There have been so many twists and turns in the story of the bluestones over the past decade or so that it has been difficult to see the wood for the trees. For the moment I will place to one side the multiple geological papers by Bevins and Ixer which would have been far more valuable had they stayed well clear of the archaeologists and their fantasies. But I have now tried to bring the following important articles together in one place with a view to clarifying the situation.
The Gospel according to Parker Pearson
These are the three papers that essentially make the case for Neolithic bluestone quarrying at Rhosyfelin and Carn Goedog and for the construction of a spectacular giant "lost circle" of standing bluestones at Waun Mawn. They are so bad that they should never have been published -- and I am not the only one saying that. They mix up speculation and evidence in a manner that is quite unacceptable academically. There are many other articles from MPP and his team in popular journals, newspapers etc, and in book chapters, conference proceedings etc over the past decade. If we ignore the occasional lapses into purple prose, they simply regurgitate the same material, but with even less regard for academic standards. There are also assorted unpublished and published interim field reports which present evidence in a manner which is always heavy with confirmation bias and which can be dismissed from a scientific standpoint. And we must not forget the infamous and heavily hyped BBC TV documentary called "Stonehenge: the Lost Circle revealed" which marked a new low point in BBC standards........
https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2015.177 (open access)
2. Parker Pearson, M. et al. 2019. Megalith quarries for Stonehenge's bluestones. Antiquity 93: 45–62.
https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2018.111 (open access)
3. Pearson, M. et al. 2021. The original Stonehenge? A dismantled stone circle in the Preseli Hills of west Wales. Antiquity 95(379), 85-103.
https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2020.239 (may be behind a paywall)
In those 3 papers you can see the evolution of the MPP team's increasingly convoluted narrative, as it tries to cope with inconvenient evidence (for example, radiocarbon age determinations) and tries to maintain the pretence that there is no dispute about anything............. and readers who concentrate on the matter in hand will immediately notice that the team steadfastly refuses to cite any research by other authors which it considers to be inconvenient.
==========================================================================
The Sceptics, the Heretics and the Scientists
Then it all came crashing down. These are the papers that document the collapse of the elaborate MPP theory involving bluestone quarries and a "lost bluestone circle". These articles are also crucial in demonstrating serious scientific fraud:
Brian John, Dyfed Elis-Gruffydd and John Downes. 2015. "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 https://www.academia.edu/19788792/Quaternary_Events_at_Craig_Rhosyfelin_Pembrokeshire
An examination of the geomorphology and sedimentology of the Rhosyfelin site, concluding that the features and the sediments are typical for Pembrokeshire, with a sequence representing a full Devensian glacial cycle dominated by glacial and rockfall (periglacial) processes, with no human interference.
===============================
John, B.S., Elis-Gruffydd, D. & Downes, J. 2015. Observations on the supposed “Neolithic Bluestone Quarry” at Craig Rhosyfelin, Pembrokeshire. Archaeology in Wales 54, pp 139-148. (December 2015)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/ 286775899_OBSERVATIONS_ON_THE_SUPPOSED_NEOLITHIC_BLUESTONE_QUARRY_AT_CR AIG_RHOSYFELIN_PEMBROKESHIRE
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/ 286775899_OBSERVATIONS_ON_THE_SUPPOSED_NEOLITHIC_BLUESTONE_QUARRY_AT_CR AIG_RHOSYFELIN_PEMBROKESHIRE
An investigation of the supposed quarrying features at Rhosyfelin, and a critical analysis of the claims made by the Parker Pearson team. Conclusion: the claims made about Neolithic bluestone quarrying are not supported by the evidence.
=========================
Brian John. 2018. The Stonehenge Bluestones. Greencroft Books, Newport. 256 pp.
ISBN 97800905559-94-0
The author discusses the conflicting theories relating to the origin and transport of the bluestones. He concludes that there is no evidence in support of the human transport hypothesis, but some useful evidence in support of glacial transport. Most of the information in this book relates to geology and geomorphology. On several occasions during the Quaternary Ice Age the Irish Sea Glacier flowed across Pembrokeshire, up the Bristol Channel and into Somerset. It carried with it glacial erratics from areas subjected to ice erosion. What is not currently known is the location of the ice edge further to the east.
