Foel Drygarn winter -- with snow

 Thanks to Phil Saliba for this great photo published on Facebook.  Foel Drygarn and the Preseli ridge following the recent snowfall........

AI Man -- the latest strange phenomenon

One of AI Man's little helpers. If you want him to, he will quite happily write your articles for you, without you having to do any thinking at all. 

One of our contributors used this old quote the other day: "A Man sees what he wants to see......and disregards the rest".    By adding the letter "I" it becomes even more interesting:

"AI Man sees what he wants to see......and disregards the rest"

AI Man is making more and more appearances nowadays, and not just in the field of Stonehenge argumentation.  How do we recognise this strange and rather pathetic figure?  Well, his main characteristic is that he voluntarily gives up his capacity for rational thought and critical scrutiny, and asks AI to do it for him instead.   It is essentially a cowardly and somewhat pathetic act.  And AI, being what it is, is only too happy to oblige, even to the extent of writing detailed commentaries, reviews or articles which look for all the world as if they have been written by genuine human beings.

In theory, content generated entirely by AI should be prohibited or rejected outright by academic publishers. Academic platforms like Researchgate do not actually ban AI-generated materials, but depend on the publishers of academic journals to do the scrutiny job for them.  But the policy falls flat on its face with the online publication of "pre-publication" or pre-print versions of articles that may or may not be destined for journal submission.  I have used this "pre-publication" route myself either for articles that are in the journal publication pipeline or for articles intended to place new material onto the record or to stimulate discussion.  So the Researchgate platform provides a useful academic service in this regard.

But Researchgate has no editorial role, and refers to itself as a social networking site.  It does not screen out "pre-publication" articles that are written by AI, and that is a major failing.  So our friendly or unfriendly AI Man can publish material on the platform under false pretences, using his own name, or he can attribite the authorship to some weird AI bot either known or unknown to the readers.  There are plenty of them out there, including the one called Grok.   

We are in very dangerous territory here..........

 

On maul mythology

 

A lump of sarsen found at Stonehenge. Size unknown. Maul or hammerstone?  Are the scars caused by percussion damage?  Are they fresh, or old?  Could some of these scars have been present on the boulder or stone surface before it was collected and used in the stone settings?

On the matter of mauls, there is huge confusion relating to terminology.  Castleden refers to small mauls and large mauls used for rough dressing and hammerstones used for the finer work.  Cleal et al (1995) refer to 261 weighed sarsen 'mauls' at Stonehenge, all but 20 of which weighed less than 2 kg.  Others would refer to these as hammer stones.

As followers of this blog will know, I have voiced my doubts about the big Stonehenge mauls on many occasions on this blog.  Just use the search engine to find some of the relevant posts.....

Anyway, following the enquiry from an American friend the other day about maul dimensions and weights, and after looking at Phil Harding's recent paper in The Antiquaries Journal, I have done some digging and have discovered that much of what we read in the literature is very unreliable indeed.  Over and again we read that mauls in the 20 kg - 30 kg weight range were used systematically by the builders of Stonehenge to shape the large sarsen monoliths and even to shape mortice and tenon features. This is all based on what Willian Gowland said in 1902.  He claimed that very heavy mauls were used as tools for "pecking" purposes, as indicated by the physical condition of the stones themselves and by the traces left on the big monoliths.  Most of the so-called mauls were of course used as packing stones, and found in or near the sockets of the big uprights.

There is certainly surface "damage" on many of the stones described in the literature as mauls, but as far as I can ascertain, it is ALWAYS assumed that the damage has been done by human beings.  I would like to see some hard evidence in support of that contention.  Are the fracture scars always "fresh"?  Or could some of them -- or all of them -- have been present on the boulder surfaces prior to collection by human beings?  In other words, could we be looking at signs of glacial transport?

I don't know about you, but even when I was young and strong, I would have found it pretty well impossible to use stones heavier than bags of cement as "bashing tools" --- and that it would not have been any easier even if a mate or two had been helping me.  As Phil points out in his article, the term "maul" is a bit arbitrary anyway -- when is a hammer stone so big that it has to be referred to as a "maul"??  As he points out, some authorities prefer just to refer to "hammers" -- some quite small and some rather large and inconvenient.........

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquaries-journal/article/demystifying-sarsen-breaking-the-unbreakable/295466A7C6126D07D6987D7F042D603C

Quote:

Large sarsen mauls, which were up to 29kg in weight, were frequently formed from rounded quarzitic boulders that were obtained from gravel that is present in the coombes around Stonehenge. Gowland’s classification has been widely adopted,although Whitaker, in a comprehensive study focusing on the way in which they might have been selected and worked, has questioned the complex division, preferring to classify them collectively as hammers.

