Articles published on Academia

Some people are still having problems in accessing articles on Researchgate -- so I have placed the following five articles on the other "academic platform" called Academia. Here are the links:

https://www.academia.edu/45148445/Those_bluestone_quarries_the_manufacturing_of_a_modern_myth

https://www.academia.edu/45147033/Carn_Goedog_and_the_question_of_the_bluestone_megalith_quarry_

https://www.academia.edu/45146873/Craig_Rhos_y_felin_is_NOT_shown_to_be_a_Welsh_bluestone_megalith_quarry_for_Stonehenge

https://www.academia.edu/45146701/Waun_Mawn_and_the_search_for_Proto_Stonehenge_

https://www.academia.edu/19788912/Observations_on_the_supposed_Neolithic_Bluestone_Quarry_at_Craig_Rhosyfelin_Pembrokeshire

https://www.academia.edu/19788792/Quaternary_Events_at_Craig_Rhosyfelin_Pembrokeshire

The "other" standing stone on Waun Mawn.  Acknowledgement:  Megalithic Portal

Private Eye takes a look

 

Thanks to Philip for sending this one!

The bluestone pillar myth

 "Listen carefully!  I shall say this only once!!"  If only it was that easy.  The famous catch-phrase doesn't apply when it comes to the mythology of Stonehenge.  I have been saying for the past 20 years that only about half a dozen of the Stonehenge bluestones are slim and elegant pillars. They are in the bluestone oval, or horseshoe, or whatever you want to call it.  All the other 37 bluestones are boulders, stumps, slabs and rough or rectilinear stones with a recognisable long axis.  The great majority have rounded off edges, abraded and heavily weathered surfaces, with some facets which look like the facets we see on glacial erratics in all parts of the world where glaciers have been at work.   I don't think there are any glacial striations, but it would not surprise me if some were to turn up on the underside of come of the recumbent stones lying in the turf.  I have done post after post on this, as here:

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2016/01/bluestone-shapes-stonehenge-builders.html

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2013/03/more-on-bluestone-shapes.html

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2016/08/the-stonehenge-boulders.html

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2015/02/understanding-bluestone-circle.html

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-43-stonehenge-bluestones.html

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2013/03/another-bluestone-myth.html

But no matter how hard I try to educate the Great British public -- or the global audience -- about what the bluestones actually look like, people stick resolutely to the myth that the bluestones are pillars like the sarsens, but just a bit smaller.  Very irritating. 

We have seen this myth again in all its gory glory, in the latest TV docu-drama featuring Alice Roberts and Mike Parker Pearson, on the "lost Circle" of Waun Mawn.  It's full of wacky reconstructions of Waun Mawn and Stonehenge, showing bluestone pillars zooming into position and then being removed or rearranged.  Pillars, pillars and more pillars -- all 82 of them, and to hell with reality, which suggests to us that they only ever had around 43 stones and that they moved them about quite a bit because their aspirations were greater than their stone resources. The "pillar obsession" infects all the artists who work for EH as well -- and in almost every artist's impression of the stages of Stonehenge the myth is perpetrated.  Just one myth out of many.

Never mind -- one day we will get the message through........

Nineteen stones in the Bluestone Circle:

31 -- damaged and heavily worn slab. Standing. Recent damage close to ground level
32 -- heavily worn slightly elongated boulder. Fallen -- resting on another stone
33 -- well worn short and stumpy pillar. Standing. Signs of shaping -- meant as a lintel?
34 -- well rounded small boulder, placed on end
35 a and 35 b -- irregular and well worn boulder, embedded in the ground and only just visible
36 -- an irregular and heavily worn boulder, slightly elongated. Modern damage on one edge. Recumbent
37 -- smallish well-rounded boulder, slightly slab-shaped and set on end
38 -- smallish irregular boulder, well worn, fallen and under another stone
39 -- another smallish boulder, well worn, slightly slab-shaped, with some later damage. Leaning, almost recumbent
40g -- below ground stump -- irregular shape
41 -- recumbent elongated boulder with heavy wear -- very well rounded edges
42 -- recumbent wedge-shaped stone with heavy wear on edges
43 -- recumbent slightly flattened boulder with heavy wear on edges
44 -- heavily worn boulder just visible in the turf -- recumbent
45 -- recumbent elongated boulder with heavy wear on edges
46 -- slightly slab-shaped boulder set on edge. Flaky -- considerable recent surface damage
47 -- slab with heavy wear on edges -- set on end
48 -- small recumbent boulder with heavy wear -- just projecting through the turf
49 -- small irregular slab with quite sharp edges. Upright. Signs of dressing? Intended as a lintel?