=========================
John, B.S. 2019. Carn Goedog and the question of the "bluestone megalith quarry”. Researchgate: working paper. April 2019, 25 pp.
https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.12677.81121
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/ 332739336_Carn_Goedog_and_the_question_of_the_bluestone_megalith_quarry
A careful and detailed assessment of the landforms and sediments at Carn Goedog, and an examination of the claims made by Parker Pearson and his team. Conclusion: there is no Neolithic bluestone quarry at this site. In any case, the five or six bluestones at Stonehenge now thought to have come from Carn Goedog are clearly NOT quarried elongated monoliths; they are simply weathered glacial erratics.
======================
Barclay, G. J., and Brophy, K. 2020. “‘A Veritable Chauvinism of Prehistory’: Nationalist Prehistories and the ‘British’ Late Neolithic Mythos.” Archaeological Journal 1–31.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00665983.2020.1769399
An analysis of the "over-interpretation" or "interpretative inflation" which are characteristic of much Stonehenge-related research. The authors are highly critical of the assumption made by some archaeologists that Stonehenge was the centre of everything, and they also criticise the selective sampling and interpretation that led Parker Pearson and others to propose that isotope evidence (from teeth and bones) pointed to a link between Stonehenge and West Wales. (I have also been highly critical of that on this blog.) The authors don't much like fanciful talk of Neolithic "political unification" either.......
=============================
John, B.S. 2019. Carn Goedog and the question of the "bluestone megalith quarry”. Researchgate: working paper. April 2019, 25 pp.
https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.12677.81121
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/ 332739336_Carn_Goedog_and_the_question_of_the_bluestone_megalith_quarry
A careful and detailed assessment of the landforms and sediments at Carn Goedog, and an examination of the claims made by Parker Pearson and his team. Conclusion: there is no Neolithic bluestone quarry at this site. In any case, the five or six bluestones at Stonehenge now thought to have come from Carn Goedog are clearly NOT quarried elongated monoliths; they are simply weathered glacial erratics.
======================
Barclay, G. J., and Brophy, K. 2020. “‘A Veritable Chauvinism of Prehistory’: Nationalist Prehistories and the ‘British’ Late Neolithic Mythos.” Archaeological Journal 1–31.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00665983.2020.1769399
An analysis of the "over-interpretation" or "interpretative inflation" which are characteristic of much Stonehenge-related research. The authors are highly critical of the assumption made by some archaeologists that Stonehenge was the centre of everything, and they also criticise the selective sampling and interpretation that led Parker Pearson and others to propose that isotope evidence (from teeth and bones) pointed to a link between Stonehenge and West Wales. (I have also been highly critical of that on this blog.) The authors don't much like fanciful talk of Neolithic "political unification" either.......
=============================
Brian John. 2021. Waun Mawn and the search for “Proto-Stonehenge”. Researchgate: Greencroft Working Paper No 4, March 2021, 32 pp (updated September 2022)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/345177590_Waun_Mawn_and_the_search_for_Proto-_Stonehenge
This extensive report examines the landscape and archaeological features of the Waun Mawn area in much greater detail than MPP and his team. With regard to the evidence from the field excavations, it is concluded that there might have been some small standing stones which were later removed or broken up, but there never was a small stone circle here, let alone a “giant” one. Furthermore, there have been no control studies in the neighbourhood which might demonstrate that the speculative feature has any unique characteristics. There is nothing at Waun Mawn to link this site in any way to Stonehenge, and it is concluded that the archaeologists have simply “discovered” what they wanted to find, and have created an elaborate and unnecessary bluestone narrative around it. No evidence has been brought forward in support of the claim that “this was one of the great religious and political centres of Neolithic Britain”.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/345177590_Waun_Mawn_and_the_search_for_Proto-_Stonehenge
This extensive report examines the landscape and archaeological features of the Waun Mawn area in much greater detail than MPP and his team. With regard to the evidence from the field excavations, it is concluded that there might have been some small standing stones which were later removed or broken up, but there never was a small stone circle here, let alone a “giant” one. Furthermore, there have been no control studies in the neighbourhood which might demonstrate that the speculative feature has any unique characteristics. There is nothing at Waun Mawn to link this site in any way to Stonehenge, and it is concluded that the archaeologists have simply “discovered” what they wanted to find, and have created an elaborate and unnecessary bluestone narrative around it. No evidence has been brought forward in support of the claim that “this was one of the great religious and political centres of Neolithic Britain”.
============================
February 2021
https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.31504.12802
This short commentary examines the 2021 Antiquity paper entitled "The original Stonehenge?" by MPP and his team. Close scrutiny of the hard evidence presented (isolated from the speculations and assumptions) confirms that there was no "lost giant circle" at Waun Mawn, and shows that there is no geological or archaeological link between this site and Stonehenge. It is regrettable that so much time and energy has been expended on what was essentially a wild goose chase.
