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

Saturday 15 September 2018

Current Archaeology -- too much marketing of myths



In my last post I had a go at Current Archaeology for its apparent acceptance of the contents of that infamous press release about strontium isotope signatures and a "West Wales connection" -- and for publishing a piece which bore little relation to the actual evidence contained in the recent Nature article by Snoeck et al.

Well, now I am moved to have another go at the journal, this time for a piece which shows far too little scrutiny of a paper by Bevins and Ixer, under the banner of "Science Notes" with the heading "The Stonehenge bluestones and research replication."  The article is unattributed -- so it might have been written by one of the editors of the journal, or by one of the authors of the paper.  The paper being lauded is in Antiquity 2018.  These are the details:

Retracing the footsteps of H.H. Thomas: a review of his Stonehenge bluestone provenancing study.
Richard Bevins and Rob Ixer
Antiquity, Volume 92, Issue 363
June 2018 , pp. 788-802
https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2018.10
Unfortunately the paper is behind a paywall, but the authors kindly sent me a prepublication copy which I kept quiet about until it appeared in print.  Referred to here:

These were my thoughts when I read the Bevins/Ixer paper carefully: interesting, but could well have been edited more tightly so as to cut out superfluous material. 

Overall, it's a good contribution to our knowledge of how HH Thomas worked, where he got his samples from (mostly in 1906) and what he did with them once he had them in his possession.  Of course, Bevins and Ixer make the point that HHT was a good geologist working with a limited range of samples, with limited technologies at his disposal -- so it was almost inevitable what without the benefit of geochemistry and other new areas of research he made mistakes. Probably he also made mischief -- as we have discussed at length.  But my gripe with the 2018 paper is that the authors seek -- quite gratuitously -- to flag up the Neolithic quarrying hypothesis and to make their own provenancing of spotted dolerites and foliated rhyolites sound a great deal more certain than it actually is.  

For example, we can see that in their initial papers on Rhosyfelin and Carn Goedog Bevins and Ixer were quite circumspect about provenancing, using good scientific phrases like "it is likely that"  and  "we suggest that".........  But over the past few years these qualifications have disappeared, and a degree of certainty has appeared in their papers in spite of the fact that there is no new evidence either in private or in the public domain.  So now, in this paper on HH Thomas, Bevins and Ixer state quite definitively that Carn Goedog was the source of most of the spotted dolerite monoliths at Stonehenge.   They have NOT demonstrated that, as I have pointed out:

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2014/09/more-thoughts-on-carn-goedog.html

Neither have they demonstrated that "most of the rhyolitic debitage" at Stonehenge has come from "within a few square metres" on the rock face at Rhosyfelin.  I have pointed this out over and again on this blog, after many consultations with other geologists:

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2016/08/rhosyfelin-spot-provenancing-and-few.html

Back to Current Archaeology and its rather careless promotion of dodgy statements.  In the article on p 12 of issue 343 (Oct 2018) it says that many of the foliated rhyolite samples studied by HTT ".. .....as well as the stones themselves, likely came from Craig Rhos-y-felin......"  Wrong.  No evidence has ever been produced to show that any of the Stonehenge orthostats or buried stumps are related to the site in question.

In a later paragraph, it states that it was thanks to geochemical analysis "that it could be established that the majority of Stonehenge dolerites came from Carn Goedog and not Carn Meini."  That's extremely careless and misleading.  The evidence in the paper is quite convincing in the apparent elimination of Carn Meini as a spotted dolerite source, but the evidence from 22 analysed samples does NOT demonstrate that the majority of Stonehenge dolerites came from Carn Goedog.   There is such a wide scatter of geochemical and petrographic signatures in the samples that they could have come from a wide variety of locations in the area between Cerrigmarchogion and Carn Alw, across at least 5 sq km of countryside.

And then in the last paragraph of the CA article, the author refers to "exciting evidence for the location of Neolithic bluestone quarries, as described by MPP in CA311."  Again, a blithe acceptance that the quarrying hypothesis is now established as fact, and a refusal to mention that there is actually a dispute going on..........

Careless and misleading journalism, and it's about time the magazine got its act together.

