Preseli roches moutonnees.......

 

Thanks to Hugh 360 for this photo, showing very beautifully the very large roche moutonnees that dominate the northern flank of Mynydd Preseli.  On the mountainside here we can see Carn Alw, Foel Drygarn, and Carn Goedog.  This is a clear indication of ice flow from the north -- probably during the course of several glaciations.  I think the capacity for the creation of large-scale erosional features was rather limited during the Devensian -- so probably we are looking at the results of more prolonged ice inundation during the Wolstonian and Aglian glacial episodes.

The Preseli landscape change paper scrutinized: another MPP hypothesis bites the dust

This is getting embarrassing.  The framing of the prehistory of Pembrokeshire as "an essential component of the Stonehenge narrative" always was absurd, but now, surely, it has to be consigned to the scrap heap.  Archaeologists working in West Wales always were worried about it, but by and large they have maintained a stoical silence, cowed by the immense power and influence of people like Richard Atkinson, Geoffrey Wainwright and Mike Parker Pearson..........

One after another, the hypotheses of external influence have been dismissed in the peer-reviewed literature.  First, the Craig Rhosyfelin "Stonehenge megalith quarry" flagged up as "the Pompeii of prehistoric stone quarries" and then shown to be just a figment of a fertile imagination.  Then the spotted dolerite "megalith quarry" at Carn Goedog, also flagged up as a massive industrial complex and then shown to be nothing more than a dolerite tor affected by assorted cold climate processes.  Then the magnificent "lost stone" circle at Waun Mawn, given the full treatment as the last piece of the Stonehenge jigsaw puzzle in an appalling TV documentary and then dismissed with disdain by Tim Darvill and many others.  The stone circle never existed.  Now comes the hypothesis of West Wales population decline following the removal of 80 bluestones monoliths from Preseli, via Waun Mawn, to Stonehenge during the late Neolithic.  That too bites the dust following the publication of this new study.

When you use wildly extravagant phraseology like "the IKEA of Neolithic quarries", "the original Stonehenge", "monolith extraction on an industrial scale", "proto-Stonehenge" and "a monument of unification" you are asking for trouble, especially if your evidence is so thin that it does not withstand scrutiny.........

Anyway, back to the new pollen analysis / landscape change paper.  Thanks to Daisy Spencer for sending me the PDF.  It's a real curate's egg of a paper -- excellent in parts (particularly on the data collection and analysis side) and deeply flawed in others.  One of the biggest problems is that it completely ignores one of the greatest duties placed on all researchers -- ie the duty to hear dissenting voices, to acknowledge their existence and expressions in the peer reviewed literature, and to assess what influence they might have on your conclusions.  None of my work in a string of recent papers is cited, although it is 100% relevant to the matter in hand.  There are no citations of Kellaway, Williams-Thorpe, Briggs or Darvill -- which is extraordinary.  

Daisy Eleanor Spencer, Karen Molloy, Mike Parker Pearson, Ralph Fyfe & Aaron Potito (19 Oct 2025): Prehistoric Landscape Change Around the Sources of Stonehenge’s Bluestones in Preseli, Wales, Environmental Archaeology, DOI:10.1080/14614103.2025.2574741

To link to this article: 

https://doi.org/10.1080/14614103.2025.2574741

Over and again, assumptions and speculations are portrayed as established facts.  Some examples.

On the first line of the article the landscapes of Preseli are claimed to have been "connected since the Neolithic" to Salisbury Plain.   Have they really?  Not in my book they haven't.......

Then also on page 1:  "up to 80 bluestones were transported from the Preseli Hills to Salisbury Plain."  Speculation, not fact.

P 1:  "Bluestones were erected in the Aubrey Holes and in Bluestonehenge".  Speculation, not fact.

On p 2 there are references to "bluestone quarries", "the transportation of the bluestones" and "the Waun Mawn stone circle."    All speculation.

On p 5:  Reference to "the bluestone sites"........ and on the same page, reference is made to the empty holes used for standing stones at Waun Mawn.  All speculation.

In Table 1 on page 6, Rhosyfelin and Carn Goedog are referred to (and elsewhere in the text) as "bluestone quarries."

On p 6 reference is made to a "Middle Neolithic artificial stone platform" -- that's just a figment of somebody's imagination.

