Brian John’s 2024 paper, "The Stonehenge Bluestones Did Not Come From Waun Mawn In West Wales", argues Waun Mawn wasn’t a source for Stonehenge’s bluestones, favoring glacial transport over human effort. It critiques archaeologists like Parker Pearson for overinterpreting evidence, but the review highlights potential weaknesses in assumptions, references, and logic.
Assumptions
John assumes glaciers moved the stones, ignoring recent findings supporting human quarrying, and assumes Waun Mawn’s features are natural without comparing similar sites, which seems speculative given excavation evidence.
References and Logic
The paper cites over 50 sources but selectively uses them, missing counters to radiocarbon dates or geochemical links supporting human transport. Its logic includes personal attacks on archaeologists and overemphasizes absence of evidence, like shallow pits, without addressing incomplete excavations.
Conclusion
While John raises valid questions, his paper leans on outdated ideas and doesn’t fully address recent research, like Parker Pearson et al.’s findings, suggesting ongoing debate about Waun Mawn’s role in Stonehenge’s construction.
A Comprehensive Analysis of Brian John’s 2024 Paper on Waun Mawn
Brian John’s paper, "The Stonehenge Bluestones Did Not Come From Waun Mawn In West Wales", published online on March 20, 2024, in The Holocene, challenges the hypothesis that Waun Mawn in West Wales was a dismantled stone circle whose bluestones were transported to Stonehenge around 5,000 years ago. As a retired geographer from the University of Durham, John critiques archaeological interpretations favoring human transport and revives the glacial transport theory. This analysis focuses on the paper’s assumptions, references, and logic, particularly concerning Waun Mawn’s relation to Stonehenge, based on the document and recent research available as of April 8, 2025.
Background and Context
The debate over Stonehenge’s bluestones has long been contentious, with theories ranging from human transport to glacial movement. John’s paper specifically targets the claim by Parker Pearson et al. that Waun Mawn was a dismantled stone circle, with stones moved to Stonehenge around 3000 BC. His critique is rooted in geological and field observations, but it also engages with archaeological interpretations, often critically.
Detailed Review of Assumptions
John’s paper relies on several assumptions that may not be fully justified, potentially undermining its conclusions:
- Glacial Transport Assumption: John assumes glacial transport is the most parsimonious explanation, citing historical geological studies (e.g., Judd 1903, Kellaway 1971, Thorpe et al. 1991). However, this theory lacks direct evidence for long-distance transport of large monoliths, and recent research (e.g., Bevins et al., 2014, 2017, 2022) supports human quarrying at sites like Craig Rhos-y-felin and Carn Goedog, contradicting his view. This assumption is particularly problematic given modern archaeological findings, such as Bevins et al.’s 2022 study, which uses portable XRF to show specific bluestone sources, favoring human selection.
- Natural Origin of Features: John assumes shallow pits and irregular stone placements at Waun Mawn are natural (e.g., frost-shattered bedrock, glacial till) rather than man-made. He does not provide comparative evidence from other sites to support this, which is critical given archaeologists’ interpretations of these features as potential stone sockets (e.g., Parker Pearson et al., 2019a). This assumption seems speculative and overlooks the possibility of incomplete excavation or destruction over time, as noted in Parker Pearson et al.’s 2021 paper, which provides evidence of stone sockets with radiocarbon dates around 3000 BC, shortly before Stonehenge’s construction.
- Dismissal of Archaeological Interpretations: He assumes archaeologists’ interpretations are driven by media hype and preconceived notions, rather than scientific rigor, without fully engaging with their detailed fieldwork. This assumption undermines his objectivity and ignores the context of their findings, such as radiocarbon dates aligning with Neolithic activity, as reported in Sci.News article (March 24, 2021).
These assumptions highlight a gap between John’s geological focus and the archaeological consensus, which leans toward human agency based on recent excavations and dating.
Evaluation of References
The paper includes an extensive bibliography, with over 50 references covering geological, archaeological, and local studies, indicating broad engagement:
- Strengths: Citations include independent geological works (e.g., Bevins et al., 2014, Thorpe et al., 1991) and archaeological studies (e.g., Parker Pearson et al., 2015, 2019a, Darvill, 2019, 2022). For example, Bevins et al. (2014) is referenced for geochemical analysis, and Parker Pearson et al. (2019a) for Waun Mawn excavations, showing engagement with diverse sources.
- Weaknesses: Some claims lack specific citations, particularly when critiquing radiocarbon dating or geochemical links, which is a significant omission given their importance. For instance, he dismisses radiocarbon dates supporting quarrying without referencing specific studies, weakening his argument. This selective use is evident when he cites recent critiques like Darvill (2022) and Pitts (2022) that align with his skepticism but does not engage with counterarguments from researchers like Bevins et al. (2022), who used portable XRF to show Stone 62 came from Garn Ddu Fach, not Waun Mawn, contradicting his narrative.
- Self-Citation: John cites his own works (e.g., John, 2018, 2019a, 2019b) and collaborations (e.g., John, Elis-Gruffydd & Downes, 2015a, 2015b), which is appropriate given his expertise but could be seen as self-referential, especially when supporting glacial transport (~10 citations, ~15% of total).