============================
Pearce, N.J.G., Richard E. Bevins, and Rob A. Ixer. 2022. Portable XRF investigation of Stonehenge -- Stone 62 and potential source dolerite outcrops in the Mynydd Preseli, west Wales. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 44 (2022) 103525.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361417309_Portable_XRF_investigation_of_Stonehenge_Stone_62_and_potential_source_dolerite_outcrops_in_the_Mynydd_Preseli_west_Wales
A geological examination of Stone 62 at Stonehenge and of possible links with Waun Mawn and the supposed "lost circle". Conclusion: Stone 62 probably came from eastern Preseli (Carn Ddu Fach) and had nothing to do with Waun Mawn. So the excited matching of the stone to the socket was just a fantasy.
===========================
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.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/ 362119860_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
After a comprehensive study (which was clearly a waste of everybody's time) the authors failed to find any geological links between Waun Mawn and the so-called bluestone quarries, or any geological link between Waun Mawn and Stonehenge. Having failed to sample the dolerite outcrops close to the Waun Mawn site, for reasons we will have to guess, the authors postulate that the stones may have come from Cerrig Lladron -- but the evidence for that is not convincing either.
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.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/ 362119860_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
After a comprehensive study (which was clearly a waste of everybody's time) the authors failed to find any geological links between Waun Mawn and the so-called bluestone quarries, or any geological link between Waun Mawn and Stonehenge. Having failed to sample the dolerite outcrops close to the Waun Mawn site, for reasons we will have to guess, the authors postulate that the stones may have come from Cerrig Lladron -- but the evidence for that is not convincing either.
=========================
Parker Pearson, M., Richard Bevins, Nick Pearce, Rob Ixer, Josh Pollard, Colin Richards, & Kate Welham. 2022. Reconstructing extraction techniques at Stonehenge’s bluestone megalith quarries in the Preseli hills of west Wales, Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, Volume 46, 2022, 103697, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2022.103697
Darvill, T. 2022. Mythical rings? Waun Mawn and Stonehenge Stage 1. Antiquity, 1-15.
An analysis of the evidence presented by MPP and his team in support of the "lost circle" hypothesis. Conclusion: there was no circle and no intent to build a circle. The stones present on the site may have been used in rather small and crude alignments. The evidence for an "entrance" aligned with the summer solstice sunrise is poor. The so-called stone sockets are unconvincing.
===============================
Parker Pearson, et al. 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. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/how-waun-mawn-stone-circle-was- designed-and-built-and-when-the-bluestones-arrived-at-stonehenge-a-response-to-darvill
Here the authors defend themselves against Darvill's criticisms by citing evidence of a hearth and an oak tree at approximately the exact centre (yes, you read that correctly) of their putative stone circle that was never built. They reassert their view that the Aubrey Holes held bluestones and not posts. They then reassert their claim that Waun Mawn was a place of significance in the Stonehenge story even though it had nothing at all to do with Stonehenge........
================================
Parker Pearson, M., Richard Bevins, Nick Pearce, Rob Ixer, Josh Pollard, Colin Richards, & Kate Welham. 2022. Reconstructing extraction techniques at Stonehenge’s bluestone megalith quarries in the Preseli hills of west Wales, Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, Volume 46, 2022, 103697, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2022.103697
The authors claim that four small pieces of stone designated as "wedges" demonstrate how quarrying work was conducted at Rhosyfelin and Carn Goedog. But not one of the "wedges" is in a fracture that would have been useful for the extraction of bluestone monoliths. Far from this being a site with a vast and elaborate "quarrying infrastructure" the authors now suggest that maybe one stone was taken from here to Stonehenge. And far from Carn Goedog being used for "monolith extraction on an industrial scale", only five or six Stonehenge bluestones might have come from there -- and those are all weathered boulders, not elegant pillars.
================================
Parker Pearson, M. et al. 2022. Interim Report for 2021 digging season.
In this Report there is at last a recognition that there never was a complete stone circle at Waun Mawn, although there may have been an "intention" to build one. The authors still insist that there was a "partial" and rather crude circle here, and that some stones may have been taken away for further use at Stonehenge.
