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 20 July 2019

The stone sledge theory gets even more bonkers



Another example of a university press release designed for maximul media impact — and to hell with common sense.  This time the culprit is the Universityb of Newcastle, with one of the more ludicrous headlines..........

Stonehenge may have been built using lard
Published on: 15 July 2019

Pig fat could have been used to grease the sledges used to transport the massive stones of Stonehenge into position, new analysis by archaeologists at Newcastle University has suggested.

Quote:
“There's a general assumption that the traces of animal fat absorbed by these pieces of pottery were related to the cooking and consumption of food. But these residues could be tantalising evidence of the greased sled theory. “.    Dr Lisa-Marie Shillito

Absorbed fat residues

Fat residues on shards of pottery found at Durrington Walls, near Stonehenge, have long been assumed to be connected with feeding the many hundreds of people that came from across Britain to help construct the ancient monument.

But, new analysis by archaeologists at Newcastle University, UK, suggests that because the fragments came from dishes that would have been the size and shape of buckets, not cooking or serving dishes, they could have been used for the collection and storage of tallow – a form of animal fat.

Dr Lisa-Marie Shillito, Senior Lecturer in Landscape Archaeology, Newcastle University, said: “I was interested in the exceptional level of preservation and high quantities of lipids – or fatty residues - we recovered from the pottery. I wanted to know more about why we see these high quantities of pig fat in pottery, when the animal bones that have been excavated at the site show that many of the pigs were ‘spit roasted’ rather than chopped up as you would expect if they were being cooked in the pots.”

'Greased sled' theory

It is now generally accepted that the huge megaliths that make up Stonehenge were moved by human effort. Recent experiments have suggested that the stones - up to eight metres high and weighing as much as two tonnes - could have been moved by 20 people by placing them on a sled and sliding them over logs.

The pottery at Durrington Walls is one of the best studied for organic residues, with over 300 shards having been analysed as part of wider studies of Grooved Ware use in Britain, and more recently the Feeding Stonehenge project, on which Dr Shillito worked.

Analysis of residues of absorbed fat is a well-established technique for revealing what foods different type of pottery was used for. But more attention needs to be paid to how this information is interpreted, Dr Shillito argues.

“There are still many unanswered questions surrounding the construction of Stonehenge”, she says. “Until now, there has been a general assumption that the traces of animal fat absorbed by these pieces of pottery were related to the cooking and consumption of food, and this steered initial interpretations in that direction. But there may have been other things going on as well, and these residues could be tantalising evidence of the greased sled theory.

“Archaeological interpretations of pottery residues can sometimes only give us part of the picture. We need to think about the wider context of what else we know and take a ‘multi-proxy’ approach to identify other possibilities if we hope to get a better understanding.”

Reference: ‘Building Stonehenge? An alternative interpretation of lipid residues in Grooved Ware from Durrington Walls’ Lisa-Marie Shillito, Antiquity https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2019.62

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

There is of course not a shred of evidence to link the traces of animal fat on bits of pottery with Stonehenge, bluestones or sarsens, or sledges.  It is entirely to be expected that in a society using animal products in the food supply, tallow or animal fat would have been stored in large vessels and used for a variety of “non-food” purposes including lighting, lubricating the moving parts on weapons or domestic items, building, etc.  But to jump straight in on the idea that the “lard” was possibly used for lubricating stone-hauling sledges — implying some sort of manufacturing facility used by the civil engineers — is really completely ludicrous.  Have these people no shame?

PS.  Quote:  “It is now generally accepted that the huge megaliths that make up Stonehenge were moved by human effort. Recent experiments have suggested that the stones - up to eight metres high and weighing as much as two tonnes - could have been moved by 20 people by placing them on a sled and sliding them over logs.”
One wonders how an academic like Dr Shillito can be so poorly informed that she trots out this sort of nonsense without batting an eyelid, in the full knowledge that it is not true.  It is NOT generally accepted.... the weights and dimensions cited indicate that she has got her bluestones and her sarsens mixed up, and the experiments to which she refers were conducted on the flat grass of a London park, and do NOT  suggest that 20 people could have moved large monoliths great distances across rough country.  What was I saying about the death of evidence...? 


