that affect igneous rocks, and these are far from unique to one location.  A rock with a fabric resulting from intense tectonic stress is not an anomaly; it is a common feature in many geological settings where ancient volcanic rocks have been subjected to mountain-building events.
In summary, the "Jovian fabric" is a non-standard, invented term. Its perceived uniqueness has to be questioned, and its use as definitive proof for the human transport of the bluestones is frankly absurd.

Ten years ago Ixer referred to "sub Jovian" and "semi-Jovian" fabrics at Rhosyfelin, in recognition of the fact that there is considerable variation across the rock outcrop.  I think there was a reference to another three rhyolite types at Rhosyfelin -- and now, in the article on the Cunnington rock samples,  we see a reference to "Snowflake fabric" and "Zebra fabric".  These are not very technical terms, and they cover a multitude of sins........

I have made the point elsewhere that the Newall Boulder may share certain geochemical and petrographic characteristrics with some samples from Rhosyfelin, but it looks very different to anything I have seen at the "quarry" face, and it has NOT been demonstrated that it cannot have come from anywhere else.  Nor is it admitted that there are substantial variations within the Rhosyfelin collection of samples -- and again it has not been demonstrated that any or all of these cannot have come from anywhere else. I think that the extraordinary "spot provenancing"claims are in tatters. 

Can the "rhyolite with fabric" debitage all have come from the natural fracturing or human breakage of a a single boulder?   I think there is too much variation for that, and we still do not know what the full range of rhyolite characteristics may be across the Crosswell - Pont Saeson - Brynberian area.  I saw somewhere a claim that there have been over 200 samples now taken by Bevins across the area, mostly within the valleys of the Nevern and Brynberian streams.  Bevins and Ixer have told us that "Rhosyfelin foliated rhyolites with the same petrography and geochemistry" do not occur except at Rhosyfelin, but they have simply told us that, and we are expected to believe them.  Very dodgy.

This strange little map purports to show the sampling points in the valleys of the Nevern and Brynberian streams and in the Carnedd Meibion Owen area. How many oif these samples have actually been analysed?  And where are the results? 

To summarise, there is no "demonstrable" exclusivity.  Because a complete geological survey and analysis of every potential rhyolite source has not been conducted, it cannot be definitively proven that the Rhosyfelin rock type does not exist elsewhere. The possibility that a similar geological signature exists in an unsampled or poorly-sampled location remains, creating a "sampling bias" that undermines  the claim.

If the specific rock type exists elsewhere, as I suspect, it weakens the claim of an exceptionally precise match "within a few square metres" at Rhosyfelin.  The precision of the match is contingent on the uniqueness of the geological fingerprint, and if that uniqueness is not proven, the accuracy of the source identification is brought into question.

According to the Hitchens Razor, extraordinary claims require support from extraordinary evidence.  The jury is still out, and the evidence we need is still missing. 

As I have said many times before, the biggest mistake ever made by Bevins and Ixer was get sucked into the quarrying debate.  As soon as they started to refer to bluestone quarries in their papers, they opened themselves up to criticism on the grounds of sampling bias and circular reasoning.  They also chose to publish preferentially in archaeological journals rather than geological ones, in which the standard of peer review was inevitably much lower.  So we find them arguing (in their abundant articles) for the presence of a Neolithic quarry at Rhosyfelin on the grounds that rock samples from there were a reasonable match for some samples from Stonehenge.  And they argue that some of the stones that ended up at Stonehenge came from Rhosyfelin, because that is where the quarry was located.  Round and round.......

Where it all started:

Ixer, R.A and Bevins, E.R (2011) Craig Rhos-y-Felin, Pont Saeson is the dominant source of the Stonehange rhyolitic ‘debitage’; in Archaeology in Wales 50, 21-31

https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/31544116/rhos_AW-libre.pdf?1392324523=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DCraig_Rhos_y_felin_is_the_dominant_sourc.pdf&Expires=1761393598&Signature=Yj4RhTm3v7hNwk~odIMOfA1HpJ8yHo6T-D8XyR~75k8ov8gAkbYXPe54NEG9IYTq-0RnBBmK3HhPJ0qrLd8Jl-XHtD2EctMepawi5xsAGc9bdtFyoVSosA1OgWMokStJchCH47fdDcpmy9ZRDBlKyhp5FJOaIZqMNTiVOAFXJFMpiCMb5M7CK5GHmM2jom7vO4r65niW7ZQbz-2amM9mJTXHQiuifE9W9HUtfOmcvTOJDIvwOKHlZowb4f1WjiyiFccRisLymkOflRSyqnRxVJTgljCzIv-fd5DHNymBdlcAYtHPWGNzp1uOrM4EarJwXEgt4LS60OTATqQ55SqCFA__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2011/12/on-significance-or-otherwise-of-999.html

