My riposte to that very silly Limeslade rant

Just published:

Response:  The provenance of the Limeslade igneous erratic: a matter of no importance?
Brian John
Quaternary Newsletter 164, pp 19 - 27 (February 2025).

https://www.qra.org.uk/quaternary-newsletter/quaternary-newsletter-current/

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/389436022_Response_The_provenance_of_the_Limeslade_igneous_erratic_a_matter_of_no_importance

This is in response to the extraordinary rant published by Pearce et al (2024) in QN163:
Pearce, N., Bevins, R., Ixer, R. & Scourse, J. (2024). Comment on "An igneous erratic at Limeslade, Gower, and the Glaciation of the Bristol Channel" by Brian John. Quaternary Newsletter 163, pp 15 - 20.

In that article, they mounted what can only be referred to as an ad hominem attack, designed to demonstrate to the world my ignorance and incompetence, following my note describing some of the preliminary pXRF work done by Steve Parry and Prof Tim Darvill.  In attacking me, Nick Pearce and his cronies also questioned the integrity and competence of an experienced geologist and a senior academic -- and that is never a good thing to do in print, in a widely read journal.

Anyway, I may be old, but I still know what I am talking about, and I'm grateful to the editor of QN for giving me the opportunity to put the record straight. In the text, I point out how bizarre it is for a group of academics to attack a short preliminary note on the grounds that it was not more comprehensive -- especially since they could themselves have done more detailed work on the boulder if they had chosen to do so. 

They also accused me of having a preferred narrative driven by preconceptions, of ignoring clear and contradictory information, and of being ignorant of geological and geochemical processes. I pointed out the deep irony of reading these accusations coming from a team which has, over the last decade, refused to cite any "inconvenient literature" or to accept that any of their ideas are questioned or disputed by anybody else........

Then there was the accusation that I questioned the validity and accuracy of their data.  If they had bothered to read my article more carefully, they would have seen that I questioned their analyses and interpretations, not their data.

There were assorted other criticisms and rather snide asides which I will not bother with here -- they were too petty to justify the wastage of any more of our time.

My final paragraph:

Finally there is the parting shot (p 19) on the matter of John (2024): "This article merely represents a disingenuous cover to justify a rehearsal of the now well-worn and increasingly tedious debate concerning transport of the Stonehenge bluestones." Nothing can be further from the truth. The article as published was expanded and fashioned in response to the constructive comments of the journal editor and referees. The "tedious debate" to which Pearce et al (2024) refer has been fuelled and perpetrated by a stream of journal and popular science magazine articles which they themselves have written, many of them recycling the same basic data, designed to promote the hypothesis that the Preseli bluestones at Stonehenge were targetted, quarried and transported by our Neolithic ancestors. It is unfortunate that they are apparently unprepared to accept that others might question both their evidence and their interpretations.

Anyway, it is good to know that many readers of QN have told me how amazed they were by the vitriolic nature of the attack by Pearce et al, and I think we can take it as read that Pearce, Ixer, Bevins and Scourse have now done far more harm to their own reputations than they have ever done to mine.  

Myths, fantasies and now phantom articles

This is typical of the media feeding frenzy -- carefully orchestrated -- in the week before Christmas 2024.  The gullibility of the media was displayed in all its glory.  At that time there was no published article to underpin the claims made in the media, apart from an "advance copy" of the "final version" of an unpublished article.  To make matters worse,  that article cited at least one phantom supporting reference that cannot be found anywhere.

This is intriguing, and somehow rather sad.  A while ago I flagged up the imminent appearance of an article by Bevins and nine colleagues that was clearly designed to discredit me and my work on the Newall Boulder:

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2024/12/here-come-heavies.html

This is the citation:
Bevins, R.E., Pearce, N.J.G., Ixer, R.A., Scourse, J., Daw, T., Parker Pearson, M., Pitts, M., Field, D., Pirrie, D. and Power, M.R. In press. Further discourse on the enigmatic ‘Newall boulder’ excavated at Stonehenge in 1926: correcting the record. Journal of Quaternary Science.

The reference was cited in the “final version" of the long distance stone transport article (by MPP et al) posted to the media in December……… here is a screenshot:

But in the reference list of the actual published version (January 2025) there is no sign of it, nor is it referred to in the text. Don't believe me? You can check this out via the link below:

https://journals.uclpress.co.uk/ai/article/id/3293/

In general, one should not refer to an article as being “in press” unless it has been accepted and is due for imminent publication. 

 So what is going on here?

 Richard Bevins is the lead author, so the article must be his initiative.  But was this just a phantom article, never written, but thrown speculatively into the press pack, to make it look stronger and more authoritative than it actually was?? 

Or was it written, submitted to the Journal of Quaternary Science and rejected by the Editor?  I strongly suspect that this was the case.

I have tried to track this "further discourse" down. The Feb 2025 issue of the journal has just been issued, and there is no trace of anything by Bevins et al.  I am checking via the JQS editorial department to see whether any article with this title was ever submitted for consideration;  but I suspect that I won't get very far since there is a convention of confidentiality in such matters.

