The origins of the British Neolithic Mythos

One of the classic and heroic images that was used to cement the British Neolithic Mythos of bluestone transport to the sacred site now called Stonehenge

I've been thinking a bit more about the content of this ground-breaking paper from Gordon Barclay and Kenneth Brophy:

Gordon J. Barclay & Kenneth Brophy (2020): ‘A veritable chauvinism of prehistory’: nationalist prehistories and the ‘British’ late Neolithic mythos, Archaeological Journal,

DOI: 10.1080/00665983.2020.1769399

First, a definition:  A‘mythos’ is a set of beliefs or assumptions about something, with its supporting narrative.

Quote:

The mythos…. is that monuments in the Stonehenge area …. had a ‘national’, ‘unifying’ role for ‘Britain’ at a time when ‘Britain’ had a ‘unified culture’ and was isolated from continental Europe, and that as part of this process of unification, animals to be consumed in feasting were transported from as far as ‘Scotland’.......... 

That's fine, but it only refers to the latest incarnation of the mythos, arising from the recent studies of teeth and bones and linked to the discoveries at Durrington.  I reality, the mythos is much older, as the authors state:

The promotion of Stonehenge and the monuments associated with it as the location for the origin for British identity, for British character traits, and for British political unity is the explicit revival of the English origin myth of Stonehenge as ‘omphalos [navel] of Britain’ proposed by Geoffrey of Monmouth in the twelfth century (Parker Pearson 2012, 331; Tolstoy 2016).

Yes, but the origins of the "modern mythos" go back to HH Thomas, as we have stated many times on this blog, and as is outlined in my book "The Stonehenge Bluestones."  Thomas invented the human transport story, and for much of the last 100 years archaeologists (and some geologists, who should know better) have been obsessed with how and why Neolithic tribesmen supposedly went to all the trouble of picking up lumps of rock (mostly boulders rather than pillars) and carting them off to the chalklands of Southern England.  Senior archaeologists like Richard Atkinson have developed and promoted the mythos over the years, and in the last couple of decades the Darvill-Wainwright tribe and the Parker Pearson tribe have continued the process, with the narrative becoming more and more colourful with every passing year.  The quarrying component has been added, as has the proto-Stonehenge component, and sites like Carn Meini, Carn Goedog, Craig Rhosyfelin and Waun Mawn have been invested with almost sacred significance -- even though the evidence of Neolithic "Stonehenge-linked" activity at those sites does not withstand scrutiny.

A modern bluestone transport experiment -- again based on the assumption that the bluestone transport narrative was correct

Over and again -- "we know it was done, and why  -- now let's just work out HOW!"

So I would argue that the mythos referred to by Gordon and Kenneth started out like this:

Monuments in the Stonehenge area had a ‘national’, ‘unifying’ role for ‘Britain’ at a time when ‘Britain’ had a ‘unified culture’, and as part of this process of unification,  bluestone monoliths deemed to be “significant” were transported from “Wales.”

Then, when all of the high-tech results started to come in, relating to bones, teeth and isotopes, the mythos was developed into this:

Monuments in the Stonehenge area …. had a ‘national’, ‘unifying’ role for ‘Britain’ at a time when ‘Britain’ had a ‘unified culture’ and was isolated from continental Europe, and that as part of this process of unification, animals to be consumed in feasting were transported from as far as ‘Scotland".

Anyway, there are a few other interesting points from the article, with which I concur.

The continued promotion of Wessex-centred prehistory through the aggrandising ‘national’ role for the Stonehenge area, is not only a problem for those working in the archaeology of Scotland……

p 14

Features of media coverage:

• ● core/periphery issues – the persistence of an interpretative ‘grand narrative’ for late Neolithic Britain, based on interpretations of material relevant only to a limited area;

• ● the over-interpretation of limited evidence to reinforce grand narratives;

• ● subsequent promotion of these overstated interpretations by university media offices keen to demonstrate the ‘reach’, ‘relevance’ and ‘impact’ of externally funded, over- head-bearing research, particularly to funding bodies and mindful of the REF process;

• ● anachronistic and inappropriate references to modern politics, especially Brexit, actively promoted in press releases and interviews;

• ● a scientistic rewriting of thepast poorly related to existing models of the prehistory of Britain.

p 14-15

Interpretative inflation

The interpretative inflation we have already mentioned occurs in distinct stages in this uite of publications and promotions:

*the data and relatively restrained preliminary interpretation in the first part of the original academic paper;

*then, less tentatively, in the later part of the paper (and in the Abstract) more far- reaching interpretation, with less support offered;

*even more ambitious claims in media releases prepared by the universities, incorporating direct quotations from the authors;

*in the media, working from the press releases, to create attention-grabbing headlines and soundbites, further amplified through some interviews with the lead authors; and affected by the media outlet’s own political angle.

p 22

Discussion: prehistoric mythmaking, contemporary politics

We hope that we have demonstrated that the mythos has been developed on a sparse evidential base to reinforce what we would see as an outdated vision of a prehistory based on ‘luminous centres’, indeed a particular ‘luminous centre’ – the Stonehenge environs (Barclay 2001, 16, 2009, 3).

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

One final point:  On p 10 the authors refer to “the demonstrable link between central- south England and south-west Wales….” BUT I have to say that the only demonstrable thing is the provenance of most of the Stonehenge bluestones in N Pembs. Nothing else has been demonstrated — no ethnic links, no cultural links. The supposed links are based upon the presumption that the mythos is correct. The research re quarrying, bluestone “sanctity”, bluestone haulage, the existence of proto-Stonehenge etc,  is all assumptive research unsupported by hard evidence.  But the media won't tell you that.

Isotope evidence -- not so spectacular after all.........

I missed this article last year, when it appeared.    There is some careful and convoluted phraseology in it, but the most interesting thing is that it represents a very substantial rowing-back from the pretty outrageous claims made by the same team -- and others -- in earlier publications.   I went after those claims on this blog, and there was clearly a big backlash from within archaeological and scientific circles as well.  Just read between the lines.  Is common sense reasserting itself at last?

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

Evans, J., Parker Pearson, M., Madgwick, R. et al. Strontium and oxygen isotope evidence for the origin and movement of cattle at Late Neolithic Durrington Walls, UK. Archaeol Anthropol Sci 11, 5181–5197 (2019). 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-019-00849-w

Abstract

The geographic origins of livestock found at the Late Neolithic site of Durrington Walls (Wiltshire, UK) is explored using strontium (87Sr/86Sr) and oxygen (δ18OcarbVSMOW) isotope analysis of tooth enamel as an archive of lifetime movement. The analysis of 49 cattle is augmented with data for small numbers of animals from the contemporaneous monumental centres of West Kennet Palisade Enclosures (4), Stonehenge (1), and Marden (1). Unburnt human remains are scarce at these sites and the suite of biomolecular analyses that can be undertaken on cremated remains is limited. Therefore, these animals provide the best proxy for the origins of the people who raised them and give key information on livestock management. This builds on the Sr isotope analysis of 12 animals previously published from Durrington Walls and complements recent research on pig remains from the same sites, providing further evidence for the scale of human and animal movement and the catchment of these sites. The strontium isotope signatures from the animals’ teeth range between values that are consistent with local chalkland grazing to radiogenic values typical of granites and older rock types. The oxygen isotope data, coupled with the strontium results, provide new geographic resolution and indicate that the majority of the animals come from southern and western areas of Britain.