Quote:

Gowland proposed that monoliths might have been manufactured by percussion using massive mauls. When these were used in sequence, he suggested that the technique could be used to split large, naturally tabular blocks along a preconceived fracture line. This ‘sledgehammering’process could be improved by the prior use of fire to heat the stone. ........ Gowland’s model was endorsed by Atkinson, who, invoking techniques employed by sarsen workers and related quarrying industries, suggested that wedges might be used, replacing metal examples with wooden ones. This tenuous suggestion relied on conveniently located natural cracks in the sarsen to be successful. Its use remains entirely speculative, untested or confirmed in practice, and largely inappropriate for prehistoric sarsen shaping at Stonehenge. 

I think that the larger mauls -- maybe over 15 kg in weight -- were never used as tools, and that the "human" percussion marks displayed on many of them were made with smaller hammer stones to shape them or reduce their size so as to make convenient packing stones.  In other words, I do not believe the proposition that the big mauls were initially or primarily used as tools before being used secondarily as packing stones.

The myth of big mauls being used as tools has too easily been accepted, maybe because it reinforces the idea that the builders of Stonehenge were not just clever but also super-fit and superhuman -- and the idea of these powerfully built ancestors bashing away at the massive sarsens with huge unwieldy boulders is of course very handy if you are seeking to impress a busload of wide-eyed tourists on a tour of the ancient monument.........

I don't think our ancestors were that stupid. They knew all about expenditure of effort and cost-effectiveness.  When they built or partly built Stonehenge, they found lots o smallish sarsen boulders lying around, and they put these to good use as packing stones.  Some of them had to be reduced in size, and some were used as they were found, without any modification.  They were never used as tools.  

I have been checking up on the actual evidence in support of the "maul tool" hypothesis, and there is none.  It is all very circumstantial and speculative.  I have been having a protracted argument in AI mode on Google because it told me this: 

"Numerous practical, full-scale experiments and public demonstrations have been conducted. These have generally confirmed that the "pecking" method with heavy, handheld mauls or hammerstones is effective, though extremely time-consuming and laborious. This hands-on experience, involving archaeologists like Phil Harding and Julian Richards, has been influential in moving the consensus away from pure speculation to a practical understanding of the logistics involved."

When I challenged my AI friend on this, and said it was factually inaccurate, it had to admit eventually that there is no literature describing full-scale experiments and public demonstrations of the use of very heavy mauls for shaping big sarsens, and that it was simply seeking to justify "the consensus view."  

After much interesting and entertaining argumentation, this episode confirmed my view that while AI is useful in some circumstances, it would be better referred to as "artificial stupidity" because it is incapable of factoring in common sense, and always tries to please you by telling you the things you want to hear. It's essentially gullible, and does not seem to recognize a leading question for what it is.  It places undue emphasis on confirming the "establishment consensus".  It places undue trust in the weight or status of publications and in academic titles.  We have known all of that for some time now. 

Anyway, it was good to hear, on the R3 Today programme this very morning, the boss of Google and assorted other experts saying pretty well the same things as me.

 

BBC : "The truth is whatever we say it is........"

"Science is about evidence, not wishful thinking....."

I'm watching the developing crisis at the BBC with some concern, but I must say that I am not all that surprised.  In my own limited contact with the BBC over editorial standards, relating to my complaint about that absurd 2021 "Lost Circle" TV programme, I am appalled by the arrogance and complacency with which my comments were greeted.  First of all, putting in a formal complaint was not that easy.  It was initially not accepted by the BBC, which led to my making the complaint to Ofcom, who then shunted it back to the BBC.  In 2022 I provided even more detail about the nonsense contained within the programme, and the demonstrable falseness of many of the claims made by MPP and Alice Roberts,   At that time the programme had been broadcast six times. The BBC replied: 

".....we've received no information that would lead us to form the view that the film can't be shown again."  As I have pointed out before, that was extremely arrogant and complacent. The BBC did not ask for proof associated with my complaint, and they were clearly not prepared to check things out for themselves. 

As of November 2025, the programme has been broadcast on multiple occasions (at least 14), including a showing on BBC Four just a few days ago.  It has also been continuously available for streaming since it was first shown in 2021.   It is still promoted on Alice Roberts's Wikipedia page, which also quotes her as saying: "science is about evidence, not wishful thinking".  Hmmmmm......

 That notorious programme, based entirely on assumptions and speculations dressed up as responsible and reliable science, falls far short of the standards expected of the BBC. In my view it brings the BBC into disrepute, and I have said this many times before on this blog.