The word "outrageous" comes to mind......

West Kennet granidiorite article published

Corestone cobble and associated grus -- a photo from the article

This article by Ixer et al has now been published -- we have referred to it before.   But then I was not able to provide a link.  Here it is again:

Rob Ixer, Richard Bevins, Nick Pearce, Duncan Pirrie, Josh Pollard, Alex Finlay, Matthew Power and Ian Patience. 2025 "Exotic granodiorite lithics from Structure 5 at West Kennet, Avebury World Heritage Site, Wiltshire, UK."  Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine, vol. 118 (2025), pp. 1–18

https://www.academia.edu/125773662/West_Kennet_Granodiorites

Quote: West Kennet provides yet another possible example of Late Neolithic long distance prehistoric transport, a distance of between 450km if taken from outcrop and 150km if collected from secondary glacial drift sources, although North Sea coastal glacial tills as a source for the stones appears unlikely and from East Anglia very unlikely.......

Thius is a detailed geological study, and I agree with the authors that the assemblage of rotten bits and pieces found around West Kennet is something of an enigma.  But I do not for a moment accept the assumption that glacial transport of the debris was effectively impossible.

Quotes:  

Initially, the heavily weathered and degraded appearance of the corestones and associated sandy grus led to the assumption that they were more likely collected as glacial erratics rather than from an in situ location (Ixer et al. 2022), but further investigation suggests this may not be so.

.........the very strong similarities between the samples is easier to explain if they were collected and manuported from a single highly weathered outcrop within the complex rather than collected from glacial tills, where a greater lithic variability might be expected.  Collecting from glacial till (Ixer et al. 2022) now seems an unsafe assumption and hence an in situ collection within the Cheviot Hills is now favoured.

I don't think the case is made, and Ixer et al (2022) is not a strong enough citation. Even if granites and related rocks do not travel well in gacier ice (especially of they are already heavily weathered) glacial transport of granidiorite erratics from Cheviot to the chalk lands of Wiltshire was certainly not impossible -- and the idea that the erratics were transported and dumped during one of the early glaciations is by no means disposed of.........

As usual, this article is underpinned by the ruling hypothesis that all of the "foreign" stones on the chalklands were obtained from identifiable quarry sites and then "manuported" into their present positions.
.

More on the Loveston Erratic (the Loving Stone) and others

 

The big Loveston Erratic at grid ref SR 94838 96853

I discovered more info on Adrian James's interesting blog, and especially ion this post:

https://pdboyinsuffolk.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-loveston-erratic-revisited.html

This erratic in the yard of Loveston Farm (near Merrion Army Camp) has had a rough time of it, and it looks as if, at various times, people have tried to sample it, move it, and maybe even destroy it. The farmer, Mr Morris, knows a lot about it.   But there it is, still, with some of its surface features intact abd worthy of examination........

According to Adrian, to whom many thanks:  

The Loving Stone has several stories attached to it, the main gist of them all being that it was customary for local lads and lasses to "pledge their troth" to one another at the stone, just like at the church alter........Hmmmnnnn.... Also, there is the suggestion that if it is ever moved, the farm will fall on hard times. It is not a "local" stone, but seems to be an igneous erratic from further north in the county.

Adrian thinks there is documentary evidence that the stone was originally located in St Twynnels Churchyard.

https://pdboyinsuffolk.blogspot.com/2013/03/did-loveston-erratic-block-roadway.html

There is another erratic near the Loveston Ruin:

Further afield........

On St Govan's Head (SR9739 9297) is another erratic, which was probably disturbed when the tank gunnery range was laid out on the headland. It seems to lie in/by an old pop-up target pit.:

 

The next example is resting against the south gable of Church House near St Twynnells church, near the postulated site of William Poyer's Longstone (SR94989757):

Between Mewsford and Bullslaughter Bay (SR94099405). This stone seems similar to some of those at Flimston Chapel, and indeed, the stone of St Govan's Head, mentioned above.  Here is a pic:

Note:  There are two places called Loveston in South Pembrokeshire.  The one featured in this post is not far from the South Pembrokeshire coast.  The other one is near Cresswell Quay in the central part of the county.

The BBC has lost its moral compass

Tonight and tomorrow the BBC will be broadcasting -- for the eleventh and twelfth times -- that appalling pseudo-science documentary featuring a gullible and "astonished" Alice Roberts and the ubiquitous MPP, entitled "Stonehenge: the Lost Circle Revealed." Since it was first broadcast in February 2021 it has also been continuously available on BBC iPlayer.  

This is, of course, nothing more than a hoax, dressing up an elaborate fantasy as "cutting edge science".  The narrative has been subjected to pretty brutal treatment by many viewers and commentators, including Mike Pitts and the late Tim Darvill, and we know that MPP does not himself believe the story any longer -- but the programme is still out there, heavily promoted by a Corporation that apparently prides itself for its respect for the truth.  BBC Verify is flagged up as something that deals with all cases of misinformation and disinformation, and ensures that high standards are maintained at all times.  And the BBC tell us constantly about its respect for the truth.  Just read the literature about its complaints procedure.............  hollow words, which we can not for a minute take seriously.

