Rhosyfelin following the discovery of the cracked rhyolite monolith and accumulated rockfall debris. There are abundant opportunities for rock surface dating here and at Carn Goedog, designed to test the quarrying hypothesis. In spite of Pitts's contention, it is perfectly feasible to demonstrate quantitative differences in the weathering and exposure time of many different rock surfaces as shown in the photo.
Mike says this when referring to bluestone monoliths:
"Stone - except in special circumstances that do not apply here - cannot be dated to show when it was worked." ........... "For that we rely on radiocarbon dating of associated organic material"……..
Wrong. If a stone monolith in the shape of a pillar or column has been quarried, there might be one (outward facing) face that might be weathered, but the other three faces should be relatively fresh. They would not be completely unweathered, because rock generally breaks off along pre-existing fractures, which are always characterised by localised shallow weathering. But there should be a substantial difference between the outward face and the others, which would be measurable via cosmogenic dating or Schmidt hammer dating. If a stone has been worked or dressed after being collected, the dressed faces should give readings that are different from (ie younger than) the undressed faces.
As long as a rock surface has been exposed for more than a thousand years, cosmogenic nuclide dating should work. So if, as has been claimed, a monolith was quarried 5,500 years ago, you should be able to show that fact, as long as the surface of the monolith has been exposed continuously between then and now — which has to be assumed. Otherwise what would be the point of quarrying it in the first place?
The claim that (for quarried blocks) we have to rely on the radiocarbon dating of associated organic material does not hold water. MPP and his colleagues have tried to convince us on that score both at Rhosyfelin and Carn Goedog, with disastrous results. The vast random scatter of C14 dates, spread over many thousands of years, at both Rhosyfelin and Carn Goedog, effectively falsifies the quarrying hypothesis, and no amount of "selective sample citation" can alter that. It's not just me saying that; almost all of those scientists I have spoken to who have scrutinised the presented evidence draw the same conclusion.
The claim that (for quarried blocks) we have to rely on the radiocarbon dating of associated organic material does not hold water. MPP and his colleagues have tried to convince us on that score both at Rhosyfelin and Carn Goedog, with disastrous results. The vast random scatter of C14 dates, spread over many thousands of years, at both Rhosyfelin and Carn Goedog, effectively falsifies the quarrying hypothesis, and no amount of "selective sample citation" can alter that. It's not just me saying that; almost all of those scientists I have spoken to who have scrutinised the presented evidence draw the same conclusion.
The quarrying hypothesis is so bizarre and so extraordinary that nobody should be expected to accept it without the provision of extraordinarily powerful field evidence. That powerful evidence has never been provided, which is why no geomorphologist has gone on the record as supporting the existence of the quarries. If MPP and his geologist colleagues want to prove their hypothesis they need to get some proper stone surface dating work done. If they need any help, I will be delighted to offer my services..........
===============
Thinking about my qualifications on the research front, I was amused to see that Mike refers to me in his book as "a geomorphologist (and a novelist) with a glacier named after him in Antarctica". In the next sentence, he implies that I specialise in rhetoric. That, if I may say so, is more than a little condescending. I'm a glacial geomorphologist by training, and although my conventional academic career was rather short, John Glacier was named after me by the Antarctic Place-names Committee in recognition of my contribution to polar research in the field of glaciology and glacial geomorphology, and for my published output including the highly influential text (written with David Sugden) called "Glaciers and Landscape." Certain archaeologists and geologists may choose to pretend that I don't exist, but I know what I am talking about.
Bluestones and sarsens at Stonehenge. Some are worked, and others are not. Rock surface dating can reveal which faces are fresh and which are very old. Most of the bluestones in the bluestone circle are boulders, probably glacial erratics, probably exposed to the atmosphere for hundreds of thousands of years. We all need that hypothesis to be tested.......
Bluestone 37 (courtesy Simon Banton)
Dolerite boulders in the wild, near Glan yr Afon
Dolerite outcrops at Carnedd Meibion Owen, near Brynberian. Do these rocks have similar exposure ages to the erratic boulder assemblages at Glan yr Afon and Stonehenge?
2 comments:
Well......have shared it on Facebook. I had already said to Mike Pitts earlier, he'd need to swiftly revise his book. Stonehenge senior archaeologists generally also don't realise just how much of a DYNAMIC, on - going science the glacial geomorphology of south - western England is......it is NOT set in aspic, gentlemen (and ladies). We continue to make discoveries to do with its ancient landform history ALL the time.
Mike Pitts really ought to have been more cautious in his phraseology as regards what he put into print regarding the stones found at the Rhosyfelin RIGS glacial landform. Particularly as his own Wikipedia entry, describing him as both archaeologist AND freelance journalist, contains a bibliography of his writing. This includes several articles about Easter Island/ Rapa Nui and in particular its statues. One is about new applications of photogrammetry and reflectance transformation imaging to such a statue that is nowadays in the British Museum
Post a Comment