Peter Kokelaar's latest blog update

 

Some of the Scottish erratics found in the Gower raised beaches by Peter Kokelaar, with acknowledgement to his latest blog post.  The pebbles are identified in the caption to Fig 7.

In his latest blog update Prof Peter Kokelaar concentrates on the Scottish erratics found in Gower exposures of the Ipswichian raised beach and on the debate about the source of the Altar Stone.  He also makes a new contribution to the discussion about zircons and the work of Clarke and Kirkland.  He does not mince his words, and his vocabulary is refreshingly colourful...........

https://kokelaargower.com/stonehenge/

He is particularly scathing about the human transport hypothesis with regard to the Stonehenge bluestones. He refers to "serious subjectivity" and "media hype", and to the degrading of public trust in so-called experts.  He agrees with my point that some of the extreme components or "fantastic claims" in the MPP bluestone narrative are now effectively debunked.

Quote: 

"There has been a strong tendency amongst supporters of human transport to interpret all exotic rock fragments (not all of monolith stone types) as reflecting ‘dressing’ and accidental distribution by human hands, and thus to refer to them as ‘debitage’. This might be justified for monolith rock types in the vicinity of the monuments, but the interpretation potentially involves circular reasoning. As carefully detailed by Thorpe et al. (Table 2, 1991), there are bluestone and other rock fragments widely scattered, e.g., 30 km north around Avebury and 3 km south near Lake. Together with pieces of known erratic types in Barrow Amesbury 39 (a burial site), which pre-dates erection of the large stones of Stonehenge, these all together suggest a natural distribution and render associated claims of human scattering as special pleading. "
 

Quote:

"If the stones were glacially delivered, it would explain why experts on Stonehenge archaeology have commented that the site was never fully completed although repeatedly restructured (Late Neolithic ca. 2950 BC to Early Bronze Age ca. 2,100 BC; Parker Pearson 2023). Based on the irregular gaps (Fig. 1) and the use of rather unremarkable and mixed types of small and rounded stones, it has been inferred that the source of substantial dolerite bluestone megaliths must have been “used up”, so that a full pattern of pillars was never completed. There are 43 stones known today; filling the gaps hypothetically yields 80."

Quite so.

In his discussion of the Clarke and Kirkland Salisbury Plain zircon paper Prof Kokelaar does not mince his words.  He accuses them of using the straw man technique in their discussion, and of quite inadequate sampling.  And he says that their dismissial of the glacial transport hypothesis is "absolute nonsense".  On the Boles Barrow bluestone:  "........the range of convoluted and contradictory claims made through time, not helped by the boulder being collected and moved more than once and also the suggestion that it was stolen from Stonehenge for a garden ornament (subsequently refuted), is astonishing and mind-numbing."

There is aninteresting discussion on the zircon work in western Scotland and elsewhere, and again it is argued that the work of Clarke and Kirkland is inadequate and unreliable.

Returning to the arguments of MPP and his colleagues, Peter says:  "The supposed bluestone quarries and previous-monument sources have been disproved and the bizarre embellishment concerning the transport by cattle similarly is unwarranted. The Altar Stone transport from Scotland most sensibly also did not involve humans either."

This is Peter's view of the BBC 2021 Lost Circle "information disaster":  There are hundreds of perfectly natural outcrops of jointed dolerite like this (ie Carn Goedog) dotted throughout upland Britain, some quite nearby too, and of course also abroad. Surely many thousands of years of freeze-thaw mechanical break-up cannot be overlooked? From this nonsense, ignoring simple natural processes and geology and by implication suggesting ancient quarry sites all over the country, there apparently can have been no scientific-editorial oversight and advice for the archaeologist(s). Gross mis-pleading like this, on a television channel that prides itself in distinguishing the truth, surely undermines simple enquiry and learning, undermines the credibility of actual experts, and, given the n-fold repetition of the BBC programme, is effectively misleading a host of people. Thankfully numerous sensible people have taken issue with the programme and the ‘quarries’ have been debunked and abandoned amongst aficionados, although the BBC continues the promotion. Also thankfully, most of the ground excavation has been restored to nature.

