Shock! Horror! Stonehenge mystery finally SOLVED! For the first time this month......
Note the capital letters.
So if it's in the Daily Mail, it must be true. This time, the truth seems to be that the glacial transport theory is dead. Not so long ago it was the human transport theory that was dead. The truth does not last long in fhe media. But we knew that already.
Anyway, the paper -- like assorted other media outlets -- has picked up on the latest press release from Bevins et al (2025), issued in a feverish attempt to dismiss my work on the Newall Boulder and to prove that the glacial transport theory is dead. Hmmm. As Mark Twain might have said, reports of its death have been grossly exaggerated.........
Here are a few thoughts on the newsaper article -- and by implication, on the linked press release.
At the outset, we see this claim: Bevins et al concluded that "there is no evidence to support the interpretation that it (the Newall Boulder) is a glacial erratic.". That is an absurd claim. "Evidence" is defined as facts or information brought forward to support or refute a claim, idea or hypothesis. As a matter of fact there is abundant evidence in the literature in support of the glacial erratic interpretation. Whether Bevins et al support it or reject it is another matter entirely. If they believe that the evidence is unconvincing, that is what they should have said.
As is already apparent, I happen to find the evidence presented in their latest paper defective in a number of respects, as I will shortly explain. They should accept that with good grace.
The Newall Boulder (NB) is a precise match for the unique characteristics of rocks from Craig Rhosyfelin.? No it isn't. For a start, it looks different, which explains why it has been described by other geologists as an "ignimbrite" and as a strongly welded acid vitric tuff. The "matching" presented in the paper by Bevins et al (2025) involves a highly biased and selective presentation of evidence, and the geologists involved have still not demonstrated that the characteristics of the Rhosyfelin foliated ryolite are totally unique to that site, since the density of the sampling points and the range of their fieldwork in the area are far from adequate.
There are columns of foliated rhyolite at Rhosyfelin which have bullet-shaped or rounded tops similar to that of the NB? Well, there is very little in the way of columnar jointing at the site. And rounded and abraded surfaces on the higher parts of the crag are replicated on almost all of the tors of Preseli, and are interpreted by me and other geomorphologists as indicative of glacial or fluvioglacial abrasion in the past. This tells us nothing about the provenance of the boulder, and it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
There is evidence of stone quarrying at the Rhosyfelin site? So Bevins et al would have us believe -- but they might have had the good grace to acknowledge that their evidence has been hotly disputed since 2015. And readers deserve to know that until now Bevins and his colleagues have refused to cite the peer-reviewed studies that draw concusions that are at odds with their own. That in itself is enough to destroy their credibility as "experts".
The NB surface is rich in calcium carbonate deposits? This suggests long burial either at stonehenge oft elsewhere. On that we agree. But I cannot for the life of me see how that reinforces the idea of human transport! On the contrary, it provides strong support for everything i have said about the glacial transport and dumping of erratic materials from west to east.
It is claimed that if a glacier had carried the NB from West Wales to Salisbury Plain, or near it, it would have also left a scatter of similar stones across the region. That is a fair point, but we still do not know how extensive the ice cover was, or what the glaciological conditions might have been. There are erratics dotted about all over Salisbury Plain, as itemised by Thorpe et al in 1991, and it is worth reminding ourselves that only 50% of the stone settings part of Stonehenge has ever been excavated. Therefore all statements by Ixer, Bevins and other about the frequency or type of rock fragments at the site will in due course have to be substantially revised.
BLUESTONE 32d -- new analysis shows it to be a foliated rhyolite like that of the NB? This is a lie. The stump that was revealed in old excavations was photographed, but not sampled. So all we have is a speculation, based on a photograph. This is slapdash and misleading science -- as we saw some months ago when a lump of rock bought in a rock shop in Harrogate was used as a surrogate in a study of the Altar Stone. In the eyes of many this seriously devalued the study and increased scepticism about its results.
Are there 80 bluestones at Stonehenge? This is often claimed. But there are in fact only 43 monoliths and stumps, and in the view of the present author it is most likely that the planned stone monument was never completed.....
The image of a "typical collection of rock fragments" at Stonehenge. This is worthless, since a collection and display of stone chips is exactly what it says it is. It has no value as a piece of scientific information. Other stone shapes are available at Stonehenge, but as far as I am aware, there has never been a controlled study of stone shapes in or beyond the stone settings.
Come to think of it, on the matter of stone shapes, has anybody ever looked at the full assemblage of Stonehenge monoliths and said "These stones were most certainly all quarried!". On the contrary, whenever I have asked geomorphologist colleagues about this, the response has always been "These stones are most certainly NOT quarried..........". That, of course, is, in my humble opinion, because they are all glacial erratics.
The Daily Mail article ends with a statement to the effect that "John's arguments have no basis in evidence. To present it as fact, rather than hypothesis, is disingenuous."
That is all absurd. I have never pretended that my conclusions are facts rather than opinions. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.......
No comments:
Post a Comment