All you need is communism and a lot of people........

Thanks to Simon for sending this in...... I dare say that if you can carry a Chinese dragon boat like this, you can also carry a bluestone.........!!  Was Stonehenge built by the Chinese?

Messages

I get a lot of messages from blog contributors, some of whom request personal replies -- not for publication.  Can I remind our friendly chatting community that it's better in such cases not to contact me via this blog, since I do not get to see Email addresses and therefore cannot reply personally, in private.  Therefore, if you want to conduct a personal conversation, or send me a confidential message, please contact me by normal Email, addressed to brianjohn4"at"mac.com.  Many thanks.

Bedd yr Afanc geology

The geology of the area around Bedd yr Afanc, after the BGS "Geology of Britain" viewer.  Two different scales.  FVS = Fishguard Volcanic Series.  Key locations are also shown.

I have been looking at the BGS maps of the Brynberian area in order to try and ascertain where the edge of the Fishguard Volcanic series may be. Brynberian and Rhosyfelin lie within the outcrop area, but does Bedd yr Afanc? It's rather confusing. The gentle rise on which the passage grave stands is thickly covered with till, so bedrock is invisible. At one scale on the BGS map Bedd yr Afanc is shown as lying within the FVS area, and at another scale it is shown as virtually on the edge, with FVS rocks to the north and Lower Ordovician (Llanvirn) shales, mudstones and sandstones to the south. At one scale on the map, the FVS rocks extend all the way to Tafarn y Bwlch. let us say that because of the difficulties of finding bedrock in much of this area, there are many inaccuracies in the mapping.........

Just to build on some previous posts, here are my current thoughts.

At Bedd yr Afanc there appear to be at least 16 stones incorporated in the monument -- it all depends how many of the "outliers" you choose to incorporate.
The stones are in two rough rows, and only project above the surface for 40 cms or so. They vary a lot in shape and dimensions -- and rock type too. Some are made of dolerite, some are volcanic ashes, rhyolites and what appear to be gabbros. The stones have almost certainly just been picked up in the immediate vicinity and built into the monument. They are typical glacial erratics made of rocks from the Fishguard Volcanic Series and from related dolerite and other intrusions -- and as far as I can see not one of them has travelled very far from its place of origin. Not one of them can properly be described as a "pillar". The facets and broken surfaces seem to be of several different ages, but none of the edges is particularly sharp.

Where are the capstones? There are plenty of flattish stones embedded in the turf in the vicinity. Some may actually be embedded in the turf in the "passage" itself.

Many of the stones lean inwards towards the axis of the monument. The passage is not aligned towards anything significant....... which seems to upset some people.

There are a number of boulders with rounded-off edges in the vicinity which seem to be made of a very similar bluish foliated rhyolite as that which is exposed at Rhosyfelin. The rock outcrops there are less than 2 km away, towards the NNE. Without proper geological analysis, the origins of these boulders cannot be reliably guessed at -- and there are of course many other outcrops of bluish foliated rhyolite in the Fishguard Volcanic Series to the N and NW.

Bluish foliated rhyolite boulder near the Bedd yr Afanc passage grave

If (as I suspect) the passage grave was made of stones picked up in the immediate neighbourhood, one might expect some of the "casts" of these stones to be revealed in any excavations. I hope that the archaeologists take note of that point. I can see it now -- they all start digging, find some casts, call them sockets, and rush to the conclusion that they have found "proto-Stonehenge" and that lots of monoliths were carted away from here to be re-set into the ground in the bluestone circle on Salisbury Plain. If the casts are scattered about, as I would expect, bang goes the proto-Stonehenge theory. If they are demonstrably arranged in a circle or oval, then we start to get into interesting territory! Let's see the colour of the evidence.

My tentative suggestion at the moment is that the geology at Bedd yr Afanc is dominated by thick glacial deposits that have been carried into the area by Irish Sea Ice travelling broadly from NE towards SW. That means that stones from the Craig Rhosyfelin outcrops might have been carried to the vicinity of Bedd yr Afanc and then dumped there. Other foliated rhyolite boulders may not be erratics at all, but may be locally derived. I hope that some serious geology can be done here, to work out the approximate provenances of the 16 or so stones used in the passage grave.

 Postulated ice movement directions for the Irish Sea Glacier at the maximum of the Devensian Glaciation.  The arrow shown for the Nevern Valley indicates a lobe of ice swinging towards the SW and culminating in the Tafarn y Bwlch end moraine.  The countryside around Rhosyfelin and Bedd yr Afanc must have been affected by this lobe.

