Now the narrative appears to incorporate other Neolithic quarries and other stone circles as yet undiscovered, at sites that are deemed (by modern archaeologists) to have been sacred or special. Fantasy rules, at every stage of the narrative.
The stone provenancing work by Ixer, Bevins and associated colleagues is interesting in demonstrating a "North Preseli" connection with Stonehenge, but it is a good deal less definitive than they would have us believe, and it tells us nothing at all about how boulders, smaller stones, cobbles and fragments of many different rock types may have travelled from A to B. It is one of the most unfortunate features of this debate that the geologists from an early stage decided to side with the HT proponents and to promote the view that GT was impossible. It is even more unfortunate that they decided to support the view that the bluestone monoliths were taken from Neolithic bluestone quarries rather than being collected as boulders from an erratic-strewn landscape.
So what about the Stonehenge bluestone monoliths? As night follows day, they are obviously NOT freshly quarried blocks. Some of them have been tooled and shaped, like the dolerites in the Bluestone Horseshoe, but to pretend that the other boulders, blocks and slabs were transported as targetted and freshly quarried blocks is to deny everything we know about weathering and erosional processes. The facets, the abraded edges and the weathering characteristics all indicate glacial entrainment, transport in a dynamic sub-glacial or englacial environment, and long exposure to weathering processes. By this I mean tens of thousands of years at the very least.
It is disingenuous of the HT brigade to pretend that the rounding and weathering of the Stonehenge bluestones might have occurred over the last 5,000 years or so, and that in scale and character it is similar to that displayed on rock surfaces at Rhosyfelin and Carn Goedog and on the surfaces of the Stonehenge sarsens. In arguing that way, they are making my point for me, since the bedrock surfaces, and the surfaces of the sarsens, are the results of very long exposure to the elements. HH Thomas accepted this point a century ago, when he argued that the Stonehenge bluestones were not quarried but picked up from an erratic scatter somewhere on the south side of Preseli.
It is really rather weird that the earth scientists who belong to the "group of eleven" who have so recently attacked me and my work on the Newall Boulder should apparently be so naive about the physical processes that operate on rock surfaces. They claimed that the Newall Boulder was simply the broken off top of a rhyolite monolith which has subsequently suffered from a certain amount of weathering. As I have demonstrated, it is a great deal more complicated than that, with both weathering and erosional features demonstrating a complex transport and emplacement history in which glacier ice almost certainly played a part. The apparent lack of clear glacial striations on the boulder cannot be used as part of an argument against glacial transport, as every glacial geomorphologist knows.
As I have indicated in my recent publications, the shapes and surface characteristics of the Stonehenge bluestones are entirely consistent with glacial entrainment, glacial transport, dumping in locations still to be determined, and then long exposure to atmospheric weathering processes. The boulders might even have been entrained, transported and dumped on multiple occasions. There is a vast literature on glacially transported clasts, as demonstrated by stone shape, sphericity, surface roughness and other measures. See the work of Prof David Evans and many others. These are quotes from my 2024 Newall Boulder paper:
https://doi.org/10.5194/egqsj-73-117-2024Other schemes are available. There is a vast literature, but roundness / sphericity scales like this are frequently employed in geomorphology and petrography:
Finally, there are three pieces of evidence that allow us to reject the quarrying hypothesis without further ado.
https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-famous-rhosyfelin-proto-orthostat.html