A table summarizing the distribution of references by author type is provided below:
| Author Type | Number of Citations | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Independent Researchers | ~45 | Bevins et al. (2014), Parker Pearson et al. (2019a) |
| Author Self-Citations | ~10 | John (2018), John et al. (2015a) |
| Collaborative Works | ~5 | John, Elis-Gruffydd & Downes (2015a) |
This table shows that while self-citation exists, it is not excessive, but the selective use of independent research to support his view is a notable weakness, particularly in not addressing counter-evidence like Bevins et al.’s 2022 findings.
Detailed Analysis of Logic
The paper follows a logical progression to dismantle the Waun Mawn-Stonehenge connection:
- Introduction sets the context and hypothesis being challenged.
- Background reviews historical theories and recent archaeological claims.
- Geology and landscape sections argue against unique links to Stonehenge.
- Archaeological evidence section critiques excavations at Waun Mawn.
- Discussion elaborates on interpretative issues and inconsistencies.
- Alternative explanation section presents glacial transport.
- Conclusions summarize the lack of evidence.
However, there are logical gaps:
- Ad Hominem Critiques: John accuses archaeologists of “interpretative inflation” and media-driven narratives, which is an attack on credibility rather than evidence. For example, he criticizes Parker Pearson et al. for lack of peer-reviewed papers without addressing their fieldwork directly, undermining objectivity, as seen in The Guardian article (February 11, 2021), which reports on matching stone sockets.
- Overemphasis on Absence: He argues absence of clear stone sockets disproves a stone circle but does not consider incomplete excavation or destruction over time. For instance, he dismisses shallow pits as natural without comparative analysis, ignoring potential for future discoveries, a point raised in Archaeologists May Have Found ‘Original Stonehenge’ at Waun Mawn (February 12, 2021).
- Glacial Transport as Default: He presents glacial transport as self-evident without addressing its own weaknesses, such as lack of direct evidence for transporting large monoliths over long distances. He cites ice-moulded surfaces but does not explain how glaciers selectively transported specific stones, leaving a logical gap, especially when compared to Parker Pearson et al.’s 2021 evidence of human transport.
- Lack of Engagement with Counter-Evidence: He does not fully address counter-evidence like radiocarbon dates (e.g., 3000 BC from Parker Pearson et al., 2021) or geochemical matches (e.g., Bevins et al., 2014), which support human transport and quarrying, as detailed in Sci.News article.
These logical gaps suggest that while John’s critique is structured, it does not fully engage with the breadth of evidence supporting human agency, as seen in recent studies.
Implications and Recommendations
The findings have implications for understanding Stonehenge’s origins:
- Geochemical Evidence: John’s questioning of links between Waun Mawn and Stonehenge does not address Bevins et al.’s findings (e.g., 2014, 2022), which support human selection rather than glacial scatter, highlighting a need for more integrated analysis.
- Archaeological Evidence: His critique of shallow pits as natural is weak without comparative data, especially given Parker Pearson et al.’s findings of stone sockets and radiocarbon dates, suggesting further excavation could clarify.
- Glacial Evidence: His reliance on ice-moulded surfaces is insufficient without explaining selective transport, a gap highlighted by recent research favoring human agency, as noted in The Guardian article.
- Interpretative Critique: While valid to question media hype, his ad hominem tone (e.g., “interpretative inflation”) detracts from academic rigor, especially when compared to detailed fieldwork by Parker Pearson et al., as reported in Archaeologists May Have Found ‘Original Stonehenge’ at Waun Mawn.
To enhance the paper’s rigor, John could:
- Provide specific geological evidence supporting glacial transport of large monoliths over long distances.
- Include comparative studies of natural formations to strengthen claims about Waun Mawn’s features being natural.
- Acknowledge and address counterarguments, particularly radiocarbon dates and geochemical matches, to present a balanced view.
- Reduce rhetorical language when critiquing other researchers to maintain academic tone.
Conclusion
John’s paper offers a critique of the Waun Mawn-Stonehenge connection, supported by geological and field observations, with a broad range of references. However, it contains unjustified assumptions (e.g., glacial transport, natural origin of features), selective referencing (e.g., lack of counters to radiocarbon data), and logical gaps (e.g., ad hominem critiques, overemphasis on absence). These weaknesses suggest areas for improvement, particularly in addressing recent research supporting human transport, to strengthen its contribution to the ongoing debate about Stonehenge’s bluestones, as evidenced by Parker Pearson et al.’s findings.
This analysis underscores the complexity of the debate, with John’s paper representing a minority view that challenges the consensus but does not fully address counter-evidence, as seen in recent studies like Bevins et al.’s 2022 study and Sci.News article.
Key Citations
- The Stonehenge Bluestones Did Not Come From Waun Mawn In West Wales
- Original Stonehenge? A dismantled stone circle in the Preseli Hills of west Wales
- Portable XRF investigation of Stonehenge Stone 62 and potential source dolerite outcrops in the Mynydd Preseli, west Wales
- Archaeologists May Have Found ‘Original Stonehenge’ at Waun Mawn
- Dramatic discovery links Stonehenge to its original site – in Wales
- Archaeologists find potential original site of Stonehenge in Wales
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments welcome on fresh posts - you just need a Google account to do so.