Conclusions

These results have demonstrated the diversity of cattle origins at Late Neolithic Durrington Walls. The 87Sr/86Sr isotope data suggest that at least four distinct terrains are represented in the dataset. The majority of animals are consistent with an origin on the chalk and other Mesozoic deposits that dominate much of southern England and are common across Britain. Many of these animals must have been imported to the sites, though not necessarily over long distance. Two distinct groups of cattle are from more radiogenic terrains, probably characteristic of Palaeozoic areas, the closest of which are in southwest England and Wales. A final group has distinctive values of > 0.714 and must derive from areas of even more radiogenic geology. On the basis of current biosphere mapping data, origins in Scotland seem likely for at least some animals, but others may derive from radiogenic areas incompletely mapped in England or Wales. Oxygen isotope data indicate that the majority of the animals are likely to derive from western or southern areas of Britain. Highland areas in the north of England and northeast Scotland are probably not represented in the dataset, but depleted oxygen isotope compositions suggest that some animals came from eastern and/or central areas of England.

Cattle are an important component of animal bone assemblages from Late Neolithic Britain. Remains of cattle were second only to pigs in abundance at Durrington Walls, and the presence of large quantities of cattle remains, along with evidence of butchery and burning on many bones, indicates that they were included in feasting activities (Albarella and Serjeantson 2002). The zooarchaeological evidence is also consistent with an introduction of cattle to Durrington Walls, due to the almost complete absence of neonatal bones. Such remains are expected to occur in breeding areas, because of natural casualties—their absence therefore suggests that husbandry largely occurred off-site.

The movement of cattle over long distances is an example of their importance in Neolithic society. Not only were they a significant source of food, but their role in feasting was important enough to warrant a huge investment of time and energy in herding them over long distances. These animals clearly had a role to play in sustaining long-distance networks in Late Neolithic Britain. As a proxy for human movement, the cattle from Durrington Walls are representative of the human journeys that were undertaken during the period and suggest links between human groups in many different parts of the country, both close and distant. The few cattle teeth from other contemporary sites hint that this phenomenon was more widespread and, perhaps, that Durrington Walls was not unique, but part of a wider network of connections and livestock exchange.

The exogenous origin of the livestock is in contrast with the largely local nature of the material culture (Chan et al. 2016). Animals could be driven on the hoof, while large quantities of objects would have been very onerous to carry. Such practical concern meant, however, that the local and the imported both played a role in the make-up of the Durrington Walls ceremonies, and probably contributed substantially to define the character of the communities occupying—permanently or periodically—the Stonehenge landscape.

New Altar Stone paper -- or is it?

There's a new article from Bevins, Ixer, Parker Pearson and co, relating to the Altar Stone and the debate about its origins. We have seen all the arguments before, so there is not much here that is new, apart from more sophisticated and automated measurements of the mineralogies of samples. Rob anticipated that I would not like this new article very much, and he is quite correct. Anyway, here are the details:

Constraining the provenance of the Stonehenge ‘Altar Stone’: Evidence from automated mineralogy and U–Pb zircon age dating.
Richard E. Bevins, Duncan Pirrie, Rob A. Ixer, Hugh O’Brien, Mike Parker Pearson, Matthew R. Power, Robin K. Shail
Journal of Archaeological Science 120 (2020), 105188---------------------------

Thanks to Rob Ixer for sharing this link providing 50 days' free access to the article. Anyone clicking on this link before August 16, 2020 will be taken directly to the final version of the article on ScienceDirect, which they are welcome to read or download.  No sign up, registration or fees are required.

The personalized Share Link:
https://authors.elsevier.com/c/1bI~J15SlTogWk

ABSTRACT

The Altar Stone at Stonehenge is a greenish sandstone thought to be of Late Silurian-Devonian (‘Old Red Sandstone’) age. It is classed as one of the bluestone lithologies which are considered to be exotic to the Salisbury Plain environ, most of which are derived from the Mynydd Preseli, in west Wales. However, no Old Red Sandstone rocks crop out in the Preseli; instead a source in the Lower Old Red Sandstone Cosheston Subgroup at Mill Bay to the south of the Preseli, has been proposed. More recently, on the basis of detailed petrography, a source for the Altar Stone much further to the east, towards the Wales-England border, has been suggested. Quantitative analyses presented here compare mineralogical data from proposed Stonehenge Altar Stone debris with samples from Milford Haven at Mill Bay, as well as with a second sandstone type found at Stonehenge which is Lower Palaeozoic in age. The Altar Stone samples have contrasting modal mineralogies to the other two sandstone types, especially in relation to the percentages of its calcite, kaolinite and barite cements. Further differences between the Altar Stone sandstone and the Cosheston Subgroup sandstone are seen when their contained zircons are compared, showing differing morphologies and U-Pb age dates having contrasting pop- ulations. These data confirm that Mill Bay is not the source of the Altar Stone with the abundance of kaolinite in the Altar Stone sample suggesting a source further east, towards the Wales-England border. The disassociation of the Altar Stone and Milford Haven undermines the hypothesis that the bluestones, including the Altar Stone, were transported from west Wales by sea up the Bristol Channel and adds further credence to a totally land-based route, possibly along a natural routeway leading from west Wales to the Severn estuary and beyond. This route may well have been significant in prehistory, raising the possibility that the Altar Stone was added en route to the assemblage of Preseli bluestones taken to Stonehenge around or shortly before 3000 BC. Recent strontium isotope analysis of human and animal bones from Stonehenge, dating to the beginning of its first construction stage around 3000 BC, are consistent with the suggestion of connectivity between this western region of Britain and Salisbury Plain.This study appears to be the first application of quantitative automated mineralogy in the provenancing of archaeological lithic material and highlights the potential value of automated mineralogy in archaeological provenancing investigations, especially when combined with complementary techniques, in the present case zircon age dating.

We have considered some of the research information in previous posts:

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2019/11/new-paper-on-stonehenge-sandstones.html

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2019/12/stonehenge-more-on-devonian-sandstones.html

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2018/12/new-paper-on-altar-stone-or-is-it.html

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2017/10/another-geology-paper-and-case-of.html

The Altar Stone is the one left of centre, just visible through the turf and largely hidden beneath two sarsens.  Have any of the "Altar Stone"samples really come from it?

