What follows is a brief critique of the following publication:
Waun Mawn and Gernos-fach: the Welsh origins of Stonehenge projectInterim report of the 2021 season
By Mike Parker Pearson, Chris Casswell, Jim Rylatt, Adam Stanford, Kate Welham and Josh Pollard
This relates to the organized dig in September 2021 by the members of the Stones of Stonehenge Project, led by Prof Mike Parker Pearson and others, at Waun Mawn, Gernos-fach, and Penlan. The interim report has been sent to project participants (including volunteer diggers) and to those involved in the consents and funding process -- PCNPA, the Barony of Cemais, Dyfed Archaeology, RCAHMW, CADW etc. It will no doubt also be used in the attempts to schedule a Waun Mawn "lost circle" as a protected feature, thereby cementing it on the public record as an established fact. There are no references at the end of the report.
[[ Added 12 Jan: Tim Daw has now added the full Interim Report to his blog site, with the permission of Mike Parker Pearson. This is very welcome -- so it is now available for all to see:
There is also a comments box -- let us hope that there will be a healthy discussion!]]
In making the comments below, I am applying the same level of scrutiny that I would expect of any archaeological professional.
------------------------------
Background
In the very first paragraph there are questionable assumptions on the part of the authors. It is not the case that all but two of the Stonehenge sarsens have been "identified" as coming from West Woods. There is a suggestion by Prof David Nash and others, but it is far from confirmed:
Petrography of sarsen debitage from the Stonehenge Landscape – a broad and perhaps scattered church by Rob A. Ixer and Richard E. Bevins
Wiltshire Arch & Nat Hist Mag, vol 114, 2021, pp 18-33.
Further, the bluestones at Stonehenge have not all come from the Preseli Hills; most of them probably have, but some sources are still unknown.
It is NOT accepted that bluestones were removed from "quarries" at Rhosyfelin and Carn Goedog. Careful examinations of the "quarrying" sites have revealed no unequivocal evidence of any prehistoric quarrying or stone removal. The dates cited for "quarrying" in Preseli and monolith erection at Stonehenge are not established and accepted, but speculative. The only archaeologists and geologists who have hypothesised about a "giant stone circle" being erected in West Wales, and then dismantled and shipped off to Stonehenge, are the members of Parker Pearson's own team; elsewhere, there is extreme scepticism.
Brian John, Dyfed Elis-Gruffydd and John Downes. 2015. OBSERVATIONS ON THE SUPPOSED “NEOLITHIC BLUESTONE QUARRY” AT CRAIG RHOSYFELIN, PEMBROKESHIRE". Archaeology in Wales 54, pp 139-148. (Publication 14th December 2015)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286775899_
Brian John, Dyfed Elis-Gruffydd and John Downes (2015a). "Quaternary Events at Craig Rhosyfelin, Pembrokeshire." Quaternary Newsletter, October 2015 (No 137), pp 16-32.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283643851_QUATERNARY_EVENTS_AT_CRAIG_RHOSYFELIN_PEMBROKESHIRE
Brian John (2019) Carn Goedog and the question of the "bluestone megalith quarry"
Researchgate: working paper
April 2019, 25 pp.
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.12677.81121
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332739336_Carn_Goedog_and_the_question_of_the_bluestone_megalith_quarry
"Waun Mawn and the search for Proto-Stonehenge", Brian John. Working paper, updated Sept 2021.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/345177590_Waun_Mawn_and_the_search_for_Proto-_Stonehenge
With respect to the "partial stone circle" at Waun Mawn, it is stated as fact that at least 8 stone-holes or sockets have been discovered on a circle arc at Waun Mawn, for monoliths "removed in antiquity". The evidence cited in previous publications is, to put it mildly, unconvincing, and is quite inadequate to support any conclusions about an ancient stone circle. The dates cited for stone erection and circle dismantling are conveniently plucked from a welter of other dates, just as the same authors have done previously with their highly suspect "quarrying dates" for Rhosyfelin and Carn Goedog.