On p 16 there is again a reference to "the quarrying of bluestone" -- speculation, not fact.

On p 18 in referring to Waun Mawn the authors talk of the time  "when the stones were first erected at the site."  This is just a dodgy assumption.

On p 20, the authors talk of  "the movement of c 80 bluestones from Preseli c 3000 BC."  It didn't happen, as MPP has himself conceded.

Then the conclusion:  "The pollen data does not support the abandonment of this area when the bluestones were taken to Stonehenge."  For the umpteenth time, they were NOT taken by human beings to Stonehenge.

And so we could go on.  I can excuse the authors for some of this bias, some of the time, since they were at least testing a hypothesis that needed to be stated -- but they have strayed far beyond the hypothesis and have demonstrated a naive acceptance of many very dodgy components of the narrative developed by Parker Pearson over the years.  Why did they not demonstrate a greater critical faculty?  I think we know the answer to that one.........

The fundamental flaw with this paper is that it insists on examining environmental change in West Wales strictly in the contect of a Stonehenge timeline that is assumed to be "correct" or "relevant."  What we see is a classic case of a "monument obsession"—forcing complex, independent regional data into a famous monument's box just to keep a high-profile theory on life support.  Instead of treating the Preseli landscape as an important cultural landscape in its own right, the authors have treated it as a mere supply yard for the Stonehenge builders.  When their own data proves that the local population stayed put and kept farming right through the "Stonehenge migration" window, they still choose to interpret the local story as a minor chapter in the Stonehenge narrative.    This type of framing creates a distorted view of prehistory by implying that nothing of importance happened in Neolithic Wales unless it was dictated by events in Wiltshire.

For 1782, read 3,000 BP

TO SUMMARISE:  Palynological data from the Preseli Hills reveals a narrative of local agricultural continuity, with continuous cereal cultivation and a lack of large-scale abandonment between 3000–2200 BC, contradicting theories of a mass migration to Stonehenge

The local builders were purely pragmatic. The idea that Preseli was a "sacred landscape" uniquely obsessed with bluestone—to the point where they would pack up their entire society and ship their monuments 240 kilometres away to Wiltshire—is an entirely modern invention.  The new palynological and macrofossil data proves that the people of Preseli probably knew nothing whatsoever about Stonehenge.  If there had been a monumental, multi-generational project to dismantle local stone circles, construct massive transport infrastructures, and conduct a mass migration to Salisbury Plain around 3000 BC, it would have left a catastrophic scar in the local environmental record.  Instead, the pollen cores show absolute indifference to the Stonehenge timeline. The local farming families simply carried on clearing small patches of woodland, growing their crops, and grazing their livestock according to their own domestic routines.  The records show a gradual, self-contained ecological evolution rather than a abrupt transformation, with major deforestation not appearing until the Late Bronze Age

As argued by Stephen Briggs, the Neolithic tribes of west Wales were opportunists, utilitarians and pragmatists.  They were also quite sophisticated in that they knew a great deal more about cost / benefit analysis than many modern archaeologists!

So congratulations to Daisy Spencer and her colleagues for killing off another piece of the Parker Pearson narrative.  Thankfully, there is now hardly any of it left.

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






. 

Eisteddfod y Garreg Las -- the bluestone eisteddfod

 

On 1st August the Welsh National Eisteddfod -- the biggest annual cultural festival in Wales -- comes to Llantwd near Cardigan.  Over the course of a week or so they expect  180,000 visitors onto the site -- competitors, supporters, families and friends, and expats back home for the occasion.  Almost all of the transactions will be through the medium of Welsh, which is as it should be.

Anyway, the theme this year -- as reflected in the title of the eisteddfod -- is bluestone.  This was decided by the organizing committee many moons ago as something giving the community of NE Pembrokeshire its own special character.  Interestingly, this patch of designated territory is not the same as that given the name "Bluestone Country" in the days when I was a committe member of the Preseli Tourist Association........  Never mind.  If the label helps with the marketing of a worthy event, let's just go with the flow.

The two big poetry competitions -- for the bardic chair and the bardic crown -- do not have bluestone themes.  As ever, the themes are rather abstract.  But we can be sure that bluestones will feature heavily in the entries, and it's a fair bet that one or both of the winners will have written about the bluestones and their significance.  And bluestones will feature strongly in the art and craft competitions too.  So there will be bluestone representations on all sides -- and they will be made of wood, metal, wool and any other materials that can be shaped and coloured blue.  Inevitably, many of the representations will be made to look like spotted dolerite.......

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

I was invited by the BBC to write a short article for the BBC eisteddfod web site, as published here:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/cymrufyw/erthyglau/cwykyzd1yp8o

So here -- in English -- is my small contribution for the occasion, designed to educate those who may not have kept up with the Welsh language literature:

THE BLUESTONES

Brian John

Once upon a time our heroic ancestors quarried 80 large monoliths of special stone from a sacred place in Preseli and transported them to Stonehenge, to be used in one of the megalithic wonders of the world. That's the story that we all know and love. But is it more than just a story? Is it supported by real historical records or by sound scientific evidence?  Sadly, the answer to both questions is "No"........

First, the term "bluestone" -- which has no geological meaning. The term has been used for a century or so to describe an assortment of more than 30 different non-sarsen rock types found at Stonehenge, in standing stones, fallen stones, buried stumps and small fragments in the soil. Most, but not all, of the rock types (including several types of spotted dolerite, volcanic lava and ash) are found in Mynydd Preseli. Most of the bluestones are not even blue. In ancient history there is no evidence at all that any of these rock types were considered special or sacred -- local cromlechs and other stone setting were always made of whatever handy stones happened to be lying around in the vicinity. At Stonehenge the majority of the known 43 bluestone monoliths look like (and probably are) battered and far-travelled glacial erratics.

And was Mynydd Preseli a sacred place, revered by the Stone Age inhabitants of West Wales? Apparently not. The label "land of mystery and enchantment" is a modern invention, by Rev Done Bushell around 1911. He mistakenly believed that the area on the south flank of Preseli had a greater density of sacred structures than any other part of West Wales, and he also referred to the area as "a prehistoric Westminster". Picturesque but unreliable. In the Mabinogion there is no mention of Preseli as being a special or magical place, and in his fantastical writings about King Arthur, Geoffrey of Monmouth did not differentiate between the sarsens and bluestones at Stonehenge, and suggested that the monument had been magically transported from Ireland, not Wales.

The story of the human transport of the bluestones was invented by geologists Herbert Thomas around 1920, at a time when the nation was recovering from the traumas of the First World War. There was a need for a "feel good" story that emphasised the high civilisation and technical skills of our heroic ancestors, and Thomas obliged, ignoring the opinions of his fellow geologists who believed that the bluestones had been transported by glacier ice. People loved the story, and it was immediately picked up by archaeologists and built into the educational and marketing strategy for Stonehenge.

Then, ironically, the story was weaponised immediately after the Second Worl War during the "Battle of Preseli", when the local community took on the War Office which wanted to enclose the greater part of Mynydd Preseli as a military training and firing range. It was argued -- tactically -- by influential politicians and religious leaders that Preseli was one of the great sacred cradles of Welsh culture, and that it would be not only disrespectful but actually sacriligious to turn the wild moorlands into a place devoted to warfare. The Stonehenge bluestone link was incorporated into the argument. As explained by historian Hefin Wyn, the government backed off, and the battle was won.  In retrospect, the designation of Preseli as a historic mystical and holy place was nonsense, but all is fair in love and war!

In 1952 the uplands were designated as part of the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park and saved for the nation and for future generations. Mynydd Preseli is still a wild and wonderful place loved by many thousands of people for its wide horizons and quiet beauty.  In that sense, as demonstrated by Waldo Williams in his poem "Preseli", this is truly a special place. The bluestones, in their infinite variety, are still there, exposed in rocky tors like Carn Meini and Carn Alw.

But let's not fool ourselves. The elaborate and fanciful narrative developed by archaeologists and geologists in recent years does not have its roots in prehistory; it is a modern myth, created only about a hundred years ago, unsupported by modern science, and now promoted largely for commercial reasons.


