THE BOOK
Some of the ideas discussed in this blog are published in my new book called "The Stonehenge Bluestones" -- available by post and through good bookshops everywhere. Bad bookshops might not have it....
To order, click
HERE

Friday, 31 January 2025

"Distant Stone Sources" paper now published.......


The latest hypothesis is that the Stonehenge stones have come from all points of the compass, as indicated in this map.  The latest Altar Stone source area is shown as somewhere near Inverness.  Hmmm.....  As for the Irish evidence, watch this space.  As usual, too many hypotheses and not enough evidence.  Will they never learn?


This paper, which should have been published on 20 December 2024 but wasn't, has at last appeared -- weeks after the media feeding frenzy during which scores of gullible journalists apparently did not notice that there was a press release but no article that they could scrutinize.  I'm not sure when it actually appeared on the journal web site -- it is dated as 31 December, but I have my doubts about that.

Anyway, the article is just as preposterous as it was in draft form, as noted on my post of 20 December:

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2024/12/the-stonehenge-narrative-becomes-even.html

I'm sure there will be a riposte from Scotland, and we await that with interest....


=======================


https://journals.uclpress.co.uk/ai/article/id/3293/

Stonehenge and its Altar Stone: the significance of distant stone sources

Abstract

Geological research reveals that Stonehenge’s stones come from sources beyond Salisbury Plain, as recently demonstrated by the Altar Stone’s origins in northern Scotland more than 700 km away. Even Stonehenge’s huge sarsen stones come from 24 km to the north, while the bluestones can be sourced to the region of the Preseli Hills some 225 km away in west Wales. The six-tonne Altar Stone is of Old Red Sandstone from the Orcadian Basin, an area that extends from the Northern Isles of Orkney and Shetland to Inverness and eastwards to Banff, Turriff and Rhynie. Its geochemical composition does not match that of rocks in the Northern Isles, so it can be identified as coming from the Scottish mainland. Its position at Stonehenge as a recumbent stone within the southwest arc of the monument, at the foot of the two tallest uprights of the Great Trilithon, recalls the plans of recumbent stone circles of north-east Scotland. Unusually strong similarities in house floor layouts between Late Neolithic houses in Orkney and the Durrington Walls settlement near Stonehenge also provide evidence of close connections between Salisbury Plain and northern Scotland. Such connections may be best explained through Stonehenge’s construction as a monument of island-wide unification, embodied in part through the distant and diverse origins of its stones.


Parker Pearson, M., Bevins, R., Bradley, R., Ixer, R., Pearce, N. & Richards, C., (2024) “Stonehenge and its Altar Stone: the significance of distant stone sources”, Archaeology International 27(1), 113–137. doi: https://doi.org/10.14324/AI.27.1.13

8 comments:

Tom Flowers said...

Alexander Keiller and Professor Piggott have much to answer for. They were the first to commercialise the Stone Age for profit. Today’s archaeologists are duty-bound to cover those lies and deceit with even more lies and will continue to do so until cornered. Until then, we can consider everything archaeologists come up with as hairy-fairy nonsense.

Jon Morris said...

22 January 2025 appears to be the date it was first generally available Brian. It's also possible that it was available very late in the evening the day before.

BRIAN JOHN said...

Thanks Jon -- more or less as I suspected. So the paper was not available to read until a month or so after the media blitz. And yet papers and journals galore went along with the deceit, happy to regurgitate a press release without ever seeing the phantom article. Extraordinary and at the same time despicable.

BRIAN JOHN said...

To, I would not wish to tar all archaeologists with the same brush. Maybe a lot of academic archaeologists deserve the tar brush treatment, but I have had contacts with very many porofessional archaeologists who are deeply committed, careful observers and recorders of field evidence. I have great respect for many of their publications which are mercifully free of wild speculations and assumptions.......

BRIAN JOHN said...

oops -- I meant "Tom" .......

Tony Hinchliffe said...

It's full of far - fetched supposition .........

Jon Morris said...

Agreed, tarring all archaeologists with the same brush isn't helpful. It's becoming a common perception that archaeologists are represented by a few characters who appear on television.

Tom Flowers said...

Brian. You are too nice.