As in the case of earlier papers by the same authors (with various other colleagues), I have no arguments with the reliability of the scientific analyses.  I am sure that the sample studies will have been done very carefully, with acceptable results.  The studies can, of course, be replicated by others if they so wish.  My gripe is that this is yet another piece of assumptive research, based upon two very questionable assumptions:

1.  The assumption that the six "Altar Stone" samples analysed (namely FN573, HM13, SH08, MS-1, MS-2 and MS0-3) did indeed come from the Altar Stone.  That is not demonstrated anywhere in the paper, and because of that, this whole thing might be just another wild goose chase. (As readers of this blog will know, there is great doubt as to the provenance of all of these samples.)

2.  The assumption that the Altar Stone -- and the other bluestones at Stonehenge -- were transported from Wales to Stonehenge by Neolithic tribesmen underpins this whole article.  Indeed, the bolstering of this hypothesis appears to be the main reason why this paper has been written.  However, there is no more evidence today for the human transport of the bluestones than there was a century ago,  and I am mystified as to why there was any necessity here to mention the bluestone transport controversy at all. Even the fantastical "bluestone quarries" get a mention, for no particular reason.   If the authors had stuck to the geology, this would have been a rather interesting and useful paper -- but as it is, it is spoiled by its descent into a fantasy-driven archaeological argument which is really rather peripheral.   A potentially good paper is transformed into a very bad one.

In the later part of the text, the authors concentrate on the case for sea transport versus the case for land transport of the bluestones -- an entirely futile argument and a waste of space for those of us who are looking for hard evidence rather than vague speculations.

One of the few positives to come out of this paper is the fact that the 2015 Rhosyfelin paper by Dyfed Elis-Gruffydd, John Downes and me is at least cited -- about time too, since up until now (for five years) this particular research team has existed in a state of denial about its very existence.  Well, they get there in the end.  At least, they have now acknowledged that, like more than 1,600 other people, they have actually read it.

Finally, there's this from the abstract:
"Recent strontium isotope analysis (analyses?) of human and animal bones from Stonehenge, dating to the beginning of its first construction stage around 3000 BC, are consistent with the suggestion of connectivity between this western region of Britain and Salisbury Plain."

I dispute that 100%.  The analyses do nothing of the sort, for reasons already enunciated in earlier posts.

Oh dear -- if only the geologists would stick to the geology........

One end of the Altar Stone, as revealed in the Atkinson excavation in 1958.

Sink holes and solution hollows

A solution pit or hollow exposed in the face of the Quidhampton Quarry at SU 11403151.  Like most others, it is more or less circular, with steeply sloping sides (not vertical) and an infill of sediments, with virtually no surface expression.

Having examined the published data again, I'm increasingly convinced that there is no reason at all for the seven "Larkhill" hollows called "Durrington Shafts" by Gaffney et al to be referred to as man-made features. In fact, the authors admit this themselves. They demonstrate in the text that the seven features (numbered iii, iv, 10D, 11D, 12D, 13D and v) are almost certainly natural solution features, being aligned along a shallow natural depression or dry valley running down towards a bend in the Avon Valley. They say this:

"That general presumption that the group of features north of Durrington Walls were natural in origin and, probably, solution features gains some support in the geological literature. Such features are relatively common on the chalk and the available mapping is likely to provide an underestimate of their actual distribution (Hopson et al. 2006, 215). Some of the features recorded north of Durrington are set within a slight valley trending west-east towards the Avon. While such a topographic situation can provide the conditions that can lead to the development of solution features, the southern group of anomalies does not align with any similar topographic feature, and actually crosses higher ground above dry valleys. Consequently, the origins of the southern group of anomalies as solution features or doline is less likely."

So they are not arguing against a natural origin for these seven northern features. And yet suddenly, in the next part of the paper, they are treated as essential or integral parts of the "Durrington Shafts" arc or circuit, and it is assumed from this point on that the seven pits are man-made.........

This is illogical and inconsistent, and seems to signal a switch from straightforward description and interpretation to a process of fitting evidence into a ruling hypothesis.

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

Here are some relevant extracts from a Geological Survey Report:

Geology of the Salisbury Sheet Area

http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/7175/1/IR06011.pdf

Report on the Geology of Sheet 298 Salisbury
and its adjacent area.
A compilation of the results of the survey in Spring and Autumn 2003 and from the River Bourne survey of 1999
Internal Report IR/06/011

P M Hopson, A R Farrant, A J Newell, R J Marks, K A Booth,
L B Bateson, M A Woods, I P Wilkinson, J Brayson and D J Evans

Extracts:

A wide variety of solution features occur but only two, ‘buried’ and ‘subsidence’ sinkholes are common on the Chalk. The term sinkhole is interchangeable with the term doline, and can also be applied to surface features where a stream wholly or partially disappears underground. Buried sinkholes (as defined by Culshaw and Waltham, 1987) are typified by ‘pipe’ or cone-like cavities within the chalk (Plates 44 and 45), infilled by the overlying deposits that have subsided into the cavity as a result of dissolution. Most are circular or oval in plan and can be many metres deep, often bifurcating into several smaller ‘pipes’ at depth. They often have no surface expression and are commonly infilled with flinty gravelly clay derived from the superficial cover, usually clay-with-flints.

Subsidence sinkholes are closed surface depressions, usually either bowl, pipe or cone-like in shape. They can occur as isolated examples or as groups, often coalescing into large composite dolines. They can form rapidly as a dropout failure following the washing out of pre-existing infilled pipes. Most occur in covers of unconsolidated sediment between 1-10 m thick, such as the clay-with-flints and older head.

However, the main control on near surface solution features is the geomorphic setting and the presence/absence of an impermeable cover. An area of impermeable strata either adjacent or overlying the Chalk serves to concentrate recharge and hence dissolution at the contact between the two rock types. The highest density of sinkholes occurs around the margin of the overlying Palaeogene strata or around the clay-with-flints outcrop. Topography and drainage patterns affect the distribution of solution features. Dissolution is enhanced where underground drainage routes are concentrated such as along valley floors and at spring lines. Typically the chalk is far more weathered under valley floors than under interfluves. Topography also influences whether drainage from the Palaeogene outcrop flows onto or away from the chalk and thus influences the location of water recharge via stream sinks.

An understanding of the geomorphic evolution of an area is vital to identify potential areas of karst development that have little no surface expression today. This is especially the case for karst features formed under differing climatic conditions or relict karst formed prior to present topography. Where the present land surface is close to the sub-Palaeogene peneplane, solution features inherited from the former Palaeogene cover may still exist. For example, solution pipes may still exist below ground level in areas where a former clay-with flint or Palaeogene cover has now been eroded. Elsewhere, erosion and dissection has removed these relict solution features.

Karstic features are also known in the Purbeck strata in the Vale of Wardour, both in the Salisbury district and to the west on the Wincanton sheet. Many stream sinks have been noted around Tisbury and Sutton Mandeville, (Sparrow, 1975, 1976; and Clark and Waters, 2002), as well as a few small phreatic caves and resurgences. None of these have been traced to any resurgence (see above for details of sinks and resurgences observed during the survey).

