Waun Mawn and Proto-Stonehenge -- the seven tests

Waun Mawn -- a feature claimed to be a stone socket, but open to interpretation, and now 

conveniently buried.....

Rhosyfelin --  lots to see and interpret, but now buried beneath hundreds of tonnes of spoil.

Abermawr Devensian deposits and structures -- described by me but still there for 

others to examine........

As I have often said on this blog, there is a big difference between field work in geomorphology and field work in archaeology.  In my branch, glacial geomorphology, I can safely say that almost all of the exposures I have described and interpreted over the years are still available for others to visit, describe and interpret —  and whether they agree or disagree with me is down to them.  In archaeology, or at least in the sort of archaeology we deal with in this blog, excavations are opened up, worked on, often in conditions of some secrecy, and then closed up or infilled, making sdcrutiny by others impossible.  So an extra responsibility is placed on the diggers to be honest and truthful in their descriptions and interpretations.  Sadly, in the three digs relating to the bluestones (at Rhosyfelin, Carn Goedog and Waun Mawn) the descriptions and interpretations in the literature by Mike Parker Pearson and his colleagues are so lacking in scientific rigour that none of their conclusions can be trusted.

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 in 2018 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 "engineering work" and are not simply natural phenomena related to glacial and periglacial processes or signs of ephemeral occupation of the landscape over a long period of time.
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 become obsessed with Stonehenge and have  managed to avoid proper scrutiny.