Fishguard Volcanic Group

For those who are geologists, or who are just interested in the geology of the Preseli area, here is a newish paper about the Fishguard Volcanics.  It's very technical, and it concentrates on the Strumble - Pen Caer exposures, but it's good solid background info!

On the map, the FVG rocks are shown with the grey wash  -- the foliated rhyolites at Rhosyfelin belong within this group.

BETHAN A. PHILLIPS, ANDREW C. KERR & RICHARD BEVINS
A re-appraisal of the petrogenesis and tectonic setting of the Ordovician Fishguard Volcanic Group, SW Wales
Geol. Mag.153 (3), 2016, pp. 410–425.

doi: 10.1017/S0016756815000461

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282801686_A_re-appraisal_of_the_petrogenesis_and_tectonic_setting_of_the_Ordovician_Fishguard_Volcanic_Group_SW_Wales

New gallery of Pembrokeshire megalithic monuments

I have just come across this new Facebook page by Michael Jon Turner.  Simple and straightforward commentaries on the various standing stones and cromlechs, and excellent photos.  Take a look!

The Ancient Stones of Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire

https://www.facebook.com/pembrokeshirestones/photos

Severn Estuary heavy minerals

 Severn Estuary mudflats.  Image: Andy Hay (RSPB)

 

Some things come right out of the blue and hit you between the eyes.  I was checking something on the Amazon web site and came across this review of The Bluestone Enigma by somebody called Elwyn Griffiths:

Back in the 1970's, I did a study of the sediments of the Severn Estuary, not too far from Stonehenge. A small section of the study focused on their heavy mineral content which indicated the primary provenance of this saturated, immature and exotic mineral suite came from metamorphic and igneous rocks of N.W. Scotland and the Mona Complex of Anglesey of North Wales. Reading Kellaway's paper of 1971, I too suggested Irish Sea ice may have been the transport method for these sediments and left it at that. This was not the main thrust of my research, but it does lend support to the theory on the Bluestone Enigma authored by Brian John.

Does anybody out there know anything about Elwyn Griffiths and his research?  I have done some searching, and have drawn a blank..... but let us hope there is something in print, somewhere.....

The strange case of the invisible geomorphologists and the fantastical quarries

 "Alternative views?  I see just consensus, where I'm looking.........." (Pic:  Sherman Law)

 

Everybody who reads this blog (and there are rather a lot of you) and who keeps an eye on the national press knows that there is a jolly dispute going on between certain archaeologists and geologists who think there are at least two Neolithic bluestone quarries in Pembrokeshire, and certain geomorphologists who have looked at the evidence and who see no quarries.  In December 2015 there were banner headlines and purple prose in some of the most popular national newspapers outlining the two sides of the argument and carrying quotes from Mike Parker Pearson and me, among others. The articles all referred to at least one of the two peer-reviewed papers published at the end of 2015 by Dyfed Elis-Gruffydd, John Downes and myself. There have even been assorted mentions of the dispute in archaeological magazines.  These are the two articles published thus far:

Brian John, Dyfed Elis-Gruffydd and John Downes (2015). "Quaternary Events at Craig Rhosyfelin, Pembrokeshire." Quaternary Newsletter, October 2015 (No 137), pp 16-32.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283643851_QUATERNARY_EVENTS_AT_CRAIG_RHOSYFELIN_PEMBROKESHIRE

Brian John, Dyfed Elis-Gruffydd and John Downes. 2015. OBSERVATIONS ON THE SUPPOSED “NEOLITHIC BLUESTONE QUARRY” AT CRAIG RHOSYFELIN, PEMBROKESHIRE". Archaeology in Wales 54, pp 139-148. (Publication 14th December 2015)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286775899_
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286927485_Photo_Gallery

In the light of all this publicity it is therefore somewhat mystifying that the dispute appears to have escaped the attention of all but one of the authors of the 2015 Antiquity paper (see below). Only one, namely Rob Ixer, has acknowledged that there is a dispute going on, through his constructive contributions to this blog under assorted guises. And we thank him for that.  But six months after the publication of those two papers NOBODY has challenged any of the evidence we presented or our interpretations of it. No ripostes or refutations have been published, and no letters or alternative explanations of the features described have been submitted to the two journals involved, namely Quaternary Newsletter and Archaeology in Wales.  A thunderous silence prevails.