==========================
A decade is a long time in academic archaeology. Looking back on it, it's actually quite intriguing to see how this piece of academic fraud was instigated by somebody with an unshakeable belief that one theory (namely the bluestone glacial transport theory) was dead and buried, and that the only other theory in town (relating to human transport) must therefore be correct. He believed that all he had to do was find the evidence. For some strange reason, he assumed from the outset that the bluestones could not have been simply collected up from the ground surface, but that they must have been quarried from significant places. The geologists gave him some pointers, although their provenancing of bluestone rock types was far less precise than they would have us believe. So all our heroic professor and his loyal team then had to do was find the "quarries" -- and that is just what they claimed to have done, at Rhosyfelin and Carn Goedog, over several seasons of fieldwork. Hype and hubris immediately took over, and the two papers in Antiquity magazine were published in the midst of massive media coverage.
The members of the team knew from the outset that their evidence was completely inadequate to back up the extravagant claims being made -- but they refused to listen to the voices that urged caution, or to read the papers presenting inconvenient evidence, and the narrative became more and more exotic and fantastical. When their own radiocarbon evidence falsified their own hypothesised timescale for quarrying, they simply made the narrative even more fanciful, by adding the "lost stone circle" component, thereby enabling the quarried bluestones to be parked somewhere convenient for 500 years or so, prior to transport to Stonehenge at the "right" time. Again they refused to listen to anybody who urged caution, and the scale of media coverage became even greater, with the connivance of the editor of Antiquity, the BBC and multiple journalists. There can be no doubt that all of those involved MUST have been aware that there was a dramatic mismatch between the quality of the evidence turned up in the digs, year after year, and the claims being made. Was there self-delusion and self-deception? Undoubtedly. But the MPP team members were fully aware of the concerns of others who know their key excavation sites well, and refused to row back on any of their assertions. So there was scientific fraud, year after year, with a massive and persistent over-interpretation of very thin evidence.
And it was inevitable that the whole edifice would come crashing down, as it has.
The claim that Neolithic always quarried their stone monoliths from special places? As some of us have been pointing out for years, the more geological research that is done by geologists Robert Ixer and Richard Bevins, the more numerous the rock types incorporated in the bluestone assemblage. The running total is now around 46 -- that in itself mitigates against any ideas of sacred stone types or quarries as "special places".
The claim that there was a sophisticated quarrying infrastructure at Rhosyfelin and large-scale removal of orthostats? Gone -- replaced by a feeble admission that maybe one small orthostat might have been removed. After all, there is not a single standing stone at Stonehenge made of Rhosyfelin foliated rhyolite.
The claim that Rhosyfelin is "the most perfectly preserved Neolithic quarry in Europe" and "the Pompeii of Neolithic stone quarries"? Conveniently forgotten.
The claim that there was bluestone monolith quarrying "on an industrial scale" at Carn Goedog? Gone -- replaced by an admission that some smallish boulders at Stonehenge might have come from here or near here.
The claim that quarrying and stone circle building were going on in Mynydd Preseli 500 years earlier than anywhere else in Neolithic Britain? Completely unsupported by any other archaeological work.
The claim that Waun Mawn was at the heart of "one of the great religious and political centres of Neolithic Britain”? Now conveniently abandoned. The realisic interpretation of the Waun Mawn area is that it is interesting but unexceptional.
The claim that Waun Mawn was the site of one of the largest stone circles ever discovered in Britain, dismantled and shipped off to Stonehenge? Now replaced by the rather timid assertion that there may have been an uncompleted and partially dismantled circle here, which had no links with the "bluestone quarries" and no links with Stonehenge.
And so it goes on. One preposterous claim after another, unceremoniously dumped. Now the research team wants us to believe that it was not the bluestones that were special, and not even the quarries, but the early stone circles -- of which there must have been several, still to be discovered. It gets yet more bizarre. The team now suggests that maybe it was not the stone circles that were important, but the INTENTION to build them; and maybe it was not the transport of the bluestones that was important, but the sense of community and solidarity created by the INTENTION to move the stones. And to make it even more bizarre, they suggest that because the bluestones at Stonehenge are a pretty mottley collection of bluestones of all shapes and sizes, and many different rock types, they must have come from an assortment of rather crude circles, demonstrating a preference for simplicity and unpretentiousness in contrast to the grandiose, sophisticated and powerful design ideal represented by the sarsen stone settings. I kid you not.....
So when are the funding bodies, the academic institutions, the journal publishers, and the media going to admit that over the last decade of feverish digging and publishing activity, they have all been conned?
No comments:
Post a Comment