And then: 

" The nonsense carried on. After the Altar Stone saga in 2024, in 2025, just this last year, there came another remarkable gem of mis-information. British Geological Survey Press (20/8/2025): “Scientists uncover secrets of Stonehenge’s mysterious cattle” and next day BBC News: “New analysis of a Neolithic cow’s tooth found at Stonehenge shows the animal likely came from Wales, reinforcing theories that cattle helped transport the enormous stones”. And “You can tell that the animal had been grazing on Palaeozoic rock, typical of those found in Wales, particularly in and around where bluestones are found… We’re beginning to see so many connections between Wales and Stonehenge. Not only is it the closest rock, but there are other links as well.” The italics are mine; nothing supports these contentions, which are false and are sheer hype. "

"The claim that the cow-tooth findings add to confirmation of the “theory” that cattle were involved in transport of the megaliths is udderly ridiculous. Apart from confusing theory and hypothesis in this media hype, the unjustified claims were disturbing as they came from the Press Office of the British Geological Survey. No sane geologist would support them. Actually, the original scientific report of the cow-tooth findings, in contrast to the hype, was quite reserved, acknowledging limitations to interpretations that should be borne in mind. What is it then, really, that causes decent science to be so compromised in the media? There certainly is cavalier ignorance on the part of media producers, whose driver seems to be promotion of viewing figures or sales… Honesty about the issues might have been more interesting and more stimulating of genuine interest… Some of the media nonsense is arrogant and insulting."

It's gratifying that  senior geoloist like Peter is now going on the record and making points that are very similar to mine, going back over the years..........  I know that other geologists will shortly be following suit.  Truth will out...........

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

Isles of Scilly back in the frame

The new field guide to the Isles of Scilly has just been published by the QRA, and I have purchased my copy.  As Queen Victorian famously said, we are not amused.

The book is edited by James Scourse and Chris Caseldine, and it is seriously devalued as a result of editorial bias.  This is fundamentally a matter of sliding academic standards.

Anyway, I am fed up with the petty attacks from James Scourse, and I will not tolerate them any longer.  Watch this space.

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

From my post in 2019 on the Curse of Lithostratigraphy:

Then we come to another problem of lithostratigraphy. Once somebody has studied a region in detail and published what might be deemed to be "definitive" studies of the sedimentary sequence, with "formation" or "member" labels attached, and type localities identified, there is a tendency for those labels to be over-used or applied in a non-critical fashion. I became very much aware of this during my short visit to the Isles of Scilly a couple of years ago, as I looked at innumerable coastal sections on all of the main islands. In a QN article I described and interpreted the deposits as best I could, given the limitations of time and resources:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328413421_Evidence_for_extensive_ice_cover_on_the_Isles_of_Scilly/figures?lo=1

Right from the start, I had problems in fitting the sequence and the characteristics of the deposits into the stratigraphic sequence devised by James Scourse in 1991 and subscribed to (with minor modifications) by others since then. There were two problems, one relating to the choice of type localities, and the other to the choice of stratigraphic labels. 

 I had problems with the "Watermill Sand and Gravel" on the basis that Watermill Cove is not a very good type locality and that the raised beach sediments are neither sandy nor gravelly. I had problems with the "Scilly Till" type locality at Bread and Cheese Cove since the till there is associated with glacigenic structures which are not all that widespread and since other till exposures elsewhere are perhaps more typical of the northern fringes of the islands. The "Porthloo Breccia" I can live with, in that it is always in the same stratigraphic position and since Porthloo is a good type locality. I had problems with the "Tregarthen Gravel" and the "Hell Bay Gravel" labels since they did not seem to have consistent characteristics and since some exposures were not at all gravelly. The labels seemed to me to be surplus to requirements. I was not too sure about the "Bread and Cheese Breccia" either, since in places it had exactly the same characteristics as the Porthloo Breccia. And neither was I sure about the "Old Man Sandloess" since it too had rather variable characteristics from one exposure to another.

