More contributions to the bluestone transport debate

I have been looking at Prof Peter Kokelaar's blog, and  have discovered there a great deal of new evidence relating in particular to his work in Gower and north Pembrokeshire.  These three blog posts are particularly useful:

https://kokelaargower.com/stonehenge/

https://kokelaargower.com/towards-stonehenge-the-anglian-glaciation-of-gower/

https://kokelaargower.com/gowers-famous-patella-beach/

Peter's work concentrates in particular on the effects of the Anglian Glaciation.  I don't agree with everything he says, but we can agree to differ until more conclusive evidence on glacial episode dating comes to hand.  But it's gratifying to know that in his work -- quite independent of mine -- he has come to broadly the same conclusions.  He suggests that much of the narrative developed by MPP, Ixer and Bevins about quarries, lost circles and so forth is unreliable, and that the glacial transport theory is far more likely to be correct than the human transport theory which suffers from a complete lack of supporting evidence.  He is also very sceptical about the proposal that the Altar Stone has come from the far NE of Scotland -- basing his views on zircon work which will no doubt be elaborated in future publications.

I like his work on Stonehenge bluestone shapes (Fig 3 in the Stonehenge article) but note that he shows some of the bluestone monoliths as pillars, whereas I have classified them as slabs.  That is a small point.  I look forward to further work on this topic.

And I also like his idea of the "contentious reach" -- an ill-defined area between the Somerset coast and Stonehenge, where the evidence is very subtle and difficult to interpret.  It's shown on his map which I reproduce at the head of this post.

Quote:

...........In the human-transport view, Stonehenge would be the only known ritual site where numerous (at least 43) pieces of non-local and not especially remarkable material, up to 3.5 tonnes in weight, were carried several hundreds of kilometres (overland some 300 km / 186 mi and by water 435 km / 270 mi). There is no known field record of this anywhere. We do know, however, that prominent, weather-resisting stones lying around within a largish area – perhaps 10s of kilometres away – definitely were commonly collected, brought together and carefully erected. Some of the Stonehenge sarsen stones, a few over 30 tonnes, are thought to have been collected from about 24 km away (Field et al. 2015; Harding et al. 2024; Daw 2025). In the Preseli area spotted dolerite stones were only used where they occurred locally, near to where they are found today, and there exists no evidence of them being especially revered. Motivation for the “stupendous feat” in human transport has always been a problematic weakness in the case, earlier attributing fantastic reasons like magical powers or sonic properties to the stones, or later mistakenly claiming reverence for them in sites of previous circles that then acted as sources for removal and transport (e.g., Parker Pearson et al. 2021). Fantastic claims, including inference of active quarrying to produce the stones at rock outcrops that are actually typical of natural jointing, weathering and collapse, are now, with sensible geology and geomorphology, and with robust geochemical evidence, thoroughly debunked. So, no quarries and no uprooting of former monuments (Bevins et al. 2022; John et al. 2015; John 2025).

Quote:

Craig Rhosyfelin also features as a bluestone megalith quarry, in this case of rhyolite (foliated rhyolitic tuff), despite there being no known megaliths from there, just a buried stump and a few lumps and many chips recovered at Stonehenge. The provenancing is robust, for its geochemistry and rock texture, but again, despite extensive and time-consuming excavations, no quarrying could be established. Despite objections made regarding the ‘quarries’ (e.g., John et al. 2015), there was no retraction while the focus shifted to removal and transport to Stonehenge of pre-existing monuments (Parker Pearson et al. 2021). In the now infamous BBC ‘Stonehenge: The Lost Circle Revealed’ (2021) a long search eventually ‘found’ the site of a dismantled circle at Waun Mawn that was claimed to have sourced Stonehenge stones. This was proved for viewers by the imprint of a removed stone at Waun Mawn that fitted a stone at Stonehenge “like a key in a lock”, with computer-graphic confirmation. The stone that was supposed to fit is Stone 62 (see Figs 1 and 2). The interview based on this ‘clinching discovery’ concerned a revolutionary new view of collaboration between ancient societies. The trouble is, however, that robust data show that the Waun Mawn stones came from a local source (Bevins et al. 2022) unlike anything at Stonehenge, while Stone 62 came from the eastern Preseli hills not far from other known natural sources. So the whole programme, with its intense and dramatic revelations of quarrying and removal from a former stone circle, proved to be spectacularly wrong. One might say that hindsight is a wonderful thing, but contemporary expert advice was always available and ignored, and the subsequent media show on what is known to be a topic of wide interest was an information disaster.

And on the "cow tooth" findings:

The claim that the cow-tooth findings add to confirmation of the “theory” that cattle were involved in transport of the megaliths is udderly ridiculous. (BJ -- I wish I had thought of that one!) Apart from confusing theory and hypothesis in this media hype, the unjustified claims were disturbing as they came from the Press Office of the British Geological Survey; no sane geologist would support them. Actually, the original scientific report of the cow-tooth findings, in contrast to the hype, was quite reserved, acknowledging limitations to interpretations that should be borne in mind. What is it then, really, that causes decent science to be so compromised in the media? There certainly is cavalier ignorance on the part of media producers, whose driver seems to be promotion of viewing figures or sales…

I'll return to these blog posts on another occasion when I have had a chance to read them more carefully.  As we see in the above quotes, in quite a few places in his posts, Peter does not mince his words.........

Prof Peter Kokelaar, who was George Herdman Professor of Geology in Liverpool University