Two developments today:
1. I received a letter from a geologist with whom I exchange occasional correspondence -- and he tells me that he has been in touch with the National Museum of Wales on the subject of Rhosyfelin and the archaeological interpretations of the features there. He says he was surprised, at a recent lecture by Richard Bevins, to hear such a senior geologist "indulging in propagating the MPP meta-narrative, riddled as it is with speculative interpretations." He also complained about the manner in which the archaeologists have "progressively destroyed" the geological / sedimentary evidence that might have given solid information to anybody with geomorphological training about the Holocene history of this site. He made some very cogent points about the fracture plane -- which I look forward to discussing with him -- and finally expressed his great surprise that "MPP has been allowed to wreak havoc in a section of the National Park, effectively reconfiguring the topography by what can only be regarded as an engineering activity." So there we are then....... I am clearly not alone.
2. I spent a pleasant couple of hours at the site today in the company of Prof Danny McCarroll of Swansea University and his wife Louise, giving the place a good going over. They are both geomorphologists with great field experience, and suffice to say that like other geomorphologists who have visited the site they could see NOTHING indicative of any human intervention either on the rock face or in the area dug over and left in such a mess. We looked at the so-called railway tracks, wedges and props, scratches made by heavy stones being dragged along, shattered slabs damaged by the transit of orthostats, and so on. Their response was the same as mine: "Is this some sort of a joke?" Enough said. If Danny and Louise read this and want to add anything, they will be very welcome.
One thing Danny did suggest -- and I am in agreement with him on this -- is a visit from the specialists who belong to the Quaternary Research Association if the dig site can be left open for inspection at the end of the Sept 2015 excavation season. The Association has a very big membership of Quaternary specialists from the UK and further afield, and if 15 - 20 of them arguing things out on site cannot sort out the truth, nothing will! So I will get a request into the system.
62 comments:
Brian,
Did you show Danny the "ancient writing" on the Rhosyfelin rocks that Chris got MPP 's head turn so quickly to examine?
That would make a believer out of me!
Kostas
No -- I have never seen any ancient writing.... but maybe I just look at it without seeing it because I don't understand the Neolithic alphabet....
Boys behave. Kostas give us something that is a universal truth not just your personal revelation. I would change my augur were I you, too many lions whelping in the streets, too many flights of fancy.
What we want are balanced descriptions in the literature.
Perhaps 'Danny' will write something?
Data boys not Danny boys, that song, tho' tear-jerking, is now tired.
M
M
Doesn't it seem somewhat odd to ask "Is this some sort of a joke?" but then suggest that the Quaternary Research Assoc inspect it? Why? What will they be looking for, punchlines?
Don't see that as odd at all. If I and others come away from Rhosyfelin shaking our heads about some of the archaeological fantasies being thrown around, that's the way it is, and why should we keep quiet about it? The fact of the matter is that this is a rather interesting Quaternary site -- and if QRA would agree to a visit from its members we would be looking for a consensus on what happened there, not a punchline.
I follow your blog with interest Brian and of course agree that if the evidence on-site doesn't equate to the claims of MPP et al, then we all should most definitely know about it.
Something that Myris said a few posts back struck a chord, in that it is very rare to find outright lies being propagated in the archaeological community. This would suggest, if you follow that line, that MPP is simply mistaken in his interpretation of Rhosyfelin. I gather MPP has had geologists look at the site and, one would assume, add their own findings towards what goes up to make the overall claim, so, simply, we have a situation where one group disagrees with another on what the available evidence actually suggests.
This is the reason I flagged the 'joke' comment, because, to my mind, unless we are to believe we are being told an outright lie or that an unthinkable level of incompetence exists among the people studying the site, there must be evidence at Rhosyfelin to support MPPs claims, whether you personally happen to have found it or not.
If it turns out that there is v little or even 'shaky' evidence to back up MPPs claims at Rhosyfelin, do you not think it would be a huge own goal for Mike? Why would he want to put himself in that position?
You could argue that the picture painted by MPP/R for Durrington/SH was a tad too 'neat', but it's a picture backed up by some very strong evidence indeed. As much as he might need a story, I don't think he deals in total fantasy.
