Who's afraid of the big bad wolves?

About three years ago, in 2015, three harmless old codgers (namely John Downes, Dyfed Elis-Gruffydd and me) spent some time looking at the so-called "Neolithic bluestone quarry" at Rhosyfelin, having developed some concerns about the manner in which the field research by Prof Mike Parker Pearson et al was being promoted through popular lectures, press releases and articles in glossy magazines.  Over four years of checking over what was being exposed in the archaeological dig at the site, we had concerns that the evidence on the ground did not justify the hype -- and so we went over there to take a serious look at the landforms, the micro-morphology, and the sediments exposed.  It would have been better if we had been invited by the digging team to contribute to their deliberations.  But such an invitation was not forthcoming, so we worked independently.  We also wanted to check out quite a long list of "quarrying features" used by MPP in particular to justify the labelling of this site as a quarry used for the extraction of bluestone pillars destined for Stonehenge.

We were so concerned about what we discovered that we wrote an article entitled "Observations on the supposed "Neolithic bluestone quarry" at Craig Rhosyfelin, Pembrokeshire", and submitted it to the peer-reviewed journal called "Archaeology in Wales."  After review, we made adjustments as requested by the referees and the editor, and the paper was duly published in December 2015.  There was a lot of press coverage, largely homing in on the fact that we found no quarrying features whatsoever, and that in our opinion all of the landforms and sediments were entirely natural, requiring no human intervention in their creation.  So -- archaeologists and earth scientists were looking at the same things and seeing different origins. A classic scientific dispute.

Almost three years have now passed since the paper was published, and things are getting really interesting.  On Researchgate, the article has been read more than 1,000 times, which suggests it is rather popular and is deemed to be rather important. (Rubbish papers are lucky if they get 20 reads.......)  It is 100% certain that all of the archaeologists and the two geologists involved in the Rhosyfelin dig have read the paper an have probably downloaded it -- but thus far, in spite of the growing collection of Rhosyfelin articles in print, there has not been a single citation of our work.

As noted in a recent review of my new book by Dr Ian Evans,  '.........John creditably cites the publications of the proponents of the human transport hypothesis and opponents of the glacial transport hypothesis. This is a courtesy which has not been returned in recent papers by his opponents."

This is truly extraordinary, given that the AiW article was published in the hope that it would stimulate debate and encourage wide scrutiny of all of the papers written thus far about Rhosyfelin and the so-called quarries.  We have done the quarrying proponents the honour of examining, discussing and citing their work; and in response we have a conspiracy of silence.  Parker Pearson, Ixer, Bevins and the other authors appear to have closed ranks and have decided that they will completely ignore our work, although it is fully refereed and published in a mainstream archaeological journal.  

As I have said before on this blog, it goes against all of the traditions and protocols of scientific publishing for an author or group of authors to maintain a pretence of wide acceptance of their findings when in fact there is a major academic dispute going on.  That, in my book, is scientific malpractice, constituting sufficient grounds for an article -- or in this case, several articles -- to be retracted.  We have complained three times to journal editors about the failure of Parker Pearson and his colleagues to cite totally relevant (but highly inconvenient) research by other specialists; and one of the editors even had the gall to suggest that MPP had no obligation to cite our research since "it came from another discipline."

Should we be angry?  I suppose so.  But speaking personally, my main feeling is one of sadness -- and disappointment that quite senior academics are apparently so scared of a relatively simple (and unchallenged) paper by three old codgers that they cannot even bring themselves to accept that it exists.  How pathetic is that?

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

OBSERVATIONS ON THE SUPPOSED “NEOLITHIC BLUESTONE QUARRY” AT CRAIG RHOSYFELIN, PEMBROKESHIRE
Archaeology in Wales, vol 54, pp 139-148, December 2015
by Brian John, Dyfed Elis-Gruffydd and John Downes

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286775899_OBSERVATIONS_ON_THE_SUPPOSED_NEOLITHIC_BLUESTONE_QUARRY_AT_CRAIG_RHOSYFELIN_PEMBROKESHIRE

ABSTRACT

Following the publication of a geological paper by Ixer and Bevins (2011) that provenanced certain rhyolite fragments in the Stonehenge "debitage" to a rocky crag at Craig Rhosyfelin in North Pembrokeshire, Parker Pearson and his archaeological colleagues announced that "the Pompeii of prehistoric stone quarries" had been found at the site. Over the course of five digging seasons they claim to have confirmed the initial hypothesis, although nothing has been published. There has been no geomorphology involvement in the dig or in the interpretation of field findings, and this has caused concern. Because the site is adjacent to a public footpath, and because parts of the excavation have been left open from season to season, it has been possible to conduct independent studies of the landforms and sediments. This paper summarises the new findings. The dig site is located in a small meltwater channel on the NW flank of a rocky ridge. There are abundant traces of glacial and fluvioglacial action, including heavy abrasion of exposed surfaces. The valley wall coincides with a rock face which is interpreted as a natural feature controlled by multiple closely-spaced fracture planes which dip steeply and which are themselves controlled by foliations within the Ordovician rhyolite. There is a long history of rockfalls from the crags above the rock face, and rockfall debris now partly obscures it. Fragile rocky outcrops are still affected by biological and other processes which cause intermittent slope collapses. The rock face is deemed not to be a quarrying face, since there is no trace of human intervention in its evolution. The sequence of deposits at the site is described alongside a set of stratigraphic columns with a photographic record.