Wednesday 10 December 2014

Darvill and Wainwright on Carn Menyn

Beyond Stonehenge: Carn Menyn Quarry and the origin and date of bluestone extraction in the Preseli Hills of south-west Wales

Timothy Darvill and Geoff Wainwright


Antiquity Volume: 88 Number: 342 Page: 1099–1114

"Recent investigations at Stonehenge have been accompanied by new research on the origin of the famous ‘bluestones’, a mixed assemblage of rhyolites and dolerites that stand among the much taller sarsens. Some of the rhyolite debitage has been traced to a quarry site at Craig Rhosyfelin near the Pembrokeshire coast; but fieldwork on the upland outcrops of Carn Menyn has also provided evidence for dolerite extraction in the later third millennium BC, and for the production of pillar-like blocks that resemble the Stonehenge bluestones in shape and size. Quarrying at Carn Menyn began much earlier, however, during the seventh millennium BC, suggesting that Mesolithic communities were the first to exploit the geology of this remote upland location."

Brian John reviews the paper at http://brian-mountainman.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/the-carn-meini-bluestone-quarry-oh-no.html somewhat unfavourably.

The final paragraph of the paper does seem to suggest a fancifulness to it, but I haven't yet had sight of it, so I wouldn't presume to offer any judgment on it.

"Many explanations as to why the bluestones were considered sufficiently important and meaningful to move from Wales to Wiltshire can be proposed, and there may be more than one reason. The demonstrable antiquity of stone extraction on Carn Menyn, long before the building of Stonehenge began, tells us something about the ancestral significance and power of the landscape from which the bluestones were taken. Perhaps Mynydd Preseli was the home of the gods: the Mount Olympus of Neolithic Britain. But we also believe that the association between bluestones and healing springs in the Preseli Hills was important (cf. Jones 1992), and something that resonates with long-standing oral traditions that were first written down in the thirteenth century AD (Piggott 1941). Springs were a significant and persistent feature of the Stonehenge landscape, as the recent work at Blick Mead shows (Jacques et al. 2012). Soon after the bluestones were installed at Stonehenge (Stage 2) the central structure was linked by an Avenue to Stonehenge Bottom and the River Avon (Stage 3), thereby fixing and formalising the relationship to water (Darvill et al. 2012a: 1035). The idea that powerful stones were moved from their source outcrops on a special, ancestral or sacred place to ‘franchise’ distant shrines and temples finds parallels in West African societies and elsewhere (Insoll 2006). We propose that, after the earthwork enclosure at Stonehenge ceased to be a major cremation cemetery sometime about 2500 BC, bluestones from Carn Menyn and other nearby outcrops in west Wales were brought to Stonehenge and set up within a temple whose structure had already been built from sarsen stones. From that time onwards, pilgrims and travellers were drawn to Stonehenge because of the special properties that had empowered Stonehenge to provide pastoral and medical care of both body and soul: tending the wounded, treating the sick, calming troubled minds, promoting fecundity, assisting and celebrating births and protecting people against malevolent forces in a dangerous and uncertain world. The bluestones hold the key to the meaning of Stonehenge,
and Preseli was the special place from whence they came at a high cost to society in labour and time, as befitted such important talismans."

47 comments:

  1. They got some Meso dates e.g. 7060-6700cal BC, from oak charcoal in primary fills from pits on the southern shoulder of Carn Menyn . Apart from the fantasy above they attempt to make a case for "parallel but connected developments in the two areas " the other area being the SH landscape .
    Despite the findings in "Carn Goedog is the likely major source of Stonehenge doleritic bluestones" :Bevins , (Ixer &Pearce ) they are still holding out on the possibility that Menyn might be source of some bluestones .
    Desperation ?

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Rhyolite fragment (62g) found in post hole (9580) in the Stonehenge Car Park between layers dated 7560 BCE and 7335 BCE fits the archaeological evidence from 'Carn Goedog' and indicates that phase I was much earlier than 'minitrue'' currently accepts,

    It also fills the intellectual gulf of what happened to the stones at Carn Geodog (if they were quarried) before turning up at Stonehenge some four thousand years later (according to 'minitrue') - unless of course Merlin hid them in Ireland?