Clay-rich till exposed at Chad Girt, in a rocky gully on White Island, Isles of Scilly.  Should this be called "Scilly Till", or something else.....?  

And is it a better type locality than Bread and Cheese Cove?

In my QN paper I used these Scourse terms sparingly, just where I thought they might help in understanding the stratigraphic sequence -- but I have been heavily criticised by Scourse for occasionally placing the deposits I observed into the "wrong" category in the "accepted lithostratigraphic sequence" !! Hmmm. As far as I am concerned, I have not accepted anybody's sequence, and will not accept any sequence unless it seems to me to be either accurate or useful. In ice wastage environments depositional circumstances -- at exactly the same moment in time -- from place to place can vary enormously, and that needs to be recognized. It is a singularly fruitless exercise to become worked up about the application -- or non-application -- of predetermined labels when the only questions worth asking are these: What happened? And when?

Hence my scepticism about lithostratigraphic labelling. There are bad labels, and bad type localities. If we become obsessed by labels and type localities, we can easily be dragged into a scenario in which we "force" the sediments we find into predetermined boxes -- and in the process lose scientific objectivity. If labels are worth using, they will survive. If some of them are causing more trouble than they are worth, they should be dumped.

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

PS.  This is not the only lithostratigraphic sequence I am worried about.  As readers of this blog will know, I am equally concerned about the "Penfro Till Formation" in Wales, designated and promoted by BGS on the basis of very unsatisfactory fieldwork by DQ Bowen at the "type localities" of West Angle and Llandre.  The dubious type localities were referred to several times in articles by DQB, in which he cited himself in circular fashion -- but nowhere in the literature do we see a satisfactory description and analysis of the Quaternary stratigraphy.  Repeat something often enough, and it is deemed to be true!

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2022/04/the-penfro-till-formation-geological.html

I have contacted the BGS about this, but they appear completely disinterested in making any correction.  Once something is in the lexicon, so it seems, it is there for ever, whether it is reliable or not......

Haverfordwest Gorsedd Circle

 

This Gorsedd Circle was erected in 1972 for the Haverfordwest National Eisteddfod.  It's located near the town's Old Bridge, on the slip road that leads to the Morrisons Supermarket.

One of the stones used here was apparently a prehistoric standing stone which was taken from Tresinwen in North Pembs.  That sort of thing would not be allowed nowadays...........

There are 11 stones in the circle -- all dolerite, I think.  One of them is over 2m tall -- that may be the one which was previously a prehistoric (??) standing stone.  Several of the other stones are over 1.50 m tall -- big and bulky.  There are no dolerites in the Haverfordwest area -- so the stones have probably come from Preseli or Pencaer.  Dillwyn Miles (who was involved in everything) probably used his north Pembrokeshore contacts to get hold of them.

There are two external stones adjacent to the main road -- these act as a "gateway" to the circle.  There is also one internal standing stone.  The node stone is massive -- I reckon it weighs between 8 and 10 tonnes.  That must have been a challenge to move -- even with modern machinery in 1972.

The definitive guide to the modern Gorsedd Circles of Wales:

https://sublimewales.wordpress.com/attractions/18th-and-19th-century-stone-circles/gorsedd-circles/

Michael Freeman has done great work on this, and his beautifully illustrated blog is well worth a visit.

See also:

https://sublimewales.wordpress.com/attractions/18th-and-19th-century-stone-circles/gorsedd-circles/list-of-gorsedd-circles/

Obvious machinery damage on the flank of one of the more interesting stones.

The huge node stone and the steps -- used in the Gorsedd ceremonies.  One of the stones looks like a basalt -- it might have come from a local quarry.  The other stones have most likely come from the surface litter.

Several of the stones have obvious signs of modern breakage, with fresh jagged edges that are very sharp as compared with the rounded off edges of stones that have been exposed to surface weathering and cosmic bombardment for thousands if not millions of years.   Old surfaces and newer surfaces have distinctive weathering crusts and different degrees of recent lichen coverage. 