If there is no challenge to the points we have made, we have to assume that those points are unassailable. That is a reasonable assumption, since both papers were consulted on quite widely prior to publication, shown to other specialists, and then revised following careful peer review and editorial interventions. On that basis, the fact that they are completely ignored by most of the authors involved in the "Neolithic quarry" research is a cause for some concern. There should be a dialogue, but there is not. From where I stand, the tactic appears to be to pretend that there is a consensus on the reliability of the quarrying and human transport hypotheses, and that our two published papers are so far adrift of mainstream opinion that they should be ridiculed or retracted. Our friend Myris suggests that we should keep quiet and "move on". To put it mildly, that attitude is insulting to my fellow authors and myself and completely unacceptable in an academic context.

Now we come to the strange affair of the invisible geomorphologists. A little bird put the following comments onto the blog the other day:

"The MPP Antiquity paper and the BJ papers were sent as bundles to a range of geomorphologists, independant ice men in the first few months of this year and commented upon. No one wished to comment publically but there was no universal endorsement most wanted more data."
"..........your fixation on assigning tawdry malicious motives to those of us who disagree with you ............ is the reason why most people that were contacted with the bundle insisted that their names be kept quiet."

What does "no universal endorsement" mean?  As I have asked before, how many geomorphologists were consulted, and what were their names?  Were they glacial geomorphologists and glaciologists?  And if not, why not?  I'll hazard a guess that the group was very small, and that it included Dai Bowen, Chris Clark, Jim Scourse and Chris Green -- who have all featured on this blog before and who have all argued that the glacial transport of erratics from West Wales towards Salisbury Plain would have been "impossible."  Not one of them is a glaciologist.  We have our differences of opinion.  It would be natural enough for members of that small group to seek to maintain their previously published opinions, and for any other geomorphologists to say "I don't know the sites in question, so I cannot comment on whether one group in this debate has a better argument than the other."   It would also be natural enough to say "More evidence is needed."  But as we all know, the dig sites at Rhosyfelin and Carn Goedog have been filled in without any proper access being afforded to glacial geomorphologists.

We should remind the world that there are many more glaciologists and glacial geomorphologists (not to mention geologists) who have accepted in print that glacial transport of erratics from West Wales towards Wiltshire was perfectly possible during at least one glaciation.  I have named most of them in previous posts.

I have also named all the senior glacial geomorphologists who have been to the Rhosyfelin dig site in my company and accompanied by Prof MPP, including John Hiemstra, Danny McCarroll, Rick Shakesby, David Sugden, Simon Carr, David Evans and Martin Bates, and I have reported accurately that none of them has seen anything that makes them think of human quarrying.   Most of them are professors with vast field experience.  If any of them wants to contradict my reporting of our conversations, the opportunity is on this blog, here and now.  They have all interpreted the site as entirely natural, apart from the evidence of camp site occupation. That says it all....... so I would argue that the points made in our two papers represent a geomorphological consensus, until somebody comes along and argues otherwise.

Then I take issue with this:  "..........your fixation on assigning tawdry malicious motives to those of us who disagree with you ............ is the reason why most people that were contacted with the bundle insisted that their names be kept quiet."  What are the "tawdry malicious motives" referred to?  My only fixation is to try to get at the truth -- that is why this blog exists.   It is perfectly natural to seek to understand why certain people promote hypotheses which seem to me to be questionable, to say the least.  And the idea that senior academics are going to insist on anonymity, just because I might get upset if they say things on the record, is frankly preposterous.  Geomorphologists in my experience argue with each other all the time, and tend to call a spade a spade.   Why on earth would they worry about saying something I might disagree with?

So let's have names and opinions on the record.  It helps the archaeological cause not a jot if all the quarrying proponents can do is say "we have consulted various mysterious experts to check what is being said, and they have confidentially told us that there is no universal endorsement of the points made in those two peer-reviewed papers." 

There is a dispute, and there is no consensus.  It is absurd to pretend otherwise.


-----------------------------------
 The cause of all the bother:
Parker Pearson, M., Richard Bevins, Rob Ixer, Joshua Pollard, Colin Richards, Kate Welham, Ben Chan, Kevan Edinborough, Derek Hamilton, Richard Macphail, Duncan Schlee, Jean-Luc Schwenninger, Ellen Simmons and Martin Smith. 2015. Craig Rhos-y-felin: a Welsh bluestone megalith quarry for Stonehenge.   Antiquity, 89 (348) (Dec 2015), pp 1331-1352.