Bluestone Quarries and Occam's Razor

We currently have the rather interesting sight of teams of archaeologists rushing about in West Wales and looking for bluestone quarries.  They have been encouraged into this by the recent geological discoveries which now indicate that the Stonehenge "bluestone assemblage" contains at least 30 "foreign" non-sarsen rock types, some of which are still unidentified.  The list is in my book.  Apparently, as far as we know, all of those stones have come from the west or north-west. (Why are there none from the east?  Answers on a post-card please...)

Let us imagine for a moment that HH Thomas had never invented the human transport myth.  In that case, there would not be a moment's hesitation in saying -- with the full agreement of the archaeological and geological experts involved -- that the stones are probably glacial erratics, dumped somewhere to the west of Stonehenge and collected for use in the building of the monument.  No other theory or explanation would be necessary, since that accords with the facts on the ground relating to ice movements and glacial history. These facts have been known for decades, and indeed the old geologists knew about the broad pattern of ice movements more than a century ago. The ice moved across Pembrokeshire from NW towards SE and continued to flow in that direction until it skidded to a halt somewhere in SW England.  That much is indisputable, and is supported by the evidence of glacial deposits on the ground. (What we still don't know is precisely where the ice edge lay at the time of its maximum extent.)

But we are stuck with the HHT theory, and we are stuck with a generation of archaeologists obsessed with the task of proving it correct.  So we are also stuck with a bluestone quarry hunt, no matter how absurd and illogical that might seem to rational human beings.  It's interesting that it's not just MPP and his team who are involved in this hunt -- Dyfed Archaeology and Cadw also seem to be backing it enthusiastically, as does the National Museum of Wales and the Pembs Coast National Park Authority.  Why?  Well, they will all bask in the glory of joint press releases and media coverage, and see "success" in the bluestone quarry hunt as bringing them extra publicity and extra tourist income for Wales.  Maybe a few staff members will even get a few seconds on the telly!  A nice win / win scenario............. with rational thought processes conveniently kicked into the long grass.

Let us suppose that the quarry hunters find some large stones in the places where they go digging.  What will that tell us?  That there are lots of large stones lying around in the vicinity of rocky crags and other outcrops.  Big deal.   That is precisely what you would expect anyway.  What if they find some smaller stones as well, in the vicinity of the big ones?  Big deal.  Again, that is precisely what you would expect in a landscape littered with scree and morainic debris.  What if some of these smaller stones look rounded enough to be called mauls of hammer stones?  Big deal. Boulders of all shapes and sizes, in glaciated areas, have their sharp edges knocked off and smoothed by ice and water action.  What if you find actual physical traces of tooling and working on a rock face?  Big deal.  That might mean that at some stage somebody has levered out some handy building stones for use in building a barn or a stone wall -- just as country folk have always done when they are building things. 

What if some arrow heads or Neolithic artifacts are discovered in the ground adjacent to a big elongated stone?  Now that becomes a bot more interesting, since it shows that people might have been collecting stones from here for a very long time -- either for building purposes, or in the gathering of material suitable for axe manufacture.  But this is still no big deal, since we have absolutely no reason to assume any link with Stonehenge or anywhere else, on the basis of the evidence in front of us.

What if the rock type of the nice elongated boulder found in your pit is shown by geologists to be the same as that of certain fragments found at Stonehenge?  That again is no big deal.  We know that already, and have known it for years.  In fact it was that identification (in the case of Pont Saeson) that brought you out quarry hunting in the first place.   Without that, you would never dream of digging a hole here or anywhere near here.   So we are into circular reasoning territory, with a vengeance......

In an earlier post, I wrote:   

As far as the science of landscape is concerned, our principle is this:  If a past phenomenon can be understood as the result of a process now acting in time and space, do not invent or invoke an extinct or unknown or supernatural  cause as its explanation.  By the same token, if a landscape can be understood by reference to known physical processes, even if they have varied through space and time because of climate change or crustal movements, do not bring in "invented" processes which are unverifiable through observation.


Stephen Gould said in 1987:  “We should try to explain the past by causes now in operation without inventing extra, fancy, or unknown causes, however plausible in logic, if available processes suffice.”


This is known as the scientific principle of parsimony or Occam's Razor.  This is a good definition: "Of two equivalent theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred". 

So why have these enthusiastic quarry hunters refused to take on board a simple and natural explanation for the Stonehenge bluestones, and have gone for something that involves circular reasoning and wild fantasies instead?  Corporate amnesia?  Mass hysteria?  Money?  Don't ask me -- ask them....