The BBC deals with its own complaints.  When I complained about this programme the response I got was arrogant and dismissive -- claiming that the BBC was not in possession of any information which might lead it to conclude that the programme should not be shown again.  That line of defence would not get you very far in a court of law!  The BBC would probably say that although certain information had been brought to its attention by me and other complainants, they were currently "not in possession of it", and were therefore in the clear to carry on broadcasting something accused of being wholly unreliable.

I complained in 2022 to OFCOM about the BBC response,  and got an acknowledgement of my complaint (in December 2022) and have heard nothing from them since then.

Goodbye, truth.  To hell with science and education -- all that matters nowadays is entertainment..........

Glacierization intensity and duration

 Does the word "glacierization" have any meaning or relevance?  Isn't it the same as "glaciation"?  This is the thinking of the glaciology establishment:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-glaciology/article/glacierization/354F9D3447C4AE8159D984B235114DE6

Fair enough.  I agree that the word "glacierization" can be used to cover a full glacial cycle, from the initial onset of permafrost conditions, to the transformation to a snow-covered landscape and thence to landscape cover by active (moving and eroding) ice and thence through to ice wastage and the return of interglacial conditions. Glacierization might last for 80,000 years, but within that period there may be just 10,000 years of glaciation.

We need to think about this more than we have done traditionally, especially since we are now encountering the results of cosmogenic dating on rock surfaces in ice-covered and ice-free areas as researchers try to reconstruct episodes of past climate change.

Way back in the days when I was a D Phil research student, I created this model while I was trying to understand the sequence of Quaternary sediments exposed in the Pembrokeshire coastal exposures.

In a somewhat crude fashion, the columns represent the "glacierization time" at each of the four chosen locations.  This may have been 25,000 years in Southern Scotland but only 10,000 years near the southern glacial limit.  Within those time periods, full glacial conditions will have occupied a smaller and smaller percentage of glacierization time with distance from the ice sheet centre.  In reality, of course, you get climatic oscillations, topographic effects, sea level interactions and glaciological feedback mechanisms, so it all gets very complicated -- but the general principle still stands.

When the computer modelling folks arrived on the scene and started with really sophisticated modelling, we saw the arrival of rather splendid animated seqiuences in which we could watch small glaciers, ice caps and ice sheets expanding and contracting.  The BRITICE models are the latest of these, but the way was paved by Geoffrey Boulton, Alun Hubbard, Henry Patton and many others.  This was one of the images from this period of research that grabbed my attention:

It may look like a model of ice thickness over the southern part of the area affected by the Irish Sea Ice Stream -- but no, it shows the computed duration of glaciation.  This is zero at the outer ice edge, maybe just a few decades at Land's End, c 800m years near Lundy, c 1000 years at the north coast of Pembrokeshire, and c 1300 years in the southern Irish Sea proper.  The light coloured blotches on the map show areas of thin ice where glaciation time was reduced;  at times these upstanding areas will have been nunataks.

This is all of course rather wildly inaccurate -- but you have to admire the objectives and the skills of the members of the modelling team.

The ANCIENT BRITISH ISLES ICE SHEET TIME-LAPSE ANIMATION produced by the BRITICE-Chrono team is based on much more sophisticated modelling and a much greater "ground truthing" data base.  You can find it here:

https://iafi.org/ancient-british-isles-ice-sheet-time-lapse-animation/

It spans the period 31,000 yrs BP to 15,000 yrs BP, and shows parts of western Scotland being glaciated for almost the whole of that period, while West Wales experienced active ice cover for just 2,000 years and the Isles of Scilly for just a few centuries.

See also:

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2023/01/glacierized-landscapes-and-advance-of.html

This work is of great importance to the reliability of cosmogenic dating results -- measuring the "exposure time" of rock surfaces on (for example) tors or glacial erratics.  Cosmogenic dating methods are often used to measure the length of time that has elapsed since the "last disappearance of glacier ice"  -- but "nuclide inheritance" can seriously distort the results obtained, and in multiple cosmogenic dates obtained for a certain area it is sometimes difficult to isolate the "outliers".

It is also too easy to assume that in the presence of glacier ice, abrasion and surface lowering always occurs.  This is not so.  If an ice cover is thin, and glacier bed temperatures are very low, protection of bedrock or erratic surfaces may occur instead of erosion or abrasion.  Trimlines on upland slopes may not mark glacier edge positions, but the transition between warm-based (eroding) ice and cold-based (protecting) ice.  Long-term cover by snowfields can also distort results, as can periods of vegetation overgrowth.  

Lots to think about........
   

BritIce Modelling Project E109b2bc Maximum

This modelling is over 6 years old now, and the dating has changed since then this animation was created.  But the overall pattern of waxing and waning ice cover is now pretty well established.

This is the "maximum" model with some elements that are not backed up by "ground truthing".  But note that it supports what many others have said over the years -- that glacial incursions well into Cornwall, Devon and Somerset were not just possible but quite likely to have actually happened.