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?
=================================
Archaeology in Wales, vol 54, pp 139-148, December 2015
by Brian John, Dyfed Elis-Gruffydd and John Downes
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.
24 comments:
You had me at your list (though I wish it were a spreadsheet).
Preseli and MPP are a distraction IMHO. Though the world and his wife's newspapers are drawn there. I have no interest in where the rocks came from many, many thousands of years before the builders wandered the Stonehenge wider landscape, like leafcutter ants, scavaging for erratics.
And it is in there that a better fairy story lies. What must they have thought as to how and where these erratics had come from?
Anyway, I am currently wondering if the softer 'bluestones' have disappeared due to theft. What remains from transport or shaping were used as packing. Looking at the damage to a sarsen, so much has been carted away.
Oops, lost a link to the meaning in the above, I guess Blogger only allows one link per comment.
"Looking at the damage to a sarsen, so much has been carted away."
https://www.buystonehenge.com/stonehenge-stone-59c/
Stone 59c must have been hit with a thief's sledgehammer.
If some of the 'bluestones' were very soft, I guess they'd have been eaten away, super quick.
I have received an email in the past (and then shared it with you, Brian) from a certain person in a senior archaeological position in Wessex. In it, he acknowledged that the claim that there are quarries in Preseli for bluestone bound for Stonehenge in prehistoric times was not proven.
Also, all we've had in print from another prominent Stonehenge archaeologist, Mike Pitts, who of course is also editor of "British Archaeology", is that the notion of prehistoric quarries is that it is "notoriously controversial". Two words!!
Neither of these gentlemen has had the courtesy to cite or acknowledge the geomorphological Papers Brian and his colleagues have written.
Steve -- if we are to believe the ideas about an "immaculate Stonehenge", then around 30 sarsens are missing and around 50 bluestones. OK -- some of them might have been smashed up (leaving behind stumps in the ground) but I think it far more likely that Stonehenge was abandoned in an unfinished state, as argued in my book.
Tony -- it's intriguing that Mike Pitts and all these other "concerned archaeologists" are so deferential to certain well-known senior figures that they cannot bring themselves to scrutinise their work properly or to go on the record and mention the "alternative interpretations" of earth scientists. That's a sign of a discipline that has lost its way, with practitioners who seem to have lost the capacity to think critically. Where are the open and respectful disputes that we have in geomorphology?
As regards what Brian calls "the immaculate Stonehenge" of a complete ring of sarsens, complete with trilithons atop, this notion really was started by Inigo Jones way back in 1621.It must be remembered that Inigo Jones was an architect!
To quote very respected former English Heritage archeologist David Field**:-
"the image of a neat continously lintelled circuit derives from the interpretation made by Inigo Jones in 1621......It does appear, as Professor Atkinson and others have recognised,that sufficient sarsen of the required size was not available and,having completed the neat arc or "facade" facing the direction of the midsummer sunrise,an attempt was then made to fashion the rest of the circuit by using available smaller or uneven stones."
** DAVID FIELD & DAVID McOMISH "NEOLITHIC HORIZONS. MONUMENTS & CHANGING COMMUNITIES IN THE WESSEX LANDSCAPE". FONTHILL, 2016 £18.99
Brian - regarding your reply to my own earlier comment - some of these Senior Archaeologists bring me in mind of a "Defensive Wall", set up in football to protect the goalkeeper and,ultimately, the Goal.
Of course, when someone with undoubted talent for taking Free Kicks (a Beckham, Gareth Bale or a Ronaldo, for instance), they may produce an immaculate "curved ball" kick which eludes even the most sophisticated and experienced Defence!!
My point is that those in the Defensive Wall huddle together. In the case under discussion, we do tend to have at its heart a cluster of archaeologists who have in their work experience a common denominator. They have all excavated in the Stonehenge Landscape. Humanly speaking, they are very defensively and proudly protective of what they sadly perceive as their communal reputation. None of them is prepared to "step out of line", as it were, and admit there is substance to the geomorphological arguments made by Messrs John, Downes and Elis - Grufydd. One day soon, it will, however, all come out in the wash/ Wash.
I'm new, unknowledgeable but my gut and the summer parch marks will have me with 'the immaculate Stonehenge.' Over such a long time, with so many vandals, collectors, borrowers and haters I don't think it too hard to believe so much has been robbed away.