The authors claim that on the basis of four existing stones and six so-called stoneholes, they have identified the third largest stone circle known in Britain. That is an unsupportable and highly misleading claim.
Quote: The largest of the stoneholes had an unusual pentagonal-shaped base which can be matched with Stone 62 at Stonehenge and contained flakes of dolerite that appear to have become detached from the monolith that stood at Waun Mawn; it is of the same type of rock as that of Stone 62 at Stonehenge. The absurdity of this claim has been noted by many commentators, and no evidence has ever been produced to demonstrate that any "flakes of dolerite" in the "stonehole" at Waun Mawn are of the same rock type as Stonehenge bluestone 62.
The alignment of the Waun Mawn "entrance" facing the midsummer solstice sunrise has already been shown as vague and somewhat fanciful. The imagined diameter of the Waun Mawn imaginary stone circle now cited as coinciding with the diameter of the Stonehenge perimeter ditch has again been criticised as something that makes no sense at all, quite apart from the great difference in the ages of the features referred to.
Is Waun Mawn a part of a "major ceremonial complex" within Preseli? This is raised here as a somewhat blatant attempt to flag up "the significance of the source of Stonehenge’s bluestones" -- but many researchers who know western Preseli very well indeed say that this landscape is very rich in prehistoric remains, which are of many different types and ages -- including many features that are strictly utilitarian. As in any populated area, there will be some features that are "ceremonial" or associated with burials, but to refer to the whole landscape as a "ceremonial complex" is highly fanciful.
Then there is this map, purportedly used as an aid to the location of assorted sites mentioned in the text. It is so selective as to be absurd, and the red dots showing "Stonehenge-linked bluestone sources" at Cerrigmarchogion (dolerite), Carn Goedog (spotted dolerite) and Craig Rhosyfelin (rhyolite) are designed to deceive. No Stonehenge bluestones have ever been proved to have come from any of those three places, although geologists Rob Ixer and Richard Bevins have indeed suggested close petrographic and geochemical matches. There are literally hundreds of other outcrops from which dolerites (spotted and otherwise) and rhyolites (foliated and otherwise) might have come.
All in all, the "Background" pages to this report are unworthy of any scientific investigation, with every paragraph seeking to portray assumptions and speculations as established facts. Not a promising start, one might say........
----------------------------------
Research Objectives in 2021
These objectives are laid out with a degree of hindsight, including a reference to an "incomplete stone circle" at Waun Mawn, but there is still a reference to "the 10 standing stones so far detected by their surviving stoneholes." As mentioned above, and as commented on by assorted senior archaeologists, these claimed stoneholes are too indistinct and too small to be taken at all seriously as the sockets of bluestones destined for Stonehenge. Waun Mawn is referred to as a "monument" -- but nothing has been provided thus far that might justify the use of that label.
Waun Mawn: an unfinished and dismantled stone circle
This is where most of the 2021 research results are laid out. Immediately the title reveals to us that what we are about to see is somewhat underwhelming, and that some outrageous claims are already dropped. The Lost Giant Circle has already disappeared from the lexicon.
It becomes clear from the outset that there was no marking-out post at the precise centre of the postulated circle, but much is made of a small bowl-shaped hearth or fireplace, deemed to be "highly significant." I'm not sure why that claim should be made, because a small fire anywhere on this site is perfectly likely to have had nothing whatever to do with any stone settings 50m or more away. This is typical of the desperate search for associations or significance which has destroyed the credibility of the Stones of Stonehenge project from the very beginning. Then we have reference to "disturbed sediment from the fall of a large tree" -- but we are given no evidence to assess. Then this: As a potentially long-lived landmark, the tree – likely to be isolated and prominent, given the lack of evidence for similarly large trees across all the Waun Mawn trenches – could have been an enduring feature in the prehistoric landscape. Nice fantasy -- no evidence. But this whole landscape was a deer park in the Middle Ages -- with trees all over the place. Then there is an acknowledgement that the so-called circle is so irregular, with some stones or supposed sockets 5m off the circle line, that it must be concluded it was never properly measured out, except by some rather erratic pacing.
Quote: Excavations around the circle’s perimeter confirmed that two extensive arcs in the south and west had been largely or entirely devoid of stoneholes for since-removed standing stones. While there was no further trace of any features on the west side, the southern arc produced a further three or possibly four features which followed the circle’s circumference but had never held standing stones. These are interpreted as marking-out pits for standing stones that were never erected. This is all so speculative and feeble, with no evidence brought forward, that it has to be taken as an acknowledgement that the "lost circle of Waun Mawn" never existed. There is a suggestion that two "features" or possible marking out pits for stones that were never erected are aligned with Carn Goedog and Foel Feddau, but we are not shown any evidence, and this is yet another example of clutching at any little straw that might come in handy........
Quote: On the east side, a new stonehole was found in 2021, forming the eastern end of an arc of four surviving standing stones and six additional stoneholes that extends for almost 100m from the furthest of these in the circle’s northwest. The presence of a ‘marking-out’ pit just 9m from the eastern terminal of this arc suggests that it was at this very point that construction of the circle was abandoned. Again, it is impossible to take any of this seriously, since we are shown no evidence but are expected simply to believe what we are told.
There is some discussion of post-holes, and they may indeed exist, but we are told that they were used for the laying out of an alignment on the midsummer solstice sunrise -- but we are not told what that alignment actually is or was. We already know from past publications from Clive Ruggles and others that the proposed alignment is extremely vague, if not non-existent.
The only other stonehole mentioned in this text is one claimed to have been investigated in 2021, in the SW quadrant. The description of ramp, fulcrum, socket fill sediments, flat stones used as a base for a large dolerite slab and so forth makes little sense, and does not seem to match with the evidence we can see in an accompanying photo -- and given the propensity within this team for labelling entirely natural features at Rhosyfelin and Carn Goedog as "engineering features" it's best to reserve judgment until hard evidence is presented in an acceptable research publication.
One paragraph of the text deals with a damaged flint arrowhead and other artefacts. I have no problem with this, and look forward to further information with regard to dating.
This is the summary of the 2021 work on the supposed "Lost Circle": In summary, the 2021 excavations provide evidence that only 30% of Waun Mawn’s stone circle was ever completed, leaving large gaps on the west and south sides. Features along the southern perimeter can be identified as holes that were dug but never held stones, revealing that building of the circle stopped in mid-construction. Eight standing stones were subsequently dismantled, leaving just four in place. It is unlikely that there were ever more than 17 stones erected within this circle, resulting in between eight and 13 being taken away in prehistory......... In these circumstances, if Waun Mawn provided some of the bluestones for Stonehenge, these can only have been a small portion of the total."
Given the extremely unsatisfactory nature of the evidence relating to supposed emptied stone sockets and holes that were dug but never held stones (as outlined in previous posts on this blog), there is no way that the claim of "between 8 and 13 stones being taken away in prehistory" can be sustained. The biggest problem that the researchers on this project have to face is that most of their claimed sockets are far too small and shallow to have held bluestones destined for Stonehenge. And because they have done no control studies in the neighbourhood, they cannot demonstrate that they are even man-made and different in nature from the shallow hollows that occur right across this landscape, in an undulating till surface broken up by areas of bedrock exposures and zones disturbed or "churned" by permafrost processes. Furthermore, they have not presented a shred of evidence for any geological link with the fanciful "quarries" at Rhosyfelin or Carn Goedog. And finally there is no evidence of any type of a link between this site and Stonehenge.
The fanciful hypothesis of the "giant lost bluestone circle" used as a temporary parking place for bluestones then removed to Stonehenge falls because there is simply not a shred of evidence to support it.
Gernos-fach: an embanked stone circle
This is a somewhat absurd lead-in to this section: "The proximity of Gernos-fach to Waun Mawn just half a mile away has raised the possibility that it is of equivalent date to Waun Mawn (i.e. Middle Neolithic) and might have been similarly dismantled in prehistory to provide bluestones for Stonehenge." It's clear that we are once again in wish-fulfilment territory...........
