Some of the ideas discussed in this blog are published in my new book called "The Stonehenge Bluestones" -- available by post and through good bookshops everywhere. Bad bookshops might not have it....
To order, click

Thursday, 29 March 2018

Should we laugh or cry? MPP's latest article......

With great fanfares in the UCL social media, MPP has just published his latest article in the online journal that emanates from UCL itself.

Here is the info:

Parker Pearson, M., (2017). The origins of Stonehenge: on the track of the bluestones. Archaeology International. 20, pp.52–57.


It's quite extraordinary, in that its core message is to do with the wonderful "bluestone quarries" at Rhosyfelin and Carn Goedog -- and in that it demonstrates that MPP is in a complete state of denial about the two peer-reviewed articles in 2015 which questioned every scrap of evidence which he now, yet again, lovingly repeats. He does not cite those two articles, and neither does he mention that there is a bit of a dispute going on......... this is serious scientific malpractice, and I'll return to it.

The article is referred to as a "research update" -- which means that it has been anonymously refereed and approved for publication by the journal editor.  How on earth did it get into print?  Could it be that neither the referees nor the editor are aware of the fact that a rather noisy dispute is going on with regard to these "quarries"?  What does that say about their level of awareness and their qualifications?  Maybe it does say rather a lot about the closed little world of academic archaeology in UCL.

But what is actually quite entertaining is that the article (pretty well word for word) originally had four authors -- and included Josh Pollard, Kate Welham and Colin Richards. Suddenly, in a puff of smoke, they have disappeared, and MPP is the only author cited. At the end of the article, it says "The authors have no competing interests to declare."  Plural, not singular.

What's going on? Could it be that JP, KW and CR have jumped ship? All will no doubt be revealed......


TonyH said...

"Convincing" photograph by Adam Stanford, of Coed Doedog with its 'Neolithic' features? (as well as Rhosyfelin)

What say you, Brian? Please remind us and/or direct us to your previous observations.

Jon Morris said...

This is the new conjecture (the earlier parts of the article seem to be a summary of the current ideas about the stones)

"So where were the bluestones of Craig Rhos-y-felin and Carn Goedog initially taken? Since monoliths were extracted at different times from the two quarries, it seems likely that they were incorporated either into two monuments or into a two-phase monument...."

Will be interesting to see where he goes with this. Seems a shame that they have to try to work this problem out in isolation due to their contractual obligations. But it is what it is.

BRIAN JOHN said...

Convincing aerocam photo or photos? How much more unconvincing could any photos actually be? There is NOTHING in these photos which looks remotely like anything made by human beings. These people all live in fantasy land.

BRIAN JOHN said...

You can use the search box to see all the earlier entries on Carn Goedog and Rhosyfelin.

TonyH said...

I've drawn this Post to the attention of the Director of Wiltshire Museum at Devizes. Just in case he needs to be reminded again by me that that there are alternative, geomorphological, explanations.

UCL (and beyond) has its caucus, its group of people with similar interests and, more specifically, opinions. They need to let the real world in and find out whether their opinions stand up to robust scrutiny from folk from other disciplines. I always thought this was what University researchers were supposed to do! - i.e. let some daylight in. Then they could perhaps bear comparison with Radio 4's The Moral Maze, presented by Michael Buerk.

BRIAN JOHN said...

The article is being widely promoted, as ever -- on the UCL Twitter pages and also by people like Tim Daw on I've also been involved in quite an acrimonious discussion in a Facebook closed group. Somebody had posted a link to the article, and it was followed by gushing praise by all sorts of gullible people who presumably believe everything said by learned professors. I pointed out that MPP was guilty of completely ignoring papers that were inconvenient and that questioned his central hypothesis -- and I was then accused of mounting a very wicked "ad hominem" attack. People sometimes forget that research is done by individuals, and that individiuals write papers -- and that they must accept responsibility for what they do and say.