Myris, you write
"Kostas give us something that is a universal truth not just your personal revelation. "
Universal truth (true for everyone):
On 18 April 2015 at 17:39 under the "Rhosyfelin: there are fairies under my shrubbery" threat, Chris Johnson wrote,
"When talking with MPP at Rhosyfelin I remarked that there seems to be ancient writings on the rock face. Most likely scratchings from a mechanical digger. The enthusiasm with which he turned his head convinced me that we (especially he) should be super-careful with sites of significance."
Kostas
Kostas, my abiding impression of this incident was that said scholar maintains an open and enquiring mind, a sense of humour, and perhaps an ability not to take himself so seriously while searching for the truth.
Evergreen -- I agree, and would never claim that any serious academic would deliberately peddle a falsehood. Reputations are too precious and too easy to lose. All I have argued, on this blog, is that sometimes researchers get swept along by their own working hypotheses, to the point where they become ruling hypotheses. And then "evidence" tends to squeezed or pressurised into the confirmation of the hypotheses, even though others might look on in wonderment.......
If the results when published do not stand up to scrutiny, the academic and non-academic community will of course have the opportunity to explain exactly why the evidence on the ground does not support the conclusions drawn.....
And I agree with that Brian. But would like to add believing on a "ruling hypothesis" not only skews the evidence but also filters the evidence towards that "ruling hypothesis".
Even at times carelessly unwittingly destroying evidence that is not seen relevant to that "ruling hypothesis". For example, MPP disturbing and destroying geological evidence at Rhosyfelin which may have a different story to tell us.
Not outright "lie", but close enough!
Kostas
Evidence destruction is a difficult one -- we all do it, in the fields of soil science, sedimentology, geomorphology, archaeology etc. It's one of the penalties of digging holes in the ground. But we were always taught to sample by taking enough to find out what the story is, but to leave enough behind for others to test and verify......
I have been to Rhosyfelin many times during the previous excavations and after, seeing this site (in my opinion ) being "reverse engineered " from a natural outcrop (supposedly the site of a quarry ) into a site that NOW looks like a quarry on face value alone, anyone from Joe public seeing it for the first time will believe the rubbish in the media. I have observed over time the so called large orthostat being gradually uncovered with the layers being stripped from around it to have it now looking like it is propped up is just one example.
I heard they also went to Carn Goeddog , what did they find there? OK there IS evidence of habitation and farming north of these outcrops and a number of possibly ex standing stones and burial chambers on the landscape.
My concern is the large circular enclosure on the northern plain between Carn Goeddog and Rhosyfelin , before the land finally dips down into bog .There is an old fable of an "intact stone circle" being moved from Preselau to Salisbury plain, will this site that has no stones standing come under attack from "reverse engineering archaeologists " too and become part of their picture ?
Someone needs to sober these people up before future generations unknowingly believe a rather flimsy stretch of the truth... ....
Hugh -- tend to agree with most of that! Carn Goedog has been investigated -- I suspect they found nothing, but will call it a quarry anyway.
That stone circle site on Waun Mawn -- my impression is that it was investigated a couple of years ago and then they accepted that there was nothing there except for a few standing stones higher up the slope.
Hi Brian
I know Waun Mawn, this site is on the plain north of Carn Goeddog, go onto google Earth, find Carn Goeddog, head out 90 degrees to the line of the base of the outcrops . You will come to the old field system , then keep going a little further on and you will see a large circular ring , if you come to a ditch running diagonally across the screen you have gone too far .... OR hopefully this will help ( fingers crossed)
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.9708479,-4.7294875,377m/data=!3m1!1e3
Look in the middle of this image.... It is practically half way between Carn Goeddog and Rhosyfelin ... VERY FEW people know about it :)
Hi Brian The GPS coordinates of the enclosure north of Carn Goeggog are... 51'58.243'N 4'43.758'W ( For your information if needed)...
All the very best
Hugh
Thanks Hugh -- that's rather interesting! Had not spotted that one before. There's another enigmatic ring here:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.9757801,-4.8008074,373m/data=!3m1!1e3
... and there are probably even more, if one looks for them systematically!