This feature (which MPP and his team wrongly claim to have discovered) is well known among local hillwalkers and prehistorians, and in the text the report authors focus on the large leaning standing stone adjacent to the circle "entrance: This unspotted dolerite pillar, over 2.10m long, is unweathered on one side, likely to be the result of its lying on the ground before erection; it is not a quarried monolith like so many of the bluestones. That, quite frankly, is nonsense, since the majority of stones in this area that have been used as monoliths in stone settings are more weathered on one side than another, since all of them have been picked up after being embedded in the ground as glacial erratics. As for many of the bluestones being quarried monoliths, that's nonsense too, since the majority of them at Stonehenge are simply abraded and weathered glacial erratics such as we might see near the snout of any modern glacier.
Some time is spent in the description of a stone hole about 5m away from the "leaning monolith" -- but it is difficult to see from the evidence presented how reliable the description actually is. Quote: "....its imprint showed that the size of the stone that once stood here was about 0.80m x 0.50m in basal cross-section. This compares closely with the basal dimensions of Stone 46 at Stonehenge, a rhyolite of Group F, the outcrop source of which has not yet been identified." Once again we see the fanciful matching of a supposed stone hole with a Stonehenge bluestone monolith. Wish fulfilment is alive and kicking. But we knew that already.
There is a clear impression in the text that this embanked circle has undergone considerable rearrangement, even as recently as the Middle Ages -- so conclusions as to its prehistoric significance are difficult to draw. Nonetheless, a considerable number of artefacts have been obtained from here, and we look forward to seeing the descriptions of these in due course.
This is the final statement of the report: "........the Gernos-fach stonehole raises the possibility that this site too once sported a ring of standing stones that could have numbered as many as 24 or so." That again is pure speculation, no doubt thrown in so as to obtain funding for the 2022 digging season, when they will all be back again, inventing the next chapter in the Myth of the Bluestone Quarries, the heroic bluestone transport expeditions, and the Giant Bluestone Circle that they planned to build but never quite got round to......
In making the comments below, I am applying the same level of scrutiny that I would expect of any archaeological professional.
------------------------------
Background
In the very first paragraph there are questionable assumptions on the part of the authors. It is not the case that all but two of the Stonehenge sarsens have been "identified" as coming from West Woods. There is a suggestion by Prof David Nash and others, but it is far from confirmed:
Petrography of sarsen debitage from the Stonehenge Landscape – a broad and perhaps scattered church by Rob A. Ixer and Richard E. Bevins
Wiltshire Arch & Nat Hist Mag, vol 114, 2021, pp 18-33.
Further, the bluestones at Stonehenge have not all come from the Preseli Hills; most of them probably have, but some sources are still unknown.
It is NOT accepted that bluestones were removed from "quarries" at Rhosyfelin and Carn Goedog. Careful examinations of the "quarrying" sites have revealed no unequivocal evidence of any prehistoric quarrying or stone removal. The dates cited for "quarrying" in Preseli and monolith erection at Stonehenge are not established and accepted, but speculative. The only archaeologists and geologists who have hypothesised about a "giant stone circle" being erected in West Wales, and then dismantled and shipped off to Stonehenge, are the members of Parker Pearson's own team; elsewhere, there is extreme scepticism.
Brian John, Dyfed Elis-Gruffydd and John Downes. 2015. OBSERVATIONS ON THE SUPPOSED “NEOLITHIC BLUESTONE QUARRY” AT CRAIG RHOSYFELIN, PEMBROKESHIRE". Archaeology in Wales 54, pp 139-148. (Publication 14th December 2015)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286775899_
Brian John, Dyfed Elis-Gruffydd and John Downes (2015a). "Quaternary Events at Craig Rhosyfelin, Pembrokeshire." Quaternary Newsletter, October 2015 (No 137), pp 16-32.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283643851_QUATERNARY_EVENTS_AT_CRAIG_RHOSYFELIN_PEMBROKESHIRE
Brian John (2019) Carn Goedog and the question of the "bluestone megalith quarry"
Researchgate: working paper
April 2019, 25 pp.