Reminiscences from hither and thither

When one gets old, one easily slips into nostalgia,  and one thinks more about the past than the future.  Over a long life I have had a lot of fun, and have maybe made a small difference to the way the world works.......

But it was a surprise and a pleasure when Glen Peters asked me if I would like to talk about my life --at Rhosygilwen on the afternoon of Sunday 15th November. That will be fun! I'll talk about my adventures and misadventures, in the polar regions and elsewhere. So much to talk about and so little time! The format will probably be more like a conversation than a lecture. Very informal. Anyway, everybody welcome..........

https://rhosygilwen.co.uk/events/brian-john-a-remarkable-journey/

That spectacular article about the Devil's Arrows: six fatal flaws

Brimham Rocks tourist attraction -- somewhere from across a site of around 1.8 sq km, 

they took a sample.........

Satellite image of the Brimham Rocks SSSI, showing rock outcrops 

and the network of paths

The citation:

Clarke, A. C., Leary, J., & Kirkland, C. L. (2026). Deliberate prehistoric sourcing of the Devil's Arrows. Proceedings of the Royal Society A. [rspa.2026.0504].

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rspa/article/482/2345/20260504/483254/Deliberate-prehistoric-sourcing-of-the-Devil-s

I have now had a chance to go through this paper in more detail, and to discuss it with other experts.  So here we go.  Let's discuss the technical deficiencies in sampling symmetry, statistical sample density, and logical consistency in provenance attribution.   It's a bit complicated.......

There are serious doubts about the empirical validity and logical framework of the recently published paper by Clarke et al. (2026) regarding the provenance of the four Devil's Arrows monoliths [rspa.2026.0504]. While the application of high-resolution U-Pb isotopic testing on accessory minerals is a welcome addition to archaeological science, a critical examination of the raw data structure and methodological parameters reveals significant vulnerabilities that undermine the paper’s primary conclusions and indeed its spectacular title. The article has been widely promoted via the media, and the record must be set straight.

The peer review process used by editor of this prestigious Royal Society journal has apparently failed to pick up on six severe methodological and logical flaws:

1. Severe Asymmetry in Sampling and Provenance Controls

The paper compares an undocumented, crushed bulk rock sample from a single, prominent modern tourist location (Brimham Rocks SSSI) (Fig. 1) against non-destructive, surface-adhesive "sticky tape" scrapings taken from the heavily weathered faces of three monoliths and the fresher face of another [rspa.2026.0504] (Fig. 2). The authors fail to present any spatial control sampling across the lateral extent of the target stratigraphic layer. We have no idea where the sample came from within the 30m thick sedimentary sequence, or within the SSI which has a surface area of 1.84 sq km. We are not told whether the rock sample represents the upper or lower boundaries of the sequence, or how the mineral concentrations shift vertically through the 30-metre thickness or laterally across the site. This is an absolute failure of scientific protocol. It means the experiment is completely unreproducible.The Kinderscoutian Brimham Grit is a continuous, sprawling sedimentary formation which occurs across c 140 square kilometres of the North Yorkshire Pennines. Because detrital mineral suites reflect continental river systems, the mineral "barcode" match to this formation must apply to the entire regional sheet, not to a singular geographic coordinate (Morton et al., 2005). 

Two of the Devil's Arrows monoliths, from which rock samples were taken with sticky tape.  Yes, you heard that correctly.........

2. Violation of Minimal Grain-Count Statistical Thresholds

To achieve an acceptable 95% to 99% confidence level that minor mineral age populations have not been missed, established sedimentological protocols dictate an absolute minimum of 60 to 117 individual grain analyses per discrete sample (Vermeesch, 2004). While the authors aggregate a total pool of 236 dated zircon grains from the monuments across Figure 3, their comparative breakdowns in Figure 4 expose a fatal lack of data density. The authors split the monument data into two age-segregated sub-panels: a 90-grain subset mapping the deep-time spectrum (500–3500 Ma) and a 146-grain subset mapping the younger spectrum (300–600 Ma) [rspa.2026.0504]. In doing so, they reveal that their primary geographical point-control—the comparison baseline sample for Brimham Rocks—relies on an astonishingly small pool of just 29 grains [rspa.2026.0504]. Attempting to verify an exclusive geographic match to a massive regional sedimentary unit using a sample that fails to reach even half of the industry-accepted minimum threshold is unacceptable.