51.9708479, -4.7294875 converts to SN 12611 33787 .
See http://cofiadurcahcymru.org.uk/arch/query/page.php?watprn=DAT9944
For a description of the site at SN 12623 33739 .
It’s a large circular enclosure which seems to be the same site .
Thank you, Hugh and Geo -- interesting extra info. Must try to look at that site soon. I'll do a post.
Anyone know why Geodog has the name it has? The word "wooded" in Welsh appears to be "goediog". But at first sight, this would not appear to be an area in which trees would thrive.
Yes, the name can be translated as "woodland carn" -- and the pollen evidence from Preseli suggests that there was indeed patchy woodland here prior to clearance by burning and grazing. There are even some patches of bluebells not far from Carn Goedog -- and bluebells are of course woodland plants.....
Sorry , but it looks like the link I proved does not work ,I tried a tiny url and that didn’t work either . The site is mentioned under Carn Goedog on the Dyfed Archaeological trust . Archwilio site .The basic content : “NGR : SN1262333779
Site Type (preferred type first) : Iron Age Enclosed Settlement / Roman Enclosed Settlement / Bronze Age Ring BarrowA large, well-preserved circular enclosure situated on the gentle north facing slopes of Carn Goedog at 195m above sea level. It lies within a complex of fields and other features (PRN 8403).The site consists of a circular enclosure, c.35m in diameter, defined by an earth and stone bank c.4.0m wide and 0.5m high. The interior is somewhat sunken and is nearly covered with reed growth. In the SE quadrant of the interior is a spread of stone that appears to have some form - perhaps circular - possibly an indication of a former hut circle? Unfortunately the reed growth within the enclosure obscures any other evidence of internal features.
A site visit durIng 2003 for the PFRS project concluded that this site was not a ring barrow as had previously been suggested and did not fall into any known category of prehistoric funerary and/or ritual monument.
FM & RR May 2009 “
The link worked for me -- I wonder increasingly whether this one is a real relict pingo...
Thanks Brian. Anyone know of a Welsh-English translator that will give near misses on spelling? I had to type in 'wooded' to get Geodiog in Welsh using Google translate. It didn't seem to be able to do it the other way round (by typing in Geodog)
Very intereresting. We discussed a couple of years back that this rough location might be a logical place to look were one to take MPPs theory seriously. The normal behaviour of stone monument builders was to use local stone, maybe moving a few miles. With stone from Rhosyfelin and the spotted dolerites one would look for a location in between.
For some reason I marked on my OS map that there was a drovers route dropping down in the direction of Crosswell a few hundred metres west of the enclosure.
Not sure where and when I picked up this snippet of info, but perhaps Brian can confirm it. Such an enclosure would have been a convenient place to gather stock before dropping down into the valley.
Agreed with that Chris: If you're rolling with these ideas, there's the question 'why was this location selected'? It's difficult to believe that the 'why here?' would revolve around the few fairly insignificant monuments that appear to be found in the local landscape.
Assuming there is evidence of some sort of quarry, it may only be evidence of some earlier, or perhaps much later, activity: Of itself, this may not be able to definitely link whatever activity might have happened at Rhosfelin to Stonehenge. So if there's an answer to the above question, perhaps local evidence of whatever activity that was would be the only way to link Stonehenge to quarry activity in this landscape.
I guess though that that is all second stage stuff: The first thing the team have to do is to establish whether or not it's a quarry?
Jon,
IF there is a monument here then the reason is totally engaged with the horizons. The land falls away to the North, creating a natural bowl with a view all around, perfect for star gazing.
Chris,
My hometown in Greece has several hills all around. When my school teacher wanted to teach us the constellations, he would take us to the top of the tallest hill and in the darkness everything was clear.
No better place to be than on top of a hill for star gazing. All you need is eyes to see. No monuments, however.
Kostas
"No monuments, however."
A distinct lack of major monuments in Neolithic Greece , no stone circles , henges , causewayed enclosures , Long Barrows ,Passage graves , Cursus , stone rows etc .
".....totally engaged with the horizons." Chris, what is that supposed to mean?