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  3. ‘The Rhyolite fragment (62g) found in post hole (9580) in the Stonehenge Car Park between layers dated 7560 BCE and 7335 BCE fits the archaeological evidence from 'Carn Goedog' and indicates that phase I was much earlier than 'minitrue'' currently accepts, ‘

    The rhyolite fragment from post hole 9580 ( context 9581 ) was not “ between layers dated 7560 BCE and 7335 BCE “ but in the upper tertiary fill which is considered to have been contemporary with phase 3 .
    There is no archaeological evidence that connects the fragment with Carn Goedog .
    The geochemical evidence doesn’t suggest a connection either ,Carn Goedog is the “major likely source of doleritic bluestone “ not rhyolitic .

    ReplyDelete
  4. "The rhyolite fragment from post hole 9580 ( context 9581 ) was not “ between layers dated 7560 BCE and 7335 BCE “ but in the upper tertiary fill which is considered to have been contemporary with phase 3"

    Only by the gulible who can't analyse data!

    The Rhyolite fragment is sitting at the bottom of (9581) and on top of (9582) - the idea of the soil on top of the carbon dated (9582) was left open to the elements for four thousand years is a farce!! as you be looking for someone to remove 200mm of the 4000 year old soil in 3000 BC and replace it with the then current top soil that included the rhyolite - now that's what I call archaeology for the gullible!

    This level of incompetence can easily be verified by the other data from the same excavation.

    If you look at the description of (9581 &2) they are both silty soils (that was produced by the nearby river) not the top soil that would have been their in 3000 BCE also the Mollusca and the Pollen Data - Fig 32 cleal et al shows that (9581) sample 15 are consistent to the soil samples taken from the carbon dated (9582), which could not happen with soil four thousand years later as the environment would have changed.

    Hence - "the upper tertiary fill which is considered to have been contemporary with phase 3" was a convenient guess rather than scientifically evidenced piece of analysis.

    As for the Dolertic Bluestone from Carn Goedog - i'm sure your right, but I would imagine that they brought both Rhyolite and Dolertic Bluestones at roughly the same time to fill the Aubrey Holes for Phase I.

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  5. "The Rhyolite fragment (62g) found in post hole (9580) in the Stonehenge Car Park between layers dated 7560 BCE and 7335 BCE "
    Is wrong . There is nothing dated 7335 BC that is above the fragment , the date and circumstance are a figment of your imagination , just like the "archaeolgical " evidence supposedly connecting the fragment with Carn Goedog .

    ReplyDelete
  6. If that's the case then the pollen and mollusca analysis is also wrong - as they DID carbon date a sample at 180mm (fig 31) to complete the profile. If the fill (as you have suggested was 4000 years later) the they would have not entered it into the diagram or finished it at (9582) or 200mm!!

    It's quite ironic that on the day the astronomers find out that the water that is on this planet did not in fact comes from comets as the academics have been telling us for years - that the ONLY REAL evidence for Phase I of Stonehenge (pit 9580) is also ignored, by you, through the same academic ignorance (or should we call it arrogance?).

    If you wish not to believe in the facts (like the professor on the BBC today who suggested we were looking at the 'wrong kind of comets') then that's your problem, not mine - but it makes you the deluded one!

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  7. Did you read or understand the pollen and mollusca report ? p51 “The change in environmental conditions depicted by assemblages in the tertiary fills is so striking as to suggest a hiatus in the recorded sequence …….The evidence would support the supposition that these deposits belong to phase 3 and confirm a hiatus of in the environmental record of five millennia “ The pollen report also supports the same conclusions .
    As with so many other points that you get wrong ,it takes a very long time and multiple corrections before it sinks in , if at all ,e.g. Precession .

    You made the same error (and as usual, made more when attempting to justify it ) in March this year ,see http://www.sarsen.org/2014/03/university-of-buckingham-ma-in.html .
    At that time you suggested “A piece of Rhyolite was found in Pit 9580 the soil above and below were dated at 7560/7335 BCE “ .Which is wrong ,it was pointed out to you then and you failed to learn from the mistake as you continue to repeat the error today i.e. ‘The Rhyolite fragment (62g) found in post hole (9580) in the Stonehenge Car Park between layers dated 7560 BCE and 7335 BCE “ . Even the dates are wrong , something you did manage to eventually amend in March but have forgotten that lesson too .
    These are the facts not fantasies or misunderstandings of simple clear text .



