The bluestones and their "quarries" -- some forthright views from Peter Kokelaar

One of the figures from Peter's blog.

I have been following up some very interesting material relating to the glaciation of the Gower, and have looked again at Prof Peter Kokelaar's blog.  

https://kokelaargower.com/

It's a treasurehouse of field observations and new data, summarising the contents of his book called "All our own Water" and adding much new material.  There are two blog posts that are of particular interest:

https://kokelaargower.com/stonehenge/

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

Many of the points made in Peter's posts are very similar to the points I have made repeatedly on this blog and in my published papers  -- but I had forgotten how forthright some of his language is! 

Quote: 

"Many people will be aware of a long-running, media-fuelled ‘debate’ regarding the delivery to Stonehenge of a suite of rocks – the so-called bluestones – most of which certainly originated in Pembrokeshire. I shall not engage with the negative elements of that ‘debate’, which rather uncompromisingly set human transport against glacial (erratic) explanations. I do, however, briefly explain what seems reasonable to believe and might just nudge the reader towards a possible half-way house....."

Most of Peter's critical scrutiny of the literature occurs in the article entitled "Stonehenge" -- and in spite of attempting great restraint, he cannot resist (and who can blame him?) some choice phraseology! On the bluestone debate he refers to "a jumble of confusing claims, counterclaims and manifest nonsense, with a good measure of misleading media hype thrown in....."

Quotes:
"..........the ‘debate’ has involved somewhat alarming instances of serious subjectivity and media hype unlikely to promote the lay person’s trust in ‘expert opinions and methods’, probably to the contrary."

".........when all of the claims for human transport are stripped away for being without any foundation, ice is the only obvious agent, even if the last reach of it is not obviously or unequivocally recorded. Largely because of the media hype, which persistently favours the “extraordinary human endeavour”, ice transport currently gets practically no mention (e.g., the BBC Countryfile on Stonehenge of 14th December 2025 and the Channel 5 “Stonehenge: Secrets of the new stone” of 3rd March 2026), but that is misleading. Ice transport warrants the light of reasonable consideration."

"........we will recall some of the media’s misdirected presentations of the human transport view as if it was well supported by archaeological or scientific facts. This has been a bizarre distraction at least, if not damaging."

"There has been a strong tendency to interpret all fragments of monolith stone types as reflecting ‘dressing’ and accidental distribution by human hands and thus to refer to them as ‘debitage’. This might be justified in the vicinity of the monuments, but the interpretation potentially involves circular reasoning."

"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)."

On the Boles Barrow spotted dolerite boulder: "However, the range of convoluted and contradictory claims made through time, not helped by the boulder being temporarily ‘lost’ and including the suggestion that it was transported to Stonehenge and then stolen for a garden ornament (subsequently refuted), is astonishing and mind-numbing."

"There is not a shred of evidence that humans transported any ‘bluestones’ all the way from Pembrokeshire to Stonehenge. The human-transport view was initiated with HH Thomas (1923) and thereafter centred on the lack of spotted dolerites in the erratic trail beyond Pembrokeshire, plus the seeming absence of evidence of ice movement onto Salisbury Plain. The supposed quarries and previous-monument sources have been disproved and the bizarre embellishment concerning the transport by cattle similarly is unwarranted."

On the so-called bluestone quarries: "........nothing about those virtually pristine igneous rock outcrops could lead a field geologist to consider them anything other than naturally formed, including their aprons of fragmental debris. .......... To ‘inform’ the BBC-viewing public that quarrying by humans broke out the pillars ready for transport at the very summit of a perfectly natural outcrop, is ridiculous "

"There are hundreds of perfectly natural outcrops of jointed dolerite like this dotted throughout upland Britain, some quite nearby too, and of course also abroad. Surely many thousands of years of freeze-thaw mechanical break-up cannot be overlooked? From this nonsense, ignoring simple natural processes and geology and by implication suggesting ancient quarry sites all over the country, there apparently can have been no scientific-editorial oversight and advice for the archaeologist(s). Gross mis-pleading like this, on a television channel that prides itself in distinguishing the truth, surely undermines simple enquiry and learning, undermines the credibility of actual experts, and, given the n-fold repetition of the BBC programme, is effectively misleading a host of people. Thankfully numerous sensible people have taken issue with the programme and the ‘quarries’ have been debunked and abandoned amongst aficionados, although the BBC continues the promotion."

"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 stones from pre-existing monuments (Parker Pearson et al. 2021)."

Regarding "The Lost Circle" TV programme: "...........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 media show on what is known to be a topic of wide interest was an information disaster."

"The nonsense carried on. After the Altar Stone saga in 2024, in 2025..... there came another remarkable gem of mis-information." Regarding the claims made about a cattle tooth: ".......nothing supports these contentions, which are false and are sheer hype."

"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. 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… Honesty about the issues might have been more interesting and more stimulating of genuine interest… Some of the media nonsense is arrogant and insulting."

So there we are then......... I am clearly not alone in expressing concern about the pseudo-science being fed to the world by the the most vociferous part of the Stonehenge establishment.