Jon -- 'why was this location selected'? Which locatioin? Rhosyfelin? Remember that there is no evidence, as far as I am aware, of any preferential use of stones for Rhosyfelin for any purpose whatsoever. Stones from Rhosyfelin do not appear to have been used in any megalithic monument here or anywhere else. If it did have any prehistoric significance, the only thing I can think of is that it might have been a place for collecting cutting tools, because the sharp-edged flakes might be rather good for cutting up animal carcases etc.
“IF there is a monument here then the reason is totally engaged with the horizons. The land falls away to the North, creating a natural bowl with a view all around, perfect for star gazing.”
That might be a good reason to site a local monument in Preseli Chris? Not sure that would provide a believable motivation to take those stones to Stonehenge.
I have to admit to a bit of an interest here, because there is something extraordinarily special about this particular part of Preseli: This would provide a plausible motivation to move the Stones to Stonehenge, but only if you think that there is anything to the 'Geocentric hypothesis'. At this stage, it would be seen as pure speculation so I'm not sure this is something for Brian's blog. Best to wait and see what happens with the quarry?
Why would a monument be sited in the Presceli area because of a particular silhouette provided by the hills .
Star gazing requires clear skies , i.e. no trees and and cloud cover ,you could be in a boat in the middle of the Irish Sea or anywhere on land to do that and no reason to set up a monument to do so or mark the spot of the gazing .
Agree, Geo. Horizons are no doubt very beautiful, but totally irrelevant to star-gazers and the builders of monuments.
My thinking on "horizons" was stimulated by John Norths tome "Stonehenge: Neolithic Man and the Cosmos" in which he presents a lot of evidence for creating lines of sight, elevations, and fixed horizons.
IF Neolithic people were trying to make sense of the heavens then they would have valued a fixed horizon and fixed angles of elevation. North argues that the ditches around long barrows had a purpose in providing fixed observation points. Other "cosmology" promotors would see here an explanation for henges and the lintels at Stonehenge - the need to create or use a horizon in order to observe star patterns over hundreds of years.
So, Geo, I personally doubt that Prescelly was chosen as a monument site because of its horizons but it does strike me that it is an exceptionally suitable place for a study of the heavens in Neolithic times to have emerged. It is, in fact, one of my ruling hypotheses.
Chris,
North was talking about the use of artificial horizons to provide a constant alt. ,in itself contentious but more importantly not related to the natural setting of , say , Presceli .
There are also problems with accuracy in the heliacal viewing of stars which I don't think North covered ,the sun and moon being quite different and not applicableto these problems .
oooops should have added horizon viewing to heliacal viewing .
Geo,
Neolithic earth and stone moving activity is generally about improving on nature. So discovering the need for an entirely artificial horizon would likely have followed a period of using an entirely natural horizon.
In Prescelli there are impressive natural horizons when viewed from several directions; inwards looking out, or outwards looking in.
The location referred to by Hugh is perhaps optimal for a use of natural features - hence my enthusiastic and uncalibrated response to his excellent post. I will try to visit in the next few weeks, weather permitting.
Geo,
Neolithic earth and stone moving activity is generally about improving on nature. So discovering the need for an entirely artificial horizon would likely have followed a period of using an entirely natural horizon.
In Prescelli there are impressive natural horizons when viewed from several directions; inwards looking out, or outwards looking in.
The location referred to by Hugh is perhaps optimal for a use of natural features - hence my enthusiastic and uncalibrated response to his excellent post. I will try to visit in the next few weeks, weather permitting.
Chris ,
your assumption is that certain sites indicate a place for observing the heavens , post construction . I don't believe that we have the evidence for that . We do however have evidence for some major sites being aligned , like Stonehenge , Newgrange ,Maes Howe etc , but the alignment would have had to have been confirmed prior to the building and there would have been no need for further confirmation .
If you simply want to understand the various cycles , anywhere with a good clear view will suffice , you don't need a monument paricularly if it has big stones that get in the way or worse has an enclosed passage ,as is the case with passage graves .
Geo,
The way I read the evidence is that we start with an interest in the stars, and this later becomes focussed on lunar and eventually solar events. The reason for the change of focus is perhaps the wish to simplify the challenge. And as Jon says, a view of the universe develops in which WE are central.