    ReplyDelete
  8. Sadly, the evidence does not match the data and the report seems to want to match the finds with the archaeology - no surprise their from the 'minitrue'

    The observation revolves around P. muscorum going from 21 (9585) to 50 (9581) - and if their was a mathematical progression (don't have time to explain what that is Sherlock) then the 'discussion' on page 51 would have meaning, but the same molluscan went in the same 'fill' (9585) from NIL to 21 an even higher rate of change than seen in the upper Tertiary.

    So the sequence is Nil;12;21;21;50

    So lets look at the other snails to check?
    V costata 26;13;7;3;1 - if there was a 4000 gap it should be NIL
    C spp 14;5;3;nil;1 - again should be nil
    A nitidula 12;5;5;nil;1 - again should be nil
    H itala 1;2;3;2;3 - should be 4+

    So a part from one snail group this 'discussion' has no evidence and since the findings this species has been shown to be 'misidentified' with P. pratensis until 2009 - so the balance of evidence is flawed (just like you).

    Never mind Sherlock, I guess it's just more of those wrong comets again?

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  9. Daisy , We have encountered your problems with math often enough , it’s on a par with your logic and “studies” .
    Btw it is an arithmetical progression that you are mistaken about .
    If you had read and more importantly understood the discussion on p51 you would have noticed why there is no arithmetical progression related to the numbers of P. muscorum . Part of the point of malacological studies is to provide evidence for the change in the amount of shade and subsequent change in mollusca . When the numbers change dramatically , as in this case , and non shade loving species become more apparent i.e. a non arithmetical progression , then there is evidence for a change in the amount of shade . It is not a case of “should be” that is your fantasies kicking in again , look at the data , when there is no arithmetical progression take note .
    Read under the heading Local mollusc zone 3 (tertiarty fills ) .It’s actually very simple and it can be explained in ever simpler terms if necessary .

    It appears that you have finally appreciated the error in your original comment ‘The Rhyolite fragment (62g) found in post hole (9580) in the Stonehenge Car Park between layers dated 7560 BCE and 7335 BCE ‘ As usual you have dug a deeper hole by attempting to evade it .

    Talking of math ,when do we get to see your “complex details “ of the Stonehenge alignment ?
    The expectation is of even greater amusement than usual .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As you are talking about fantasies Sherlock- lets hear your explanation (deduction) on how it is possible that 3000 years after post hole 9580 was abandoned that someone was able to locate it and then take out just 200mm of fill and replace it with 200mm of silt (normally only found by a river) and a piece of Bluestone and more importantly, the reason for this absurd procedure?

      Hopefully it will be as comical as your last suggestion about the 7th millennium carbon dating of St Michaels Mount in Carnac - which you suggested Neolithic men burnt prehistoric wood (no doubt bought from the prehistoric wood shop)?

      I always use that one in my book shop to amuse the customers and show just how 'out of touch' archaeology academics are to reality!

      RJL

      Delete
    2. It looks like you have finally seen the problems with your erroneous comments Daisy e.g. “‘The Rhyolite fragment (62g) found in post hole (9580) in the Stonehenge Car Park between layers dated 7560 BCE and 7335 BCE ‘ the nonsense about silt and local rivers and the malacology . It usually takes longer and there are more attempts at “ humour “ and evasions , maybe you have learnt to keep to the point and not make it more embarrassing . But still no mention of your “complex calculation “,
      I wonder why .
      It has been explained to you at least once , but the date you had for the tumulus at Mont St Michel in Carnac is wrong .It was an early example of RC dating and even the original report had suggested it was problematic e.g. ““But Gsy-90 is very extraordinary, and can only be explained by the use of sub-fossil wood from a peat-bog for some ritual fire. Compare with date Sa-96 from central funeral vault of same monument,
      a date rather older than could be expected: 5840 ± 300 “
      Look at any contemporary assessment of the Mont St. Michel and you will find the dates are 5th millennium . Rick Schulting produced new dates a few years ago and they were 4700–4300 BC . Try here http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba121/feat4.shtml ,scroll down and you will find “As in Britain, cupmarks in Brittany are found on the capstones and orthostats of chambered tombs, and on free-standing stones. Among the earliest are the six cupmarks on the underside of the capstone covering the central chamber at the Tumulus de Saint-Michel at Carnac, a monument constructed around 4500BC. “
      As usual it takes time for it to sink in ,if ever .