9.4 Distribution of Solution Features

The distribution of observed solution features is shown on the 1:10 000 scale geological maps and on a small scale Figure 78 below. Many sinkholes have been ploughed in or landscaped so the distribution of solution features marked on the updated geological maps is certain to be an underestimate of the true density. Others have been worked as chalk pits and some ‘dolines’ may simply be small, degraded marl pits. Furthermore, many solution features such as the infilled ‘pipes’ often have no surface expression and cannot be identified by surface mapping.

The Chalk outcrop with the highest density of solution features is in the extreme south of the district, close to the Palaeogene outcrop, and through the central part of the district around the extensive clay- with-flints cover of the Great Ridge. Many of the dolines here have been landscaped or worked as pits. Some minor stream sinks occur along the margin of the overlying Palaeogene strata, but these are only intermittently active during wet weather. Areas of clay-with-flints exhibit high densities of solution features, notably the crest of Great Ridge, on the interfluve between the Lower Avon and the River Wylye, north of the Palaeogene outcrop east of Salisbury and on the interfluves to the north and south of the River Ebble. Here the present land surface is close to the sub-Palaeogene peneplane and both recent active and relict solution hollows derived from a former Palaeogene cover occur. Other outcrops of clay-with-flints are associated with dolines but elsewhere, the land surface has undergone greater dissection and these relict solution hollows have been eroded.

Minor solution features occur widely throughout the area, especially where there is a thin superficial cover, although many of these are likely to have been ploughed in and obliterated or worked as pits. Solution features (‘bourne holes’) can be expected to occur along the middle and upper reaches of the Bourne, Till and Chitterne Brook where significant recharge into the aquifer occurs. These may act as either sinks or springs depending on relative groundwater levels.

Details

The presence of these solution features is dependent on several variables including rock lithology, fracture style, geomorphic setting, geological structure and even anthropomorphic factors. The wide variety in chalk lithology (discussed above), fracture style, geological structure, flint content, porosity and fissure permeability significantly affects the style and degree of karst weathering, both at surface and underground.


Here are two previous posts:

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2016/12/sarsens-and-solution-hollow-dilemma.html

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2016/08/extraction-pits-solution-hollows-post.html

Dissolution pipes on a buried chalk surface in the Chiltern Hills (Peter Worsley)

I'm also interested in the link between sarsen stones and chalk solution.

A section showing a solution pit beneath a large embedded sarsen on Fyfield Down -- from a booklet written by Mike Clark and published by NCC in 1976.

The diagram above shows a section cut alongside one of the recumbent large sarsens found in Clatford Bottom. It shows that the sarsen is embedded in a layer of brown flinty loam which extends for about a metre beneath the stone base, with combe rock beneath that, and then with almost a metre of strongly weathered chalk above largely unaltered chalk bedrock. The brown loam is presumably the periglacial material that has moved downslope, maybe carrying or rafting the sarsen along as it accumulated. But what interested Clark and his colleague was the evidence that in ten pits examined under and adjacent to recumbent sarsens, there was increased soil acidity as compared with soils where no sarsens were present. There was also a tendency for solution pipes to occur beneath sarsens of various sizes in the combe rock, penetrating into the weathered chalk beneath. One of these pipes can be seen in the illustration above. Conclusion: the presence of sarsens in one position for many thousands of years leads to enhanced solution in the regolith and rotten chalk beneath. This rotten chalk mat well be exploited for residual flint nodules or indeed for chalk debris if that is required for the building of embankments etc.

With evidence like this in the literature, it is surprising that Gaffney et al, in their new paper, have not considered the possibility that some at least of the pits they have examined in the vicinity of Durrington may actually be extraction pits from which sarsen stones have been taken.

See also:
Locating dissolution features in the Chalk
Matthews, M. C. et al.
Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology(2000),33(2):125
http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/qjegh.33.2.125

A summary of terminology and the locations / origins of key features

The logical conclusion has to be that the "Larkhill group" of hollows or anomalies must be interpreted as natural features related to those shown above, unless powerful evidence to the contrary is provided. There is no such evidence.

Postscript

Here is another interesting article, on the collection of sarsens in the Avebury landscape.

https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/392645/1/Gillings%2520%2526%2520Pollard%2520CAJ%2520final.pdf

There are extraction pits and hollows all over the place in the Avebury district, most of them still identifiable but others infilled and maybe nowadays only traceable through detailed ground surveys.  Interestingly, the authors suggest that large recumbent sarsens, in their "original" positions, may have protected the underlying chalk from solution processes, leacing them perched of slight platforms or pedestals -- but that around the edges of the sarsen stones solution processes may have been enhanced.  This is a fertile field for somebody looking for a project.......

The politicisation of the Neolithic

Not only does the Emperor have no clothes, but the Empire itself is just a figment 

of somebody's over-fertile imagination..........

At long last, a pair of archaeologists who are prepared to tell it like it is, and a journal prepared to publish their paper.  Gordon Barclay and Kenneth Brophy have published this devastating survey of much that is wrong with British Neolithic archaeology.  So certain eminent academics will not be best pleased.  And it's gratifying that they are saying exactly what I have been saying about the high-tech isotope research which tells us far less about the Neolithic that certain people like to claim.......

The authors examine in some detail the complex interactions between senior academics and researchers and the media, on which they are increasingly dependent for the "marketing" of their ideas and the promotion of their careers.  For many years I have argued that the relationship is unhealthy and indeed dangerous, since university press offices always try to "sex up" press releases about new research, and academics themselves are tempted to place greater stress on column inches than on academic rigour and scientific integrity.

Anyway, thanks to Jon for drawing this to my attention, and thanks to Gordon for letting me see the whole article, which is unfortunately behind a paywall.

The details:

Gordon J. Barclay & Kenneth Brophy (2020) ‘A veritable chauvinism of prehistory’: nationalist prehistories and the ‘British’ late Neolithic mythos, Archaeological Journal,

DOI: 10.1080/00665983.2020.1769399

ABSTRACT
This article examines the interpretation and public presentation of a particular view of the supposedly ‘national’ role of monuments in a geographically restricted part of southern England – what we have termed the British late Neolithic mythos: that monuments in the Stonehenge area had a ‘national’, ‘unifying’ role for ‘Britain’ at a time when ‘Britain’ had a ‘unified culture’ and was isolated from continental Europe, and that as part of that process, animals for feasting were transported from as far as ‘Scotland’. We explore the trajectory of interpretative inflation, ‘possible’ > ‘probable’ > ‘certain’ > ‘sensational’ through academic and popular accounts, media releases, social media, newspaper articles, TV programmes, Research Excellence Framework impact reports, and the publications of the Arts & Humanities Research Council. We critically examine the evidence claimed to underpin this far-reaching re-interpretation of British prehistory. We examine the extent to which a priori assumptions can shape the interpretation of complex datasets and how unacknowledged nationalist and neo-colonialist thinking underpin its interpretation. We consider the way in which researchers have linked their work with contemporary politics – Brexit, a ‘united Britain’ isolated from Europe, perhaps to demonstrate ‘relevance, ‘impact’ and ‘reach’ to funding bodies. We conclude with some suggestions on ways forward including further research, and mitigating strategies.