The myth of the bluestone pillars is perpetrated through constant repetition and reference to images such as these.......

Rhosyfelin -- the paper they refused to publish

Fresh rock faces exposed after rockfalls in the upper part of the Rhosyfelin exposure.  

The geological signature of the foliated rhyolites here will vary considerably from 

left to right of the photo -- which explains why there have been no perfect matches 

between Rhosyfelin samples and Stonehenge debitage samples. As far as I know, there has been no systematic sampling and analysis of samples from the many layers exposed.

Just in case anybody should say that it's terribly unsporting of me to criticise articles published in "Antiquity" without ever going into print myself in a learned journal, here is my reply.  This was submitted to "Antiquity" and rejected on the grounds that the key information contained had already been published elsewhere.  Yes, some of it had, but constant repetition in print of the same data is something we see all the time in the articles by MPP and his team -- so it's clearly OK to repeat orthodoxy but not unorthodoxy.

Anyway, there are many new points in this article -- you can read it on Researchgate or get it from me as a PDF, if you like. Dear reader, you can decide for yourself whether it should have been published in the journal that takes an especially high profile in promoting the fantastical narrative of a certain research team!

Natural rockfall debris accumulated at the foot of the Rhosyfelin crag -- interpreted 

by MPP and his team as "quarrying debris."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307551709_Craig_Rhos-y-felin_is_NOT_shown_to_be_a_Welsh_bluestone_megalith_quarry_for_Stonehenge

Craig Rhos-y-felin is NOT shown to be a Welsh bluestone megalith quarry for Stonehenge

Brian John

ABSTRACT

The claim by Parker Pearson et al (2015) to have discovered a megalithic bluestone quarry at Craig Rhos-y-felin in Pembrokeshire is disputed. So is the claim that details of the quarrying process have been discovered. In the view of the author and his research colleagues Downes and Elis-Gruffydd, the claimed engineering features attributed to Neolithic / Bronze Age quarrymen are simply natural features typical of rock faces affected by glacial, fluvioglacial and periglacial processes over a long period of time. No antler picks, hammerstones, bones, flakes, axes or other artifacts which might confirm Neolithic quarrying activity have been discovered at this site. Some of the disputed features appear to have been unconsciously fashioned by the archaeological dig team over five seasons of fieldwork through the selective removal of sediments. There is no direct dating for the extraction of bluestone monoliths; in contrast, it is suggested that the abundant radiocarbon and other dates from the sites have nothing to do with quarrying, but indicate instead a long history of intermittent occupation by hunting and gathering groups.

Greencroft Working Paper No 2, August 2016 Submitted: 4th June 2016. Revised 27th August 2016, after peer review

(12) (PDF) Craig Rhos-y-felin is NOT shown to be a Welsh bluestone megalith quarry for Stonehenge. 

Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307551709_Craig_Rhos-y-felin_is_NOT_shown_to_be_a_Welsh_bluestone_megalith_quarry_for_Stonehenge [accessed Feb 16 2021].

On the myth of the bluestone quarries

The hullabaloo about Waun Mawn and Proto-Stonehenge has stirred up a hornet's nest of arguments, claims and counter-claims on social media about the mythology created by Parker Pearson and his friends.  

There are many new people involved in these debates, and some of them may not be aware of the criticism that I have levelled at the Craig Rhosyfelin "quarry" and the "quarry" at Carn Goedog. There are two peer-reviewed articles on the former, published in 2015, and this article deals with the latter -- with a mention of Waun Mawn as well:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332739336_Carn_Goedog_and_the_question_of_the_bluestone_megalith_quarry#fullTextFileContent

-----------------------------

Carn Goedog and the question of the “bluestone megalith quarry”