      Delete
  10. "Many explanations as to why the bluestones were considered sufficiently important and meaningful to move from Wales to Wiltshire can be proposed"

    Interesting phrase this. It presupposes that bluestones were important rather than the act of placing something of that ilk at Stonehenge for some other reason. The latter 'ilk' option would not have required a specific 'quarry' location, rather just the easiest range of sources of that type/size of material; for those chasing the mythic quarry, it would also never supply an answer because the explanation of why would not be found at Preseli.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Clearly, there is a good reason for our ancestors to take stones from Preseli Mountains, otherwise they would have used local sarsen.

      The problem lies in that the current experts are baffled as they don't understand why Stonehenge was built - when they do understand the reason will become obvious!

      RJL

      Delete
    2. Clearly, there is a good reason for our ancestors to take stones from Preseli Mountains, otherwise they would have used local sarsen.

      Agreed with that Robert. There's a subtle difference between taking stones from Preseli because sarsen, or other easily available material, will not perform and the idea that only stone from Preseli would do. I assume that is what you meant.


      The problem lies in that the current experts are baffled as they don't understand why Stonehenge was built - when they do understand the reason will become obvious!

      Where problems are thought to be worth solving, society responds by providing the means to solve that problem: Common responses are:

      1) The most expert would be funded to find a solution to that problem.
      2) Peer review mechanisms would be introduced to evaluate solutions to the problem.
      3) Retrospective funding would be made available for unfunded solutions.

      None of these responses are applied to the puzzle of why Stonehenge was built. Therefore the experts in this field do not see it as a problem other than in the sense that something like SuDoku is a problem.

      Delete
    3. I don't believe funding is a problem to this dilemma it's the peer review system that is stifling innovation.

      Science (like the internet) has become commercialised. The only books read and sold on the subject are the ones owned by the large corporates and the same thing is seen on the internet.

      People are lazy and expect to be spoon feed information - that information they believe is correct and honest. But analysis of the media shows corporate biased and political manipulation.

      We must liberate science once more (another renaissance) if we are to progress otherwise we will return to another 'dark age' of thinking when the church 'peer reviewed' society.

      When you look at the Copernicus model was not invented in the middle ages as it had been around for thousands of years earlier - but the establishment (church) did not wish to endorse it. The answer to Stonehenge has already been revealed - but the establishment 'minitrue' doesn't would to accept it as it undermines their political and financial powerbase as it will show their stewardship is flawed and unnecessary.

      RJL

      Delete
    4. I don't believe funding is a problem to this dilemma it's the peer review system that is stifling innovation.

      I doubt that Robert. There is a good reason for having no peer reviewed journals for solving Sudoku puzzles. Funding and the availability of peer review are just reflections of society's interest in the subject. If subjects are perceived to have no value and research into them is stifled as a result, it isn't necessarily such a bad thing.

      Delete
    5. "Peer review is not the absolute or final arbiter of scientific quality. It does not test the validity of a piece of research. It does not guarantee truth. Peer review can improve the quality of a research paper – it tells you something about the acceptability of new findings among fellow scientists – but the prevailing myths need to be debunked. We need a more realistic understanding about what peer review can do and what it can't. If we treat peer review as a sacred academic cow, we will continue to let the public down again and again."

      http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cif-green/2010/jul/07/climate-email-inquiry-revolution

      Delete
    6. Cue Harry Karlinski

      Indeed. If only that sort of interest existed. Miss your contributions on the Portal but don't post much on archaeo sites myself these days (apart from when waiting for a plane.. right mess-up in London yesterday).

      I recently found an incredibly disappointing thing concerning the possible Geocentric theory of Stonehenge (and others): Was planning to go to the place in Scotland which presents itself as the only likely trigger for early people to want to understand those aspects of the Cosmos which seem to be echoed in the later constructions, just to see it working for myself (before you say it, I know it's a big assumption that geocentrism was the reason behind the subsequent monuments)

      Finally got round to running all the calculations (and particularly some of the more detailed aspects of parallax; which you mentioned in one of our chats and which I originally missed): The effect at that place would have been gradually less and less regular until about 3000BC. At this point it stopped, so would have come as a bit of a shock to anyone relying on it.