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

The article is long, and quite dense, with a mass of references.  It has been carefully researched, and it is a proper "academic" paper (very polite!) while at the same time pulling no punches.  One of the main targets is what we might call the Parker Pearson School of Archaeological Thought, and the authors say many of the things I have been saying for years.  They don't mention the bluestone debate at all, because there are plenty of other things to talk about -- but their analysis slots in very easily to what I have been saying about the decline of the scientific method, assumptive research, the assignment of false significance, and the obsessive use of ruling hypotheses leading to the twisting and manipulation (and also the invention) of evidence.  At its worst, we are actually dealing with scientific hoaxes, perpetrated in pursuit of the desire to prove and demonstrate the reality of the "British Neolithic mythos".

Here are some of the posts I have done in the past few years, tackling these very issues:

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2019/08/parker-pearson-unification-and.html

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2019/09/stonehenge-and-brexit-rap-on-knuckles.html

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2019/04/the-neolithic-revolution-came-from-east.html

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2019/04/context-is-everything.html

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2019/04/was-there-neolithic-mass-exodus-from.html

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2018/02/before-beaker-hordes.html

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2019/09/when-does-delusion-turn-into-hoax.html

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-bluestone-hoax-gets-ever-more.html

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2020/01/british-archaeology-corrupted-by.html

Maps like this have been used to flag up imaginary links between Stonehenge and Preseli

It's also interesting that Gordon Barclay and Kenneth Brophy spend some time, in the article,  on a careful scrutiny of the isotope analyses of teeth and bones which have been used in quite outrageous fashion by Madgwick and various others (including Parker Pearson) to promote the politicisation of the British Neolithic.  It's good to know that I am not alone in thinking that much of that research is seriously flawed, and that it has done serious damage to the credibility of archaeology.  Some of my posts on this:

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2019/04/was-there-neolithic-mass-exodus-from.html

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2019/03/neolithic-feasts-and-far-travelled-pigs.html

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2018/01/affinities-of-sampled-animal-remains-at.html

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2018/08/could-cremated-foreigners-have-come.html

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2016/06/stonehenge-cremated-remains-from-west.html

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2019/03/strontium-isotope-results-may-be-deeply.html

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2018/10/dem-crem-bones-ca-overwhelmed-and-ba.html

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2018/10/more-on-strontium-isotope-west-wales.html

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2018/09/current-archaeology-too-much-marketing.html

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-mythologising-of-west-wales-role-of.html

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2018/08/could-cremated-foreigners-have-come_4.html

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2018/08/now-smithsonian-goes-completely-bonkers.html

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2018/08/strontium-levels-in-cremated-bone-what.html

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2017/05/strontium-isotope-ratios-in-stonehenge.htm



As far as I can see, the only reference in this new paper to the bluestone controversy is in this statement:

Critically examining these data in this way, we must ask again why the authors of the books and articles referenced have chosen to emphasise more distant areas as potential, likely or even certain sources for these animals, especially given the existing links with Wales, demonstrated by the origin of the Stonehenge bluestones in the Preseli Hills (e.g. Darvill and Wainwright 2014; Parker Pearson et al. 2015).

What the authors are suggesting here is that there is no need to postulate long-distance travel of people, pigs and teeth from northern Scotland to the Stonehenge area when it is much more likely that areas much closer to hand (eg Preseli) will fit the bill.  Well, yes and no.  There is the "bluestone link".   But you still need evidence of some cultural or ethnic link between Preseli and Stonehenge, and in spite of what Darvill, Wainwright and Parker Pearson may have claimed in the past, the evidence is just not there.  The quarrying hypothesis is yet another example of something dug up to demonstrate a fanciful supposition which has been around for almost a century, initiated by HH Thomas.

The "Durrington Shafts" and the anti-tunnel campaign

I didn't realise it at first, but the hype about the "mega-circuit" of supposed vertical shafts in the chalk around Durrington Walls has not appeared just now purely by chance.  If you look at the media today almost every article is linking the "astonishing discovery" with the proposed road tunnel to the south of Stonehenge -- so there has clearly been careful coordination, with many statements from key players prepared in advance.  

I don't have strong feelings one way or the other about the tunnel, but it probably explains why such a half-baked and seriously unscientific piece of research has been released now, when it could have done with some serious peer review and careful revision.

As it is, it is out there, and it cannot possibly do anything to enhance the reputations of any of the authors.  Treat it not as a piece of respectable academic research, but as a campaigning weapon.

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

in The Guardian:

Scrap Stonehenge road tunnel plans, say archaeologists after Neolithic discovery

Exclusive: Discovery of prehistoric structure is another reason to give up ‘disastrous white elephant’ scheme

Extract: "A giant neolithic structure, created 4,500 years ago, has been uncovered 1.9 miles (3 km) north-east of Stonehenge on Salisbury Plain near Amesbury, Wiltshire. To the astonishment of archaeologists, a series of vast shafts – each more than five metres deep and up to 20 metres across – were found to have been aligned to form a circle 1.2 miles in diameter."

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jun/22/scrap-stonehenge-road-tunnel-say-archaeologists-neolithic-discovery?fbclid=IwAR1By42ezTxOlk76WynZOlHb0_6Kw0BKLJpf1xkls4adr5JMZbRDUBjzJhs


Mike Parker Pearson: "........there’s concern that the vibrations will actually impact on archaeological deposits, causing the ground to crack.” Seriously?

and again:  “What’s really pleasing for me is that it’s over 20 years now since we put that hypothesis together. Vince has found it. Fantastic. We’ve really got a good idea of what Stonehenge is all about. What a find.”  Seriously? 

Signatories of the letter (27 Feb 2017) in support of the Stonehenge Alliance and in opposition to the road tunnel proposals:

Prof. Mike Parker Pearson FBA FSA FSA(Scot) MCIfA PhD University College London

Dr Umberto Albarella PhD University of Sheffield

Dr Mike Allen FSA PhD Allen Environmental Associates

Dr Barry Bishop PhD University of Buckingham 

Prof Nick Branch FSA PhD University of Reading

Dr Christopher Chippindale FSA MCIfA PhD University of Cambridge

Prof Oliver Craig MSc PhD University of York

Dr David Field FSA PhD Formerly English Heritage 

Prof Charly French FSA PhD University of Cambridge

Prof Vince Gaffney FSA PhD University of Bradford

Paul Garwood MSc University of Birmingham

Prof David Jacques FSA MPhil University of Buckingham 

Dr Nicholas James PhD University of Cambridge

Dr Joshua Pollard FSA PhD University of Southampton

Prof Colin Richards PhD University of the Highlands & Islands 

Dr David Robinson PhD University of Central Lancashire

Prof Peter Rowley-Conwy FSA FSA(Scot) RSNA PhD University of Durham

Prof Clive Ruggles FSA DPhil University of Leicester

Prof Julian Thomas MA PhD FSA University of Manchester

Prof Christopher Tilley PhD University College London

Prof Kate Welham MSc PhD University of Bournemouth

The "Durrington Shafts" -- where is the evidence?

