Tim's annotated version of a map from the article.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/beyond-the-bluestones-links-between-distant-monuments-in-late-neolithic-britain-and-ireland/C2809FF27DAB2C2509D341B6E30CB13A
The author starts with a summary of the diffusion and connections as they were developing around 3,000 BC. He says that around that time regional rather than local connections were becoming more important, and adds: "These issues regarding changing patterns of movement and regional connections are particularly relevant to a discussion in this journal of the relationship between Stonehenge in Wessex and a recently investigated monument at Waun Mawn in south-west Wales (Parker Pearson et al. 2021, Parker Pearson 2022; Darvill 2022). The discussion raises some important questions."
In his discussion of Waun Mawn and Stonehenge Prof Bradley does sound somewhat sceptical about the latest MPP theory that what was exported from Waun Mawn to Stonehenge was an IDEA and not necessarily a stone monument! But he accepts without question that bluestone were "brought" from West Wales to Wessex and that there was an arrival date; and he accepts that "there are quarries in south-west Wales where excavation shows that monoliths of similar lithology to the Stonehenge bluestones were extracted during the Neolithic and later periods." He also accepts without question the assertion that all of the sarsens were "obtained from 25 km away near Avebury". One would have liked some more critical scrutiny and a greater awareness that Tim Darvill is not the only one who has questioned some of the key assumptions of the MPP team. The "lost circle" and the "quarries" are hotly disputed in the literature, and there are serious questions about the provenancing of the sarsens. These disputes in the peer-reviwed literature should have been acknowledged.
On the relocation of monuments and stones from one place to another, the examples given (Stenness, Avebury, Newgrange etc) are unconvincing, with too many suggestions and assertions and not enough facts.
In the section on "combining materials from different sources" Prof Bradley far too easily accepts the idea of human beings moving stones about, hither and thither, without even mentioning glacial erratic distributions or even the details of local rock outcrops. He appears to be quite unaware of the work of Stephen Briggs, Olwen Williams-Thorpe and others on erratic transport routes and opportunistic stone collection. Then there is this extraordinary statement concerning the distribution of bluestones in the overall layout of Stonehenge: "Not all of them originated from the same quarry and their organisation within the new monument reflects their natural distributions in the geology of south-west Wales. The setting of Welsh materials can therefore be characterised as a transported landscape....." I do not know of any evidence that supports any of that, and the idea of "a transported landscape" is pure fantasy.
In the section on "copying distinctive monuments outside their usual distributions" the author lists a host of monuments with "similarities" or "similar ground plans" or "links" -- and while I appreciate the attempts to find order and to classify monuments into cultural groups I do have worries that what is going on here is an attempt to find order in chaos. In any two or three monuments you can find SOME common denominators (earth banks, tall stones, stumpy stones, rings, rows, alignments etc) -- and I wonder if all of this tells us more about the minds of the archaeologists than about the minds of the Neolithic tribes of Britain........
On shared elements across vast distances, the author again refers to Waun Mawn and Stonehenge, and he does at least acknowledge the disagreements involving Barclay and Brophy, Madgwick, Parker Pearson and others. But he cannot resist mentioning the idea that "architectural connections between different regions celebrated alliances formed between distant communities". This was pure speculation five years ago, and nothing has changed.
In his conclusion, Prof Bradley reminds us that "connections" existed that had nothing at all to do with Stonehenge. That is of course a point worth making. But then he spoils it all with this statement about the old ruin: "The long-distance movement of building material might have been peculiar to that site....." Oh dear -- for the umpteenth time, the long-distance transport of bluestones from here to there has NEVER been demonstrated through the provision of hard evidence. Speculation is not a substitute for facts.
====================
Bradley R. Beyond the bluestones: links between distant monuments in Late Neolithic Britain and Ireland. Antiquity. Published online 2024:1-8.
ABSTRACT
Recent research has considered the relationship between Stonehenge and sites in south-west Wales, raising questions about whether the first monument at Stonehenge copied the form of an earlier stone circle at Waun Mawn and how the relationship between these sites was connected with the transport of bluestones between the different regions. But Stonehenge and Waun Mawn are not the only prehistoric sites in Britain and Ireland that share architectural elements and hint at social connections across vast distances of land and sea. This debate article explains how the questions raised about these Late Neolithic monuments can and should be applied to other monumental complexes to explore this insular phenomenon.
The author starts with a summary of the diffusion and connections as they were developing around 3,000 BC. He says that around that time regional rather than local connections were becoming more important, and adds: "These issues regarding changing patterns of movement and regional connections are particularly relevant to a discussion in this journal of the relationship between Stonehenge in Wessex and a recently investigated monument at Waun Mawn in south-west Wales (Parker Pearson et al. 2021, Parker Pearson 2022; Darvill 2022). The discussion raises some important questions."