What makes things even more ironic is the latest BBC PR campaign, including lots of hype about "BBC Verify".  The corporation claims a commitment to the unvarnished truth on everything, to the extent that they ruthlessly strip out material that may be classified as misinformation or disinformation.  Well, they do nothing of the sort.  On the basis of my own experience, I can say that they make editorial decisions on the basis of "impact" and  financial benefit, not on the basis of hard science or factual reliability.  And when broadcast nonsense is pointed out to them, they go straight into defensive mode, trotting out platitudes such as that which I have quoted above.

Not good enough, BBC.  But it's rather sad that it takes a threat from that idiot in the White House Ballroom to force the Corporation to face up to its complacency and its highly defective editorial decision making processes.

Ailsa Craig erratics in Ireland

 An Ailsa Craig erratic boulder (much sampled by geologists) on the beach at White Park Bay on the north coast of Northern Ireland.  This is just the tip of the boulder -- it's the biggest Ailsa Craig erratic I have seen.

The pic is from Peter Wilson's interesting video on glaciation and glacial features of the Irish Mountains:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voQYLd5svmc

Peter mentions that Ailsa Craig erratics are found all the way along the eastern coast of Ireland and as far to the south-east as Cork Harbour.  That's 350 miles from the source in the Firth of Clyde.  Perfect spot provenancing?  Well, not quite, since we don't know how extensive the original micro-granite intrusion might have been before thye onset of glaciation and the recent (Holocene) rise of relative sea-level.

The bedrock in White Park Bay is Upper Cretaceous chalk or "white limestone".  As a matter of interest, one of the larger erratics found at Kenn, not far from Bristol, is made of "white limestone" and is assumed to have come from Northern Ireland -- transported by the Irish Sea Ice Stream.

Ken Follett jumps onto the Stonehenge bandwaggon

 

Here we go again.  One would have thought that there were quite enough dodgy Stonehenge novels, but here comes another.  I have not read any of them, but the feedback from those who have does not inspire confidence....

The best-known Stonehenge novel is of course the one by Bernard Cornwell, published back in 2011.  It had mixed reviews, but several reviewers referred to the novel's "well researched historical content" and its "historical authenticity"..........  what that means is that Cornwell has accepted and adopted the standard establishment  mythology about Stonehenge as the basis for his story, going on to build his own fantastical tale on top of it. You take "the truth"and then build on it.  That is what always happens with historical fiction -- I have tried to do it myself with my Angel Mountain novels. 

Of course Bernard Cornwell wanted to use Stonehenge as a setting for a novel because it's a guaranteed money-spinner.    I don't blame him for that........

Anyway, the latest venture into "Stonehenge fiction" is the novel by Ken Follett, published about a month ago and called "Circle of Days".  Again it assumes that the "basic facts" about Stonehenge (including the human transport of stones from Wales) are known and accepted as "the truth", and are then used as an underpinning for the fantastical story invented by the author. He puts people and their interactions into the setting.   Ken is a Welshman who has sold millions of copies of his books, and maybe the link with Wales gave him an extra prod for the writing of the novel.  He was on BBC R4 the other morning playing his part in promoting the book, as all top authors are encouraged to do by their publishers.  Again this novel has had very mixed reviews, but that won't worry either the author or the publisher, since you can't please all of the reading public all of the time.

So I'm not blaming any of the Stonehenge fiction writers for jumping onto the bandwaggon and writing their tales.  But this reminds us of just how successful EH and the archaeological establishment has been in their marketing of Stonehenge mythology, which is endlessly marketed as "the truth".  That marketing is what inspires authors to weave their tales for the entertainment of the novel-reading public -- and every new novel reinforces the myth.  The real truth?  To hell with the truth, when there is money to be made........

Stonehenge and climate change

Two men and a female colleague have been cleared of all charges, following a protest against the fossil fuel industry as part of the "Just Stop Oil" campaign.  They had sprayed some of the Stonehenge sarsens with an environmentally-friendly orange powder.  They had denied all charges of damaging an ancient protected monument and causing a public nuisance, after targeting Stonehenge as part of an ongoing fossil fuel protest by the direct action group.

What a waste of public money!  The trial lasted for 10 days.  Well, good for the jury.  The "public nuisance" was all down to the overreaction by Englishy Heritage, and the "damage" done to the stones was infinitisemally small,  compared with the damage done each year from starling and other bird droppings.

Since this blog site is all about Stonehenge and climate change,  I feel it is my duty to congratulate the protestors........