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.