Remember Indiana Pearson and the Quest for the Lost Circle? Well, that glorious and heroic tale has faded away recently with the discovery that there never was a lost circle and that it was, after all, just a romantic fantasy.........
But the media cannot resist a heroic figure fighting against the odds to discover some peculiar version of the truth. And bang on cue, with the broadcasting of the latest Stonehenge blockbuster ("Mysteries of Stonehenge", first broadcast last Sunday) along comes Sherlock Bevins, magnifying glass in hand, with furrowed brow, wandering amongst the rocky crags of Preseli, hunting for clues that will lead him to the source of the Sacred Stone.........
There has to be a distinguishing feature, of course, and in this case it is the ubiquitous Aussie bush hat! No doubt the director wanted Richrd to wear it for "branding" purposes during filming, and Richard obliged.
I have to admit to being rather disappointed. I had seen Richard as a responsible scientist who was prepared to hold back some of the wilder fantasies promoted by MPP and his team, and promote the virtues of sound science, responsibly used. Not any longer. He has been popping up all over the place in the media, not urging caution but acting as the chief apologist for the MPP narrative, a very handy scientist wheeled out to win the trust of the public and show the media how geochemistry and petrology can be used in the solving of difficult Stonehenge puzzles. He has even gone on the record, in this latest TV extravaganza, as saying that on the provenancing of the Stonehenge bluestones (including the Altar Stone) his reputation is on the line...........
Anyway, he is now solidly on the record as one of the key creators of the quarrying / human transport narrative -- and I was appalled by the manner in which -- in the latest Channel Four documnentary -- he threw caution to the winds and espoused the most extreme and fantastical elements of the MPP story. The section on Rhosyfelin was quite extraordinary, in which he pretended that the quarrying of foliated rhyolites was an established truth and even implied that this was the key location from which most of the Stonehenge bluestones had been taken. That, of course, is complete tosh -- there is not a single bluestone monolith at Stonehenge which is known to have come from Craig Rhosyfelin, and Richard knows that perfectly well.
And so archaeological science continues its inexorable slide...........
18 comments:
Salisbury Plain is flat and surely shaped by glacier(s) so more likely that ice moved the stones to the area where Stonehenge was built? As a student at Bournemouth Grammar School our Geography teacher Mike Webb took us on a field trip to Wales to see the amazing striations in rock carved by passing glaciers something I have never forgotten. Your comments on the Bluestone “ quarries” in Wales puts the idea of humans moving huge stones to Salisbury in its rightful place as fantasy. Well done! Ian Whiteley, Bournemouth. Ps But what about the Pyramids? Your thoughts on that would be very interesting!
I found the programme amateurish and full of misdirection. And these "scientists" expect us to believe the Altar Stone came from Orkney. Even though this idea has been dropped!
I would love to believe that Stone 80 came from northern Scotland by glacial action or manpower. But show me a lump of it, dug up from somewhere in Scotland, and then I might believe it.
Brian. We have a free-thinking follower from Bournemouth Grammar School. Welcome Ian Whitely.
Ian -- thanks for the comment. I doubt that the surface features of Salisbury Plain have anything to do with glaciation, since much of the landscape must be pre-Pleistocene. But the nature of the bedrock must have had some effect -- it's compicated, but because of the presence of permeable chalk you might get "de-watering" on the bed of a warm-based glacier, and this might affect glacier behaviour. We still don't fully understand what went on. Ah --the pyramids! Mighty work -- but in the case of the pyramids the evidence of quarrying is rather good......
Richard Bevins said "you could say you're putting your professional career in the line" and yet soon afterwards he said of the Rhosyfelin site it gave him " a tingling sensation" and was " a very ethereal place"!! What a pity he doesn't speak to one or two geomorphologists either at his Aberystwyth University's Earth Sciences department who could give him more balanced objective views.
It's probably important to stress that Richard Bevins, Rob and Nick are geological contributors but not involved in the archaeological interpretation. Mike, Richard Bradley and Colin deal with the archaeology and Mike is the the lead author (according to UCL's website). Reason for flagging this is it looks to me like much of the documentary used old footage.
Richard Bevins is clearly the natural successor to his colleague Rob Ixer. Hubris rules......tough on humility ain't it.
OF COURSE these geological contributors are having their views affected by the views of the ruling hypothesis archaeologists, Jon! You have been contributing to Brian's blog over the years but seem to have taken your eye off the ball in your haste to show politeness to MPP and UCL.
Jon, I have not been involved in many multi-authored papers, but when I have been I have accepted that there is corporate responsibility for everything said in the article. I would never dream of saying "Oh, that part of the article belonged to somebody else, and I had nothing to do with it." If I am on the author list, I accept it as part of my responsibility to read the WHOLE text and approve it on the grounds that the evidence is well presented and that the conclusions are sound. There is no way that Ixer, Bevins and Pearce can claim that the dodgy findings and the outrageous claims of the lead author (namely MPP) had nothing to do with them.
Not certain on this one Brian/Tony. Here you have three highly qualified archaeology experts and they are writing about their subject and they all agree that the text is completely correct. In those circumstances, I think the non-archaeology experts are entitled to take the claims (agreed by the archaeological experts) at face value.
We'll agree to differ, Jon. These big papers -- with a dozen or so authors -- are monsters. I don't like them in the field of glacial geomorphology, and I don't like them here either. MPP probably loves them because they spread responsibility for some of his more outrageous suggestions and assumptions. The geologists probably love them too because they get to publish stuff in archaeology journals which would probably not get through the peer review process of specialist geological journals. I have said that mnany times before, and I maintain that point here.
Maybe phrased a different way: I think the non-archaeology experts are required (rather than entitled) to take the claims at face value?
Ha! I think you are right there. As is the way with gangs, the members of the gang are always required to swear an oath of allegiance to the noble leader, and must promise to obey instructions and never undermine the boss's authority or reputation. When I was about eight, I had a gang like that, in which the rules were strictly enforced.......
Jon - purely by chance, I came across this discussion that you had a few years ago (on just this topic) with Mike Pitts: https://mikepitts.wordpress.com/2016/11/30/cold-stones/
Haha. And Neil's there too (sadly passed now).
15 authors though! Ridiculous. Probably something to do with each of the authors needing REF points.
I think by now these two guys are joined at the hip. Most likely neither of them thinks it matters - and they are likely right. The only thing that matters for either of them seemingly is a headline in the Daily Mail. it is all rather sad.
Perhaps we should ask actor Harrison Ford ( aka Indiana Jones) to adjudicate on the degree of tosh churned out by Messrs Bevins & Ixer as they continue to cheerfully chummy up to the Mike P Pearson myth company
Not sure how much trust we should place in Indiana Jones. Is he really a good judge of red herrings, wild goose chases, and elephants in china shops? Not to mention rolling stones and beating dead horses......... but of course as in all fiction he always gets the grail.......
Post a Comment