M'Lud, I rest my case

Following my post on the death and burial of Proto-Stonehenge (provocative?  who?  me?) and the posting of a link on assorted Facebook group pages, I have had to cope with the consequences -- having to deal with multiple missiles (and damp squibs) directed at me from many different directions, all at the same time.  Not surprisingly, one of the discussions in particular became so convoluted and aggressive that in the end I got fed up with it and went off to bed.  After my departure they were still at it........ accusing me of all sorts of things.  I hope that they are feeling better on this pleasant sunny morning.

It all reminded me that there are various people out there who feel quite threatened when their fondly-held beliefs are questioned.  But by exposing myself to all this fury, I achieved what I wanted to achieve, in that I was able to confirm that there is no new evidence from Waun Mawn which has a bearing on Proto-Stonehenge  -- either on the ground, or presented verbally.  If there had been, I would have heard about it by now.

The spat also clarified for me what my central argument actually is.  It's all about scrutiny -- or the lack of it.  Let me put it as clearly as I can, M'Lud.

---------------------------------

Since 2011 a group of researchers led by Prof Mike Parker Pearson has claimed that they have discovered two Neolithic quarries in North Pembrokeshire which were used for the extraction of bluestones intended for export to Stonehenge.  They have also claimed that around 80 monoliths were  transported by Neolithic tribesmen from Pembrokeshire to Stonehenge.  In the last three years, because of problems associated with "non-aligned" radiocarbon dating at Rhosyfelin and Carn Goedog, an additional claim has been made -- namely that the quarried monoliths were placed temporarily in a giant stone circle (popularly labelled "proto-Stonehenge") somewhere in north Pembrokeshire, and left there for around 400 years prior to being exported.  A complex narrative has been developed around these three central hypotheses -- quarrying, temporary placement and human transport.  So far, so good, one might think.

But since 2011 not a single excavation report has been published by the research team,  and they have published just two peer-reviewed papers, both in the journal "Antiquity."  In neither of those papers is the evidence presented in a manner which allows independent expert scrutiny.  Both papers are in effect components in a "quarry marketing strategy" which has extended to various other papers in glossy popular magazines. The excavation sites at Rhosyfelin and Carn Goedog have been filled in -- again making independent scrutiny impossible.

In addition, the search for Proto-Stonehenge and for "quarrying settlements" has taken the research team to Castell Mawr, Bayvil, Felindre Farchog, Pensarn (three sites), Crosswell, Brynberian Moor at the base of Carn Goedog, and Waun Mawn (twice).  Some interesting material has emerged from these investigations, although none of it is yet published in academic journals. No confirmatory evidence relating to the three hypotheses has come from any of these sites. No links have been found with Neolithic quarrying activity or with Stonehenge.   All of the opened excavations  have been filled in.

One of the fundamental principles of scientific research is that evidence should be presented honestly in a form which permits analysis by others, prior to interpretation and discussion.  (Many of us have been pulled up on that, by referees, in our own papers.)  Another principle (Occam's Razor) is that the most parsimonious explanations for recorded features should always be used.  Carl Sagan  noted that in all scientific endeavour extraordinary claims need to be backed up by extraordinary evidence.  Another principle (Hitchens's Razor) is that what is proposed without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.  Because the quarrying hypothesis is unsupported by properly presented evidence that withstands scrutiny, it can be rejected.  Because the human transport hypothesis is unsupported by any evidence at all (as acknowledged by archaeologists) it can also be rejected.  If they want us to take it seriously, let those who wish to prove it provide their own supporting data.

As for Proto-Stonehenge, the claim that it exists at Waun Mawn is so extraordinary that truly spectacular evidence must be produced if it is not to be laughed out of court.  At the very least, the tests which I published the other day have to be satisfied.  Here they are again.

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2018/09/proto-stonehenge-waun-mawn-and-burden.html

1. Prove that around 80 bluestone monoliths were arranged in a giant circle here, and that they were later taken away in a concerted fashion over a short period of time.
2. Prove that the putative stone circle was Neolithic, not Bronze age.
3. Prove that the stones were all placed here around 5,600 yrs BP and all taken away around 5,000 yrs BP.
4. Prove that the stone circle was not made of dolerite and meta-mudstone monoliths picked up in the neighbourhood, but of spotted dolerite monoliths from Carn Goedog, foliated rhyolite from Rhosyfelin, sandstones from the Afon Nyfer headwaters near Pontglasier, and unspotted dolerite from Cerrigmarchogion.
5. Prove that any "sockets" discovered really did hold monoliths, and that they are not simply extraction pits marking places from which stones have been collected for use elsewhere on Waun Mawn. They must also prove that they are not simply natural hollows in the surface of the broken bedrock / till layer that lies beneath the thin surface peat and soil layer.
6. Prove that any so-called traces of human activity on this site really do relate to settlement and "engineering work" and are not simply natural phenomena related to glacial and periglacial processes.
7. Prove via control digs that any features exposed during this dig really are exceptional and significant, and that they are not just typical of what occurs beneath the peat across a wide swathe of countryside.

As yet, none of these tests is met -- and so the hypothesis is rejected, and there is no requirement for me or anybody else to seek to justify that rejection.

The development and exposition of the quarrying / human transport hypothesis is one of the most serious corruptions of the scientific process that I can ever remember, in rather a long lifetime of writing and reading journal articles, examining theses and dissertations, looking at evidence in the field and assessing written evidence.  And this corruption has all happened because a small group of senior academics have somehow managed to avoid proper scrutiny.

I respectfully submit, M'Lud, that the defendants in the dock are guilty as charged.