Oh dear -- it gets worse and worse. Vince Gaffney is working really hard to establish the term "The Durrington Shafts" into the scientific lexicon, and Guardian has a breathless extra report on the fantastical discoveries.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/jun/22/vast-neolithic-circle-of-deep-shafts-found-near-stonehenge 

Note the artists reconstruction above, showing a "shaft" over 5m deep and 10m across.  The pretence is that all of the :"shafts" were like this.  I have been looking carefully at the paper by Gaffney et al, and at their additional data file, and I can see no evidence of even one "shaft" with vertical sides, let alone 20, let alone the hypothetical 80 or 90.

What we can actually see in all of the recorded cross-sections or profiles is a series of mostly shallow pits with gently sloping sides, generally with gradients of 30 degrees or less, but with one or two slopes as steep as 45 degrees.  NOTHING VERTICAL AT ALL.

It gives me no pleasure to say so, but the whole thing is an elaborate confidence trick.

Gaffney and his colleagues know the score, and this is the crucial bit of text:

Profiles from ground penetrating radar indicated that, far from being shallow features, as had been expected if these anomalies originated as dewponds, the surveyed features had quite dramatic vertical sides. The large surface diameter of the features appeared to represent the effect of weathering cones and, where measurement was possible, the actual diameter of these features may have been half, or less, than the surface measurement.

Note the use of the word "had" -- they are admitting that the sides of the pits are quite shallow, but they are assuming (without any evidence, as far as I can see) that they were once vertical, and that subsequent degradation has involved the collapse of the pit flanks, the widening of the pits (from c 10m diameter to c 20m diameter) and the accumulation of debris in the pit bottoms.

That is an exceptional (and unnecessary)  hypothesis, and it should never have been made without exceptionally good evidence to support it.   

The only way that vertically sided shafts could be demonstrated is through the examination of rows of boreholes -- at maybe 1m spacing -- right across sampled pits.  That would show up traces of vertical pit sides.  It hasn't been done.  I wonder why?

  Simple diagrammatic representation of the degradation of a vertical-sided shaft.  Boreholes 1, 2 and 6 should encounter solid chalk at very modest depth,  but sequence 2 should be dramatically different from 3, and 5 should be dramatically different from 6.

Postscript

I have been looking again at the Gaffney et al paper, and I am mystified that the "northern" group of features near Larkhill are included in this research as having any archaeological significance.  The authors demonstrate in the text that the seven features (numbered iii, iv, 10D, 11D, 12D, 13D and v) are almost certainly natural solution features, being aligned along a natural depression or dry valley running down towards a bend in the Avon Valley.  They say this:

"That general presumption that the group of features north of Durrington Walls were natural in origin and, probably, solution features gains some support in the geological literature. Such features are relatively common on the chalk and the available mapping is likely to provide an underestimate of their actual distribution (Hopson et al. 2006, 215). Some of the features recorded north of Durrington are set within a slight valley trending west-east towards the Avon. While such a topographic situation can provide the conditions that can lead to the development of solution features, the southern group of anomalies does not align with any similar topographic feature, and actually crosses higher ground above dry valleys. Consequently, the origins of the southern group of anomalies as solution features or doline is less likely."

So they are not arguing against a natural origin for these seven northern features.   And yet suddenly, in the next part of the paper, they are treated as essential or integral parts of the "Durrington Shafts" arc or circuit, and it is assumed from this point on that the seven pits are man-made.........

None of it makes any sense.  What on earth is going on here?

On this diagram we can see the two main groups of features deemed to be sufficiently anomalous to be worth showing.  The northern group of seven "pits", north of the Larkhill causewayed enclosure, are by common consensus, natural solutional features that might have been subjected to some modification, like most solutional features in the area.  So why are they included at all in this study?  Answer: because they happen to lie, very conveniently, close to the circumference of an assumed invisible circle or circuit.

This is a classic case of "Interpretative inflation", as defined by Barclay and Brophy (2020), where an original cautious and accurate interpretation of features on the ground is gradually suppressed by the need to demonstrate some earth-shattering and headline-grabbing narrative:

Interpretative inflation

The interpretative inflation we have already mentioned occurs in distinct stages in this uite of publications and promotions:

*the data and relatively restrained preliminary interpretation in the first part of the original academic paper;

*then, less tentatively, in the later part of the paper (and in the Abstract) more far- reaching interpretation, with less support offered;

*even more ambitious claims in media releases prepared by the universities, incorporating direct quotations from the authors;

*in the media, working from the press releases, to create attention-grabbing headlines and soundbites, further amplified through some interviews with the lead authors; and affected by the media outlet’s own political angle.

Durrington super-circuit: an hypothesis full of holes

Geophysically investigated areas around Stonehenge and Durrington.  Note that only about one-third of the so-called circuit has been investigated, and that scores of "candidate" pits are just not plotted on the map.  

I  have had a chance to go through this paper now.  Call me a miserable old git if you like, but I have to say it is truly appalling.  It looks very impressive, with lots of excellent maps and diagrams, and an abundance of data,  but when one reads the text one has no option but to sink into a deep sense of despair.  Whatever happened to the scientific process?  This is the worst kind of "assumptive research" in which the researchers involved have been so obsessed with finding their giant circle (or circuit) that they have in effect lost touch with reality.  

We have seen this sort of thing too often before, as I have noted on this blog.  

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2014/09/stonehenge-latest-amazing-revelations.html
https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2016/08/durrington-red-herrings-and-red-faces.html
https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2015/09/a-hundred-standing-stoones-ar-durrington.html

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2018/07/assumptive-research.html

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2019/02/the-strange-methods-of-megalithic.html

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2019/02/yet-more-on-quarries-scientific.html

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2020/01/british-archaeology-corrupted-by.html

Here is the citation:
Gaffney, V. et al. 2020 A Massive, Late Neolithic Pit Structure associated with Durrington Walls Henge, Internet Archaeology 55.

https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.55.4

It will be a waste of my time (and yours, dear reader) to go through the paper line by line, but here are a few observations.

1. The Pattern.   The selection of the "right" pits.  We cannot tell from the data presented how many pits, either of the wrong size or in the wrong places, have simply been ignored.  How many other pits and hollows have been ignored because they are not circular?  The chosen pits have been selected because they conform to the author's expectations or because they chose to label them as "anomalies".  The authors state that within the investigated area there are up to 90 anomalies, measuring up to 4.5m in length and c. 1.5m in width.  Where are these anomalies, and what do they look like?  There is an assumption that "the circuit may have originally included several hundred similar features" -- but no evidence is supplied in support of this speculation.  Why are the pits only "right" if they are over 5m in diameter?  There could be scores of other pits beneath this diameter that have identical or similar origins -- but they have been airbrushed out of the analysis.  On the matter of the "arcs" and the "circuit" there is by no means a "fit" onto the supposed circumference, and the authors show a pattern that is better interpreted as three rough alignments that may or may not have anything to do with one another.

