Well, this is fun. The Stonehenge Lynch Mob has assembled all its forces and has marched out in the light of the midsummer moon, determined to string me up from the nearest trilithon.........
Their latest paper, a long and rambling (and in places repetitive) attack published in the Journal of Artchaeological Sciences, has no less than 11 authors, including MPP, Mike Pitts, geologists Bevins and Ixer, geomorphologist Jim Scourse, and archaeologist David Field. Our old friend Tim Daw is in there as well.
We have been waiting for this paper for some time, since it was prematurely cited by MPP et al towards the end of last year. It was clearly rejected by the Journal of Quaternary Science in January 2025, and later accepted (with revisions) by the Journal of Archaeological Science. Make of that what you will.........
https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2025/02/myths-fantasies-and-now-phantom-articles.html
There is a wonderful irony in the fact that the defenders of the establishment narrative have here written a long and detailed paper designed to destroy the "glacial transport hypothesis" and the credibility of my 2024 paper, having for the greater part of a decade refused to cite any of my publications or acknowledge that their bluestone narrative is disputed by anybody. Indeed, I have complained on many occasions of their academic malpractice in this regard. Suddenly, I find myself cited, not just once or twice, but in paragraph after paragraph of this new paper, with multiple quotations added in italics! So I am very flattered.......
Who would have thought that a little boulder found in a cardboard box could have attracted so much attention? Newall would have been delighted.
Don't you just love the title of the article? ".... correcting the record." The authors clearly think that they have replaced something dodgy with something authoritative and utterly reliable. Hmmm. Their arrogance knows no bounds. Maybe I should now write something called "The Stonehenge Bluestones: the truth" ?? What they have actually done, in this new paper, is to present a string of assertions and speculations as facts, as I shall demonstrate when I publish my detailed scrutiny. Their over-interpretation of questionable evidence is par for the course; they do it all the time.
Watch this space..........
=============================
Richard E. Bevins, Nick J.G. Pearce, Rob A. Ixer, James Scourse, Tim Daw, Mike Parker Pearson, Mike Pitts, David Field, Duncan Pirrie, Ian Saunders, Matthew Power, The enigmatic ‘Newall boulder’ excavated at Stonehenge in 1924: New data and correcting the record,
9 comments:
Having just returned from a very pleasant friendly bookish get - together in Bratton ( close to the Salisbury Plain escarpment where of course glaciation may well have trundled) I come home and find this unkind collaboration on me Kindle. I have counted ELEVEN contributors. What happened to the 12th Disciple I wonder! Was he overcome with an outbreak of decency and commonsense? It's highly likely that Messrs Ixer and Daw were prominent in promoting this piffle. Poor old Tim has been lured over to the dark side of the 🌙 moon yet AGAIN.
I advise those newcomers to Brian's Blog to use its Search Engine. Enter keywords such as NEWALL; BOULDER; SALISBURY; MUSEUM; GLACIAL; ERRATIC. Then look well, and find Brian mentioning many, many geologists and geomorphologists who AGREE broadly with his analysis of the nature of the Newall Boulder
Thanks, Anon. Please use your name in future -- but I know some have problems in doing that. Maybe Google or blogger insisting on registration? I am thinking of revamping the blog using a more modern theme -- and that might be easier for those using mobile phones etc. Am working on it....... But yes, in certain quarters they try ro portray me as being some wild maverick whose ideas are unsupported by anybody else. That is of course rediculous -- and my Newall boulder article, in a peer reviewed journal which uses reputable professional geomorphologists to vet articles submitted for publication, would not have published mine if it had not been deemed of high quality.
Somehow that " Anonymous" Post failed to bear my name - perhaps I was too focused on making my point. I had after all accompanied Brian into the "Inner Sanctum" of Salisbury Museum when we were enabled to scrutinise the 1924 Newall Boulder 3 years ago. What the pitiful Ruling Hypothesis tribe are arguing is depressingly how much of what lawyer Labour leader Keir Starmer insists upon.
Brian. Would you classify everyone on your list as a scientist? Because they do!
.
Quite so, Tom. Their use of words is perhaps somewhat looser than it might be........ I remember MPP stating proudly, not so long ago, that he is NOT a scientist. But right now it probably suits him very well to be considered a scientific sort of chap........
Tom and Brian, I find it very unlikely that DAVE FIELD should have decidedly SOUGHT to be a part of this list of eleven contributors. He, to my mind ( having met him at least twice) wouldn't willingly have wanted to be party to it.
Then, again, Tony, there is the old saying... When good men do nothing!
He was invited and chose to say yes -- so his reputation is now on the line along with all the others.......
Post a Comment