The return of the Phantom Quarrymen

 

The recently stripped area on the flank of Carn Ddu Fach, following the latest bluestone quarry search.  Serious research, or frivolous desecration within a protected landscape?

I'm picking up on various social media comments and messages from mountain walkers that while some of the MPP team were digging September holes into the ground near the hamlet of Crosswell, the phantom quarrymen were also hard at work up in the rarified atmosphere of Mynydd Preseli, hunting for Neolithic quarries. 

Richard Bevins was at Rhosyfelin earlier in the year, doing some TV filming and  maybe collecting more samples, but otherwise there seem to have been no new excavations there.

There are rumours of work going on at Cerrig Marchogion and maybe other sites including Cerrig Lladron, but the main focus this year seems to have been Carn Ddu Fach, not far from Carn Alw and Foel Drygarn.  These sites are all flagged up as being of interest in earlier publications -- referred to initially as "possible" sources for bluestone monoliths after very modest rock sampling programmes and Xray studies in the field.  

Bevins, R. E., Pearce, N. J. G., & Ixer, R. A. (2021). Revisiting the provenance of the Stonehenge bluestones: Refining the provenance of the Group 2 non-spotted dolerites using rare earth element geochemistry. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 38, Article 103083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2021.103083

Richard E.Bevins, Nick J.G.Pearce, Mike Parker Pearson, Rob A.Ixer
Identification of the source of dolerites used at the Waun Mawn stone circle in the Mynydd Preseli, west Wales and implications for the proposed link with Stonehenge
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports
Volume 45, October 2022, 103556

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352409X2200219X

Now, however, see see the usual distortion of the field and laboratory findings so that "possible" sources within areas of many thousands of square metres are transformed into "probable" sources associated with particular outcrops such as Cerrig Marchogion, Cerrig Lladron and Carn Ddu Fach.

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2024/04/the-unhealthy-obsession-with-bluestone.html

The geological work has become very messy because of the "stone 62" fiasco (remember the pentagonal footprint?) and the pantomime surrounding the imaginary "Lost Circle" at Waun Mawn.  But apparently the MPP team members are unapologetic about all of that, and are as obsessed as ever with finding bluestone monolith quarries..........

So to Carn Ddu Fach, which might (no stronger than that) be an approximate source for one of the Stonehenge unspotted dolerite bluestones.  Walkers up in the mountains report quite a mess up there, with the grassy turf stripped off the edges of the dolerite outcrops and then crudely replaced.  There are also yellow metal pins hammered into the turf.

Is this the "void" which the diggers assume to have been a stone extraction point?

According to reports of the latest MPP talk at the Bluestone Brewery, the learned professor claims that the diggers found a "void" from which a bluestone monolith had been taken, and also at least one "wedge" used in the quarrying process. He referred to a "stone extraction point" that appears no more convincing than the one that supposedly exists at Rhosyfelin.   Oh dear --- here we go again...........  Visitors to the site say that the void is a completely natural one not dissimilar to the voids, holes and gaps found all over these Preseli tors; and they say they can see not the slightest trace of quarrying activities.  

(It needs to be said that there ARE prehistoric quarrying sites on Preseli, and that they are characterised by distinct pits or stone extraction hollows, piles of waste rubble and transport trackways.  These features are NOT present at Rhosyfelin, Carn Goedog or Carn Ddu Fach...........)

Finally there are whispers of further "surprises" at Waun Mawn -- so maybe the gang members have not completely given up on that site and its fantastical narrative.  Watch this space.

A visitor who took some photos at the Carn Ddu Fach site wonders whether this small stone just above the centre of the photo (between the recumbent block and the bedrock outcrop) is interpreted by the quarrymen as a "quarrying wedge" rather like those they claim to have found at Carn Goedog.   

Prof Tim Darvill

 I was saddened to hear about the passing, on 5th October, of Prof Tim Darvill.  Another victim of cancer, after a short illness, at the age of 66. 