2.  The Pits.  Most of the investigated pits appear to have sloping flanks -- but some have steep sides. Vince Gaffney seems to be intent on referring to them as "shafts" but it appears to me that very few of them justify that designation.  They are infilled with variable debris with organic materials and debris that can be fitted into some sort of archaeological context, but no evidence is presented to show that either the pit fills or the archaeological artefacts and organic remains are any different from those that are scattered across the whole landscape.  So here again, as in the arguments about Rhosyfelin and Carn Goedog in Pembrokeshire, no control sites have been examined or described.  So archaeological significance is assumed where there may be none at all.
Quote:

"The magnetic anomalies to the south of Durrington Walls that have been investigated by coring are not natural features and may represent large pits, in their final form at least."  Not natural features?  This has not been demonstrated in the evidence presented — there is an obsession with demonstrating archaeological significance.  Are the pits old dewponds?  Or sink holes? Or sarsen stone collection pits? Or are they natural features simply enlarged for the convenient collection of flints, or for the collection of debris required for bank building elsewhere?  Or are they a mixture of all of these, used and modified to varying degrees?

The authors do at least consider the possibility that the pits might be related to the presence of flint veins or topographical features like elongated hollows:

Quote:   "In some instances, such as Cissbury hillfort, large pits associated with mining do form linear alignments; presumably following seams of flint within the boundary of the later Iron Age hillfort (Barber et al. 1999, 29). More locally, work by Booth and Stone (1952) and Stone (1958) record the presence of flint mines near Durrington. However, the illustrations provided by Stone demonstrate that these features are significantly narrower at the entrance than those described above (Figure 21). When considered spatially, Stone's features are also unlikely to be directly linked with the arcs of massive pits presented within this article. While it is not impossible that flint extracted from these pits may have been used on an ad hoc basis, the structural arrangement of the pit group around Durrington Walls, and their apparent link to the area of the henge monument, suggest that such a prosaic interpretation is not sufficient as an explanation for these features.”

Towards the end of that paragraph we have a perfect example of bias -- with reference to the (very questionable) "structural arrangement" and the "apparent link to the area of the henge monument" --which shows that the authors are 100% set on demonstrating that the examined features are not natural and that they are highly significant in cultural terms. Suppositions founded on other suppositions. It's all completely unconvincing.

Then again we have this, with reference to Eaton Heath:  Quote: "The relative absence of discussion of this site within the literature suggests that the shafts at Eaton Heath may have suffered from the previously unhelpful dichotomy concerning the cultural role of natural features within prehistory (Bradley 2000). Anthropogenic or not, the presence of archaeological materials at Eaton Heath suggests that such features may well have acquired an imbued significance. Consequently, if any of the features near Durrington originate as natural features, it seems reasonable to suggest that a larger monumental circle may have emerged, centred on the area of the Durrington Henge, and involving tens of similar, massive pits.”

Come hell or high water, Gaffney and his colleagues are set on demonstrating that there are no natural explanations for these features, and that they are culturally significant.  What they are flagging up in the media today is  the "structuration" and "monumentalisation" or the "imbued significance" of certain pits in the landscape (and the ignoring of others) even though many of the chosen pits are not on an accurate arc or visible from either Durrington Walls or from other "pit sites."  With regard to the somewhat haphazard scattering of the chosen pits, the authors simply say that accuracy was not an issue -- it was the meaning or the intention that really mattered.  So that's all right then......

Overall, a classic example of an article that does all three things it should not do.  It is assumptive research which assigns archaeological or cultural significance to all sorts of things that may be natural or simply random, and there are no control or contextual studies to support what is being claimed.  Dear reader, I am distinctly underwhelmed.

PS.
Classic quote, from today's Guardian article:
Parker Pearson had previously suggested that Durrington Walls lay within a “domain of the living” separated from a “domain of the ancestors” centred on Stonehenge. He said: “What’s really pleasing for me is that it’s over 20 years now since we put that hypothesis together. Vince has found it. Fantastic. We’ve really got a good idea of what Stonehenge is all about. What a find.”

Words fail me.........

The Stonehenge Purple Prose Competition

Richard Bates of St Andrews, currently in the lead by a short head..........

The Garbled Title Competition was a jolly diversion.  Now it's back to the serious stuff again, and the Stonehenge Purple Prose Competition has restarted with a vengeance.  Here are some contenders, as reported by the BBC, with respect to the latest results from the Gaffney team relating to holes in the ground round and about the Durrington area.  Throughout the galaxy, neutral observers have watched in shock and awe as the latest research results have hit the planetary headlines.

Here we go:

Dr Richard Bates, from St Andrews' School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, said: "Remote sensing and careful sampling is giving us an insight to the past that shows an even more complex society than we could ever imagine.
"Clearly sophisticated practices demonstrate that the people were so in tune with natural events to an extent that we can barely conceive in the modern world.
His colleague Tim Kinnaird said sediments from the shafts that were tested "contain a rich and fascinating archive of previously unknown environmental information".
He said studying the finds allowed archaeologists to "write detailed narratives of the Stonehenge landscape for the last 4,000 years".
Dr Nick Snashall, National Trust archaeologist for the Stonehenge World Heritage Site, hailed the "astonishing discovery".
She said: "As the place where the builders of Stonehenge lived and feasted Durrington Walls is key to unlocking the story of the wider Stonehenge landscape, and this astonishing discovery offers us new insights into the lives and beliefs of our Neolithic ancestors.
"The Hidden Landscapes team have combined cutting-edge, archaeological fieldwork with good old-fashioned detective work to reveal this extraordinary discovery and write a whole new chapter in the story of the Stonehenge landscape."

As reported in The Guardian:

Gaffney said the newly discovered circular shape suggests a “huge cosmological statement and the need to inscribe it into the earth itself”.

He added: “Stonehenge has a clear link to the seasons and the passage of time, through the summer solstice. But with the Durrington Shafts, it’s not the passing of time, but the bounding by a circle of shafts which has cosmological significance."

Henry Chapman, professor of archaeology at Birmingham University, described it as “an incredible new monument”.

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

And so it goes on.  Before I get over-excited by the superabundance of hyperbole and the surfeit of magnificent adjectives, I must go and lie down in a darkened room for a little while.

Now then.  We clearly have some strong contenders here for the 2020 Stonehenge Purple Prose Title, but it's not too late for other entries to be submitted.  The prize will be awarded towards the end of the year in a glittering awards ceremony, at a venue to be announced in a galaxy near you.

Big pits, Stonehenge and Durrington

Two diagrams showing the location of the pits discovered, claimed to rest on the circumference of a gigantic circle or "circuit" centred on Durrington Walls.  As we can see, the arrangement is somewhat haphazard,   and it may be an artifice thrown up by highly selective ground investigations. As we can see, there are two assumed arc segments -- are these real, or imagined?

This is all over the media today -- new research from Vince Gaffney and his team.  It's all very interesting, and I'll take a look at the research and report back.  I hope it's all a bit more reliable than some of the earlier research from the Gaffney team, relating to pits, shafts and holes either holding stones or not, as the case may be.........