Star watching for patterns would have been tantalisingly difficult as I do not see that they would have been able to gain knowledge of a 26000 year cycle. In British climes it would have been very frustrating even scary as the milky way slowly slipped below the horizon.
I like to think the early settlers would have approached the puzzle with an open mind, and that project would require a vast and static observatory to make progress. Prescelli fits the bill.
“Jon -- 'why was this location selected'? Which locatioin? Rhosyfelin? Remember that there is no evidence, as far as I am aware, of any preferential use of stones for Rhosyfelin for any purpose whatsoever. Stones from Rhosyfelin do not appear to have been used in any megalithic monument here or anywhere else. If it did have any prehistoric significance”
Preseli in general Brian: If you run with the idea that the Stones were transported from Wales, then why select Preseli stone? There are much easier locations to ship stone from.
At this moment, there is no evidence that Preseli had any sort of special link with Stonehenge (other than perhaps the evidence that Welsh people were involved with the construction of the monument). The only a priori evidence at Stonehenge is that some of the materials originated in Wales.
But glaciers could have transported this stone. A quarry does not provide substantial additional evidence for human transport to Stonehenge: A quarry might provide circumstantial evidence of how it might have been done if humans did it. Alternatively, if glaciers did it, then a quarry might just be somewhere that quarrying happened to have been done.
Can you see a flaw in this argument Brian? (trying to look at it from a critical point of view)
“Star gazing requires clear skies , i.e. no trees and and cloud cover ,you could be in a boat in the middle of the Irish Sea or anywhere on land to do that and no reason to set up a monument to do so or mark the spot of the gazing .”
Agree with that George: A north facing bowl is great for observing the stars, but there are far better slopes and bowls than this in Southern England. Round the corner from me there's a much steeper slope called the Long Man which has an even better slope and bowl configuration, for astronomical viewing, than the (admittedly magnificent) Preseli area. I'm sure you could find something similar in Wiltshire is you went searching for it
So if there were something astronomically special about Preseli, it would have to be something that is not possible to do either on a boat (in the middle of the Irish Sea) or almost anywhere else on land?
Out of interest George, if there was something special about Preseli, what sort of evidence would convince you that there was a link?
Jon, not sure if you're suggesting it is prehistoric but the bowl above the long man is a medieval quarry. There is a long barrow and BA barrows up there too. Possible Flint mines. The long man himself is thought to be fairly recent (17th C iirc). I don't think those sticks are representing your hinge arrangement ;)
Isn't this getting rather fanciful, chaps? We could take any circular feature in the UK, or any dolmen or standing stone, and spend hours and hours having innocent fun, seeking significance in assorted features -- cols and summits, for example -- ranged around the horizon. Some of those features will be approximately aligned to one or another of the sunsets or sunrises, or moonsets or moonrises, or lined up with some star or another. Sorry, but I don't buy any of it.
Chris ,
It is unlikely that there was anything apart from "we are central thinking " it is almost a given .
Stellar precession may well have been not noted , you don't need to record the entire cycle ,a few generations recording would suffice and any study of the simple solar cycle and possibly more awkward lunar cycle could have been done anywhere. Presceli has no special attributes to help in the recording , and you don't need monuments to do it .
"Sorry, but I don't buy any of it."
Does that include Stonehenge , Newgrange , Maes Howe ?
Jon ,
I think I would have to know what it was first , I can't imagine anything about any one spot having some special astronomical attribute that was a reason for siting a monument there . But if we look hard enough at any one monument we might find an attribute retrospectively ,whch might tell us more about uorselves than the reason for choosing the site .
One favourite , the latitude of the Great gallery of the Great Pyramid is 29.979245 which also happens to be the speed of light ,it makes you smile but it's not really meaningful .
Go on ,do tell .
I try to keep an open mind on those big monuments, but for each of them, there are so many "alignment" theories in the literature that I am probably not alone in being utterly confused as to which theories are sensible and which are rubbish.
Jon, not sure if you're suggesting it is prehistoric but the bowl above the long man is a medieval quarry.
Thanks Evergreen: Can you link me into the reference for the evidence for this? It would be much appreciated. My blog contact may be better than clogging up Brian's site.