3. Artificial Variance Dilution via "Phantom" Data Aggregation

Rather than executing a robust point-to-point comparison (individual monolith vs. specific outcrop candidates), the authors combine their low-yield, heterogeneous grain counts into a single, pooled composite "blob” to smooth away internal variance. Furthermore, the Multi-Dimensional Scaling (MDS) diagrams are heavily packed with distal, irrelevant regional "noise" datasets (e.g., Precambrian basement terranes and distinct Triassic strata) [rspa.2026.0504]. This mathematical dilution dramatically compresses the relative variance of the graph, artificially forcing the visually distinct raw histograms of the Arrows and Brimham Rocks into an unrepresentative, close cluster.

4. The Dismissal of the Glacial Transport Option

A fatal flaw of the paper’s internal logic lies in its selective deployment of Late Devensian (LGM) ice-flow models. In the results section, the authors explicitly acknowledge that a literature search yields a lose match between the Devils Arrows samples and the Langsettian sandstones of the Pennine Basin Lower Coal Measures (PLCM) at Binchester Crags [rspa.2026.0504]. They choose to ignore the fact that reconstructed complex ice flow directions (Thorpe and Williams-Thorpe, 1991; Clark et al., 2022) point to a strong possibility of glacial erratic transport from the southern part of County Durham to the Boroughbridge area during several glaciations (Livingstone et al, 2012) (Fig. 3). The Park Farm borehole record, from a site near Boroughbridge, reveals the Vale of York Formation, a glacial diamicton laid down during the Dimlington Stadial and carrying abundant Carboniferous sandstone erratics from the north. But Clarke and his colleagues then use the ice-flow direction map to demonstrate the “impossibility" of glacial erratic transport between Brimham Rocks and the Devils Arrows site, and invoke speculative human transport instead. This demonstrates a powerful and unacceptable bias in their analysis. What is good for the gander must be good for the goose: a model cannot dismiss a statistically superior northern match based on ice direction constraints while simultaneously throwing out those exact same glaciological constraints to protect a highly speculative “human transport" alternative. 

Northern England -- simplified LGM ice directions (after Livingstone et al, 2012).  

Note the complex ice flow swings in the Lower Tees and the upper Vale of York.  Similarly complex oscillations must also have occurred during earlier glacial episodes.

5. The Lack of Evidence for the Human Transport Option

Having discarded the ice-flow model, they invent a highly speculative 11-mile human transport route to explain the presence of the Devil’s Arrows monoliths. They present no evidence in support of the human transport hypothesis but instead cite unproven claims of long distance stone transport from Ireland and Scotland — partly based on citations of their own hotly disputed work on the Stonehenge Altar Stone.