Tim was of course one of the leading archaeologists of his day, with a wide range of interests and an impressive publications list.  He spent most of his academic career in the University of Bournemouth.  His work on Stonehenge and the bluestones was of course well known, and in West Wales his extensive chapter on "Neolithic and Bronze Age Pembrokeshire" written with Geoff Wainwright and published in Vol 1 of the Pembrokeshire County History (2016) was and is hugely influential. 

I disagreed with some of his ideas and agreed with others, and occasionally we exchanged messages and opinions.  I always found him polite and reasonable in his responses to my ideas, and he was kind enough to offer and provide help in the analysis of the Newall Boulder stored in Salisbury Museum.  Some of the data which he provided were incorporated into my article published in Quaternary Science Journal in June of this year.

To his credit, Tim recognized and acknowledged disputes in his field of interest, and was happy to cite the work of those with whom he disagreed.  Not everybody does that.........  He was one of the few archaeologists who was prepared to go on the record, in print, to express his concern about the elaborate narrative woven by Parker Pearson and his team around the Pembrokeshire bluestones.

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2022/11/darvill-on-waun-mawn-myth.html

Tim's 2022 article was important, not least in demonstrating that I was not alone in having serious doubts about the reliability of the evidence and the spectacular claims made in recent years by Parker Pearson, Ixer, Bevins and others.

May he rest in peace.

MPP, Bluestone Brewery, 2024

 

MPP was at the Bluestone Brewery, giving his annual lecture to the assembled faithful.  Nobody seems to remember much of what he said, which means that he probably didn't say anything particularly memorable.  That's a compliment, not a criticism -- for the last ten years these talks have been used for flagging up one pretty outrageous "discovery" or "finding" after another, based upon the flimsiest of evidence -- only for all of them to be ditched or modified in short order when people like myself have questioned the wild and spectacular components of the narrative.

Have MPP and the team now settled down to doing some quiet and systematic studies of ring features in the Crosswell area, with an emphasis on teaching students the basic principles of field archaeology?  Since the first studies at Pensarn a few years ago, the work seems to have entered a new phase, in which Stonehenge features not at all.  Thank God for that.........

Anyway, the whispers from the convivial evening suggest that Waun Mawn is no longer part of the investigation re Stonehenge.  MPP has finally accepted that it was -- at best -- a monument that was never finished, and abandoned after a short space of time.  He still insists on the "discovery"of  holes intended for stones that never were put into position before the site was given up on.  I don't accept that, but he has to hang onto something, I suppose.  

The focus is now elsewhere in Preseli, notably at Crosswell, where several ring features or embanked enclosures can be seen on satellite images.  There are also subtle mounds worth investigating.  The suggestion seems to be that these features are mostly from the Bronze Age and later -- but that there may be Neolithic traces beneath.  That would not be surprising, given that there are abundant Neolithic traces in the wider landscape, as recorded over many years of research by other archaeologists.  

On the geological front, there is a suggestion that the geologists (Ixer and Bevins) are looking at natural outcrops and boulder blockfields around the ridge where a match for the volcanic characteristics of some bluestones and fragments has been found.  That would not be surprising either -- although the idea of spot provenancing and the discovery of more "quarrying sites" looks increasingly absurd.

Banc Llwydlos Ancient Village

 

One of Hugh's drone images of the site

Somebody posted (on Facebook) the lovely image of the Carn Euny ancient village in Cornwall.  This is reputed to be of Iron Age / Romano British construction, possibly with  parts that go much further back.  It's on a very similar scale to the Banc Llwydlos "village" on the northern side of the main Preseli ridge, which Hugh 365 and I have been mentioning at frequent intervals over the past few years.

See this listing:

https://coflein.gov.uk/media/86/748/dat21_03.pdf

Surely it MUST be excavated?