The long man himself is thought to be fairly recent (17th C iirc).
That may well be so Evergreen (though you may want to read the latest archaeological report referred to in the book: It does not confirm this supposition). Either way, the archaeological evidence shows that the slope was cleared in the Neolithic. Whether or not it was used for stargazing is an unknown.
But if we look hard enough at any one monument we might find an attribute retrospectively
What if it is a predicted attribute of a hypothesis George? In other words, not retrospective.
Go on ,do tell .
This isn't the place for that discussion George. Neil's asked me to summarise it privately: If you want to be copied in, let me know?
GeoCur, you write,
"A distinct lack of major monuments in Neolithic Greece , no stone circles , henges , causewayed enclosures , Long Barrows ,Passage graves , Cursus , stone rows etc . "
Could it be the Neolithic Greeks were not as advanced or capable enough to have built them? Or perhaps too capable and too advanced to have required some practical reason to built these?
Between these extremes there is a sensible explanation! Neolithic people did not built these! But Nature mainly did! And Nature built these where Nature found the right conditions to built.
Kostas
I was thinking only of the obvious examples of solstices at all three .
Fortunately with passage graves there is little choice, it's the alignment of passage ,unlike stone circles where anything goes , and does . That is where the problems arise , look and you will find something to fit your birthday or may day or wahtever . These examples are usually in the eye of the beholder but the major ones are compelling ,as are recumbent stone circles which have a consistent declination despite varied horizons and angle of setting of the recumbent .
Brian, surely the Winter Solstice alignments at Newgrange & Maes Howe are to be considered at the 'sensible' end of the spectrum? I think it'd be difficult to argue against intentionality there, and of course SH.
Jon,
http://www.pastscape.org.uk/hob.aspx?hob_id=408826
Jon ,
If a hypothesis could predict the site of previously unrecorded monument then I would be very surprised and certainly en route to being convinced by the hypothesis .
Considering that neolithic Greece was midway between two areas of early monumnet building i.e Catal Hoyuk in Anatolia and Malta ,it is odd that they didn't build anything monumental .Nice pots though .
No shortage of nature to provide "explanations " for any monuments too .
Suggetsing that nature built Catal Hoyuk or the Maltese monuments or the monuments of the British /Irish neolithic is very far from being sensible ,it simply ignores the evidence and in the only cases where it has been suggested replaces the evidence based examples with fantasies that defy laws of physics and nature .
No worries George: If there's anything like that comes up, I'll send it through.
Thanks Evergreen.
The site refers to a quarry, but there were two claimed quarries on Windover Hill (Curwen noted both of them). The quarry that looks like the rest of the quarries in the area is to the west of the Long Man and is arranged in the way that typical quarries around here are done. Curwen's second quarry is to the south and on the top of the hill.
Chalk is prolific around here. Where it's mined, the miners generally take it from easy locations rather than purposefully choose the most difficult place to mine. So if the south one is labelled as the quarry, it would make a very interesting choice.
Cheers and thanks for the link
Jon
Hi Jon, no problem. Funnily enough I was up there at the weekend (a little break in Alfriston).
A couple of other things to note which may have some relevance, the enclosure itself is a highly irregular shape and the northern edge of the ditch of the BA barrow above seems to be partly destroyed by the enclosure.
Hi Evergreen: I was also in Alfriston last Sunday
If the quarry is not a quarry, but was built for some other purpose, then I guess it makes sense that it would be built after the mounds. Out of interest, did you notice that the (known neolithic) long barrow is aligned on the same axis as Stonehenge?
Hi Jon, we stayed at the Star, perhaps we passed eachother in the street!
I hadn't noticed the LB was on the same axis as SH. I think orientation of LBs is generally eastwards but with many variations.
Yes, on that evidence alone I would suggest the bowl/quarry/enclosure was dug out at some point after the BA barrow was raised.
Two things for absolute certain - it's a lovely part of the country and the beer is top notch. :)
Behind the Star's car park there is a twittern which is the old route of the South Downs Way. This leads straight to the post office from the house. If you saw an odd character lurking along the tittern with some groceries, that would have been me.
Post a Comment