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

The Stonehenge bluestones and our heroic ancestors: time to stop flogging the dead horse

OK -- the time has come for the Stonehenge establishment, and a vast array of academics from assorted disciplines, to stop this seemingly endless search for evidence in support of a wild fantasy invented by HH Thomas in 1923.  Before 1923, most experts accepted that the stone monument at Stonehenge was built of an assortment of stones, some large and others smaller,  some local and others from far away, that happened to be lying around in the landscape.  Geologists argued that some of the stones had come from the west, and that they had probably been transported by glacier ice.  For a variety of reasons already enumerated on this blog, Thomas wanted a much more complex and heroic narrative, and he falsified the known evidence of glacial activity in the Bristol Channel in order to support his story of long-distance bluestone transport by humans as "the only reliable alternative".  That became, in no time at all, the ruling hypothesis, and for a century academics from many different disciplines have desperately been trying to confirm it.  Without success.  There is still not a shred of hard evidence to show that there was any link between Stonehenge and Preseli, apart from a few small traded objects such as those that might link any two small parts of a large island........

After an investment of thousands of hours of research time and the expenditure of many millions of pounds of taxpayers money, it's time for academics to get real and for the research funding organizations to stop throwing good money after bad.

Just a reminder of where we are.  There are no strong cultural links between West Wales and Stonehenge; as demonstrated by Wainwright and Darvill, the megalithic structures demonstrate instead a strong link between West Wales, North Wales and Ireland.  There is no evidence that bluestones were revered or used preferentially in West Wales in monument construction.  There is no evidence of strong trading links or social connections between Stonehenge and Preseli.  Although we now know approximately where many of the bluestones at Stonehenge might have come from, the claims made by Bevins and Ixer about precise "spot provenencing" are unacceptable and unreliable.  There are no bluestone monolith  quarries at Rhosyfelin, Carn Goedog or anywhere else, and it is in any case bizarre to think in terms of quarrying activity or even "extraction points" for all of the many bluestone types represented at Stonehenge.     (The only bluestone quarry known to the author is near the summit of Foel Drygarn, where small slabs were collected for use in burial mounds and defensive structures, starting in the Bronze Age.  )

There is no evidence of haulage routes, trackways, ropes, sledges, rafts or boats that might have been used   in a multi-generational stonen haulage operation.  The idea promoted by Parker Pearson of a "lost stone circle" at Waun Mawn which was linked to Stonehenge has been systematically dismantled by many reviewers, and is now quite rightly abandoned.

Finally, in one last desperate attempt to demonstrate that the sequence of land use, landscape change and settlement in Preseli was somehow linked to a Stonehenge chronology,  Parker Pearson and co-workers in a new article have demonstrated instead that the people of the far west had not the slightest knowledge of, or interest in, what was going on over on Salisbury Plain:     

Spencer, D. E., Molloy, K., Pearson, M. P., Fyfe, R., & Potito, A. (2025). Prehistoric Landscape Change Around the Sources of Stonehenge’s Bluestones in Preseli, Wales. Environmental Archaeology, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/14614103.2025.2574741

Isotope work, pollen analyses, radiocarbon dates and other indicators of  environmental change and cultural linkages have also failed to turn up anything that might help to confirm the ruling hypothesis, whatever claims there may have been to the contrary.

As suggested by Stephen Briggs many moons ago, the prehistoric tribal groups of West Wales were opportunists and pragmatists who quietly got on with life,  no doubt with trading contacts in all compass directions but blissfully unaware of the existence of Stonehenge and other monuments which were far, far away over distant horizons.  The locations of megalithic monuments were determined above all else by the availability of stone resources -- in rock outcrops, scree accumulations, blockfields and glacial erratic scatters.   And as suggested by Barclay and Brophy, the network of contacts was essentially local, determined above all else by local geography and resource distribution and with occasional forays further afield -- with no sign at all of  centralised organization or political power exerted from Wessex, Salisbury Plain or Stonehenge.  Parker Pearson's fantasies on this front just do not withstand scrutiny.

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2023/01/deterministic-and-opportunistic-stone.html

The truth is a foreign country.  A somewhat imaginative AI image published by RJL on his blog.........

Prehistoric Landscape change around Preseli. New paper shows nothing new.

I'm not able to get at this because it is behind a paywall, but I'm not losing any sleep over it, because it clearly shows that Preseli was not abandoned or depopulated at all, following the presumed export of the bluestones.  It was a daft idea anyway -- one of a host of daft ideas promoted by our oild friend MPP over the years.  The "pastoral indicators" indicated for the Early and Middle Neolithic were perfectly predictable and clearly had nothing whatsoever to do with Stonehenge or the bluestones, and it would be flying in the face of common sense to pretend otherwise.

