The bluestone quarrying myth: three sites and three detailed rebuttals
Just published:
Brian John (2025). Carn Goedog on Mynydd Preseli Was Not the Site of a Bluestone Megalith Quarry. Archaeology in Wales, March 2025, 14 pp
Brian John (2025). Carn Goedog on Mynydd Preseli Was Not the Site of a Bluestone Megalith Quarry. Archaeology in Wales, March 2025, 14 pp
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/390565216_Carn_Goedog_on_Mynydd_Preseli_was_not_the_site_of_a_Bluestone_Megalith_Quarry
This paper examines the hypothesis that Carn Goedog, a prominent tor on the north flank of Mynydd Preseli in Pembrokeshire, Wales, was the site of a Neolithic quarry from which Stonehenge bluestones were extracted on a large scale. The dolerite sills in the area are geochemically heterogenous, with multiple outcrops. Claims of “precise provenancing” of Stonehenge spotted dolerite fragments to Carn Goedog are questionable. Geomorphological studies on the tor reveal that pillars suitable for use as monoliths are restricted to a few small areas, difficult to access. Frost-shattered blocks dominate. Many have sub-rounded edges, suggesting long-term weathering and redistribution by glacier ice. Moulded and smoothed surfaces indicate that the influence of over-riding ice associated with the Irish Sea Ice Stream has been considerable. Examinations of the supposed “Neolithic quarry” site reveal that many of the “engineering features” may be natural. The materials referred to as stone artefacts are not obviously related to quarrying activities, but may instead point to a history of intermittent occupation. The soft shale “wedges” supposedly used for extracting pillars from the rock face may be natural and are ubiquitous. Radiocarbon dating does not appear to support the quarrying hypothesis. Thus the evidence for a Neolithic quarry at Carn Goedog is poor. If blocks and pillars of spotted dolerite were indeed extracted and transported away from the vicinity of the tor in prehistory, the agency is most likely to have been glacier ice.
The two earlier papers can be found here:
John, B S, Elis-Gruffydd, D & Downes, J, 2015b, Observations on the supposed Neolithic Bluestone Quarry at Craig Rhos-y-felin, Pembrokeshire, Archaeology in Wales 54, 139-148.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286775899_OBSERVATIONS_ON_THE_SUPPOSED_NEOLITHIC_BLUESTONE_QUARRY_AT_CRAIG_RHOSYFELIN_PEMBROKESHIRE
John, B S, 2024a, The Stonehenge bluestones did not come from Waun Mawn in West Wales, The Holocene, 34 (7), 20 March 2024.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/379121966_The_Stonehenge_bluestones_did_not_come_from_Waun_Mawn_in_West_Wales
Abstract
This is the first detailed examination of the Carn Goedog quarrying hypothesis to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Thanks are due to the Editor of the journal, and his anonymous reviewers, for their perceptive and constructive comments which have improved the paper.
With the publication of this article we complete the scrutiny of the thre crucial sites that have been cited over and again in support of the quarring / lost circle / human transport hypothesis of Parker Pearson et al. At Craig Rhosyfelin, Waun Mawn and Carn Goedog we have examined the geology, geomorphology and archaeology, and have found a multitude of assumptions and speculations but nothing in the way of hard evidence to support what is now seen as an extended and convoluted myth invented by a small team driven by a ruling hypothesis.
John, B S, Elis-Gruffydd, D & Downes, J, 2015b, Observations on the supposed Neolithic Bluestone Quarry at Craig Rhos-y-felin, Pembrokeshire, Archaeology in Wales 54, 139-148.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286775899_OBSERVATIONS_ON_THE_SUPPOSED_NEOLITHIC_BLUESTONE_QUARRY_AT_CRAIG_RHOSYFELIN_PEMBROKESHIRE
John, B S, 2024a, The Stonehenge bluestones did not come from Waun Mawn in West Wales, The Holocene, 34 (7), 20 March 2024.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/379121966_The_Stonehenge_bluestones_did_not_come_from_Waun_Mawn_in_West_Wales
As we have pointed out many times before on this blog, Parker Pearson, Bevins, Ixer and their colleagues have pretended, in one publication after another, that their ideas are not just widely accepted but free of any scrutiny or criticism from any direction. That is just plain silly, as well as demonstrating a cavalier disregard for academic convention. It is a mystery to me why this small group of academics living in their own little bubble have been allowed to get away with it by a complacent and conniving academic establishment. Are they all so obsessed with their acceptance of the establishment narrative that they cannot accept that "other interpretations are available"? Are they all blissfully unaware of the extent of their own delusions?
Anyway, we now have three key sites and three key rebuttals of the narrative developed by MPP and his team. For how much longer, I wonder, will they continue to inhabit their fantasy world before they are forced to confront reality?