Brian John

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

Abstract

Geological analyses show that the dolerite sills of the Fishguard Vocanic series on the north flank of Mynydd Preseli are geochemically heterogenous, with substantial lateral and vertical variations. Many sills are still inadequately mapped and sampled. The Carn Goedog sill is exposed at the surface at Carngoedog, Carn Breseb and Carn Ddafad-las and at multiple other locations, with a surface outcrop extending over at least 450,000 sq m. While geological differences have been demonstrated between the three main tors, claims of “precise provenancing” of certain Stonehenge fragments to the Carngoedog tor are of questionable validity. Even more dubious is the claim that nine of the Stonehenge bluestone monoliths have been quarried at Carn Goedog, since eight out of  the nine are heavily abraded boulders and slabs which look like ancient glacial erratics rather than sharp-edged and fresh pillars extracted from the parent rock. Geomorphological studies on the extensive Carn Goedog tor reveal that it is dominated by terraces, crags and hollows with very little scree. Pillars suitable for use as monoliths are restricted to a few small areas on the tor, in locations difficult to access. Jumbled frost-shattered blocks of all sizes dominate the tor landscape, with dolerite outcrops in various stages of disaggregation and collapse under gravity. There are many boulders and slabs with sub-rounded edges, indicative of either many millennia of weathering or of abrasion and redistribution by glacier ice. Frequent moulded and smoothed surfaces on the tor also indicate that the influence of over-riding ice (probably during both the Anglian and Devensian glacial episodes) has been considerable. Examinations of the supposed “Neolithic quarry” site on the south flank of the tor have revealed no traces of quarrying, apart from a few signs of modern activity. All of the features referred to as “engineering features” are found to be entirely natural. Stone tools, if they are correctly labelled as such, owe nothing to quarrying activities, and are present simply because there is a long history of intermittent occupation at this site adjacent to a major routeway across Mynydd Preseli. Soft shale “wedges” supposedly used in the process of extracting fracture-bounded pillars from the rock face are entirely natural; indeed the idea that soft pieces of shale would be hammered into dolerite fractures defies the principles of rock mechanics. Radiocarbon dates ranging from Mesolithic to medieval times do nothing to underpin the quarrying hypothesis. It is concluded that there is no Neolithic quarry at Carngoedog, and that if blocks of spotted dolerite have indeed been extracted and transported away from the vicinity of the tor, the agency was glacier ice

(14) (PDF) Carn Goedog and the question of the "bluestone megalith quarry". 

Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332739336_Carn_Goedog_and_the_question_of_the_bluestone_megalith_quarry[accessed Feb 15 2021].

The Mythologisation of Parker Pearson

I'm probably going to get criticised for getting too personal here, or for an "ad hominem attack" -- but this isn't actually an attack on Mike at all.  However,  I sure am rather upset with the producers of the latest TV documentary-drama featuring our all-action hero.  He just turned up in front of the cameras, and did what was asked of him by Alice and the producer of the programme.  But I wonder if he realised how this 60-minute drama was going to be fashioned and broadcast?   I hope he's rather mad at them too............

Now then, talking about the programme (or about Proto-Stonehenge) without talking about Mike would be like talking about Trumpism without mentioning the late lamented President at all........... so we just have to live with the situation.

So to the programme -- it was of course a "tabloid press" documentary, with added stick men.  On another level, it was a narrative in search of some facts.  Somebody told me that the producer used to be editor of The Sun. So there we are then. It was not a science-based documentary but a documentary-drama, influenced by some of those documentaries made by that Scottish chap who always walks backwards on clifftops, with gory reproductions of the Battle of Cullodden and such like.  

But this was rather different -- made without access to vast sums of money to pay for costumes and actors.  So it was modelled on the classic "quest format". Before starting work ten years ago, the producer clearly read all the screenwriting textbooks. Here is a sample of the sort of thing students are taught:

https://thewritepractice.com/the-quest/

This would not have worked without a larger-than-life leading man, who has acquired / developed a reputation as a latter-day Indiana Jones -- avuncular, easy-going, knowledgeable and eager to get down there in the mud with all his enthusiastic followers.  And certainly, as everybody knows, he is determined to follow his dream, wherever that might lead him.

So from the beginning this was the production schedule:  Set-up >> reputable archaeology professor doing a boring job >> moment of inspiration >> the quest is defined >> setting out on the quest >> heroic struggle through years of boring preparatory work  >> up several blind alleys >> major setback when it looked as if the Holy Grail was in reach >> hero at a low ebb >> dogged persistence in the wind and the rain on a wild Welsh mountainside >> and hey presto! >> the discovery of the Grail >> triumph at last, having overcome insurmountable odds!