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

Prehistoric Landscape Change Around the Sources of Stonehenge’s Bluestones in Preseli, Wales

Daisy Eleanor Spencer, Karen Molloy, Mike Parker Pearson, Ralph Fyfe & Aaron Potito.
Environmental Archaeology 2025, Received 29 Apr 2025, Accepted 09 Oct 2025, Published online: 19 Oct 2025

https://doi.org/10.1080/14614103.2025.2574741

ABSTRACT

This palaeoenvironmental investigation into prehistoric landscape change was set in the Preseli region of Pembrokeshire, west Wales from where Stonehenge’s bluestones originate. It aimed to investigate whether the movement of bluestones to Stonehenge, considered to have formed Stonehenge’s first stage c. 3000 BC, was accompanied by an out-migration of people, leaving the Preseli region largely uninhabited in succeeding centuries until c. 2200 BC. Potentially, this might be reflected in the palaeoecological record by a reduction in anthropogenic land-use indicators. Detailed analyses that involved pollen, macrofossil, non-pollen palynomorph (NPP), loss-on-ignition (LOI550) and stratigraphical investigations of multipleö core sequences from heathland on the slopes of the Preseli Hills, in combination with archaeological spot samples from five prehistoric sites in the locality, were undertaken. This multi-core and multi-site approach has allowed for an interpretation of local environmental change from the Early Holocene to the Late Bronze Age. An insight into human population dynamics has been gained in an area where palaeoecological investigations have traditionally been hampered by a lack of deep peat sequences. The Mesolithic and Neolithic were largely dominated by woodland species while increases in pastoral indicators began during the Early – Middle Neolithic contemporary with activity at important bluestone sites. Significant expansion of pastoral and arable farming did not occur until the Late Bronze Age. However, despite a scarcity of archaeological remains from c. 3000–2200 BC, the presence of cereal pollen during this interval hints at a continued human presence in the landscape after the transportation of the bluestones.

The glacial transport of the bluestones: the glorious irrationality of the Stonehenge establishment

The "traditional" map of known ice movement directions as it was around 1900.  In several sectors subsequent research has shown a more extensive ice cover.  HH Thomas must have known this map, but chose to misrepresent it.  The evidence base for ice movements on the western flank of Great Britain has always been stronger than the evidence base for the east coast.

As far as I can see, the latest suggestion relating to the glacial transport of the Altar Stone from northern Scotland to the Dogger Bank has been broadly accepted by the Stonehenge archaeology establishment.  At least, nobody has come out in opposition to the idea, although there have been a few murmurs about the rather fanciful Dogger Bank / Dogger Island part of the narrative.

Clarke, A. J. I., Veness, R. L. J., Kirkland, C. L., Clark, C. D., Gandy, N., Emery, A. et al. (2026) From Highlands to Henge: Refining the Provenance and Transport Pathways of Stonehenge's Altar Stone. Journal of Quaternary Science, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/jqs.70080

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jqs.70080

So we now have a "hybrid theory" for the east coast of Great Britain, with the acceptance of the idea that the Altar Stone may well be a large glacial erratic, transported on at least part of its journey by south-flowing glacier ice.  There are no other known ORS monoliths on Salisbury Plain that can be matched to the Altar Stone, and there is no known erratic trail from A to B.  As noted by Clarke et al, it might be there, but if it is there it is very conveniently situated on the floor of the North Sea.......... out of sight and out of mind. So the speculation cannot be contradicted by hard evidence.

Now we come to the entertaining bit.  Over the course of more than a century geologists like Judd, Kellaway and Williams-Thorpe have argued that something similar happened on the west coast of Great Britain, with the Irish Sea Ice Stream transporting a wide array of glacial erratics from sources along its known route and dumping some of them on the floor of the Bristol Channel and others above present sea level on the coasts of South Wales, Devon,  Cornwall and Somerset. Ice movement directions are well known, and erratic provenances are broadly agreed by the experts. The evidence is well described in the literature, and is undisputed by glacial geomorphologists.  