Myth making and national trauma

In the recent interview which I did with Jacky Henderson, I referred to the "national context" in which HH Thomas proposed his theory of bluestone transport.  I referred to national trauma and the need to believe in the civilising influence of our ancestors.  Jacky and Coral illustrated the point by inserting a couple of images of women working in munitions factories.  That was fine, but more appropriate images might have been those pasted above, if we are to appreciate what the national mood might have been........

The Great War, the Twilight of Empire and the Supremacy of Man...........

Ten years ago, I posted this:

I have done a number of posts in the past about the socio-political climate that existed in 1920-21 when HH Thomas was formulating his ideas on the Stonehenge bluestones -- and preparing and presenting his lecture to the Society of Antiquaries in which he flagged up the heroic efforts of our Neolithic ancestors.

I have picked up on the fact that there was a great need, in Britain at that time, for reassurance and for a demonstration of the fact that Britain was a place of ancient wisdom and high civilization -- and having to cope with barbarians and the forces of darkness in various parts of the world. The trauma of the Great War was still in everybody's minds. The aspirations of the British Empire were of course never far away either....

Two authors who have found expression for this are David Keys and Stephen Briggs. David Keys, in the article copied above (from The Independent, 22nd April 1990), said: "But then came the Great War, twilight of Empire, and the supremacy of man. Out went natural explanations as to how Stonehenge's monoliths arrived on Salisbury Plain. In came a theory that made prehistoric engineers look, in their own Stone Age sort of way, every bit as capable as the ancient Egyptians............. The idea that the monument was constructed by ignorant savages directed by engineers from some superior civilisation struck a chord with 20th century Britons who lamented the passing of Empire, but cherished what they perceived to be Britain's civilizing role in the world."

Stephen Briggs, in an unpublished paper called "Preseli, Stonehenge and the Welsh Bronze Age", said this: "Because archaeology in the post-War years (ie after 1918) demanded our forebears to have been intrepid and sophisticated, and since it could be demonstrated that a bunch of schoolboys were able to devise a method to move the stones, therefore if it were possible, therefore it was probable........."

... and then this: ".........British prehistory has been anxious to own an important proof of early human prowess, but instead of being satisfied with the achievement represented by the erection of the stones at Stonehenge, we have cast Neolithic and Bronze Age man in our own mould, as a man of extensive geographical knowledge, a man of taste and one who left behind remains from which his political systems and trading routes could easily be traced."

That all feeds in very neatly to my comments about the lack of scrutiny of Thomas's ideas, and also into my post about the romance of the venturesome traders.

This is from another previous post:

A few months ago I spoke to the archaeologist and antiquarian Stephen Briggs about the idea (which I explore in the book) that sometimes an archaeological idea can be used for the promotion of the national interest. We only have to look at the manner in which the pyramids, the Easter Island heads, Angkor Wat, and the Great Wall of China are promoted as national icons or as symbols of great and ancient civilizations. Stonehenge is no different -- as journalist David Keys has pointed out in assorted newspaper articles. Stephen confirmed for me that after the First World War there was a strong emphasis -- during the rebuilding of a battered world -- on the triumph of civilization over the forces of darkness, and on the civilizing influence of the British Empire. Archaeologists and politicians were interested in flagging up the great achievements of our ancestors -- and when HH Thomas came up with his story of the great stone-hauling expeditions this was like manna from heaven! The media loved it, and I actually think that the lack of critical analysis and criticism from other academics was largely down to the fact they they thought any criticism would have been UNPATRIOTIC. There was also, says Stephen, an attempt to show that the Neolithic tribes of Britain were actually cleverer than the Neolithic tribes of Germany -- the defeated enemy. German archaeologists were, at the time, discovering that most of their megalithic monuments were built of stones collected from the immediate vicinity; what better way to show the "superiority" of British Neolithic tribes than to show that they were capable of collecting their stones from vast distances away? So the Stonehenge story was born -- as a way of flagging up to the world that the inhabitants of this small island were incredibly clever, at a time when others were still brutes who were incapable of organizing great civil engineering projects. "Anything you can do, we can do better!" This all sounds too crazy to be true? Indeed -- but you'd better believe it, since it's quite well authenticated.

