Response: The provenance of the Limeslade igneous erratic: a matter of no importance?
Brian John
Quaternary Newsletter 164, pp 19 - 27 (February 2025).
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/389436022_Response_The_provenance_of_the_Limeslade_igneous_erratic_a_matter_of_no_importance
This is in response to the extraordinary rant published by Pearce et al (2024) in QN163:
Pearce, N., Bevins, R., Ixer, R. & Scourse, J. (2024). Comment on "An igneous erratic at Limeslade, Gower, and the Glaciation of the Bristol Channel" by Brian John. Quaternary Newsletter 163, pp 15 - 20.
Anyway, I may be old, but I still know what I am talking about, and I'm grateful to the editor of QN for giving me the opportunity to put the record straight. In the text, I point out how bizarre it is for a group of academics to attack a short preliminary note on the grounds that it was not more comprehensive -- especially since they could themselves have done more detailed work on the boulder if they had chosen to do so.
They also accused me of having a preferred narrative driven by preconceptions, of ignoring clear and contradictory information, and of being ignorant of geological and geochemical processes. I pointed out the deep irony of reading these accusations coming from a team which has, over the last decade, refused to cite any "inconvenient literature" or to accept that any of their ideas are questioned or disputed by anybody else........
This is in response to the extraordinary rant published by Pearce et al (2024) in QN163:
Pearce, N., Bevins, R., Ixer, R. & Scourse, J. (2024). Comment on "An igneous erratic at Limeslade, Gower, and the Glaciation of the Bristol Channel" by Brian John. Quaternary Newsletter 163, pp 15 - 20.
In that article, they mounted what can only be referred to as an ad hominem attack, designed to demonstrate to the world my ignorance and incompetence, following my note describing some of the preliminary pXRF work done by Steve Parry and Prof Tim Darvill. In attacking me, Nick Pearce and his cronies also questioned the integrity and competence of an experienced geologist and a senior academic -- and that is never a good thing to do in print, in a widely read journal.
Then there was the accusation that I questioned the validity and accuracy of their data. If they had bothered to read my article more carefully, they would have seen that I questioned their analyses and interpretations, not their data.
My final paragraph:
Finally there is the parting shot (p 19) on the matter of John (2024): "This article merely represents a disingenuous cover to justify a rehearsal of the now well-worn and increasingly tedious debate concerning transport of the Stonehenge bluestones." Nothing can be further from the truth. The article as published was expanded and fashioned in response to the constructive comments of the journal editor and referees. The "tedious debate" to which Pearce et al (2024) refer has been fuelled and perpetrated by a stream of journal and popular science magazine articles which they themselves have written, many of them recycling the same basic data, designed to promote the hypothesis that the Preseli bluestones at Stonehenge were targetted, quarried and transported by our Neolithic ancestors. It is unfortunate that they are apparently unprepared to accept that others might question both their evidence and their interpretations.
There were assorted other criticisms and rather snide asides which I will not bother with here -- they were too petty to justify the wastage of any more of our time.
My final paragraph:
Finally there is the parting shot (p 19) on the matter of John (2024): "This article merely represents a disingenuous cover to justify a rehearsal of the now well-worn and increasingly tedious debate concerning transport of the Stonehenge bluestones." Nothing can be further from the truth. The article as published was expanded and fashioned in response to the constructive comments of the journal editor and referees. The "tedious debate" to which Pearce et al (2024) refer has been fuelled and perpetrated by a stream of journal and popular science magazine articles which they themselves have written, many of them recycling the same basic data, designed to promote the hypothesis that the Preseli bluestones at Stonehenge were targetted, quarried and transported by our Neolithic ancestors. It is unfortunate that they are apparently unprepared to accept that others might question both their evidence and their interpretations.
Anyway, it is good to know that many readers of QN have told me how amazed they were by the vitriolic nature of the attack by Pearce et al, and I think we can take it as read that Pearce, Ixer, Bevins and Scourse have now done far more harm to their own reputations than they have ever done to mine.
3 comments:
The authors who have been criticising you unfairly seem to be relying on their attempts to regurgitate their statements repeatedly. Probably this has led to a perpetuation of their remarks within the wider media world, caused by the so - called " algorithm effect". Messrs Ixer and Bevins etc must surely be underestimating the intelligence of those who read the QN publications!
Tonight we have all watched with stunned consternation the bullying and disinformation being used as a considered and pre - planned tactic by "the Donald" along with JD Vance. There is a distinct similarity between what went on at the White House and the academic encounter.
Regarding the Limeslade erratic rant and is it ostensibly about its provenance - I believe their rant was more to do with certain geologists craving the LIMElight.
I don't think it so much about that. It was a rather crude attempt to discredit me, since these guys just do not like being questioned or properly scrutinized. They believe they are uniquely in possession of the truth, but their truth has taken quite a battering of late, what with all those reatreats from the preposterous claims they have made about Waun Mawn and other sites.
Post a Comment