      So the result is I'm never going to see it working, there's no monument to see anyway and the only thing left is the potential for pre-neolithic remains/detritis on the site (wouldn't know what I was looking at). After that, I lost interest and decided not to visit the bloody place.

      I never got round to sending you Newgrange, but it's up on the portal if you're still interested. Unlikely that I'll get round to doing the geocentric interpretations of Knowth etc or the expanded version of SH-I/II/cursi, but planning to do Avebury as a last hurrah: The existing explanation up on the Portal isn't at all easy to understand.

      Cheers


      Jon

      Delete
    7. I thought Harry great fun on Nobel but felt it tailed off .
      I was barred for continually upsetting the spirits of woo , pics were not though , which says a lot . Caveat , if you are going to post pics, do so on a site like TMA where you can remove them at will and where dissent is encouraged within the bounds of politeness .
      It’s not only the assumption that bothers me , it is the process , whereby a monument is either chosen because of it’s geodetic location then an argument is proposed to explain that location whilst similar monuments or controls are ignored , or data is cherry picked from the huge potential from any monument and used to support a theory , again ignoring similar monuments , controls ,context and conflicting data .
      If you were interested in the siting of a ruinous monument in Scotland , say at a latitude where the sun can set and rise at the solstices with a difference of 90 degrees then a visit could be enlightening , if similar monuments are compared and contrasted away from the favoured latitude you might find that there is a common feature that explains the siting and alignment that is far removed from anything to do with latitude or astronomy . I’m intrigued to know the name of the site , parallax suggests a possible lunar association discounting the 90 degree stuff above .
      Parallax ? Don’t remember and can’t think why . It’s useful for a precise figure from our perspective but the difference it’s makes would never be enough to convince me either way about a putative alignment .

      Delete
    8. Hi George

      It is very time consuming to compile evidence for a site: In the absence of expert interest, a hypothesis unaccompanied by evidence could cause harm to other types of commercial interest at a later date. As you probably know, this sort of thing is not taken particularly seriously in engineering and the sciences. I'll get Avebury out though: That one is quite substantial and the write up is already partly complete.

      Jon

      Delete
    9. Jon ,
      commercial interest harmed by an archaeo or astro hypothesis that they don't take seriously ?
      Are you keeping the name of the ruinous site under your hat ?

      Delete
    10. commercial interest harmed by an archaeo or astro hypothesis that they don't take seriously ?

      Absolutely George. It would not be seen as a sensible option by my colleagues. If there is no benefit to anyone, publishing more is pointless.

      Delete
    11. what do your colleagues have to do with something that you are interested in ?
      Why should benefits be a consideration ?

      Delete
    12. what do your colleagues have to do with something that you are interested in ?
      Why should benefits be a consideration ?


      That's a very odd couple of questions George. I'm not sure I understand what you are asking.

      The Stonehenge stuff was an offshoot of an engineering exercise. Enough has been done to be able to tell if there is any immediate benefit to others in knowing the links and coincidences which relate to the past. If there is any non-immediate benefit to society, enough has been done to allow it to be picked up in time.


      Delete
    13. I thought the comments that elicited them were odd .That's why I asked .
      " It would not be seen as a sensible option by my colleagues." Why care , what are they to do with your interests ?
      "If there is no benefit to anyone, publishing more is pointless. "
      Why are benefits to others even a consideration ?

      Delete
    14. Fair enough George. It takes a lot of work to compile this type of explanation. There's not much point unless there's the potential for some sort of benefit to someone.

      Delete
    15. What about yourself ?
      I really don't see why benefits to anyone else should necessarily be a consideration in any endeavour , from whistling -climbing a mountain -writing a sonnet -solving a non applicable math problem etc .

      Delete
    16. What about yourself ?

      Can take it or leave it George. I don't really get where you're coming from on the benefits thing. Writing it up is the difficult bit: There's only a need to do that if there might be a benefit to others in knowing how this type of analysis is applied and what result it gives.