6. Inadequate Zircon Age Analyses

Independent analysis of the zircon age data by a specialist geologist suggests the foillowing: (1) the zircon age pattern for stone 1 looks different from stones 2 and 3 — there is a larger group of Archaean zircons and a difference in the structure in the mid-Proterozoic age range — all suggesting at least two different sources for the monoliths; (2) given that problem, it is not appropriate to merge all the data into a single “representative” sample; (3) there is a good match between the Brimham Rocks sample and the samples from stones 2 and 3, but the Early Palaeozoic group appears bimodal, unlike any of the monoliths; (4) the Plumpton Rock ages do look different; (5) the dismissal of the underlying Sherwood Sandstone Group is premature, based on a marked contrast with the Triassic, but the papers quoted by Clarke et al use samples in the Wessex Basin, over 150 miles away; (6) the most important point to emerge from this new analysis is that a number of other published data sets do not look very different from Brimham Rocks. For example, a Marsdenian sample looks very similar to Stone 1, and Yeadonian, Rough Rock N and S samples are not dramatically different to Stones 2 and 3. It must also be borne in mind that there are extensive outcrops of Millstone Grit that have never been analysed by zircon specialists. In summary, the conclusions of Clarke et al are highly questionable in terms of the zircon data.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the central thesis of this paper rests on a suspect, shifting statistical strategy. The authors choose to aggregate data when they need to mask individual sample failures, throwing low-yield, weathered monument surface grains into a collective "phantom blob" to fake a robust, unified monument profile [rspa.2026.0504]. Conversely, they choose to split data when they need to disguise a visual mismatch, slicing the continuous age spectrum into separate sub-panels to hide an unviable control sample size [rspa.2026.0504]. This dynamic manipulation allows the authors to bend a chaotic geological footprint to fit a pre-packaged public relations narrative. By substituting tactical statistical smoothing for rigorous field controls and geomorphological fieldwork, they have published a localized point-source attribution that completely collapses under basic sedimentological review.

Thus Clarke et al. have confirmed that the Devil's Arrows have probably come from a Carboniferous deltaic sandstone sheet [rspa.2026.0504], as previously suspected. However, the data presented is statistically incapable of pinpointing a precise geographic source or ruling out local glacial transport from the extensive northwestern outcroppings of that same layer or from the PLCM formation that provides a better match.

It is vital that published conclusions remain strictly bound to their empirical evidence. The authors of this deeply flawed paper must provide a formal clarification, displaying their raw, unaggregated individual monolith histograms side-by-side against a true, non-diluted matrix of Pennine Basin gritstone candidates. Only when they sample for like-for-like similarities and differences across a large range of localities can they expect their work to be taken seriously.

If the authors cannot provide the data requested, I consider that the paper should be retracted.

References

Clark, C. D., et al, BRITICE-CHRONO Consortium. (2022). Growth and retreat of the last British–Irish Ice Sheet, 31 000 to 15 000 years ago: The BRITICE‐CHRONO reconstruction. Boreas, 51(4), 699–758.

Clarke, A., Leary, J., & Kirkland, C. (2026). Deliberate prehistoric sourcing of the Devil's Arrows, Britain's tallest stone row. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 482(2345), 20260504. [rspa.2026.0504].

Livingstone, S.J., Evans, D.J.A., Cofaigh, C.O. et al. (2012) Glaciodynamics of the central sector of the last British-Irish Ice Sheet in Northern England. Earth Science Reviews, 111 (1-2). 25 - 55. ISSN: 0012-8252

Morton, A., Hallsworth, C., & Moscariello, A. (2005). Stratigraphic evolution of Carboniferous sandstones in the Pennine Basin: Heavy mineral provenance constraints. Proceedings of the Yorkshire Geological Society, 55(3), 163–185.

Thorpe, R.S., Williams-Thorpe, O..(1991) The myth of long-distance megalith transport. Antiquity 65, 64–73.(doi:10.1017/S0003598X00079308)

Vermeesch, P. (2004). How many grains are needed for a detrital zircon age spectrum? Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 224(3-4), 441–451.

Williams-Thorpe, O., Potts, P. J., & Thorpe, R. S. (1999). The provenance of archaeological gritstone monoliths in northern England: A geochemical approach. Journal of Archaeological Science, 26(2), 145–161.

Clarke and Kirkland: sampling chaos and statistical manipulation as substitutes for sound science

Three recent studies by Anthony Clarke, Chris Kirkland and colleagues regarding prehistoric megaliths in Britain have faced significant criticism from geologists and archaeologists due to compromised geological sampling protocols and sensationalized claims. Their basic problem is a lack of field research and a consequent over-reliance on statistical data manipulation. I have already been strongly critical of their work on this blog, but by briefly evaluating each study separately we can highlight methodological shortcomings ranging from the use of commercial rock shop samples to unverified adhesive-tape rock surface sampling.

