The claim that there was a "major ancient ceremonial complex" in the Waun Mawn area (in MPP's latest book) is yet another example of the circular reasoning that pervades the bluestone debate. I have highlighted this already, in a number of posts on this blog.
It goes like this: there must have been a major ancient ceremonial complex in the area, because if the stones were special enough to carry all the way from Preseli to Stonehenge they must by definition have been special or sacred in some way, and that means the area they came from must have been culturally unique or significant. Therefore that proves that there was an ancient ceremonial complex, even if we can't see any trace of it today.
This is typical of the circular reasoning found in a number of recent publications. The assumption that the human transport of Preseli bluestones is FACT instead of fantasy underpins everything, and distorts the reasoning of otherwise reasonable people. In their minds, the assumed FACT that the stones were moved proves that the Preseli area was a cultural and even political focal point, that the people were monumental experts, that they were involved in complex inter-regional links, and that they had developed a high degree of technical skill and social complexity. Take away the "fact" and everything collapses.
This is the style of reasoning that poisons the debate about the bluestone quarries. Because the glacial transport of the bluestones was impossible (so they say) around 80 of the stones must have been carried by human beings from Preseli to Stonehenge, and because people were clever enough to do that, they must also have been clever enough to extract the stones from quarries in very difficult locations. And because they were clever enough to do monolith quarrying "on an industrial scale" they must also have been clever enough to build circles and other ceremonial features, even if we do not actually find many of them in the landscape of today.
The Neolithic tribe that quarried the stones must have been clever enough to recognise the special characteristics of particular rock types because they were clever enough to do their quarrying in the right places (Rhosyfelin and Carn Goedog), even though there was no preferential use of spotted dolerite or foliated rhyolite in Preseli megalithic structures.
Because the quarrymen of West Preseli were clever enough to do all that quarrying of "special" rocks, of course they must also have been quite clever enough to construct a "giant stone circle" at Waun Mawn. It may never have actually been constructed, but never mind -- the INTENTION to build it was very clear.
Although there are no links that can be established between Waun Mawn and Stonehenge, never mind. The intention to build the giant stone circle tells us a lot about the Stonehenge people and what they wanted or did not want to do, even in far distant places where they actually never quite got round to it.
And because there was a magnificent ceremonial complex in this area, and because these local people were very clever, they must have built other magnificent stone circles that we have unfortunately not yet managed to find.
It all goes to show how significant the Waun Mawn area really was, and how strong the cultural links were with Stonehenge.......... even if there is no evidence that withstands scrutiny. Remember -- the quite strong evidence for a geological link between Stonehenge and the Preseli district tells us NOTHING WHATSOEVER about the mode of transport of the bluestones and other far-travelled stone fragments.
Excuse me -- I am getting dizzy. Let's not beat about the bush here -- the whole bluestone narrative is complete and utter nonsense, from beginning to end. It's amazing that it has been perpetrated for as long as it has. And it's even more amazing that around 20 quite senior academics have maintained straight faces for as long as they have, while trying to convince the world that the wacky story is based on sound science.
PS. I forgot to mention that there is more than a little circular reasoning going on at Stonehenge as well. Some of the best examples come from the debate about the "bluestone arrival date". For many years it has been assumed that the bluestones arrived at Stonehenge (carried, of course, by our heroic ancestors) around 4,600 years ago. Don't let us worry too much about the date -- that keeps on changing as technology and chronology change. Anyway, because of the fundamental belief in this "arrival date", it is then assumed that any deposits above the lowest occurrence of a bluestone monolith or fragment in the Stonehenge stratigraphy must be later. By the same token, deposits that do not contain bluestone fragments might be older than the "arrival date" or they might be younger. At any rate, the position of the lowest bluestone fragment can be used as a dating proxy -- and we see this being done over and again in the big 1995 Stonehenge tome edited by Ros Cleal et al. However, many bluestone fragments occur in "inconvenient positions" -- and we see rather interesting mental gymnastics in several places in the text where deposits containing bluestone fragments are referred to as being in "secondary" and even "tertiary" positions. It's all rather entertaining.......... and very circular.
There is another fundamental problem too, with the use of bluestone fragments as "dating tools" in the Stonehenge chronology. We still know remarkably little about the distribution of bluestones and bluestone fragments across the Stonehenge landscape, but it is in any case illogical to refer to "the arrival of the bluestones" as a significant event. Before people started to make things out of stone and developed a "megalithic culture" they made pits, trenches and embankments out of superficial deposits, and used timber for structures. So what we should really talk about, with respect to the bluestones, and if we really need a date, is "the date at which bluestones started to be used in stone settings". As for the stones themselves, it is of course much more logical to assume that they were in the landscape all the time, undisturbed and unused until somebody decided to use them........
1 comment:
I would recommend to Professor Alice Roberts that she " keeps her distance" from any further links by association, on telly or elsewhere, with the Maestro MPP henceforth, especially as regards Waun Maun and/ or fantastical prehistoric Preseli quarries here, there, and bloomin' everywhere.
Post a Comment