But it is bizarre,  to put it mildly, that archaeologists -- and especially those who are influential in Stonehenge circles -- insist that the glacial transport of the bluestones was impossible, basing that outrageous belief on a very dodgy statement by HH Thomas back in 1923 that the ice of the Irish Sea Glacier could not have extended much further than the coast of South Pembrokeshire.  He invented the human transport hypothesis, and a large part of the academic establishment and the Stonehenge media machine has promoted that as "the truth" ever since.

On the basis of Thomas's dishonesty the human transport of the bluestones has been ruthlessly promoted as "the only story that makes sense", with MPP and his colleagues developing an ever more complex and fanciful narrative (involving quarries, lost stone circles etc) and with the backing of geologists like Bevins and Ixer, who should be ashamed of themselves.  The bandwaggon has also made room for one or two geomorphologists, who shall be nameless.

So the glacial transport of large lumps of rock is OK off the east coast, but not off the west coast.  This is hilarious, pathetic, outrageous and reprehensible in equal measure.

The only story that respects the evidence and makes sense is the hybrid one, involving glacial erosion, entrainment and erratic transport as part one of the bluestone monolith journey, and then human transport for the last part of the journey from several locations yet to be discovered, through to Stonehenge.  Those locations WILL be found, and that is where future research should be concentrated.

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

Quote from one of my earlier posts:
All things considered, the accumulated evidence shows that by 1910 the broad outlines of glaciation in the Bristol Channel / Celtic Sea arena were already established, involving thick and active ice carrying erratics and other glacial materials from the NW across Pembrokeshire and up the Bristol Channel, affecting the coasts of South Wales and the South-West Peninsula. In making his claims about the impossibility of bluestone transport towards Stonehenge HH Thomas wilfully ignored a great amount of evidence in the printed literature, and wilfully misrepresented the opinions of senior "glacialists". It is quite extraordinary that he got away with it -- but that, maybe, was because he was a geologist talking to archaeologists or antiquarians. If he had been a geologist talking to other geologists, he would certainly not have got away with it. They would have had his guts for garters.

Shoreline ice accumulations in the Nares Strait

 

These slides are from the film "Beneath the Polar Sun" -- relating an attempt about ten years ago by a group of experienced kayakers to navigate the full length of the Nares Strait between North Greenland and Axel Heiberg Island.  They expected to find flat ice floes and intersecting navigable leads of clear water;  what they found was a nighmare of smashed ice fragments and brash ice stretching from horizon to horizon, with huge pressure ridges on long stretches of the shoreline.  They expected to travel 300 km. but gave up after 30 km of unremitting toil.

Ever since David Sugden and I wrote our extended report called "Coastal Geomorphology of High Latitudes" many years ago, I have been intrigued by the physical variations that exist in the real world of marine limits and raised shorelines.  There is quite enough variation is it is, on coasts where processes are determined by relatively ice-free conditions -- but things get vastly more complex where brash ice fragments or bergy bits are stranded on the shore.

Where an ice foot (or fringe of landfast sea ice) exists, there is considerable variation, partly dependent on the amount of brash ice or bergy bits incorporated -- derived from glaciers and icebergs.  And there is more variation again in freshwater environments like the shores of the Great Lakes, where much frazil ice may be incorporated, and where spectacular spring floods occur, such as in the St Lawrence and Mackenzie Rivers when the winter ice is flushed out with dramatic and sometimes catastrophic consequences.  Similar catastrophic spring floods also occur in the lower parts of the great  north-flowing Siberian rivers -- the Yenisei, Lena and Ob.  

In Antarctic raised beaches we often see pits and ridges on the pebble banks, with rapid lateral variations in beach sediments including particle size.  Bulldozed or pushed ridges of beach material are evidence of vast ice pressure on the shoreline associated with tidal streams or onshore winds;  accumulations of brash ice and pack ice fragments may be piled up to heights of 20m above HWM, forming more or less impenetrable barriers to access and causing damage to coastal infrastructure.  

One of our biggest fears when paddling om Nordvestfjord in 1962 was that an onshore wind might push all of the floating ice fragments in the fjord tight up against the shoreline, trapping us either inside or ourside the barrier.  Being trappped on the inside was preferable, but not to be welcomed.  But being trapped on the outside of a brash ice barrier was potentially lethal, since our canvas kayaks could not have coped with any attempt to paddle though it, and and neither could we have walked across it to the shore..........