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.12677.81121
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332739336_Carn_Goedog_and_the_question_of_the_bluestone_megalith_quarry
"Waun Mawn and the search for Proto-Stonehenge", Brian John. Working paper, updated Sept 2021.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/345177590_Waun_Mawn_and_the_search_for_Proto-_Stonehenge
With respect to the "partial stone circle" at Waun Mawn, it is stated as fact that at least 8 stone-holes or sockets have been discovered on a circle arc at Waun Mawn, for monoliths "removed in antiquity". The evidence cited in previous publications is, to put it mildly, unconvincing, and is quite inadequate to support any conclusions about an ancient stone circle. The dates cited for stone erection and circle dismantling are conveniently plucked from a welter of other dates, just as the same authors have done previously with their highly suspect "quarrying dates" for Rhosyfelin and Carn Goedog.
The authors claim that on the basis of four existing stones and six so-called stoneholes, they have identified the third largest stone circle known in Britain. That is an unsupportable and highly misleading claim.
Quote: The largest of the stoneholes had an unusual pentagonal-shaped base which can be matched with Stone 62 at Stonehenge and contained flakes of dolerite that appear to have become detached from the monolith that stood at Waun Mawn; it is of the same type of rock as that of Stone 62 at Stonehenge. The absurdity of this claim has been noted by many commentators, and no evidence has ever been produced to demonstrate that any "flakes of dolerite" in the "stonehole" at Waun Mawn are of the same rock type as Stonehenge bluestone 62.
The alignment of the Waun Mawn "entrance" facing the midsummer solstice sunrise has already been shown as vague and somewhat fanciful. The imagined diameter of the Waun Mawn imaginary stone circle now cited as coinciding with the diameter of the Stonehenge perimeter ditch has again been criticised as something that makes no sense at all, quite apart from the great difference in the ages of the features referred to.
Is Waun Mawn a part of a "major ceremonial complex" within Preseli? This is raised here as a somewhat blatant attempt to flag up "the significance of the source of Stonehenge’s bluestones" -- but many researchers who know western Preseli very well indeed say that this landscape is very rich in prehistoric remains, which are of many different types and ages -- including many features that are strictly utilitarian. As in any populated area, there will be some features that are "ceremonial" or associated with burials, but to refer to the whole landscape as a "ceremonial complex" is highly fanciful.
All in all, the "Background" pages to this report are unworthy of any scientific investigation, with every paragraph seeking to portray assumptions and speculations as established facts. Not a promising start, one might say........
----------------------------------
Research Objectives in 2021
These objectives are laid out with a degree of hindsight, including a reference to an "incomplete stone circle" at Waun Mawn, but there is still a reference to "the 10 standing stones so far detected by their surviving stoneholes." As mentioned above, and as commented on by assorted senior archaeologists, these claimed stoneholes are too indistinct and too small to be taken at all seriously as the sockets of bluestones destined for Stonehenge. Waun Mawn is referred to as a "monument" -- but nothing has been provided thus far that might justify the use of that label.
Waun Mawn: an unfinished and dismantled stone circle
This is where most of the 2021 research results are laid out. Immediately the title reveals to us that what we are about to see is somewhat underwhelming, and that some outrageous claims are already dropped. The Lost Giant Circle has already disappeared from the lexicon.
It becomes clear from the outset that there was no marking-out post at the precise centre of the postulated circle, but much is made of a small bowl-shaped hearth or fireplace, deemed to be "highly significant." I'm not sure why that claim should be made, because a small fire anywhere on this site is perfectly likely to have had nothing whatever to do with any stone settings 50m or more away. This is typical of the desperate search for associations or significance which has destroyed the credibility of the Stones of Stonehenge project from the very beginning. Then we have reference to "disturbed sediment from the fall of a large tree" -- but we are given no evidence to assess. Then this: As a potentially long-lived landmark, the tree – likely to be isolated and prominent, given the lack of evidence for similarly large trees across all the Waun Mawn trenches – could have been an enduring feature in the prehistoric landscape. Nice fantasy -- no evidence. But this whole landscape was a deer park in the Middle Ages -- with trees all over the place. Then there is an acknowledgement that the so-called circle is so irregular, with some stones or supposed sockets 5m off the circle line, that it must be concluded it was never properly measured out, except by some rather erratic pacing.
