THE BOOK
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
HERE

Thursday 2 August 2018

Strontium levels in cremated bone: what the new paper actually shows


Part of Figure 2, showing the strontium isotope ratios for Great Britain, based upon geological and other data, and actual measurements.  Rhosyfelin is located on this map, for no scientific reason whatsoever.  Thousands of other locations in western and northern Britain could equally well have been recorded as possible home areas for 5 cremated individuals........

This is the new Nature paper, published today:
Strontium isotope analysis on cremated human remains from Stonehenge support links with west Wales.
Christophe Snoeck, John Pouncett, Philippe Claeys, Steven Goderis, Nadine Mattielli, Mike Parker Pearson, Christie Willis, Antoine Zazzo, Julia A. Lee-Thorp & Rick J. Schulting .
NATURE Scientific Reports, volume 8, Article number: 10790 (2018)
Published 2 August 2018
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-28969-8#

I suspect that without the involvement of Prof MPP, this would have been a much more circumspect paper, and -- dare I say it -- a much more scientific one.  However, it is what it is, and the principle of corporate responsibility applies.  We have already seen how archaeology can corrupt innocent geologists -- and now we see the same sort of corruption happening in the field of geochemistry as well.   I wonder if those involved realise what is happening to them?  Maybe they do, but maybe the lure of media fame and research IMPACT outweighs all other considerations these days.........

So let's just ignore the media hype for the moment and look at what the evidence in this paper actually shows.

Abstract

Cremated human remains from Stonehenge provide direct evidence on the life of those few select individuals buried at this iconic Neolithic monument. The practice of cremation has, however, precluded the application of strontium isotope analysis of tooth enamel as the standard chemical approach to study their origin. New developments in strontium isotopic analysis of cremated bone reveal that at least 10 of the 25 cremated individuals analysed did not spend their lives on the Wessex chalk on which the monument is found. Combined with the archaeological evidence, we suggest that their most plausible origin lies in west Wales, the source of the bluestones erected in the early stage of the monument’s construction. These results emphasise the importance of inter-regional connections involving the movement of both materials and people in the construction and use of Stonehenge.

The authors report on the strontium isotope analysis of 25 individual cremations at Stonehenge, and claim that at least 10 of the 25 cremated individuals analysed did not spend their lives on the Wessex chalk on which the monument is found. The cremated bones all came from Aubrey Hole 7, and they are radiocarbon dated to between 5180 yrs BP and 4380 BP -- placing them in the earlier stages of the monument's construction.

This is the important point about the new research technique developed by Christophe Snoek and his colleagues: "......fully calcined bone has recently been demonstrated to be a reliable substrate for preservation of the original strontium isotope (87Sr/86Sr) composition, which reflects an average of the foods eaten over the last decade or so before death, in contrast to the childhood signal represented by dental enamel. In addition, Stonehenge lies on the Wessex chalk, characterized by a well-constrained range of strontium isotope ratios (±2 SD: 0.7074–0.7090) allowing for the identification of individuals consuming food beyond this landscape."

So far so good -- this is an interesting and valuable development.

Isotope ratios were worked out for the cremated bone samples, and for 8 modern plant samples from west Wales (No controls from other parts of western Britain? Why not?) This is instructive: the modern plants were analysed "to better characterize the biologically available strontium around the quarries where bluestones originate."  What better statement of bias could there be than that?

Then the authors say: "The strontium isotope ratios for modern plants clearly distinguish the Ordovician and Silurian lithologies of west Wales (0.7095–0.7120) from the Cretaceous chalk of Wessex (0.7074–0.7090), which extends for at least 15 km around Stonehenge in all directions. Beyond this to the west and north is a large zone showing intermediate values (0.7090–0.7100) with small pockets of higher values." At this point we can already see a powerful bias appearing in the research, since it is obvious from the Figure 2 maps that vast swathes of northern and western Britain have isotope ratios that are identical to, or very close to, those from west Wales. And what on earth is Craig Rhosyfelin doing on the map? The authors could, with greater justification, have marked the locations of Birmingham, Manchester, Edinburgh or Exeter.......

This is the crucial part of the research: "The 87Sr/86Sr ratios for the cremated human remains from Stonehenge range from 0.7078 to 0.7118. There is no consistent relationship between the strontium isotope results and the radiocarbon dates. We consider the fifteen individuals with strontium isotope ratios falling below 0.7090 as ‘local’ inasmuch as they clearly reflect the chalk geology, although it must be acknowledged that this extends for at least 15 km in all directions, and further in some. With values ranging from 0.7091 to 0.7118, the remaining ten individuals (40%) could not have consumed food growing around Stonehenge alone for the last ten or so years of their lives. Those with the highest values (>0.7110) point to a region with considerably older and more radiogenic lithologies, which would include parts of southwest England (Devon) and Wales (parsimony making locations further afield – including parts of Scotland, Ireland and continental Europe – less probable). Those ‘non-locals’ with intermediate values could reflect places closer to Stonehenge or a mixture of different sources (e.g. chalk or other limestones and more radiogenic lithologies). Since measurements on bone reflect a mixture of the foods consumed over the decade or so prior to death, there is also a temporal aspect to be considered. For example, those moving later in life from west Wales to the vicinity of Stonehenge would present a signal increasingly attenuated by the consumption of local foods, while migrants arriving on the Wessex chalk more than a decade before death would effectively become ‘local’ in terms of their bone strontium isotope ratio........."