      I've done enough so happy to leave it (apart from the one for Avebury.. will write that one up as it's only partially done and not well explained on the Portal... don't like leaving it unfinished)

      Delete
    17. Jon ,
      I still don't understand the benefits angle . If you want to do something ,I don't see what your colleagues might think or whether any benefits accrue to society as being relevant .

      Delete
    18. If you want to do something ,I don't see what your colleagues might think or whether any benefits accrue to society as being relevant .

      Now I get where you're coming from George: My apologies; I thought we'd gone through how this all came about before. I can't say that I particularly want to write up much more.

      I originally thought the coincidences and correlations might be something that might help the archaeological community. I couldn't see what I could do with them other than write a novel (always wanted to do that so I did it). After that, I thought that a non-fiction book version might help to cover costs (it didn't). For a bit of a laugh I also took out two patent applications on Stonehenge: For this sort of thing it's the only form of peer review available to someone who isn't an archaeologist.

      Meanwhile, all the patent applications for the useful 'modern' stuff, related to renewable energy and which might be of benefit in the future, were withdrawn (effectively on hold awaiting the possibility of funding and resolution of the 'Stonehenge issue'). All the applications are easily searchable on the IP databases, but most were unpublished.

      The only real commonality between the potentially useful new stuff and the possible explanations for the monuments is that they all were (or could be) derived from the same initial consideration. However, if overall expert archaeological opinion were that there is no definite connection to the Neolithic, there is absolutely no reason to share either the method or too many of its derivations (explanations for monuments). Establishing that expert opinion was the starting point for this enjoyable, occasionally frustrating, but very long winded exercise.

      Cheers


      Jon

      Delete
  11. "when they do understand the reason will become obvious! "

    If you won't supply the laughs with the "complex calculation" then at least make up for it with the "reason" .

    ReplyDelete
  12. What a shame Sherlock!!

    I thought Christmas may come earlier with the explanation of pit 9850 and the bluestone. Alas I should have known that you lack the powers of deduction and original thought and hence you are only capable of just quoting others hence your nickname!

    And you had so much to play with as student of modern day nonsense/archaeology. It could have been:

    The ancient ritual of burying a piece of bluestone in an ancestral pit - but not too deeply, because dinners waiting?

    Or to keep out bad spirits - which is now the current thinking on the ditches of avebury (do the spirits fall down holes easily?).

    How about a trap for small rodents/archaeologists who fall into the shallow pit and hit their head on the stone killing them dead?

    AH GOT IT!! they were looking for 'sub-fossil wood' (whatever that is!!) to burn on camp fires as there French ancestors used to do (I've heard of Norwegian wood - is fossiled wood really good for fires?)?

    Did they sit around the fire singing " I once had a pit, or should I say, the shallow pit once had me, I built a fire, isn't it good fossoiled wood...

    LOL!! you guys don't have a clue!

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  13. Yet another evasion of all the points Daisy .
    These are this time .
    1)and 2) “‘The Rhyolite fragment (62g) found in post hole (9580) in the Stonehenge Car Park between layers dated 7560 BCE and 7335 BCE “ It wasn’t found between these dates and the dates are wrong .
    Then came the attempts to evade that and the usual addition to the catalogue of errors .
    3)The silty clay in the context has no relation to any river . Silt is derived from rock and there was no river in the area in the mesolithic .
    4) A misunderstanding of the malacology and palynology .The fact that there is no arithmetical progression is the clue .
    5) Your date for the Tumulus at St Michel is based on an erroneous date which was problematic at the time . We have more reliable methods and results today and they are quite different from the earlier mistaken one .
    Even when avoiding facing up to the problems you manage to include another logical problem which has also been noted many times and still you continue to make it .
    6) Sherlock does not use deduction it’s induction .
    Lift the tail Daisy and give us the "complex calculation " .If you do I might even condescend to discuss somethiing with you instead of forever pointing out your errors .

    ReplyDelete
  14. "The silty clay in the context has no relation to any river"

    "Silt is granular material of a size somewhere between sand and clay whose mineral origin is quartz and feldspar. Silt may occur as a soil or as sediment mixed in suspension with water (also known as a suspended load) in a body of water such as a river. It may also exist as soil deposited at the bottom of a water body. Silt has a moderate specific area with a typically non-sticky, plastic feel."

    http://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/geologyOfBritain/viewer.html

    Type in 'Stonehenge' and the same silt surrounds the post hole to the north - the problem with your hypothesis is that you will need to dig a hole to get the required silty fill your hole - not once but three times as silt is in the two re-cuts and this so called 'tertiary' layer, but of different qualities.