There have been some very red faces in the past, relating to some of the linked research over a period of ten years, so we shall see how reliable this latest set of discoveries may be.

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2014/09/stonehenge-latest-amazing-revelations.html
https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2010/08/another-flight-of-fancy.html

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2016/08/durrington-red-herrings-and-red-faces.html

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2015/09/a-hundred-standing-stoones-ar-durrington.html

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2017/07/yet-more-bbc-nonsense-on-stonehenge.html

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

A Massive, Late Neolithic Pit Structure associated with Durrington Walls Henge

by Vincent Gaffney, Eamonn Baldwin, Martin Bates, C. Richard Bates, Christopher Gaffney, Derek Hamilton, Tim Kinnaird, Wolfgang Neubauer, Ronald Yorston, Robin Allaby, Henry Chapman, Paul Garwood, Klaus Löcker, Alois Hinterleitner, Tom Sparrow, Immo Trinks, Mario Wallner and Matt Leivers

https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.55.4
#DurringtonPits

A series of massive geophysical anomalies, located south of the Durrington Walls henge monument, were identified during fluxgate gradiometer survey undertaken by the Stonehenge Hidden Landscapes Project (SHLP). Initially interpreted as dewponds, these data have been re-evaluated, along with information on similar features revealed by archaeological contractors undertaking survey and excavation to the north of the Durrington Walls henge. Analysis of the available data identified a total of 20 comparable features, which align within a series of arcs adjacent to Durrington Walls. Further geophysical survey, supported by mechanical coring, was undertaken on several geophysical anomalies to assess their nature, and to provide dating and environmental evidence. The results of fieldwork demonstrate that some of these features, at least, were massive, circular pits with a surface diameter of 20m or more and a depth of at least 5m. Struck flint and bone were recovered from primary silts and radiocarbon dating indicates a Late Neolithic date for the lower silts of one pit. The degree of similarity across the 20 features identified suggests that they could have formed part of a circuit of large pits around Durrington Walls, and this may also have incorporated the recently discovered Larkhill causewayed enclosure. The diameter of the circuit of pits exceeds 2km and there is some evidence that an intermittent, inner post alignment may have existed within the circuit of pits. One pit may provide evidence for a recut; suggesting that some of these features could have been maintained through to the Middle Bronze Age. Together, these features represent a unique group of features related to the henge at Durrington Walls, executed at a scale not previously recorded.

 

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

Here is the BBC report, complete with the expected purple prose:

Stonehenge: Neolithic monument found near sacred site
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-53132567

Archaeologists have discovered a ring of prehistoric shafts, dug thousands of years ago near Stonehenge.
Fieldwork has revealed evidence of a 1.2 mile (2km) wide circle of large shafts measuring more than 10m in diameter and 5m in depth.
They surround the ancient settlement of Durrington Walls, two miles (3km) from Stonehenge.
Tests suggest the ground works are Neolithic and were excavated more than 4,500 years ago.
Experts believe the 20 or more shafts may have served as a boundary to a sacred area connected to the henge.
A team of academics from the universities of St Andrews, Birmingham, Warwick, Glasgow and the University of Wales Trinity Saint David worked on the project.
Dr Richard Bates, from St Andrews' School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, said: "Remote sensing and careful sampling is giving us an insight to the past that shows an even more complex society than we could ever imagine.
"Clearly sophisticated practices demonstrate that the people were so in tune with natural events to an extent that we can barely conceive in the modern world.
His colleague Tim Kinnaird said sediments from the shafts that were tested "contain a rich and fascinating archive of previously unknown environmental information".
He said studying the finds allowed archaeologists to "write detailed narratives of the Stonehenge landscape for the last 4,000 years".
Dr Nick Snashall, National Trust archaeologist for the Stonehenge World Heritage Site, hailed the "astonishing discovery".
She said: "As the place where the builders of Stonehenge lived and feasted Durrington Walls is key to unlocking the story of the wider Stonehenge landscape, and this astonishing discovery offers us new insights into the lives and beliefs of our Neolithic ancestors.
"The Hidden Landscapes team have combined cutting-edge, archaeological fieldwork with good old-fashioned detective work to reveal this extraordinary discovery and write a whole new chapter in the story of the Stonehenge landscape."
The announcement of the discovery comes after the Summer Solstice, which took place online this year as the annual gathering at Stonehenge was cancelled due to coronavirus.

New Pembrokeshire book slammed......

There's a new book on Pembrokeshire, written by Jonathan Mullard and published in the Collins New Naturalist series.  A snip at £35........... I don't think I'll bother.  I'm not sure who Mullard is, but he has done at least three books now for the New Naturalist series.  He does not seem to be either a geologist, or a geographer, or a naturalist, and neither does he seem to know Pembrokeshire very well, if a review from David Saunders is anything to go by.  He seems to have a background as a biologist.

David finds mistakes on page after page after page -- so one wonders where the editor was while it was in the pre-production phase.  Falling standards everywhere........

David is most concerned about inaccuracies and omissions in the natural history sections of the text, but he is also angered by the fact that while four pages are devoted to "the Preseli bluestones" and Stonehenge, there is only the briefest mention of the glacial transport thesis and therefore no science-based discussion of the balance of probabilities.  A sign of very shallow reading......

As I said, I think I'll keep my £35 in my pocket and use it as ice-cream money instead.

Glaciated landscapes in Greenland

It's amazing just how many wonderful royalty-free or license-free photos there are on the web, accessible either through Wikimedia Commons or from photographers who are happy to see their photos getting exposure and used, sometimes with the request that a source should be acknowledged.  One of the big photo suppliers is Dreamstime, and in the past I have purchased photo usage rights and video footage from them for use on specific projects.  Now I have taken advantage of one of their special offers to download some images that would normally be paid for, via one of their monthly or yearly "photo use" schemes.  Below are some of the images recently acquired for non-commercial use.  They are all Greenland images, from both east and west coasts, and although they are spoiled to some degree by the presence of watermarks, we can still see huge numbers of features of interest. 

This is a nice photo of a "blocking nunatak" near the west coast of Greenland.  The rock surface has been heavily moulded by  overriding ice in the past.  The two streams of ice -- both coming from the Greenland Ice Sheet -- are quite active, and the contacts between them and the flanks of the nunatak are marked by prominent moraines.  There is a lake at the meeting point of the two ice streams -- very dirty, and there is much sediment in the water. Then there is another moraine marking the parallel flow of the ice streams out towards the coast.

This is probably an autumn photo, with the fjords ice-free and the land surface covered in fresh snow.  the pattern of fjords on the west coast is shown with great clarity.  The fjord pattern is very complex, with some transverse and intersecting fjords, probably influenced by fault lines or other zones of weakness in the bedrock.  

 

Showing the pics on a blog such as this is a good way of evaluating how they might look on a web site or, for example, in a magazine article.  Anybody that wants to use them should contact Dreamstime directly.