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

The more I think of it, the more convinced I am that in the years following WW1 people WANTED reassurance and national heroic myths -- and HHT was only too happy to oblige.  And to their eternal discredit, the archaeological and geological establishments went along with the myth-making without ever subjecting HHT's ideas to proper scrutiny.

The Lake House meteorite - in the news again

I'm intrigued by some of the key components in the story as it is told by Colin and Judith Pillinger -- ie the arrival on Planet Earth c 30,000 years ago, the "frozen preservation" for 20,000 years, the discovery by the Neolithic or Bronze Age inhabitants of Salisbury Plain, the burial in a ceremonial mound, and finally the rediscovery and extraction from the calcium-rich environment.  I am trying to track down the published papers which underpin this story...........

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2013/04/new-evidence-of-glaciation-on-salisbury.html

I tried to get hold of the research data more than 10 years ago, without much success.........

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

The recent paper:

Pillinger, CT and Pillinger, JM. 2024 Grandfather's stone: the Lake House Meteorite, Britain's largest and earliest extraterrestrial sample. Wilts Arch & Nat Hist Magazine 117, pp 181-196.

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

The record:

Lake House 51°8.98’N, 1°48.60’W

England, United Kingdom

Found: Early 20th century

Classification: Ordinary chondrite (H5)

History: Lake House is a large Elizabethan country house dating from 1578 located in the village of Lake in the county of Wiltshire, England. Photographic evidence demonstrates that the meteorite was located on the top step at the main entrance to Lake House at least as early as the first decade of the twentieth century. Robert Hutchison (Curator of meteorites, NHM) was notified of the existence of the meteorite in a letter from Robin Bailey dated 13 Nov 1991. A note written on a copy of this letter in Robert Hutchison’s hand writing and initialed "RH" and dated 16 Sept 1991 reads: "probably a chondrite Ol +Px +Ct …? metal with Ni …sulphides". Mr Bailey was unaware of a detailed history of the meteorite, which he described as being collected by his grandfather.

Physical characteristics: The single remaining mass can be recognized as the major portion of a larger meteorite. The existing fragment, measuring 55 × 38 × 35 cm, is dark brown, extremely weathered and deeply fractured, consistent with being exposed to the elements for a long period of time.

Petrography: Distinct chondrules are present, but these tend to have poorly defined boundaries. Porphyritic types predominate, but barred olivine and radial pyroxene textured chondrules are also common. Chondrule mesostasis is recrystallized, with grain sizes generally below 50 μm. The sample is cut by a network of veins, up to 2 mm thick, filled with secondary weathering products.

Geochemistry: The oxygen isotope composition of the meteorite was measured (after washing in EATG to remove weathering products) δ17O = 1.99 ± 0.05 (1σ); δ18O = 2.76 ± 0.09 (1σ); Δ17O = 0.55 ± 0.01 (1σ) (n=2) which is in the accepted range for H chondrites.

Classification: In thin section the sample is a heavily weathered (W5), moderately shocked (S4), equilibrated ordinary chondrite (H5).

Specimens: The owners of the main mass have agreed to loan it on a long term basis to the local county museum in Salisbury, where it will be on display to the general public. A 1 kg representative mass will remain at OU as the type specimen for research purposes.

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meteor/metbull.php?code=56144
https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2013/04/scientific-note-on-lake-house-meteorite.html
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253308918_The_Meteorite_from_Lake_House

https://www.science.org/content/article/mystery-meteorite-house-sting

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

From a BBC News write-up

"It's very unusual to find a meteorite this big in Britain," Prof Colin Pillinger said.

"They are very unstable, they contain a lot of metallic iron which oxidises and the meteorite falls to pieces.

"So the only logical explanation of how such a big meteorite may have survived being on Earth for 30,000 years is that it fell on or near a glacier and was in a deep freeze for 20,000 years."