1. The Altar Stone Paper (August 2024)

Full Reference: Clarke, A., Uysal, I. T., Kempe, D. R. C., Drost, K., Ixer, R. A., Bevins, R. E., ... & Kirkland, C. L. (2024). A Scottish provenance for the Altar Stone of Stonehenge. Nature, 632, 570–575.

Analysis: The study claims the 6-tonne Altar Stone at Stonehenge originated in the Orcadian Basin of northeast Scotland rather than Wales, implying transport over 750 kilometres. Critics point out that the authors relied on convenience sampling of museum archival fragments and hand-specimens purchased from a commercial rock shop in Whitby rather than core samples taken within adedicated field research programme. Furthermore, a coherent Scottish match was allegedly achieved only by artificially pooling disparate datasets to smooth out local geological variations. There is an ongoing debate with Nash and Ciborowski on the significance, or otherwise, of the research.


2. The Salisbury Plain Sediments Paper (January 2026)

Full Reference: Clarke, A., Kirkland, C. L., et al. (2026). Detrital mineral fingerprinting of Salisbury Plain drainage systems: Constraints on the glacial transport of Stonehenge megaliths. Journal of Quaternary Science.

Analysis: This research analyzed microscopic mineral grains from southern English riverbeds to argue that ancient glaciers never reached Stonehenge, thereby reinforcing human transport theories relating to the bluestones in particular. Methodological critiques focus on the decision to take bulk samples from just four modern, active riverbed sediments—which continuously shift and erode—to reconstruct deep-time geological and glacial activity. Treating dynamic 21st-century river sandbanks as a pristine archive of ancient glacial movement introduces fundamental geomorphological errors.


3. The Devil's Arrows Paper (September 2026)

Full Reference: Clarke, A., Leary, J., & Kirkland, C. L. (2026). Deliberate prehistoric sourcing of the Devil's Arrows, Britain's tallest stone row. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 482(2345), 20260504.

Analysis: The paper asserts that Neolithic builders hauled Britain's tallest standing stones 18 kilometres from Brimham Rocks while intentionally bypassing identical closer outcrops. Lacking permission for core drilling, the researchers employed an experimental protocol of pressing adhesive tape onto the exterior of the megaliths for five minutes to gather surface grains. Critics argue this captures weathered outer crusts contaminated by atmospheric dust and biofilms rather than un-weathered bedrock, compounded by an absence of precise GPS coordinates or replication data. They then committed the fundamental error of comparing their standing stone data with the data from a 1 kg bulk rock sample collected from somewhere on Brimhan Crags.

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

Here we have three textbook cases of extreme cavalier disregard for scientific protocol. However, because these studies were paired with aggressive media campaigns to announce spectacular "discoveries," this disregard crosses the line from simple carelessness into a profound breach of scientific ethics. We can recognize three corrupting behaviors:

Gross Methodological Recklessness: Deploying an entirely unproven field method (adhesive tape) on a scheduled monument, failing to document the exact sample locations with photos or grid references, and relying on commercial rock shops and dusty museum samples as baseline proxies isn't just cutting corners. It is a reckless abandonment of the basic data-gathering standards required to make any scientific claim verifiable.

Weaponised Sensationalism: By rushing to feed these spectacular, headline-grabbing narratives to the global press before their fragile, unproven methods could be independently scrutinized or replicated by the wider geological community, the authors used media hype to bypass standard scientific scepticism.

The Deceptive Illusion of Precision: Presenting highly speculative conclusions derived from corrupt, unrepresentative data—like surface dust, modern river sand, and unverified museum scraps—as "precise, high-tech breakthroughs" creates a deeply misleading illusion of certainty. It actively misleads both the public and the academic community.

I wouldn't mind betting that here are more dodgy papers on the way........... and more banner headlines in the media.

While it may not technically meet the legal definition of data fabrication, treating legally protected national monuments as experimental playgrounds for media attention—while ignoring the absolute baseline rules of field documentation and sample collection —is an unforgivable failure of scientific accountability.

How to build a stone circle