In his discussion of Waun Mawn and Stonehenge Prof Bradley does sound somewhat sceptical about the latest MPP theory that what was exported from Waun Mawn to Stonehenge was an IDEA and not necessarily a stone monument! But he accepts without question that bluestone were "brought" from West Wales to Wessex and that there was an arrival date; and he accepts that "there are quarries in south-west Wales where excavation shows that monoliths of similar lithology to the Stonehenge bluestones were extracted during the Neolithic and later periods." He also accepts without question the assertion that all of the sarsens were "obtained from 25 km away near Avebury". One would have liked some more critical scrutiny and a greater awareness that Tim Darvill is not the only one who has questioned some of the key assumptions of the MPP team. The "lost circle" and the "quarries" are hotly disputed in the literature, and there are serious questions about the provenancing of the sarsens. These disputes in the peer-reviwed literature should have been acknowledged.
On the relocation of monuments and stones from one place to another, the examples given (Stenness, Avebury, Newgrange etc) are unconvincing, with too many suggestions and assertions and not enough facts.
In the section on "combining materials from different sources" Prof Bradley far too easily accepts the idea of human beings moving stones about, hither and thither, without even mentioning glacial erratic distributions or even the details of local rock outcrops. He appears to be quite unaware of the work of Stephen Briggs, Olwen Williams-Thorpe and others on erratic transport routes and opportunistic stone collection. Then there is this extraordinary statement concerning the distribution of bluestones in the overall layout of Stonehenge: "Not all of them originated from the same quarry and their organisation within the new monument reflects their natural distributions in the geology of south-west Wales. The setting of Welsh materials can therefore be characterised as a transported landscape....." I do not know of any evidence that supports any of that, and the idea of "a transported landscape" is pure fantasy.
In the section on "copying distinctive monuments outside their usual distributions" the author lists a host of monuments with "similarities" or "similar ground plans" or "links" -- and while I appreciate the attempts to find order and to classify monuments into cultural groups I do have worries that what is going on here is an attempt to find order in chaos. In any two or three monuments you can find SOME common denominators (earth banks, tall stones, stumpy stones, rings, rows, alignments etc) -- and I wonder if all of this tells us more about the minds of the archaeologists than about the minds of the Neolithic tribes of Britain........
On shared elements across vast distances, the author again refers to Waun Mawn and Stonehenge, and he does at least acknowledge the disagreements involving Barclay and Brophy, Madgwick, Parker Pearson and others. But he cannot resist mentioning the idea that "architectural connections between different regions celebrated alliances formed between distant communities". This was pure speculation five years ago, and nothing has changed.
In his conclusion, Prof Bradley reminds us that "connections" existed that had nothing at all to do with Stonehenge. That is of course a point worth making. But then he spoils it all with this statement about the old ruin: "The long-distance movement of building material might have been peculiar to that site....." Oh dear -- for the umpteenth time, the long-distance transport of bluestones from here to there has NEVER been demonstrated through the provision of hard evidence. Speculation is not a substitute for facts.
====================
Recent research has considered the relationship between Stonehenge and sites in south-west Wales, raising questions about whether the first monument at Stonehenge copied the form of an earlier stone circle at Waun Mawn and how the relationship between these sites was connected with the transport of bluestones between the different regions. But Stonehenge and Waun Mawn are not the only prehistoric sites in Britain and Ireland that share architectural elements and hint at social connections across vast distances of land and sea. This debate article explains how the questions raised about these Late Neolithic monuments can and should be applied to other monumental complexes to explore this insular phenomenon.
=========================
PS. This is a revised version of the original post, brought on by the fact that I have now read the article!
7 comments:
I think this might be the article advertised onFB that drew a range of comments. Use the article title in the FB search facility. Thanks Brian 👍
Hi Anon -- please use your name in future, if you want to comment. Re Facebook comments, I did a search, but nothing came up. Maybe the comments were in a private group?
Started watching a BBC2 programme presented by upper class Penelope Keith about Avebury Manor and that antiques bloke Paul Martin, wandering around Avebury henge, had to insist/speculate that Avebury "must" have been the capital of England......oh dear!
I am deeply sceptical about Richard Bradley's contributions to archaeology in general. I think he may be one of those lecturers and writers who relies on SEEMING to be convincing and extremely erudite. I couldn't possibly say who I'm also thinking who falls into this category in relation to current interpretations of Stonehenge.
Re. Anonymous post. It was an advert for ‘Antiquity Journal’ posted on 11th March. Unfortunately I’m technically challenged and incapable of posting a link. Lloyd.
Thanks Lloyd -- kind of you to reply. things come and go on the web -- and I dare say I am not alone in having strong reservations about this recently published work.........
I think Richard Bradley has probably reached " national treasure" status amongst his peers and supporters. He seems to have attained untouchable Guru status. But, as Shania Twain sings, "So you're a rocket scientist! ........that don't impress me much".
Post a Comment