Quote: Excavations around the circle’s perimeter confirmed that two extensive arcs in the south and west had been largely or entirely devoid of stoneholes for since-removed standing stones. While there was no further trace of any features on the west side, the southern arc produced a further three or possibly four features which followed the circle’s circumference but had never held standing stones. These are interpreted as marking-out pits for standing stones that were never erected. This is all so speculative and feeble, with no evidence brought forward, that it has to be taken as an acknowledgement that the "lost circle of Waun Mawn" never existed. There is a suggestion that two "features" or possible marking out pits for stones that were never erected are aligned with Carn Goedog and Foel Feddau, but we are not shown any evidence, and this is yet another example of clutching at any little straw that might come in handy........
Quote: On the east side, a new stonehole was found in 2021, forming the eastern end of an arc of four surviving standing stones and six additional stoneholes that extends for almost 100m from the furthest of these in the circle’s northwest. The presence of a ‘marking-out’ pit just 9m from the eastern terminal of this arc suggests that it was at this very point that construction of the circle was abandoned. Again, it is impossible to take any of this seriously, since we are shown no evidence but are expected simply to believe what we are told.
There is some discussion of post-holes, and they may indeed exist, but we are told that they were used for the laying out of an alignment on the midsummer solstice sunrise -- but we are not told what that alignment actually is or was. We already know from past publications from Clive Ruggles and others that the proposed alignment is extremely vague, if not non-existent.
The only other stonehole mentioned in this text is one claimed to have been investigated in 2021, in the SW quadrant. The description of ramp, fulcrum, socket fill sediments, flat stones used as a base for a large dolerite slab and so forth makes little sense, and does not seem to match with the evidence we can see in an accompanying photo -- and given the propensity within this team for labelling entirely natural features at Rhosyfelin and Carn Goedog as "engineering features" it's best to reserve judgment until hard evidence is presented in an acceptable research publication.
Supposed socket, stone removal ramp and other man-made features in the SW quadrant. To me, these look like artifices created by the archaeologists during selective sediment removal. Why would anybody want to place a large dolerite slab partly on smaller flat-lying stones and partly covering a stone socket? It doesn't make any sense.....
One paragraph of the text deals with a damaged flint arrowhead and other artefacts. I have no problem with this, and look forward to further information with regard to dating.
This is the summary of the 2021 work on the supposed "Lost Circle": In summary, the 2021 excavations provide evidence that only 30% of Waun Mawn’s stone circle was ever completed, leaving large gaps on the west and south sides. Features along the southern perimeter can be identified as holes that were dug but never held stones, revealing that building of the circle stopped in mid-construction. Eight standing stones were subsequently dismantled, leaving just four in place. It is unlikely that there were ever more than 17 stones erected within this circle, resulting in between eight and 13 being taken away in prehistory......... In these circumstances, if Waun Mawn provided some of the bluestones for Stonehenge, these can only have been a small portion of the total."
Given the extremely unsatisfactory nature of the evidence relating to supposed emptied stone sockets and holes that were dug but never held stones (as outlined in previous posts on this blog), there is no way that the claim of "between 8 and 13 stones being taken away in prehistory" can be sustained. The biggest problem that the researchers on this project have to face is that most of their claimed sockets are far too small and shallow to have held bluestones destined for Stonehenge. And because they have done no control studies in the neighbourhood, they cannot demonstrate that they are even man-made and different in nature from the shallow hollows that occur right across this landscape, in an undulating till surface broken up by areas of bedrock exposures and zones disturbed or "churned" by permafrost processes. Furthermore, they have not presented a shred of evidence for any geological link with the fanciful "quarries" at Rhosyfelin or Carn Goedog. And finally there is no evidence of any type of a link between this site and Stonehenge.