Figure 3 -- geographical assignments for two of the sampled individuals.  There appears to be no scientific reason why these two locations have been chosen -- the individuals could equally well have come from any of the other areas shown in orange on the map.

The authors admit, quite honestly, that the individuals with values ranging from 0.7091 and 0.7188 could have come from anywhere in the Palaeozoic province of the British Isles, and that the individuals with values below 0.7090 could have come from anywhere on the chalklands of southern and eastern England.  Because of this, I am completely mystified by the "geographical assignments" shown in Figure 3.  There seems to be no scientific justification whatsoever for assigning sample 288 to Craig Rhosyfelin and sample 390b to Stonehenge;  both of the individuals sampled could just as well have come from locations more than 100 km away from the named localities.

From this point on, the obsession with west Wales in the article becomes more and more apparent, and it is downhill all the way.  The paper simply becomes another exercise in ruling hypothesis confirmation, like all the other papers in which the Rhosyfelin quarrymen have been involved.  A pity -- this paper could have been so much better, and could have brought much more credit to the geochemists involved in the research.

And so the media hysteria will continue, on the BBC and elsewhere, because nobody can be bothered to read the article.  So much easier just to report on the wild extravagances of the press releases put out by those who place IMPACT at the very top of their lists of priorities.





22 comments:

BRIAN JOHN said...

This is a quote from Paul on Facebook today -- I hope he will not mind me reproducing it here.

Paul Sambrook: "What's really fascinating is that this date of around 3000 B.C. coincides with our radiocarbon dates for quarrying at the bluestone outcrops in the Preseli Hills of Pembrokeshire [in western Wales]," study co-researcher Mike Parker Pearson"

What radiocarbon dates would those be? I haven't seen any evidence of dateable material associated with quarrying in Preseli. Have I missed something?

I agree with Paul. The mess of radiocarbon dates from Rhosyfelin and Carn Goedog are currently being sold to the masses by MPP as if they demonstrate quarrying around 5,000 years ago. Disingenuous to say the least -- this is a deliberate distortion and misinterpretation of the evidence.

TonyH said...

"Pin a Tail on a Donkey" - a Party Game for Children (and others, it seems)......


..............................As I write, surely Somebody with an Archaeological qualification, and who also plays a guitar and writes Contemporary Folk, is composing a ditty about 'Those Good Ol' Boys From Rhosyfelin Who Headed Off With Strontium Stonehenge Way'.......

Tommy Cooper and his Fez would surely be admiring this magnificent sleight of hand. Just like that!

BRIAN JOHN said...

It's getting beyond a joke. I'm staggered at the manner in which apparently good scientists allow themselves to be corrupted by contact with the quarrymen. We have seen exactly the same thing with Ixer and Bevins, whose papers would have been so much better had they simply stuck to the facts.

I think MPP has pushed the West Wales connection too far this time -- almost all of the comments I have seen on Facebook, from people who have looked at the paper, is that the obsession with West Wales has effectively destroyed the credibility of the research and the authors.

BRIAN JOHN said...

For your edification, if you can stand it, this is an overview of the nonsense appearing in the media on this very day:
https://news.google.com/stories/CAAqSQgKIkNDQklTTERvSmMzUnZjbmt0TXpZd1NoOGFIV1JyVVVOeFdEbEVOVGw2T0dOSFRYZERSSEZYTWpCRlZISmpTbE5OS0FBUAE?q=strontium+stonehenge&lr=English&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiR6oCdptDcAhWpIMAKHSjJAksQqgIINDAA&hl=en-GB&gl=GB&ceid=GB:en

PeteG said...

summer is always the silly season for news. ITV this morning had a nutter on telling us the moon is transparent so we couldn't have landed on it today!

BRIAN JOHN said...

You mean there are folks who watch the telly in the mornings? Whatever next?

TonyH said...

Brian, I (and no doubt everyone else reading these Comments on your Post) am not able to bring up your Facebook Mega - pages as we aren't able to simply press on your Site Reference! Please are you able to fix this? i.e. give it your BLUE colour. It would do a lot of our hearts good to read how many sceptical i.e. sensible folk there are who have read MPP & Company's ridiculous - obsessional claims.

Anonymous said...

Check out Parker Pearson's UCL Undergraduate Course, 2017 - 18:-

The Age of Stonehenge INCLUDING Lecture 7 Stonehenge & Its Stone Sources

AT:-


https://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/study/undergraduate/courses/.../ARCL3098

The Reading references reveal the involvement of various authors of this current Nature article, including SNOECK, POUNCETT, and RICK SCHULTING

Alex Gee said...

Brian: As an uneducated non scientist, Could you please explain how the "Parsimony" method works? and its correct application?

It doesn't seem to have been used in the case of the "Amesbury Archer" whose origins were apparently within the central European Alpine region?

Are there no exposures of Ordovician and Silurian rocks in the same region?