26 comments:

tonyH said...

Grease for light.........to greased lightening! [a la the nostalgic film musical, "Grease"]. Is it all Geordie gibberish, man?!!

AG said...

"Amazing" the amount of fat in Tallow. OMG!

agee said...

The tower built on greensand grows ever taller.

Gordon said...

They were probably brain tanning hides.

tonyH said...

Universities are still too much inclined "to told you so, lardy - da". Apprenticeships would be far more hands - on.

tonyH said...

Jake Thackray, who wrote and sang "Lah - Di - Dah" as connoisseurs of Jake will know, was quite posh insofar as he studied Modern Languages at Durham.

I recommend watching Jake sing "Lah - Di - Dah" via YouTube.

tonyH said...

Joking and Jake Thackray apart, perhaps we should cut Dr Shillito some slack as she attempts to move them megaliths. She has contributed to research analysis at the renowned CATALHOYUK Neolithic settlement site in Turkey, for example. Also, she gives an impressively long list of references, and her article HAS been peer - reviewed properly.

BRIAN JOHN said...

Ah — Jake Thackray — remember him. His songs were unutterably posh but rather rude, as I recall...... or at least some of them were......

Anybody can cobble together a long list of references. And yes, Antiquity does ensure that articles are peer reviewed — whether the peer review process is any good at ensuring proper scrutiny is another matter entirely. In some journals the author gets to suggest the names of the reviewers, making sure that all sorts of nonsensical articles get into print. Even without self-selection, the editor can ”fix things” very easily indeed......... the process is open to wholesale corruption.

tonyH said...

I hear what you say, but nevertheless people generally would find it very interesting to scrutinise the subject matter of Dr Shillito's reference list. The geographical extent of the studies is worldwide! Also,one name that crops up a lot is EVERSHED. I think that person may be well respected, but my information worker's intuition may be incorrect.

tonyH said...

Worth a look, for those interested in the interdiciplinary links within archaeology:-

www.bristol.ac.uk/chemistry/research/ogu/people/evershed


This is the site of Professor Richard P Evershed, School of Chemistry, University of Bristol

BRIAN JOHN said...

I suspect he has been involved in the work on the fat residues found on the pottery bits and pieces.

BRIAN JOHN said...

On checking the uses for fat in the good old days, it was also used -- possibly quite liberally -- for making leather more supple and stopping it from drying out; for pigments used for artistic enterprises (face painting, colouring wood or stone surfaces etc) ; and for ointments and other medical things. Lubricating sledges is the least likely of all the options.......

CysgodyCastell said...

I would assume that Dr Shillito will now know that her conclusions are being criticised and perhaps ridiculed here. It is odd that she doesn't feel the need to come and defend the credibility of her research.

Which led me to think.

Is there a widespread and generally understood embargo by those establishment archaeologists who hold dear the idea that there was human transportation of the stones across Wales to not engage with you? Or do they consider that you are a fringe element and your coverage is too small and not influential enough to be worth bothering with?

BRIAN JOHN said...

Thanks, Cysgod — I know that at least some of the ”establishment archaeologists” read this blog regularly. And yes, they probably do consider my contributions to have originated on the ”lunatic fringe”, even though we have two peer-reviewed publications (one of them in ”aArchaeology in Wales”) which they should at least consider respectable enough to deserve a mention........ But no— there has clearly been a corporate decision to ignore completely everything on this blog and everything inconvenient that happens to be in print. Sad —but it does at least tell you something about the intellectual limitations of some of those who are apparently revered as ”world famous experts”......... if they cannot even bring themselves to admit that their ideas are disputed, they don’t deserve respect from anywhere.

tonyH said...