Just think about it -- that is exactly how the programme is structured. I find it quite intriguing!   So in addition to the mythologisation of the past, with the inexorable development of MPP's fantastical Stonehenge and West Wales narrative, we now have the mythologisation of the man himself as the intrepid and dogged hero, battling on while those around him doubted him and deserted him  and became discouraged and depressed up on that miserable moor.  As I once christened the whole thing:  Indiana Pearson and the Circle of Gloom.........

Did Mike encourage the process of mythologisation?  Your guess is as good as mine.........

PS.  

It's interesting that today, in The Guardian, Charlotte Higgins has also picked up on the mythification (right word?) of Indiana Pearson and the fashioning of the TV prog as a three act drama with the heroic quest at its heart:

"The story of Parker Pearson’s discoveries, as told in the BBC’s Stonehenge: The Lost Circle Revealed, followed a recognisable and satisfying three-act narrative structure. Act one: the archaeologists – the hero being Parker Pearson himself, a hirsute figure straight from central casting – set off in hope and with an ambitious plan. Act two: an important new discovery is made, pinning down the stones to a particular pair of quarries. But then the stakes get higher: the archaeologists set out to find the place where the bluestones were once erected before being moved to Salisbury Plain. In short, a stone circle that isn’t there any more, hasn’t been there for 5,000 years. They investigate one spot, then another – in vain.

And then, act three: the last throw of the dice, the last site to be considered. No one holds out much hope. But still, digging commences, in unpropitious circumstances. A hillside is pummelled by horizontal rain. Water is baled out of trenches. The student volunteers are becoming rebellious. All seems lost. Until: a discovery. A trace of a hole in the ground is so similar in shape to a bluestone erected at Stonehenge that the two would fit together “like a key in a lock”. From here, the resolution rolls out satisfyingly – the dating turns out to fit. A little bit of the mystery of the circle has been chipped away at. The impossible quest has been fulfilled. One suspects that a decade of setbacks and hard graft felt, in reality, less like a perfect film script."

Ah well, she probably pinched that from me, but never mind. The rest of the article is the normal journalese nonsense.........

Mike Pitts on stone socket dimensions

Breaking news..........

THE WAUN MAWN FANTASY


In an unexpected intervention, Mike Pitts, one of the most influential persons in British archaeology, has drawn attention to the fact that the Waun Mawn "stone sockets" are completely unsuitable in their dimensions ever to have held large standing stones. He has compared them with the dimensions of known stone holes at Stonehenge -- and with postholes at Durrington Walls and Woodhenge -- and has found that they occupy a quite different place on the graph when plotted as depth x width. I never expected to be "on the same side" as Mike Pitts on anything, but there you go........

The graph reproduced above was issued a short while ago on Mike's Twitter feed, and I suppose it will also appear shortly on his "Digging Deeper" blog. He beat me to it! This was something I was planning to do, but it had not yet reached the top of my "to do" list...........

Mike does the MPP team the honour of accepting that the things they have looked at are genuine stone sockets from which stones have been removed -- but I disagree with that, and remain unconvinced that ANY of the half dozen or so hollows or undulations in the ground at Waun Mawn actually held standing stones.

MPP and Alice will not be amused.......

Aubrey Hole 7 at Stonehenge. Most of them are about 1m deep and are up to 1.5m across

One of the "multiple large stone holes" at Waun Mawn. From the sublime to the ridiculous........

Strangely, the original graph of Aubrey Hole dimensions was published by Mike Parker Pearson and colleagues in 2009, in the "Antiquity" article entitled "Who was buried at Stonehenge". It was a long tome ago -- he has probably forgotten about it long since........

Another of Mike's photos from Stonehenge, showing the scale very well indeed:

PS.         Here is another version of the Waun Mawn story, in MPP's own words. Same old stuff, presented rather briefly, with the same outrageous speculations dressed up as facts.

https://theconversation.com/stonehenge-first-stood-in-wales-how-archaeologists-proved-parts-of-the-5-000-year-old-stone-circle-were-imported-155315?

He says, towards the end, that the evidence for a link between Waun Mawn and Stonehenge is strong. No it isn't -- it is non-existent.  by the look of it, Mike Pitts seems to agree with me on that.