P.S. I trust you received the data I sent?

Alex Gee said...

I'm puzzled by this! In the following paper http://www.ubss.org.uk/resources/proceedings/vol23/UBSS_Proc_23_3_171-265.pdf

A study of Human remains found in Aveline's Hole in the Mendip Hills, Schulting, also one of the authors of the paper under discussion, found the range of Strontium Isotope ratios from Human tooth enamel to be 0.7091 to 0.7101. Rather than attribute this to a later life spent in West Wales, In this paper he suggests that the isotope levels were due to eating food obtained from other areas?

Brian: I think it would be worth your while to peruse this paper, as there are quite a number of things that contradict what is said in the recent Nature paper.

Cheers
Alex

BRIAN JOHN said...

Alex -- yes thanks -- I have the info! Apologies for not acknowledging safe arrival. Will be in touch on all that.

That seems an interesting ref -- will take a look.

Parsimony is all to do with Occam's Razor -- use the most parsimonious explanation for something, and if that doesn't explain things properly, move on to something more complex. But what the authors of the paper in question have done is to say "We want to demonstrate that these people came from West Wales, so let's pretend that that is the most parsimonious explanation -- and then we can conveniently dismiss the possibility that they came from further away....." Hmmmmm.....

BRIAN JOHN said...

Tony -- I don't really understand this. is this to do with Facebook settings?

TonyH said...

I was looking at that mega - extenuated reference, "for your edification", which you gave at 08.01 on 3rd August above. I wonder what it contains! It obviously is rather hard to input.

Steve Hooker said...

Mike Pitts is also worried.
https://twitter.com/pittsmike/status/1025359779668131841?s=12

Alex Gee said...

Brian: Thanks for the explanation about parsimony. Having read the paper,and If my understanding of parsimony is correct, It would appear that the Authors have been "parsimonious" with the truth? Is that correct academic usage of the term?

Alex Gee said...

Brian: It's probably a rather belated question,; again as an uneducated non-academic. But Is there truly no peer review process in Archaeology as there is in science? It explains a lot; but I find that truly quite staggering?

TonyH said...

Brian, Mike Pitts has been very caustic in his comments on Twitter about these Strontium - based claims, as STEVE HOOKER has drawn our attention to above [4 August, 09.06]

BRIAN JOHN said...

Yes, you can follow Mike Pitts's comments on Twitter here:

https://twitter.com/pittsmike?lang=en

He does not seem impressed! Glad to see that he and I agree on something......

TonyH said...

I don't expect Mike Pitts to put his own Disclaimer in "British Archaeology magazine, even though he is its very thoughtful - looking EDITOR [see his photograph next time you buy one]. The fact that he has a Blogsite called "DIGGING DEEPER" shows what his own Persona is meant to be.

We are not all as GULLIBLE as some academics seem to assume us to be!

Do you ever contact him via Twitter yourself, Brian?

Also anyone may contact Mike Pitts via Twitter or:-

mike@digging deeper.co.uk

OR

editor@archaeologyUK.org

BRIAN JOHN said...

For those who might be interested, I contacted the lead author, Christophe Snoeck, directly after publication of the article. No response, in spite of the fact that he must have been on full alert in the days following its appearance in one of the key NATURE publications. Since after ten days he seems disinclined to respond, I might as well put it into the public domain:

Hi Christophe
Interesting paper, if only you had just stuck to the facts!
1. I can see no evidence of ant sort in your research which supports the contention that some of these individuals came from West Wales rather than any other part of Palaeozoic Britain. Have I missed something?
2. Why have you simply accepted Mike PP's contention that there are bluestone quarries in West Wales without acknowledging that there is a major dispute about the reliability of his evidence? Why have you failed to cite the two peer-reviewed papers by Elis-Gruffydd, Downes and myself which argue that ALL of the features described by MPP as "engineering features" are entirely natural?
3. Why have you marked Craig Rhosyfelin on Figure 2 when it has no relevance whatsoever for the data shown on the map?
4. I can see no evidential basis for the "geographical assignments" chosen in Figure 3. The individuals chosen could just as well have come from a multitude of other places.
5. I'm not convinced by the "local" and "far travelled" designations either. Is there really any significance in your "cut-off point" of 0.7090?
6. The isotope ratios for modern plant materials from West Wales -- why are there apparently no controls from other sites as well? This is another example of a strong -- and very unfortunate -- bias in the research.

Sadly, I think the paper is greatly devalued by the determination to fit your findings into MPP's "Neolithic bluestone quarrying" hypothesis, which is shaky to say the least. The media hype of yesterday and today has led many people to read the paper, and all those with whom I am in contact have asked the same question: "Where on earth is the link with West Wales that the press release promised?"

Best wishes

Brian

BRIAN JOHN said...

Ah -- I have a reply from Rick Schulting, dated 7th August, which had somehow found its way into another mailbox. Happy to acknowledge that I do have a response on the record! Thanks to Rick for that. Will report on the contents when I have a moment.....

Fair Cremation said...

Amazing post, thanks for sharing this article. I am truly impressed by you for blogging.
Direct Cremation Wakefield