Cysgod Castell, the so - called Human Transport Theory is essentially a money - spinner for English Heritage Company and for all those archaeologists who defend it - particularly when also having writing and lecturing careers e.g par excellence Julian Richards who "revises" the Stonehenge Handbook and pays the research advancements in the Glacial Hypothesis ignorant and flagrant disregard; and of course Michael P Pearson too. Similarly, the H.T. Theory provides a gravy train for many other archaeologists and also writers of dreamy novels etc on that subject.

BRIAN JOHN said...

Yes, there is a very strong commercial element in ”the denial of dispute” and the promotion of ”certainty” — there will always be individuals and organizations on the make. What worries me far more is the apparent disappearance of scientific integrity, both among the archaeologista and geologists involved in this fiasco, but also apparently among their peers (who choose to connive) and the editors of supposedly reputable journals who choose to ignore this old-fashioned thing called scrutiny.

tonyH said...

In rugby parlance, 'this good old - fashioned thing called scrutiny' is flung into the scrum, never to be seen again.

Do Senior Archaeologists connected with Stonehenge have their own Agents?

PeteG said...

aah Brother Gorilla! I recommend 'Jake on the box' docu on YouTube.
PeteG

tonyH said...

You mean the Jake Thackry documentary? - says "not available right now", unfortunately.


Jake was a fellow Yorkshireman.

Reyt up my street. Great bloke!

The Yorkshire and straight Noel Coward.

Wish Jake was still with us - he'd 'ave been a great Blog contributor for Brian's Glacial Cause. What wonderful songs he's 'ave composed on such subjects as Human Transportation for Human Transport theorists, etc........

PeteG said...

at last! The Answer is upon us!
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/weird-news/794453/stonehenge-made-from-giant-body-parts-mud-fossils-roger-spur-bible-enoch?fbclid=IwAR0WlzUJBZA5dR0NiuSdiprba-5H-ao8USpRM-ejliSWJaXxujeMGoY-MVE

PeteG

Peter Dunn said...

No! No! I will not have this giant's bones nonsence, it's a giant bird perch and that is an end to it.

One Stonehenge archaeologist has an agent, nice chap.

Page 268-277 Exploring the greatest Stone Age Mystery describes the Glacial Transport Theory fairly well dosn't it, hardly denial.

Making money from books on theories about Stonehenge, good idea!

Some balance requied.
Peter

tonyH said...

Cor blimey guv'ner, it's all falling into place. Has he spoken to Kostas do we know?

Jon Morris said...

"It is NOT generally accepted.... the weights and dimensions cited indicate that she has got her bluestones and her sarsens mixed up, and the experiments to which she refers were conducted on the flat grass of a London park, and do NOT suggest that 20 people could have moved large monoliths great distances across rough country.

All pretty embarrassing. And in Antiquity too.

tonyH said...

What about making money and gaining prestige from articles in Antiquity etc, etc, and from theories about human transport of Pembrokeshire bluestones without counterbalancing said theories with Glacial Geomorphologist Specialists' learned and considered views that the claims that the Rhosyfelin excavations confirmed the presence of prehistoric quarrying were unwarranted??

The Rhosyfelin quarry notion and its bold claims came from a team of archaeologists and others who possessed excessive pride and self confidence in their own infallibility.

Mike Parker Pearson's book was written as long ago as 2012, and with regard to Craig Rhosyfelin has been overtaken by opposing specialists' research findings. It is therefore obsolete and misleading, and inauthentic. Some humility and a portion of humble pie are appropriate. Have they got the integrity to rebalance their statements about Rhosyfelin?

tonyH said...

Never mind about STONE MOVING, there's plenty of SLEDGING (in the sense of Australian cricketing parlance) popping up on these comments! Fair dinkum......

Peter Dunn said...

Ah Look! see what you’ve done with the Sledging there Bruce, but it’s still better than being rubbed up the wrong way with a bit of pink sand paper, see what I mean Bruce.
Regards,
Bruce