"They do say that in the bad old days geologists like us used to work
out there, in the rain........."
In the latest tirade against the glacial transport hypothesis, there is a systematic attempt to diminish or ignore the effects of natural processes in the Quaternary environment. This is really rather bizarre, given that several of the authors (Ixer, Bevins, Pearce and Scourse) are earth scientists. For example, they refer to the Newall Boulder as a "joint controlled block" or as a "broken joint block" and pretend that all of the surface features which make it rather interesting can be explained by natural weathering processes within the last 5,000 years or so. They also argue against glacial processes operating on the south shore of the Bristol Channel, and seem intent upon maintaining a convoluted and highly unreliable argument that the large erratics in the shore zone are all ice-rafted. That flies in the face of evidence from Paul Madgett, Paul Berry and others who have recorded erratics well above the shore zone in the Saunton and Croyde area up to an altitide of c 80m.
Bennett, J. A., Cullingford, R. A., Gibbard, P. L., Hughes, P. D., & Murton, J. B. (2024). The Quaternary Geology of Devon. Proceedings of the Ussher Society, 15, 84-130.
https://ussher.org.uk/wp- content/uploads/benettetal1584130v2.pdf
In the studies of the so-called quarries at Rhosyfelin and Carn Goedog there are hardly any mentions of the Quaternary stratigraphic sequence or of natural rockfalls, scree accumulation and glacial erosional and depositional features. The features described are simply assumed to be man-made, without any serious consideration of natural processes. The two 2015 articles written by my colleagues Dyfed Alis-Gruffydd and John Downes have been systematically ignored for a decade without a single citation from Ixer, Bevins and Co.
The obvious faceting, edge abrasion and weathering of the bulk of Stonehenge bluestone boulders is similarly ignored by the geologists, who still pretend that they are quarried blocks which have been subject to surface weathering over the past 5,500 years.
They claim that since the big sarsens at Stonehenge have hed their edges rounded off since the Neolithic, then so have the bluestones -- and claim that this somehow demonstrates the inadequacy of the glacial transport theory. That argument is fundamentally flawed -- the sarsens have been exposed to weathering for millions of years, and the bluestones have not.
In the papers relating to the imaginary (and now discredited) "giant stone circle" at Waun Mawn, there is a singular lack of awareness of the thin cover of Devensian till that blankets the ground surface across the landscape, and a pretence that the surface layers of superficial deposits are either man-made or at least manipulated in association with stone setting work. Almost every slight depression deemed to be in a "correct" area for the setting of a standing stone is interpreted as a stone socket, regardless of its actual physical characteristics. No attempt is made to assess (through comparisons with other areas) whether these so-called stone sockets are unique or significant. Basic geomorphological and sedimentary work has clearly not been a part of the research agenda.
In seeking to determine where the Waun Mawn standing and recumbent stones might have come from, the assumption from the outset was that they were "brought" from significant places. The idea that the stones might have simply been picked up in the immediate neighbourhood seems not to have occurred to anybody in the research team.
As I have pointed out frequently on this blog, there is always (in the work of Bevins, Ixer et al) an assumption that the bluestones at Stonehenge must have come from prominent craggy features in the landscape such as tors. There are no considerations of glacial entrainment and transport processes -- as a result of which perfectly feasible alternative bluestone sources are entirely ignored.
It is really quite concerning that three of the authors of the recent "distant sources" article (Bevins, Pearce and Ixer) are geologists, and that they appear to be fully signed up to a ruling hypothesis that completely denies any role for natural processes in the movement of stones in areas known to have been heavily glaciated on several occasions. How weird is that?
It gets even more bizarre when you realise that both Ixer and Bevins have themselves been involved in glacial erratic studies -- Ixer in regard to the erratics found and publicised in the Birmingham area in the last few years, and Bevins in the study of the Storrie Collection of erratics found in Pencoed, near Bridgend. Perhaps both of them suffer from some strange ailment which manifests itself in the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing?
All very strange........