    This variation of 'silt' type would be expected by a river over 3000 years as the alluvium changes its constancy as the river bank recedes, but not on a dry river bed as suggested by geologists.

    I understand that this is way over you head Sherlock, but there maybe more intelligent people reading this comment who will understand.

    RJL



    ReplyDelete
  15. There was another problem you had evaded I had forgotten about (there are so many ) .
    7) The Rhyolite fragment (62g) found in post hole (9580) in the Stonehenge Car Park between layers dated 7560 BCE and 7335 BCE fits the archaeological evidence from 'Carn Goedog' "
    Wrong . There is no archaeological evidence that connects the fragment with Carn Goedog .
    The geochemical evidence doesn’t suggest a connection either ,Carn Goedog is the “major likely source of doleritic bluestone “ not rhyolitic .


    Still evading all the others too . Apart from another laughable effort re. silt .
    The original comment you made about silt was "If you look at the description of (9581 &2) they are both silty soils (that was produced by the nearby river) "
    This is wrong ,the description is calcareous silty clay . Silt is derived from rock and may end up in a river but there was no river in the area , this is yet another of your fantasies .The silt in the area is aeolian i.e. wind blown what is typically found in the area .

    Anyone with any intelligence reading your comments would have seen through them a long time ago and realise that you are out of your depth in every area you attempt to comment on . Is there nothing that you can comment on without getting it wrong ? That is why there is no one who agrees with them .Wake up Daisy , have you never noticed that it is only you in the darkened room/byre .

    ReplyDelete
  16. "The silt in the area is aeolian i.e. wind blown what is typically found in the area ." LOL!

    At last the comedy continues!!

    So the nine inches of silt is wind blown sand? Sandstorms over Stonehenge (sounds like a new book?) - when Stonehenge turned into a desert. Guaranteed best seller!

    Better than burning fossilised wood - you should take this on stage, its brilliant. You are the epitome of arcaheology Sherlock!

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  17. You are such an empty drum Daisy .

    I realise that as soon as you attempt to introduce a new point you make errors so it is safer to resort to blethers .
    And yet again have avoided the seven points that you got wrong .
    How do you think silt gets into the pits in the area if it is not wind blown ? Fantasy river is not an answer any more than the sand storms .
    An example from Cleal p260 "it has subsequently become clear that these silts represent a wind blown deposit"
    Continual failure to read ,understand and fail to address the points is bad enough but you just make yourself look even more stupid with the childish meaningless comments .
    And still no "complex calculation" ,maybe it doesn't exist .

    ReplyDelete
  18. An example from Cleal p260 "it has subsequently become clear that these silts represent a wind blown deposit" - taking about Stanton Harcourt - Oxon not Stonehenge and certainly not pit 9850!!

    I have written a book called Raised Beaches (available on Kindle) that shows this geological myth to be the result of 'Post Glacial Flooding' not wind (although I recognise your full of it ) ;-)

    You should read the article I linked in my post to Jon about peer review and allowing the public to see raw data as academic analysis is often WRONG!! You quoting wrong information by some deluded archaeologist who is incapable of analysing data DOES NOT MAKE IT CORRECT its just an opinion.

    As for my so called errors - well you should talk to Harvard & MIT who now support my 'revolutionary theory' about human migration as shown on my web site and subsequent books.

    http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/12/the-surprising-origins-of-europeans/

    my video for my book written four years ago:

    http://youtu.be/_CxX6xec0pE

    Seems my analytical skills and knowledge are somewhat better than your own Sherlock?

    RJL


    ReplyDelete
  19. The presence of silt , in pits in the Stonehenge area has nothing to do with any river . Most commonly it is wind borne . This is understood and hardly needs to be mentioned . If you had read and understood the quote in the Cleal book you would have noticed that the comment is in relation to the silt (not even calcareous silty clay ) in Y 16 , which is at Stonehenge .
    Yes lots of articles get things wrong that get through peer review ,but we are not discussing them .We are discussing what you get wrong .
    I have listed your errors in the most recent thread ,do attempt to respond to them .
    It takes long enough pointing out the problems here without having to look at an even greater amount of nonsense in your " books " wot you wrote .
    We have first hand knowledge of your " analytical skills and knowledge "
    , and are still laughing . Sandwiches and ruminating ,maybe that is an area that you might have some skill and knowledge Daisy , but I wouldn't be too sure .