The fanciful hypothesis of the "giant lost bluestone circle" used as a temporary parking place for bluestones then removed to Stonehenge falls because there is simply not a shred of evidence to support it.
Gernos-fach: an embanked stone circle
The leaning stone adjacent to the "entrance" to the Gernos-fach embanked circle. I will not call it an "embanked stone circle" because we do not know that there were standing stones systematically arranged.
This is a somewhat absurd lead-in to this section: "The proximity of Gernos-fach to Waun Mawn just half a mile away has raised the possibility that it is of equivalent date to Waun Mawn (i.e. Middle Neolithic) and might have been similarly dismantled in prehistory to provide bluestones for Stonehenge." It's clear that we are once again in wish-fulfilment territory...........
This feature (which MPP and his team wrongly claim to have discovered) is well known among local hillwalkers and prehistorians, and in the text the report authors focus on the large leaning standing stone adjacent to the circle "entrance: This unspotted dolerite pillar, over 2.10m long, is unweathered on one side, likely to be the result of its lying on the ground before erection; it is not a quarried monolith like so many of the bluestones. That, quite frankly, is nonsense, since the majority of stones in this area that have been used as monoliths in stone settings are more weathered on one side than another, since all of them have been picked up after being embedded in the ground as glacial erratics. As for many of the bluestones being quarried monoliths, that's nonsense too, since the majority of them at Stonehenge are simply abraded and weathered glacial erratics such as we might see near the snout of any modern glacier.
Some time is spent in the description of a stone hole about 5m away from the "leaning monolith" -- but it is difficult to see from the evidence presented how reliable the description actually is. Quote: "....its imprint showed that the size of the stone that once stood here was about 0.80m x 0.50m in basal cross-section. This compares closely with the basal dimensions of Stone 46 at Stonehenge, a rhyolite of Group F, the outcrop source of which has not yet been identified." Once again we see the fanciful matching of a supposed stone hole with a Stonehenge bluestone monolith. Wish fulfilment is alive and kicking. But we knew that already.
There is a clear impression in the text that this embanked circle has undergone considerable rearrangement, even as recently as the Middle Ages -- so conclusions as to its prehistoric significance are difficult to draw. Nonetheless, a considerable number of artefacts have been obtained from here, and we look forward to seeing the descriptions of these in due course.
This is the final statement of the report: "........the Gernos-fach stonehole raises the possibility that this site too once sported a ring of standing stones that could have numbered as many as 24 or so." That again is pure speculation, no doubt thrown in so as to obtain funding for the 2022 digging season, when they will all be back again, inventing the next chapter in the Myth of the Bluestone Quarries, the heroic bluestone transport expeditions, and the Giant Bluestone Circle that they planned to build but never quite got round to......
----------------------------------
PS. 12 Jan. I forgot to mention that the small recumbent stones embedded in the turf a little way to the north of the putative stone circle were also investigated by MPP and his diggers. They are not mentioned at all in this report -- so I'm pleased that he agrees with me that they are just small dolerite erratics in their natural positions, embedded in till -- ie that they are entirely unremarkable.
https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2021/03/waun-mawn-monoliths-that-got-away.html
4 comments:
So, so these guys & girls agree to take corporate responsibility for all these fantasmagorical speculations, possibly trickled down from above?
I'm old enough to remember an early 1960s record with the title "Blue on Blue" and the follow-up line "heartache on heartache"......
Yes, corporate responsibility applies to all those who are listed as authors. Mind you, it would suit our olf friend MPP very well indeed to shift responsibility for most of the wilder fantasising from himself onto the shoulders of his trusted colleagues, who are, he would modestly say, the real originators of most things.....
Nice, clear unboxing. Thank you.
It's quite scandalous. The BBC should do a Panorama exposé.
Post a Comment