Ironically, towards the end of the article we find this exhortation:

IT IS NOT JUST ANTIQUARIANS WE SHOULD BE QUESTIONING, THOUGH.  NO PAPER OR FINDING IS EVER ABSOLUTE, AND IT IS THE ROLE OF THE INQUISITIVE ACADEMIC TO CONTINUALLY QUESTION AND RE-EXAMINE.  IN ACADEMIA TODAY, TOO OFTEN GRANTS AND OTHER SOURCES OF FUNDING ARE ONLY GIVEN TO RESEARCH THAT OFFERS TO EXAMINE 'NEW' QUESTIONS.  PROPOSALS THAT HOPE TO REPLICATE RESEARCH, PROVIDING INCREASED SURETY IN THESE FINDINGS, REMAINS UNDERFUNDED.  BUT, AS BEVINS AND IXER'S WORK PROVES, THIS TYPE OF RESEARCH - IN ANY DISCIPLINE - IS ESSENTIAL IN MAINTAINING ACADEMIC RIGOUR.

So here we are.  In the article CA shamelessly promotes the work of Bevins and Ixer in sorting out "the truth" as a consequence of re-analysing earlier work.  Thank goodness for academic rigour.  I'm very pleased to be able to do my bit, as an inquisitive academic, in questioning and re-examining some assumptions that are too fondly held and too readily promoted by magazine editors who should know better.




10 comments:

TonyH said...

Can "British Archaeology" do any better? It's over to their editor, Stonehenge pundit Mike Pitts.

Alex Gee said...

I presume that this paper was properly peer reviewed? It doesn't appear to have been.
Does Current Archaeology have a peer review process? Or can someone write any old crap? It seems to be the case!

BRIAN JOHN said...

Alex -- I don't think either of these glossy magazines is peer-reviewed. They are not counted as academic journals. I imagine that the editors publish what they want, commission most things, and employ as much or as litttle scrutiny as they deem appropriate! I doubt very much they they are interested in raising standards of accuracy.......

TonyH said...

I hope the esteemed editor of B.A., Mike Pitts, reads your last comment, Brian!

Both these magazines seem happy to take their readers on a "Magical Mystery Tour" like the original "Quarrymen", Messrs Lennon and MacCartney, circa 1957. Fabulous in the original meaning of the word! But what about suckers like me who subscribe to these non - august publications.

FAKE NEWS as someone once said, now who was that again??

TonyH said...

As for Bevins & Ixer, it certainy seems as though, as their fame has spread, so has their pride risen, and their certainty similarly.

Maybe it's just that they listen to too many of MPP's hubris - driven talks........the Medium becomes [more than] the Message, as an American academic from California told us in the Days of Enlightenment and Mind - Altering Drugs.

BRIAN JOHN said...

Bevins and Ixer used to be rather circumspect in their interpretations, but now, having been involved in so many multi-authored papers, they are stuck with corporate responsibility. This suits MPP very well indeed, since whenever he is asked about geological provenancing he can simply say: "It's not me who says that Rhosyfelin and Carn Goedog are the sources for the Stonehenge bluestones. Ixer and Bevins are the experts, and I have to believe what they tell me........" I have heard him use the same tactic with the glacial transport debate; "It's not me who thinks that glacial transport is impossible. I take advice from the experts. They tell me that the glacial transport thesis is discredited, and I have to believe them." A handy tactic, isn't it, when addressing a gullible audience?

Alex Gee said...

I didn't realise that there was no peer review process for publication in British or Current Archaeology! I'm now inspired to write! I'm not sure if Pitts is aware of this hypothesis, but some of my neighbours up the road in Glastonbury, believe that Stonehenge was erected by Pro-Bono Proctologists from other star systems. I'm minded to write a review of this valuable research and submit it! Well its no sillier than the quarry nonsense!

Alex Gee said...

I'm quite looking forward to the 5th October!

TonyH said...

Having been at a Devizes - based Conference on the Stonehenge Riverside Project [SRP] around a decade ago, I witnessed an array of speakers, from Parker Pearson to Julian Richards to the various archaeological specialists who dug at the SRP to Rob Ixer, THE Geologist present on the day. As you would expect, Rob's presentation, because of his specialist expertise, tended to be "beyond our ken" for the most part, hearing him on on the day! Having witnessed this, it is quite easy to see why a lot of folk, including no doubt his Archaeologist colleagues within the SRP 'Inner Sanctum', wouldn't fully understand what Rob was trying wholeheartedly to get across to his audience!

Consequently,it is easy to see how MPP (and his close archaeological Inner Circle) is able to claim that he relies upon, and fully accepts what he is told by his Geologists on all matters Geological within the Preseli Hills. The Truth has tended to get filtered by layers of hyperbole,speculation, and wish - fulfilment. The Marketing Men somehow got tangled up in all of this, but that should not be used as an excuse to let Parker Pearson off the hook.

BRIAN JOHN said...

All in all, too much deference from too many people who should know better. And far too little scrutiny, also from people who should know better, including the geologists who have spent hardly any time in the field for a variety of personal and professional reasons.