Three recent studies by Anthony Clarke, Chris Kirkland and colleagues regarding prehistoric megaliths in Britain have faced significant criticism from geologists and archaeologists due to compromised geological sampling protocols and sensationalized claims. Their basic problem is a lack of field research and a consequent over-reliance on statistical data manipulation. I have already been strongly critical of their work on this blog, but by briefly evaluating each study separately we can highlight methodological shortcomings ranging from the use of commercial rock shop samples to unverified adhesive-tape rock surface sampling.
1. The Altar Stone Paper (August 2024)
Full Reference: Clarke, A., Uysal, I. T., Kempe, D. R. C., Drost, K., Ixer, R. A., Bevins, R. E., ... & Kirkland, C. L. (2024). A Scottish provenance for the Altar Stone of Stonehenge. Nature, 632, 570–575.
Analysis: The study claims the 6-tonne Altar Stone at Stonehenge originated in the Orcadian Basin of northeast Scotland rather than Wales, implying transport over 750 kilometres. Critics point out that the authors relied on convenience sampling of museum archival fragments and hand-specimens purchased from a commercial rock shop in Whitby rather than core samples taken within adedicated field research programme. Furthermore, a coherent Scottish match was allegedly achieved only by artificially pooling disparate datasets to smooth out local geological variations. There is an ongoing debate with Nash and Ciborowski on the significance, or otherwise, of the research.
2. The Salisbury Plain Sediments Paper (January 2026)
Full Reference: Clarke, A., Kirkland, C. L., et al. (2026). Detrital mineral fingerprinting of Salisbury Plain drainage systems: Constraints on the glacial transport of Stonehenge megaliths. Journal of Quaternary Science.
Analysis: This research analyzed microscopic mineral grains from southern English riverbeds to argue that ancient glaciers never reached Stonehenge, thereby reinforcing human transport theories relating to the bluestones in particular. Methodological critiques focus on the decision to take bulk samples from just four modern, active riverbed sediments—which continuously shift and erode—to reconstruct deep-time geological and glacial activity. Treating dynamic 21st-century river sandbanks as a pristine archive of ancient glacial movement introduces fundamental geomorphological errors.
3. The Devil's Arrows Paper (September 2026)
Full Reference: Clarke, A., Leary, J., & Kirkland, C. L. (2026). Deliberate prehistoric sourcing of the Devil's Arrows, Britain's tallest stone row. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 482(2345), 20260504.
Analysis: The paper asserts that Neolithic builders hauled Britain's tallest standing stones 18 kilometres from Brimham Rocks while intentionally bypassing identical closer outcrops. Lacking permission for core drilling, the researchers employed an experimental protocol of pressing adhesive tape onto the exterior of the megaliths for five minutes to gather surface grains. Critics argue this captures weathered outer crusts contaminated by atmospheric dust and biofilms rather than un-weathered bedrock, compounded by an absence of precise GPS coordinates or replication data. They then committed the fundamental error of comparing their standing stone data with the data from a 1 kg bulk rock sample collected from somewhere on Brimhan Crags.
==================
Here we have three textbook cases of extreme cavalier disregard for scientific protocol. However, because these studies were paired with aggressive media campaigns to announce spectacular "discoveries," this disregard crosses the line from simple carelessness into a profound breach of scientific ethics. We can recognize three corrupting behaviors:
Gross Methodological Recklessness: Deploying an entirely unproven field method (adhesive tape) on a scheduled monument, failing to document the exact sample locations with photos or grid references, and relying on commercial rock shops and dusty museum samples as baseline proxies isn't just cutting corners. It is a reckless abandonment of the basic data-gathering standards required to make any scientific claim verifiable.
Weaponised Sensationalism: By rushing to feed these spectacular, headline-grabbing narratives to the global press before their fragile, unproven methods could be independently scrutinized or replicated by the wider geological community, the authors used media hype to bypass standard scientific scepticism.
The Deceptive Illusion of Precision: Presenting highly speculative conclusions derived from corrupt, unrepresentative data—like surface dust, modern river sand, and unverified museum scraps—as "precise, high-tech breakthroughs" creates a deeply misleading illusion of certainty. It actively misleads both the public and the academic community.
Here we have three textbook cases of extreme cavalier disregard for scientific protocol. However, because these studies were paired with aggressive media campaigns to announce spectacular "discoveries," this disregard crosses the line from simple carelessness into a profound breach of scientific ethics. We can recognize three corrupting behaviors:
Gross Methodological Recklessness: Deploying an entirely unproven field method (adhesive tape) on a scheduled monument, failing to document the exact sample locations with photos or grid references, and relying on commercial rock shops and dusty museum samples as baseline proxies isn't just cutting corners. It is a reckless abandonment of the basic data-gathering standards required to make any scientific claim verifiable.
Weaponised Sensationalism: By rushing to feed these spectacular, headline-grabbing narratives to the global press before their fragile, unproven methods could be independently scrutinized or replicated by the wider geological community, the authors used media hype to bypass standard scientific scepticism.
The Deceptive Illusion of Precision: Presenting highly speculative conclusions derived from corrupt, unrepresentative data—like surface dust, modern river sand, and unverified museum scraps—as "precise, high-tech breakthroughs" creates a deeply misleading illusion of certainty. It actively misleads both the public and the academic community.
I wouldn't mind betting that here are more dodgy papers on the way........... and more banner headlines in the media.
While it may not technically meet the legal definition of data fabrication, treating legally protected national monuments as experimental playgrounds for media attention—while ignoring the absolute baseline rules of field documentation and sample collection —is an unforgivable failure of scientific accountability.
While it may not technically meet the legal definition of data fabrication, treating legally protected national monuments as experimental playgrounds for media attention—while ignoring the absolute baseline rules of field documentation and sample collection —is an unforgivable failure of scientific accountability.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please leave your message here