I don't know when Trilithon Five fell (or was pulled down) but so much of Stone 59 has been chipped away...
https://www.buystonehenge.com/stonehenge-replica-of-stone-59-reconstruction/
I don't know how old the A303 is, looks a little straight, perhaps Roman. I wonder if some of the immediate roads are the crushed, missing stones.
With so much other contemporary activity in the area, I think the Stonehenge builders will have had good reason to complete. The effort is shaping the uprights of, for example, Trilithon Three... It doesn't make sense IMHO to do all that, knowing 'the magic circle' would not be finished.
And who is to say there wasn't enough big enough stones, back in the day.
Steve, it's an interesting debate. No proof either way. I have laid out my arguments in the book -- no point in repeating them here ad infinitum. I am less convinced than you by those parch marks. There are lots of them where there were not supposed to have been any stones! And the fact that there might have been holes in some of these locations does not mean that there were stones in them.
Too many. In the wrong place. Maddening.
https://aeroengland.photodeck.com/-/galleries/wiltshire/-/medias/39d5d522-be69-408c-bca4-6fb97d9b47ad-aerial-photograph-of-stonehenge-wiltshire-england-uk
We have severely criticised Atkinson in the past, but at least he had the ball's ( even if some of it was the patrician arrogance of his class!) to fight his corner and stand up for his opinions! The Editor of British Archaeology must have a plethora of splinters in his arse from his fence sitting and the stones of a gnat!
Brian: Whilst I'm on, I've finished my provisional map and will send it in the next few days!
Cheers
Alex
Excellent, Alex! Look forward to seeing that.......
Re Atkinson, he was of course one of the great patricians. but there is that rather interesting report that in his latter years he changed his mind about the human transport theory, and decided that it was the glacier wot did it..........
The glaciation theory seems the more authentic and far less FAR - FETCHED than the human transport theory. The "Quarrymen" will soon be 'the quarry', as in 'people who are being chased' out of Pembrokeshire. Glaciers are cool and will soon rule the roost.
The SCIENTIFIC evidence is there for all to see, day by day, in Brian's Posts, week by week, month by month.
It is a surprise to me to read the accounts of Richard Atkinson's life in Wikipedia and also his obituary in the Independent.He has been criticised elsewhere for not writing up some of his important excavations. I have no axe to grind either way, but he comes across, in the 2 accounts I have mentioned, as a person who had many other gifts and interests, which included committing himself to the administration at Cardiff University towards the end of his time there.
@TonyH. I'm just reading
https://www.mediaite.com/columnists/the-top-10-reasons-why-most-trump-supporters-will-never-care-about-the-russia-investigation/
One point stands out: "it is far easier to dupe someone than to convince them that they have been duped."
"Why do people believe what they are told by senior academics?" Or "Why do people believe what they are told by POTUS?" I see similarities with human transport and Trump being a good man.
Inch by inch will not be enough. Sadly, it seems that for some, crushing facts (when they come) will not be either.
Are the top level archeologists like the top level Republicans? Afraid of 'the base.'
Mike Pitts is the editor of SALON, the Society of Antiquaries Newsletter, as well as being editor of "British Archaeology". See my comment above, 21st August at 10.16.
Interestingly, Chris Scarre, Professor of Archaeology at Durham University, edits the Society of Antiquaries Journal. Brian, please note! There is an irony there, is there not! You have had your differences of opinion with Scarre on issues of glaciation, have you not? Mentioned in one or both of your "Bluestone" books, I think.
Good points, Steve! I'll take a look at your comparison with Donald Trump soon.
As regards said editor, I have never met him, and he is probably a perfectly splendid fellow -- but yes, I have said a few things about his ideas on this blog in the past...... a quick search will reveal all.
Brian, as regards your suggestion we do a Search for past Posts mentioning Chris Scarre..... all I can comment is "it is interesting how often birds of a feather DO flock together, e.g Messrs Scarre, Pitts, Parker Pearson, Ixer, and Uncle Tom Bevins and all, and all...."
It's that vision I had recently of a defensive football "wall" waiting for an impressario/genius/geomorphologist to take a free kick, and the ball sailing above, around, and BEYOND them, despite their confidence in their 'unbreach - ability'. Science will always win out EVENTUALLY over tales around the dig site, however captivating and avuncular the tale - teller.
Worth having a look at Scarre's Researchgate entry. He has links with Jane Evans and Rick Schulting, who we have noticed over the years! Amongst his research work there are several examples of exotic rocks being transported, so he claims. Have a look......
There's actually two Prof Scarre's at Durham!! Chris and Geoffrey.
Post a Comment