    ReplyDelete
  20. So where is this wind borne silt now, top soil has no silt in it?

    If we leave Stonehenge abandoned will it be covered in silt eventually?

    How did silt get down a hole evenly - if its wind borne would it not bank against one wall?

    Why did the silt change colour and context - does it depend on which way the wind is blowing?

    The only error around here is the gap between your ears Sherlock!

    RJL


    ReplyDelete
  21. Quoting Canti et al 2013 and Richards 1990 . “Unveiling the prehistoric landscape at Stonehenge through multi-receiver EMI . 2014 :” The geology of the Stonehenge landscape consists of upper chalk covered with calcareous drift deposits, loess and occasional clay with flint patches .
    Now look up the definition of Loess .
    Here's one :Loess is difficult to define, but it is generally considered to be wind-blown (aeolian) silt.
    her's Wiki .Loess ;Loess is an aeolian sediment formed by the accumulation of wind-blown silt.

    As usual still no response to the 6 errors and a pathetic attempt at the 7 th .


    ReplyDelete
  22. I'm quite aware of what loess, head, alluvium, aeolian and all the other technical jargon for sandy soil is, thank you, as it's in a book 'wot I wrote'.

    Quoting jargon and extracts of books will not help you on this one Sherlock - you need to engage your brain (god help us!). How did nine inches of flat layered silt get down hole 9580 if its nothing to do with the river that used to be there?

    I'll help you as your a bit... slow!

    Richards would tell you that the silt is from an ancient riverbed blown there in ancient times (unproven geological nonsense) - as shown in the BGS map viewer I sent you - did you look or was it too complicated?

    Problem is if its an ancient riverbed - how did it get down hole 9580?

    You say windblown - I say laughable nonsense as the four questions you avoided answering proves. For if it was true we would find 9" of Silt in every excavation undertaken at Stonehenge, which obviously is not the case!!

    Deduction and logic is needed for this one Sherlock.... over to you your fan club is waiting..lol!

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  23. "I'm quite aware of what loess, head, alluvium, aeolian and all the other technical jargon for sandy soil is,"

    Brilliant . We might expect anyone writing a "book" might understand the teminolgy used , but seeing as it you , and therefore unconscious humour , we get something quite different .
    Head , aeolian and alluvium and Loess are not terms or technical jargon for sandy soil . In the case of Loess the definition is immediately above your post . Then again with your logic maybe definitions don't count either .

    "Quoting jargon and extracts of books will not help "
    Wonderful . The usual response when faced with damning evidence and facts ,is caps ,exclamation marks , childish humour and bile .This is a novel approach , facts don't count only your " logic " .
    We have seen your logic , it's clear that you don't understand the meaning of deduction .(your'e still getting the Sherlock =deductive thinking wrong ) and are certainly incapable of putting it into practice .

    No response to the other errors , not even "forget quotes and facts leave it to Daisy logic "?


    ReplyDelete
  24. So 'without a clue' yet again Sherlock - you're a waste of my time!

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  25. You have as usual been presented with further examples of your errors and as ever can't make a sensible response .
    After "Quoting jargon and extracts of books will not help " I don't suppose there is anywhere to go except away .
    It is never a waste of time putting you right .
    The errors are now up to eight in this thread .
    8 ")I'm quite aware of what loess, head, alluvium, aeolian and all the other technical jargon for sandy soil is " None are terms or ajrgon for snady soil .
    It's astonishing , you start off with one error and then they self replicate as you attempt to evade the original error .
    Your production rate is on a par with fellow Daisy's production of methane .

    ReplyDelete
  26. I have noticed elsewhere a commnet suggesting that the loony stuff written about Stonehenge should just be ignored . Responding to it only gives them oxygen .
    It's a fair comment and one I have never really considered , as I have always taken the attitude that they should not get away with it and should be confronted with their errors .
    I realise that they never learn but would it be best just to ignore them ?

    ReplyDelete