Professor Pillinger, famed for his work on the Beagle II Mars explorer, said he believed the low-humidity and freezing conditions would have protected the rock from weathering.

"Then along came some druids, scavenging on Salisbury Plain for strange or interesting stones, and it was picked up and used in a chalk mound," he said.

"And the 'reducing environment' of chalk - the anaerobic environment - would have prevented the iron from oxidising."

The giant fragment of asteroid is then thought to have been unearthed by a previous occupant of Lake House, who is known to have excavated several nearby burial mounds.

"He was an archaeologist and was digging every barrow up in sight trying to find treasure," said Professor Pillinger.

"And we think he got it out of a barrow and added it to his collection."

The meteorite, known as a common chondrite, is due to go on display at the Salisbury and South Wiltshire Museum in autumn.

Adrian Green, the museum's director, said there was still "a lot of debate" about how the rock came to be on the doorstep of Lake House.

"But it's not uncommon for exotic rocks to be built into burial mounds," he added.

"And it's still covered in chalk which is the bedrock of the landscape.

"And it's colossal - it would take four people to lift it - and it's not aesthetically pleasing, so common sense dictates that this has not been shipped from abroad at ridiculous cost and significant effort, but that it came from the UK."

The Lake House bluestone boulder

Lake House, Wilsford

I have previously speculated on the matter of "other" bluestone fragments found in the Stonehenge landscape, apart from the mysterious Boles Barrow bluestone.  The Cunnington records relating to Boles Barrow mention "bluestones" in the plural as having been found there  -- so where are they now?  Are they all in Salisbury Museum, possibly unclassified and unloved?  According to the latest paper on the Lake House meteorite (Pillinger and Pillinger, 2024) various bluestone (meaning spotted dolerite) pieces were taken from Boles Barrow to various gardens, presumably including those at Heytesbury and Lake House..........  But Lake House is in Wilsford, a long way from Boles Barrow.  The very grand house is now occupied by the musician Sting and his wife.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_House
http://www.insidewiltshire.co.uk/largest-meteorite-to-fall-in-the-uk-was-used-as-door-stop/

From an old post by Hobgoblin:

"In a letter of 1933, R S Newall, assistant to William Hawley in his excavations of Stonehenge between 1919-1926 and discoverer of the Aubrey Holes, stated he found a large piece of spotted dolerite in a cottage garden near Lake House. Newall described it as a rough cube of about 18 inches each way, which might have been broken off the top of a worked monolith of the bluestone horseshoe. The owner of Lake House, near Wilsford, south of Stonehenge, donated the bluestone to the Salisbury Museum."

Note the mention of a cottage garden on the estate.  If this large lump of rock had been donated by Cunnington and Colt Hoare to members of the landed gentry as an "'interesting stone", why was it not kept in a prominent place on the estate rather than in a cottage garden probably occupied by an estate worker?  Are we talking about the same stone?  Is it possible that the Lake House stone had nothing to do with either Boles Barrow or Stonehenge?

The mystery deepens.  Last year Julian Richards was pictured at the new Boles Barrow dig with a lump of spotted dolerite.  He was using it to show the diggers what they might need to look out for and what might just still exist in the depths of the barrow.  Where did that lump of rock come from?  Is it from the Salisbury Museum collection, and might it even be the very same lump of rock (or part of it?) that came from Lake House?

In the recent paper by Bevins et al (2023) mention is made of  ".........a dolerite block reputedly found in a cottage garden near Lake House, near Amesbury, which lacks a reliable context".  But the rock was not analysed by the geologists.

Bevins, R., Ixer, R. A., Pearce, N., Scourse, J., & Daw, T. (2023). Lithological description and provenancing of a collection of bluestones from excavations at Stonehenge by William Hawley in 1924 with implications for the human versus ice transport debate of the monument’s bluestone megaliths. Geoarchaeology: An International Journal, 38(6), 771-785. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/gea.21971

Does anybody have any light to shed on this issue?  All info gratefully received........