Some of the ideas discussed in this blog are published in my new book called "The Stonehenge Bluestones" -- available by post and through good bookshops everywhere. Bad bookshops might not have it....
To order, click

Thursday, 10 November 2022

Waun Mawn and the so-called quarries -- the new papers

These references are scattered about a bit, so here they are all in one place.  You need to read the papers,  and not the abstracts or the press releases!!  Without any help from me, they demonstrate that there was no quarrying at Rhosyfelin, that there was no link between Waun Mawn and the two so-called quarries, and that there was no link between Waun Mawn and Stonehenge.   In other words, the whole narrative developed by Parker Pearson and his gang over the past decade can safely be ignored.


Bevins, R.E., Pearce, N.J.G., Parker Pearson, M., Ixer, R.A., 2022. Identification of the source of dolerites used at the Waun Mawn stone circle in the Mynydd Preseli, west Wales and implications for the proposed link with Stonehenge. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 45 (2022) 103556.

Portable XRF investigation of Stonehenge -- Stone 62 and potential source dolerite outcrops in the Mynydd Preseli, west Wales. by Nick J.G. Pearce, Richard E. Bevins, and Rob A. Ixer. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 44 (2022) 103525.

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,

Darvill, T. (2022). Mythical rings? Waun Mawn and Stonehenge Stage 1. Antiquity, 1-15.

Parker Pearson, M., Pollard, J., Richards, C., Welham, K., Kinnaird, T., Srivastava, A., . . . Edinborough, K. (2022). How Waun Mawn stone circle was designed and built, and when the Bluestones arrived at Stonehenge: A response to Darvill. Antiquity, 4 Nov, 2022. pp 1-8.

Some of the authors of these papers haver claimed that this is all a perfect example of "science at work", with researchers correcting and refining their own working hypotheses. That's a bit rich, since their highly suspect work has been hotly disputed for the last decade or so in publications that could and should have been cited -- during which time they have NEVER admitted to any dispute.  That is tantamount to academic malpractice.

No comments: