THE BOOK
Some of the ideas discussed in this blog are published in my new book called "The Stonehenge Bluestones" -- available by post and through good bookshops everywhere. Bad bookshops might not have it....
To order, click
HERE

Tuesday, 26 June 2012

More on the Dartmoor Ice Cap

I missed this earlier, but there is a nice video on the BBC web site here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-18422207

I assume the recording comes from the BBC South-West regional news programme.  The piece features Stephan Harrison (above) and contains some interesting background material -- simply explained, for those who find the learned article heavy going!

The model reproduced above is part of a computer simulation -- the image shows what the ice cap may have looked like after 1210 years of development.








Monday, 25 June 2012

A possible source for the Altar Stone?


Note from Phil Morgan, for which many thanks:

I've attached a photo of of Hay Bluff, the Senni Beds of which could, arguably, be a candidate for the source of the Altar Stone. The base of the Senni Beds is indicated by the thin yellow line, and the  bed thickness in this area is about 160m.
As you probably know, the boundary between England and Wales runs along the crest of the Bluff, so if this striking feature turns out to be the source of the AS, then I wonder which nation will claim possession rights?
As usual, you are welcome to use the photo if you wish.


Thanks to Phil for this.  We have had a number of posts on this blog about the Altar Stone, referring frequently to the rejection of the idea that it came from the Cosheston Sandstones of Milford Haven.  Rob Ixer is sure it has come from the Senni Beds, which are extensive in South Wales.  The preference at the moment, among the geologists, is to provenance the Altar Stone to the Towy Valley or somewhere else around the western fringes of the Brecon Beacons and the South Wales Coalfield.  That makes sense to me, since valley glaciers flowing broadly southwards could well have introduced this stone -- and maybe others -- into the path of the Irish Sea Glacier which later on flowed broadly eastwards towards the coasts of SW England.

Could the stone have come from the Senni Beds of the Welsh Borders?  Personally I doubt it, but it's quite possible that erratics from the Hay area could have been carried to the Stanton Drew area and even onto the flanks of the Mendips.  What I don't know is how much variation there may be within the Senni Beds, and how accurate the provenancing of the Altar Stone can be.

Perhaps Rob or another geologist can enlighten us?

Chris's Review of the new MPP book



As requested by Tom, here is Chris's full review of the new MPP book.

 =====================
Chris Johnson's review of the new MPP book

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Stonehenge-Exploring-Greatest-Stone-Mystery/dp/085720730X

The author gives selected results from the extensive explorations of recent years that he has been leading. These titbits are interesting to the specialist but newcomers to the subject will find themselves lost and confused. Specialists find themselves wondering what else has been discovered that Mike Parker Pearson chooses not to mention.

The relentless pursuit of Mike's theory that Stonehenge is a graveyard becomes wearisome. Human remains are indeed present but relatively few considering the number of people involved over a thousand year period. Mike explains this by asserting that the scarcity of remains is evidence for a dynasty, a ruling elite. He fails to explain why a ruling dynasty could have exercised such control over its workers at a time when Britain was thinly populated and there were abundant natural resources such as deer to sustain any clan that did not fancy the hard work of constructing monuments.

On the positive side Mike advances good arguments for reconsidering chronology, including the placement of the Bluestones from Wales in the first phase. He makes a good case for a link with the recent excavations at Durrington Walls, but fails to address the distinct contrasts with the Avebury monument which is close by. This superficial treatment is frustrating for the serious student. Alternative theories for, say, the transport of the Welsh stones by glaciers are considered and dismissed, in this case failing to take account of the latest evidence. Likewise the theory of a healing connection with Prescelli is quickly dismissed on the basis of Mike's opinion. The book is heavy on opinion and this is not what one expects from a leading academic.

All in all a disappointing book - it could and should have been a lot better, especially considering the amount of public money that has been invested in the projects he has been leading. Still, stonehenge obsessives will find it required reading if only for the dribble of facts emerging from recent scientific work.   

Friday, 22 June 2012

On Stone Age politics



This item on the BBC web site is no doubt based on a Sheffield University press release, timed to coincide with the publication of the latest MPP book. These ideas about political unification and so forth seem to me to be fantastical, but quite in tune with the modern style of archaeology, in which fact and fantasy are blended together in such a way that it becomes difficult for those of independent mind to sort out what sort of factual basis there is for all the speculation.

I'm not surprised by the MPP /SRP "conclusions" (which should really be called "suggestions") since they were aired in last year's controversial lecture in Newport which I criticised heavily in this blog.

Anyway, here is the report, for what it is worth......

----------------------
Stonehenge was built to unify Britain, researchers conclude
-------------------------------

22 June 2012

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-18550513

Building Stonehenge was a way to unify the people of Stone Age Britain, researchers have concluded.
 

Teams working on the Stonehenge Riverside Project believe the circle was built after a long period of conflict between east and west Britain.

Researchers also believe the stones, from southern England and west Wales, symbolize different communities.

Prof Mike Parker Pearson said building Stonehenge required everyone "to pull together" in "an act of unification".

The Stonehenge Riverside Project (SRP) has been investigating the archaeology of Stonehenge and its landscape for the past 10 years.

In 2008, SRP researchers found that Stonehenge had been erected almost 500 years earlier than had originally been thought.

Now teams from the universities of Sheffield, Manchester, Southampton, Bournemouth and University College London, have concluded that when the stone circle was built "there was a growing island-wide culture".

"The same styles of houses, pottery and other material forms were used from Orkney to the south coast - this was very different to the regionalism of previous centuries," said Prof Parker Pearson, from University of Sheffield.
"Stonehenge itself was a massive undertaking, requiring the labour of thousands to move stones from as far away as west Wales, shaping them and erecting them.

"Just the work itself, requiring everyone literally to pull together, would have been an act of unification."

Stonehenge may also have been built in a place that already had special significance for prehistoric Britons.

'Centre of the world'
 

The SRP team found that its solstice-aligned avenue sits upon a series of natural landforms that, by chance, form an axis between the directions of midsummer sunrise and midwinter sunset.

"When we stumbled across this extraordinary natural arrangement of the sun's path being marked in the land, we realised that prehistoric people selected this place to build Stonehenge because of its pre-ordained significance," said Mr Parker Pearson.

"This might explain why there are eight monuments in the Stonehenge area with solstitial alignments, a number unmatched anywhere else.

"Perhaps they saw this place as the centre of the world".

Previous theories suggesting the great stone circle was inspired by ancient Egyptians or extra-terrestrials have been firmly rejected by researchers.

"All the architectural influences for Stonehenge can be found in previous monuments and buildings within Britain, with origins in Wales and Scotland," said Mr Parker Pearson.

"In fact, Britain's Neolithic people were isolated from the rest of Europe for centuries.

"Britain may have become unified but there was no interest in interacting with people across the Channel.

"Stonehenge appears to have been the last gasp of this Stone Age culture, which was isolated from Europe and from the new technologies of metal tools and the wheel."

Wednesday, 20 June 2012

The myth of "periglacial Dartmoor"



I have been having another look at the Evans et al paper on Dartmoor and pondering on the manner in which an "established wisdom" actually becomes established........

For many years I have been intrigued by the fact that professional geomorphologists, over several generations, have simply accepted the idea that the uplands of southern Britain (we'd better not call them mountains) have been affected by periglacial conditions but not by glacier ice.  Hardly anybody has been prepared to stand out from the crowd apart from Stephan Harrison, arising from his work on Exmoor -- maybe because the "periglacial paradigm" was argued so forcefully by famous establishment figures such as Prof David Linton.  But over and again we have seen "definitive" statements in the specialist literature to the effect that SW England has never been affected by glacier ice, and that everything in the landscape can be explained by reference to oscillating periglacial and more temperate conditions during the course of the Pleistocene.  Since geomorphologists have been saying this sort of thing, it is perhaps not surprising that archaeologists have seized upon their statements and have assumed that everything is sorted, and that nobody talks nowadays about glaciers affecting the counties of Somerset, Devon and Cornwall.

A number of things have contributed to the questioning and eventual destruction of the myth.  After Stephan's work on Exmoor suggested very strongly that glacial conditions were possible -- and had indeed existed on the uplands of the South-West, a number of researchers (including me, on this blog) pointed out that the Exmoor findings were perfectly in line with the evidence of glacial action in Somerset, the evidence of till at Fremington, the giant erratics on the coasts of Devon and Cornwall, and the occurrence of till on Lundy Island. (Use the search facility on this blog if you want more detail.)  Then along came glacial modelling, which allowed the reconstruction of ancient ice sheets and ice caps through the use of increasingly sophisticated data sets and calculation procedures.  This work, based at Aberystwyth University and elsewhere, showed that it was possible -- and indeed probable -- that the Irish Sea Ice Sheet had pushed across the coasts of SW England on more than one occasion, with the more extreme models showing glacier ice covering most of Wiltshire.  When James Scourse and others showed that Irish Sea ice had reached the Scilly Isles in the Devensian or Last Glacial Maximum,  only about 20,000 years ago, the computer models were shown to be essentially quite reliable. 

One would have thought that on the basis of all this new work, geomorphologists would have been happy to go on the record to state unequivocally that the Irish Sea Glacier HAD affected the counties of Somerset, Devon and Cornwall and that local ice caps must also have been present during the Pleistocene.  But when I asked senior geomorphologists to sign up to a simple letter to British Archaeology laying out the facts, only a couple of them agreed;  some of them refused, and most never bothered to respond.  I was disappointed and surprised by that, since it seemed to suggest that geomorphologists were reluctant to become involved in "the Stonehenge problem" even in a peripheral way, and that they did not want to be involved in anything that might upset their colleagues in Archaeology departments!  Whether these senior academics were afflicted by apathy or diplomacy, their silence simply served to encourage senior professors like MPP, GM and TD to believe that there was a consensus among earth scientists that no glacial processes had ever affected South-West England.  So, somewhat disgusted by the wimpish tendencies of some of my senior ex-colleagues, I decided to submit the letter under my own name -- and to his eternal credit, Mike Pitts published it in British Archaeology:
http://brian-mountainman.blogspot.se/2011/12/brit-arch-letter-published.html

So there we are then.  Has the myth of "periglacial Dartmoor" and the "ice-free South-West" finally been laid to rest? I doubt it -- too much academic capital has been invested in it for any instant change of attitude.  And don't let's forget that many archaeologists still accept that whatever Chris Clark, James Scourse and Chris Green may have written in rather influential articles in the past MUST be true.  They may not have noticed it, but the world has moved on -- and thanks to David Evans, Stephan Harrison and their colleagues we now have an influential article in the peer-reviewed literature that sits easily with all of the other field evidence which we have examined on this blog over the last couple of years.

Listen carefully, archaeologists.  The South-West of England has been affected by the ice of the Irish Sea Glacier, and by local ice caps, on several occasions during the Pleistocene.  This means that it is perfectly feasible for glacial erratics to have been carried from West Wales, Ireland and even Scotland on more than one occasion and dumped well inland of the Bristol Channel coast.   Got that?

Below I reproduce the Introduction to the recent article by Evans et al -- with key phrases highlighted in bold type.  It's a very interesting comment on how academic thinking (even in mainstream scientific disciplines) can be affected by fashions, conservatism and senior academics who have reputations to protect, to the point where perfectly sound observations presented by people who are not a part of the academic establishment can be ignored and -- dare I say it? -- even sneered at.

============================

The glaciation of Dartmoor: the southernmost independent Pleistocene ice cap

in the British Isles

David J.A. Evans, Stephan Harrison, Andreas Vieli, Ed Anderson


EXTRACT FROM THE INTRODUCTION

Although the granite uplands of Dartmoor (Fig. 1) have long
been considered to be relict permafrost and periglacial landscapes
that lay beyond the limits of Quaternary glaciations (Linton, 1949;
te Punga, 1956; Waters, 1964, 1965; Gerrard, 1988), the notion that
glaciers had developed in these areas was entertained by some
early researchers
(Ormerod, 1869; Pillar, 1917). The evidence pre-
sented at that time was largely circumstantial even anecdotal. For
example, Ormerod (1869) reported that “he had not seen any
glacial markings on the Dartmoor granite, but that Professor Otto
Torrell, when visiting the Moor with him last autumn, gave an
unqualified opinion that many of the gravels were the remains of
moraines” (p. 99). In contrast, Somervail (1897) suggested that the
absence of small lakes on Dartmoor was incompatible with former
glaciations and wrote: “It is true that various attempts have from
time to time been made by various observers to refer certain
phenomena occurring on Dartmoor to local glaciation. None of
these, however, are, I think, the result of true glacial action, but
must be referred to the more common operations of running water.
During the cold of the Pleistocene period, and at its close, the floods
from melting snows would perfectly accomplish all the distribution
and arrangement of that deposit of angular rocky debris
surrounding Dartmoor so frequently referred to ice. The same cause
would also equally well explain these accumulations of scree
matter filling some of the valleys, which some have regarded as the
remains of ancient glacial moraines” (p. 388). Pillar (1917) later
argued that Dartmoor should have been glaciated given its prox-
imity to the Pleistocene ice sheets: “As the meteorological condi-
tions must have been the same in these contiguous areas, it seems
somewhat strange that land in such close proximity should be
considered as outside the range of Ice influence” (p. 179).

A more systematic and empirical approach was taken by Pickard
(1943), who argued for the former existence of extensive glaciers
and small ice caps on Dartmoor during the Quaternary based on
a large collection of varied features, some more convincing than
others. In particular he presents evidence of amphitheatre-like
valley heads or incipient cirques, glacially “worn boulders” and
grooved rocks, “moutonnée rocks”, perched boulders, moraines
comprising ridges of blocky debris, and potential glacifluvial
gravels. Although this evidence has never been directly refuted, the
predominant view since the 1950s has been that the Dartmoor
landscape of summit and valley-side tors is the product of peri-
glacial mechanical weathering and slope processes
that have
exploited zones of rotten granite and exposed large coherent
bedrock residuals, which because of their dilatation joints or
pseudo-bedding resemble corestone stacks. The efficacy of these
cold climate processes, which must have operated over a large
proportion of the Quaternary, was enhanced by pre-existing granite
breakdown through deep weathering in the tropical climate of the
Tertiary (Linton, 1955) and/or pneumatolysis during much earlier
periods of deep thermal activity (Palmer and Neilson, 1962; Eden
and Green, 1971). Despite the greater substance of the large
volume of work undertaken since Pickard’s paper, it is not clear
how the present consensus regarding the absence of glacial ice on
Dartmoor came about.
There are several possibilities, the first of
which is the assumption largely championed by Linton (1955) that
the development of tors required a lengthy period of ice free
conditions. Palmer and Neilson’s (1962) view that the Dartmoor
tors reflected prolonged periglacial action, rather than the opera-
tion of tropical deep chemical weathering processes as Linton had
argued, may also have served to further alienate notions of Dart-
moor glaciation and consolidate the periglacial paradigm. The
second possibility is that Pickard’s views may not have been taken
seriously. His 1943 paper was his Presidential address for the
Devonshire Association and was, presumably, not refereed. More-
over, although it appears he had a strong interest in natural history
and geology, he was an opthalmist by training and was likely
regarded as an enthusiastic amateur by later geomorphologists.

However, recent research on Exmoor (Fig. 1) by Harrison et al.
(1998, 2001) has demonstrated the existence of tills and associ-
ated glacial landforms in the vicinity of The Punchbowl, a north-
facing valley near the village of Winsford. The tills have been
deposited at altitudes down to 255 m asl probably by a glacier snout
that flowed into The Punchbowl from a small ice cap located on the
summit plateau of Winsford Hill (426 m asl). The presence of glacial
ice at relatively low altitudes on Exmoor enabled Harrison (2001) to
speculate on the likelihood that Dartmoor had been similarly
glaciated at times during the Pleistocene.
The Exmoor glaciation
evidence is entirely predictable considering that areas of high
terrain, such as those located in SW England, are likely to have been
cold enough to host small ice caps and glacierets during full glacial
periods when British-Irish Ice Sheet limits extended as far south as
the Isles of Scilly (Scourse, 1991; Scourse et al., 1991; Scourse and
Furze, 2001; Hiemstra et al., 2006, Fig. 1). Indeed, numerical
modelling exercises invariably create ice masses over the SW
English uplands during the Last Glacial Maximum
(LGM) (Hubbard
et al., 2009) merely because the environmental boundary condi-
tions for the model will develop glacier ice where the local equi-
librium line intersects the topography. Moreover, the plateau-style
of topography on Exmoor and Dartmoor is conducive to the accu-
mulation of snow on the broad summits in addition to its buildup in
the deeper valley heads due to snowblow
(cf. Manley, 1959; Sissons
and Sutherland, 1976; Sissons, 1979; Sutherland, 1984; Mitchell,
1996; Rea and Evans, 2003, 2007; Coleman et al., 2009). There-
fore the style of glaciation will be similar to the plateau icefield
glacial landsystem, wherein predominantly thin, largely cold based
and protective ice on upland surfaces would drain into valley heads
radiating from the plateaux to form locally thick, warm-based
snouts capable of eroding the substrate
(Rea et al., 1998; Rea and
Evans, 2003, 2007). Such erosion would have been responsible for
the production of The Punchbowl on Exmoor and potentially the
overdeepened valley segments around the high summits of
northern Dartmoor, identified by Pickard (1943) as evidence for
glacial modification.

The evidence for former glacier ice in marginally glacierized
terrains, such as those represented by Exmoor and Dartmoor, is
likely to be subtle for a number of reasons. First, the predominantly
thin ice located on low-angled slopes would only generate low
shear stresses and low flow rates, so the creation of well developed
bedrock erosional forms is unlikely. Additionally, the coarse crys-
talline nature of the Dartmoor granite is not suitable for the pres-
ervation of striae and other small scale glacial erosional features.
Second, the absence of high bedrock cliffs above the accumulation
zones of plateau icefields precludes the provision of extraglacial
rock debris, which together with the resistant nature of the granite
substrate would have resulted in small glacial debris loads and
hence weakly developed moraines and tills. Glaciers would have
instead only been able to incorporate periglacial slope deposits,
which after at least several hundred thousands of years of weath-
ering and gelifluction will have reached significant thicknesses in
valley bottoms (Waters, 1964). Moreover, such deposits would have
developed into large rock-fronted lobes and possibly rock glaciers
in some valley heads in the absence of, or between, glaciations,
similar to the stone runs of the Falkland Islands (Joyce, 1950;
Clapperton, 1975; Hansom et al., 2008; Wilson et al., 2008).
Harrison et al. (1996) have suggested such an origin for some
boulder lobes on Dartmoor. These rock-fronted, lobate forms, once
their ice content was removed, would resemble thin till sheets and
moraines in some settings. Finally, glacier ice that is frozen to its
bed effectively protects even delicate periglacial landforms and
sediments which therefore can survive one or more glaciations (cf.
Clapperton, 1970; Whalley et al., 1981; Dyke, 1993; Kleman, 1994;
Kleman and Borgström, 1994; Rea et al., 1996a, b). On Dartmoor, the
tors and clitter fields were initially regarded by Linton (1949, 1955)
as features that could not survive glaciation but he later modified
this view by arguing that they could be protected by thin and slow
moving ice. This principle of limited glacial erosion has since been
used to explain the preservation of tors in the Cairngorms (Sugden,
1968; Hall and Phillips, 2006; Phillips et al., 2006) and the presence
of preglacially weathered in situ bedrock and weathering pits in
glaciated east and northeast Scotland (Hall and Sugden, 1987; Hall
and Mellor, 1988; Hall and Glasser, 2003).

Although Dartmoor has been long established as an exemplar of
a mature periglacial landscape, no systematic assessment of
potential glacial landform evidence has ever been undertaken
,
likely due to the overwhelmingly strong periglacial sediment and
landform signature. Given the recent advances in our under-
standing of plateau icefield landsystems and the preservation of
tors and associated deposits beneath cold based ice, the systematic
survey and mapping of the Dartmoor landscape for potential glacial
evidence is warranted. We now show evidence that northern
Dartmoor (Fig. 1) was glaciated and discuss the evidence for
glaciations in the context of alternative views of landscape inheri-
tance.
As the resolution of these issues is critical to the recon-
struction of regional glaciation levels and palaeo-equilibrium line
altitudes in marginal glacierized terrains and hence the refinement
of boundary conditions for numerical ice sheet models, the
central aim of this paper is to assess the nature of the Dartmoor
landscape in the light of current understandings of plateau ice
landsystems.

The Bluestone Collection of Arthur Dennis Passmore

Thanks to Pete Glastonbury for drawing attention to this interesting fellow:

"I spent some time in Wiltshire Heritage Museum today and heard some things about the antiques dealer and amateur archaeologist AD Passmore (1877-1958).
Seems he was the plague of the Ministry of Works in his time. He found pieces of bluestone all over the place and collected them up, including a large sized piece near where the car park is now.
His collection is scatted over several museums but I have been told that if someone were to looking into his works they would find a lot of references to the bluestones he claims to have found.
There are some links to his collections in the Bodleian but his paperwork is scattered in various museums.
Devizes has a good amount.
His note's on Silbury mention finding the large bluestone chunk.
Archaeologists of his time hardly credited him at all".


Can anybody else provide information about the man and his rocks?

Friday, 15 June 2012

MPP's New Stonehenge Book

 

 Here is the Amazon info for the new book by Mike Parker Pearson.  It's only just out, but already it has attracted one very hostile review.  Being of a mischievous disposition, I can't resist adding it onto the end of this post........
We all have to live with hostile reviews.  If you venture into print, you can expect all sorts of people with all sorts of agendas to come after you.

==================

Stonehenge: Exploring the Greatest Stone Age Mystery

Mike Parker Pearson

• Hardcover: 416 pages.  Price £25.00
• Publisher: Simon & Schuster Ltd (7 Jun 2012)
• ISBN-10: 085720730X
• ISBN-13: 978-0857207302
Kindle edition also available
(NB  Only published on 7th June -- but there are 5 used copies already available from Amazon.........)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Stonehenge-Exploring-Greatest-Stone-Mystery/dp/085720730X/ref=tmm_hrd_img_popover?ie=UTF8&qid=1339789830&sr=1-1

Book Description

Publication Date: 7 Jun 2012

Our knowledge about Stonehenge has changed dramatically as a result of the Stonehenge Riverside Project (2003-2009), led by Mike Parker Pearson, and included not only Stonehenge itself but also the nearby great henge enclosure of Durrington Walls. This book is about the people who built Stonehenge and its relationship to the surrounding landscape. The book explores the theory that the people of Durrington Walls built both Stonehenge and Durrington Walls, and that the choice of stone for constructing Stonehenge has a significance so far undiscovered, namely, that stone was used for monuments to the dead. Through years of thorough and extensive work at the site, Parker Pearson and his team unearthed evidence of the Neolithic inhabitants and builders which connected the settlement at Durrington Walls with the henge, and contextualised Stonehenge within the larger site complex, linked by the River Avon, as well as in terms of its relationship with the rest of the British Isles. Parker Pearson's book changes the way that we think about Stonehenge; correcting previously erroneous chronology and dating; filling in gaps in our knowledge about its people and how they lived; identifying a previously unknown type of Neolithic building; discovering Bluestonehenge, a circle of 25 blue stones from western Wales; and confirming what started as a hypothesis - that Stonehenge was a place of the dead - through more than 64 cremation burials unearthed there, which span the monument's use during the third millennium BC. In lively and engaging prose, Parker Pearson brings to life the imposing ancient monument that continues to hold a fascination for everyone.

Review by TW Flowers  (who decided to put the knife in pretty quickly, by the look of it.....)


It seems that every day brings a new hypothesis, and every day some other hypothesis gets proved wrong. That is why early archaeologists had the professionalism not to speculate. Sadly those professionals are long gone.
Not so long ago, Professor Wainwright, head of the British Antiquarian Society of London used our televisions in an attempt to brainwash us into believing that Stonehenge was a place of healing similar to Lourdes of France. Wainwrights idea died a death in a matter of a few short months. This latest speculation, trumped up by Professor Pearson is that Stonehenge was a place for the dead.

Wherever did Professor Pearson get this idea from? Did he get it from another professor, one of the members of the Time Team perhaps, or did it come from a learned member of the Open University? Or did he take the kind of vote that archaeologists call `A consensus of opinion'? NO; it seems that the brains of our most educated aren't good enough, because this latest offering comes from as far away as Madagascar and from a modern-day megalith builder of that island called Ramilsonina. Pearson might just as well have gone to the moon.

It wouldn't be so bad were it not for the fact that Pearson and Ramilsonina's hypothesis was outdated a long time ago. And Pearson knows it.
As head of the `Stonehenge Riverside Project' Pearson has every right to produce a book that tells us everything he and his team have discovered, a team which included archaeologists and students from Manchester, Bournemouth, Sheffield, Bristol, Preston, Birmingham and many more.
The result is that this book is so heavily loaded with Pearson's pet life-to-death theory that no newcomer with a passing interest in Stonehenge - and therefore unable to sift fact from fiction - should read it.
The fact is that archaeologists are so embarrassed by a multitude of past mistakes that several of them have taken to lying, and are therefore well past being worthy of trust. Full of distorted facts, this book should never have been written.
As for corruption - don't just take my word for it; take the words of Mick Aston:   "Archaeology in Britain is a shambles from top to bottom... I'm not proud of the Time Team, it hasn't worked. And I'm totally dissatisfied with my time at Bristol University."   (Professor Mick Aston on why I had to leave the Time Team. British Archaeology Magazine, March/April 2012.)

By the way, the 7.5 megalithic yard (measured internally) Seahenge, did have 56 above ground posts to represent the moon, but archaeologists saw to it that by counting the posts from ten, they succeeded in making a miscount of one short at 55.

All in all, Pearson's book is a deliberate attempt to scotch a better, more universal theory of Stonehenge - and there is a better one out there - Pearson attempting to close the door on all fresh thought - and he knows it.