Thanks to various kind people, I now have several copies of the new article about imaginary wedges, published in the Journal of Archaeological Science! Not to put too fine a point on it, this is probably the least scientific paper I have ever read in a learned journal, and it is amazing that it has made its way through a refereeing and editing process and ended up as a publication. On my first reading I thought it had to be a practical joke -- but now I suppose we have to take it seriously since others who know nothing of Rhosyfelin and Carn Goedog will simply assume that it is reliable......
The details again:Reconstructing extraction techniques at Stonehenge’s bluestone megalith quarries in the Preseli hills of west Wales,
Mike Parker Pearson, Richard Bevins, Nick Pearce, Rob Ixer, Josh Pollard, Colin Richards, Kate Welham
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, Volume 46, 2022, 103697,
Then we get to the main part of the article, on Craig Rhosyfelin, and from here on in, it's all downhill. The authors do at least admit that there are no Rhosyfelin rhyolite monoliths at Stonehenge, but they make it clear from the outset that this is -- in their minds -- a Neolithic bluestone monolith quarry, even if they have no idea where the monoliths went and even though foliated rhyolite is anyway a lousy rock type for standing stones. Again, much of the text here is simply a resume of the contents of multiple other papers by the same group of authors, and the text here is packed with speculations and assertions that are unsupported by hard evidence. We have analysed the shortcomings of the presented evidence and questioned a whole host of dodgy conclusions on many occasions on this blog.