At last this article is published, in HOLOCENE journal, having been in the pipeline for around 12 months. Partly my fault, since I have been rather preoccupied with my lovely wife's health issues. Anyway, it is fully refereed and edited, in case you wondered, to the journal's normal high standard.
It's a cause of irritation that it is behind a paywall, but I have placed a PDF version of the accepted manuscript onto Researchgate, here:
So this is my contribution to the learned debate which I trust that MPP and his colleagues will all welcome -- nobody wins when researchers pretend that their output is accepted with universal acclaim......
ABSTRACT
This paper examines the hypothesis that Waun Mawn in West Wales provided the bluestone monoliths that were used at Stonehenge. Some archaeologists believe that the site supports the last remains of a giant stone circle or ‘Proto Stonehenge’ which was dismantled and transported to Salisbury Plain around 5000 years ago. It was claimed, after three excavation seasons at Waun Mawn in 2017, 2018 and 2021, that there is firm evidence of some standing stones which were later removed or broken up, but it has still not been demonstrated that there ever 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 this is confirmed by recent cited research. 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’. It is concluded that at Waun Mawn and elsewhere in West Wales there has been substantial ‘interpretative inflation’ driven by the desire to demonstrate a Stonehenge connection.
12 comments:
Brian, I am sorry to hear that Inger is unwell. Please give her my best wishes.
Thank you Tom -- that's very kind. She had a total knee replacement in June, and the recovery process was long and very painful. But arthritis is a bugger -- it does not go away, and now she has serious problems with her right elbow. We seem to spend much of our time dealing with medical appointments. But all credit to the much maligned NHS -- we have no complaints at all about the care she has received (apart from the unacceptable delays re the list for knee and hip replacements, which caused us to go to Lithuania for the operation). But she battles on, and soon it will be sunny spring -- we hope.....!!
Like Tom, I send Inger my continuing best wishes for a steady recovery. My daughter too is dealing with significant problems with her right elbow, also her shoulder.Yes, the NHS is overall a great boon, ever since 1948 thanks to Wales' Aneurin Bevan.
Thanks Tony -- will pass on the good vibes!
"Oh dear" - that well known mini - exclamation from the UK's rival to Harrison Ford/ Indiana Jones..... has re - surfaced like the Loch Ness Monster, but actually filmed (several years ago now, who knows where the time goes, Mike?) on Preseli with Alice Roberts, who's probably regretting it all now. THAT "documentary" was on BBC4 tonight, but I'm recording its repeat long past sensible folks' bedtime in the early hours of Wednesday. IF I can gather my mental strength I'll pen a "disgusted from near Stonehenge " letter to the Editor of the Radio Times.
You don't need to record it, Tony. It is on BBC iPlayer and also on YouTube, so you can watch it as often as you like. I have already complained to the BBC, and they simply say that they see no reason to stop broadcasting it, since they clearly think it is reliable!! I think I might gently remind the BBC that even MPP himself doesn't believe the story any longer, having rowed back very significantly in the last couple of years from the extravagant nonsense contained in this programme. Pseudo-science, from beginning to end. I wonder where BBC Verify and the BBC truth department stand on all of this? I might just ask them........
For the record, this is the nonsense which came from the BBC last time I complained about this programme.
Reference CAS-7340703-S7D6H8
19 December 2022
Dear Mr John
Thanks for getting in touch about ‘Stonehenge: The Lost Circle Revealed’.
We have raised your concerns with the programme team and do appreciate your feedback.
With regards to the points you have raised, we've received no information that would lead us to form the view that the film can't be shown again.
However, we’ve included your points in our overnight report. These reports are among the most widely read sources of feedback in the company and ensures that your concerns have been seen by the right people quickly.
This helps inform decisions about current and future content.
Thanks again for taking the time to contact us.
Kind Regards
BBC Complaints Team
www.bbc.co.uk/complaints
Yes, I complained to the BBC myself aeons ago like you.
Have just had a look at Nationwide Building Society's pocket guide How To Spot a Scam - think we have one here.
I decided to record the early morning repeat as it has sub - titles helps to reinforce the blarney. Victor Meldrew has the best riposte!squirt
This is interesting -- the new article has had over 1500 reads on Researchgate already -- just one week since publication. And I know from notifications that a lot of the readers are archaeologists, including members of the MPP team. I see that as one small step in the right direction............ One recent comment from somebody, right out of the blue: "It is a wonderful deconstruction of much of the hyperbole that surrounds SH." And another: "Such impressive scholarship and a cracking good read. Really questions the current narrative in a persuasive way." So -- thank you all, for your support!
Yes, and three resounding cheers for the journalist from the Salisbury Journal who has approved of your " Holocene" article, and named you and your specialism. I shall encourage the Editor of the Devizes Gazette to read what the Salisbury Journal has printed, and to go away and do the same......
I was interested to receive this from a senior academic who has published a lot in geology journals: "Enjoyed your paper, but to be honest found it a bit ridiculous that it had to be written. There is clearly a problem in archaeology at the moment, it should not be possible to publish these papers containing such ludicrous nonsense......."
Post a Comment