The new Pitts book: too much mythology, too little science

 "How to build Stonehenge", by Mike Pitts. 2022.  Thames and Hudson, 249 pp.

REVIEW

This book has been anticipated for some time, so it's good to see it in print at last.  It's attractively presented and lavishly illustrated, currently in hard cover only, printed on bulky paper which is not very friendly for monochrome photos, but with two built-in sections of good colour photos.  The writing style is informal and chatty, rather like that of Mike Parker Pearson in his 2012 book on Stonehenge.  And it's very much a "people centred" book, devoting much space to the heroic individuals who have, in their various ways, contributed over the years to answering the questions "How were the stones obtained and transported?" and "How were they shaped, raised and arranged?" The author makes are frequent references to his old mates Mike, Rob, Richard and Dave, and is determined not to upset any of them.   So the book is  heavily biased from the outset, with the author choosing to subject the conclusions of some authorities (such as Kellaway) to heavy criticism, and the conclusions of others (such as Ixer and Bevins) to no scrutiny at all.  And of course bluestone quarries are mentioned in the Preface, signalling the assumption, right from the outset, that they actually existed.

The layout of the book is clear and simple.  Chapter 1 describes the current setting of the stones.  Chapter 2 is titled "Raw materials: bluestone."  Chapter 3 deals with sarsen stone and Chapter 4 with logistics.  Then we see Chapter 5 on the construction of "Bluehenge" (deemed to have come first, based upon the arrival and use of the bluestones) and Chapter 6 on the construction of the sarsen monument.  Finally there's a chapter on "Afterlife", dealing with all the things that have happened to the ruinous old monument since it fell out of use.

A new book on Stonehenge, if it is to be taken seriously, needs to be authoritative, balanced and entertaining.  As far as this one is concerned, its chatty style makes it easy to read,  but in other respects it falls far short of expectations.  Its strength might have been that it deals with bluestone origins, transport and use in much greater technical detail than many other books, but the bluestone chapters reveal that the author knows very little about the source areas of the bluestones, very little about geology, glaciology or geomorphology, and very little about the scientific method.  His dismissals of the glacial transport hypothesis are based on misunderstandings of the workings of glaciers and the events of the Quaternary, and on research findings that are 30 years out of date.  He says nothing at all about glacial entrainment, transport mechanisms or deposition.   Once he disposes -- in his own mind at any rate -- of the glacial transport hypothesis,  by the end of Chapter 3, he concentrates on a protracted reiteration of the "bluestone myth", with one assertion after another dressed up as established facts. The lack of critical scrutiny is -- to put it mildly -- somewhat irresponsible.  So the claims about bluestone quarries at Carn Menyn, Carn Goedog and Rhosyfelin are repeated as if they are facts, and there is no mention of the fact that they are hotly disputed in the literature and on social media. 

Pitts notes, somewhat complacently, that there is no field evidence of glaciation on Salisbury Plain, and on that basis the glacial transport thesis is dismissed.  It all depends what you count as evidence; from where I stand, a rude assortment of abraded and weathered boulders and slabs in the bluestone circle at Stonehenge, and debris of around 30 different rock types scattered all over the Stonehenge landscape, are highly suggestive of glacial activity. Only a small percentage of that landscape has been investigated, but new material keeps on appearing. Not so far to the north, around West Kennet, everybody has been surprised by the appearance of debris from a rotten granite boulder that appears to have come from Cheviot.......  

On the other side of the coin, Pitts fails to draw attention to the fact that when it comes to field evidence, there is none whatsoever which might confirm the reliability of the human transport hypothesis. Citing parallels from Indonesia, Madagascar and India is very jolly, but of questionable relevance to Neolithic Wales. The assumption that something could have been done does not mean that it was done.  Indeed, from the accumulated evidence of West Wales archaeological research, neither spotted dolerite or foliated rhyolite is used preferentially in megalithic monuments, and claims that those stones were special or significant in some way are simply worthless speculations.  Pitts appears to miss the irony of claiming that the sarsens built into Stonehenge were simply picked up from where they were found, whereas the bluestones needed to be quarried.  The absurdity of the quarrying hypothesis is compounded by the fact that the Preseli landscape is littered with erratic and local boulders, slabs and pillars of many different rock types, just waiting to be selected and collected.  But Pitts is so taken with the quarrying hypothesis that he seems to think that there must have been a quarry for every single bluestone type found at Stonehenge. 

Among Pitts's other assumptions, he accepts that Stonehenge was actually completed according to some grand design, with various rearrangements.  That, in my view has never been adequately demonstrated.  He does not even consider the possibility that Stonehenge was built because that is where the stones were, maybe because that would make the narrative very boring.  He accepts the Ixer / Bevins spectacular and frankly preposterous claim that they have provenanced some Stonehenge rhyolite debris "to within a few square metres" at Rhosyfelin. He sidesteps the fact that there are NO foliated rhyolite monoliths at Stonehenge.   He accepts that the abundant radiocarbon dating evidence from the so-called quarries supports the quarrying hypothesis, whereas in reality the dates simply falsify it.  He accepts that there was a "lost stone circle" at Waun Mawn, whereas the field evidence from three years of excavation there is so thin as to be effectively worthless.  He accepts that a required number of bluestones was determined by somebody or other, and duly delivered. He accepts that the bluestones were hauled overland in a heroic feat of logistics (although he does at least acknowledge that others prefer the maritime route).  And in a wondrous feat of intellectual gymnastics, he even suggests that Rhosyfelin and Carn Goedog were accorded significance in Neolithic times largely because they were so insignificant in the landscape.....   The nice thing about an enthusiastically narrated fairy tale is that ANYTHING is possible!

Overall, this is a deeply flawed book that is less technical and scientific than it might have been, and turns out to be yet another exercise in the promotion of the modern Stonehenge myth.  The author fails to take the opportunity of recognising that many of the accepted components of "the Stonehenge narrative" are hotly disputed.  That, after all, is something that should surely be applauded as a sign of a vibrant scientific debate.  Instead, Pitts opts for simplicity, slipping complacently into the comfort zone and spending the bulk of the book elaborating on the  fantastical narrative as approved by EH and certain senior archaeologists.  That narrative, as we all know, has been designed for marketability rather than for scientific credibility.

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

PS.  I have to declare an interest in reviewing this book by Mike Pitts!  I have of course written a book myself, called "The Stonehenge Bluestones".  I don't see it as a rival to the Pitts book, since it has a narrower and more specialised focus.  But in my book I do at least admit to scientific disputes where they occur, scrutinise the detailed academic literature, and devote considerable space to describing and analysing hypotheses which I do not personally find very attractive.