Message for Ixer and Turner: For God's sake read the literature! In their latest "invited contribution" published by our old friend Tim Daw, they say this:
"Despite vociferous, special and cyclical pleading from a lone glacial proponent there is no evidence of any glacial erratics on Salisbury Plain, the nearest accepted glacial deposits that travelled from the west occur close to the Somerset coastline (but no further) and to the north of Stonehenge they are more than 100kms distant and carry no Scottish rocks. It has been anthropogenically moved."
Excuse my language, but what bloody cheek! The nearest "accepted glacial deposits" (what are they, I wonder? And who does the accepting?) are no further inland than the Somerset coastline? On the contrary -- there are accepted glacial deposits under the Somerset Levels sediments at Greylake, and at multiple other sites inland from the Somerset coast. As recognized by Gilbertson and Hawkins, and by Kellaway and others, if glacier ice from the Bristol Channel reached Greylake (almost 20 km inland), that must mean that the Somerset Levels depression was filled with ice; that's a simple matter of glaciology. If they want to dispute that, let's see the colour of their argument.
There is no evidence of any glacial erratics on Salisbury Plain? Thorpe et al in 1991 would beg to differ on that, on the basis of extensive and careful research, and so would I. The simplest explanation of all those battered and weathered bluestone boulders in the bluestone circle is that they are glacial erratics. No evidence has ever been provided by Ixer, Turner or anybody else to prove that simple explanation to be wrong. And then there is the Newall Boulder..........
As for the silly personal insult, I will gently remind our two heroes that I am not alone, and never have been. Those who have provided evidence relating to the transport of glacial erratics and other sediments into Somerset and other parts of SW England include Judd, Kellaway, Stephens, Williams-Thorpe, Thorpe, Gilbertson, Hawkins, Watkins, Jenkins, Downes, Scourse, Elis-Gruffydd, Wirtz, Mitchell, Maw, Bartenstein, Harrison, Keen, Andrews, Hunt, Campbell, Jackson............... and many others.
Ixer and his colleagues have deliberately ignored two highly relevant (but very inconvenient) 2015 papers that have a direct bearing on scores of their papers written within the last decade. That's appalling. They have also chosen to ignore multiple other authors and a vast body of evidence while promoting a highly dubious narrative of human stone quarrying and transport. That's their problem, not mine.
This is all a waste of time. These people should be more careful before they throw insults at a long line of serious and well-qualified researchers who know far more about the topic than they do.
One of the authors of the Nature Paper used to contribute quite regularly to this Blogsite, namely geologist Rob Ixer. He would frequently admonish many others commenting on Posts to " read the primary literature ". For example, in the days when MPP was overall supervisor of the Wiltshire - based Stonehenge Riverside Project, Rob often encouraged us to read his own Paper, " Down By The Riverside". So, he was regularly admonishing folk for not going back to basics and seeking out what he called the primary literature - somewhat ironic in present circumstances relating to how far glaciation occurred in the direction of Salisbury Plain and the eventual site of Stonehenge, is it not? His mantra appears to be: do what I say, not what I do.
ReplyDelete