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2021/02/geology-sampling-progress.html

More on the Silbury Hill bluestone fragments

Thanks to Paula for the photo

We have talked a lot about these fragments in the past -- use the search facility to track down previous posts. Now there is a new note by Ixer, Bevins and Pollard which examines the petrography of the stones in more detail and which suggests matches with other bluestone fragments scattered across the landscape. 

Details:

"Bluestones from Silbury Hill" by Ixer, Bevins and Pollard
Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine, vol. 118 (2025), pp. 270–309

https://www.academia.edu/144003051/Slbury_Hill_lithics

There are four or five bluestone fragments derived from mixed / disturbed / undisturbed contexts near the summit of the mound. Four of these were described by Ixer in 2013, and it appears that these are all made of spotted dolerite. This short article describes another of the samples (Wilts 391) in more detail. It is concluded that it is related to Andesite Group A. Quote: Andesite Group A is defined as a foliated, lithic tuff and as debitage is widely distributed throughout the Stonehenge Landscape.  Another sample (661) is described as a typical dolerite or "preselite" flake.

So far so good.  But then the authors get onto a discussion of origins and significance, and set off by saying (about the dolerite flake):  "....there can be no doubt but that it is a flaked piece of Stonehenge ‘preselite’ debitage."  That is a completely unsupportable statement. No link with Stonehenge can be assumed.   Even if this flake has lithological similarities with some orthostats or debitage at Stonehenge, it simply shows that material of this type is quite widely distributed across the landscape.  Nothing more, nothing less.

In the "Discussion" section of the article things get even more dodgy. The authors refer to the suggestion that the occurrence of bluestone fragments at Silbury Hill appears to support the hypothesis of glacial bluestone transport. They say this idea was "soundly refuted by Ixer (2009) and by Leary (2010)."  Here Ixer, somewhat absurdly,  is citing himself  -- not in a learned article but in a book review.  The citation of Leary 2010 is equally strange -- it seems to point to a letter in a popular glossy magazine, not a considered scientific analysis. 

It gets worse.  The authors then suggest that the foreign fragments at Silbury Hill are "post-prehistoric  adventitious introductions" and even possibly "evidence of the emptying of antiquarian or archaeologist's pockets."  That's stretching things a bit -- why should people carry around Stonehyenge fragments in their pockets and then choose to empty their pockets when standing on top of Silbury Hill?  Ixer and his colleagues provide no evidence whatsoever to counter the argument that the fragments have been at Silbury Hill since the time of the building of the mound (or possibly since the end of an early glacial episode), and that they may have come from broken or destroyed glacial erratics -- incorporated either knowingly or unknowingly into the building materials.

The bias continues.  The authors refer on P 274 to Wilts 391 coming from "a tuff from Stonehenge" and even from buried orthostst 32c.  I repeat.  The Stonehenge connection is entirely speculative.  Then they refer to "the four pieces of Stonehenge bluestone...."    Four pieces of identifiable bluestone maybe, but why cannot the "parent erratic" not have been deposited in the Silbury Hill area instead of further afield?

In referring to the possible "prehistoric introductions" of foreign rock fragments into the building of the Silbury Hill mound, the authors talk about "those responsible for reducing monoliths and distributing fragments" -- again making the huge assumption that everything started off at Stonehenge, having been brought there from West Wales,  and then ended up somewhere else.   In the final paragraph the authors refer to fragments of volcanic ash and dolerite being "brought to" Silbury Hill. Then they bring the granidiorite lumps at West Kennet into the frame, and say: "Transporting small rocks and depositing them on and within major monuments could have served to connect in a token fashion disparate places and events."

The authors conclude: "The finding of five samples of Stonehenge debitage, one in a secure Neolithic context, supports the suggestion that all were brought to Silbury in prehistoric times and can no longer be dismissed as extraneous."

What on earth is the word "extraneous" supposed to mean in this context?  Of course the fragments are extraneous.  They are erratics in the true sense of the word, whether or not they have been transported by ice.

Sorry, but this piece is so full of speculations and unsupported assertions relating to Stonehenge that it really adds nothing to our understanding of the mound we refer to as Silbury Hill.