Correcting the Record on Brian John's Silly Rant

Updated - I have reviewed Brian John's responses (https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2025/09/bevins-et-al-2025-very-silly-rant.html https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2025/09/bevins-et-al-2025-more-about-that-very.html ) to the paper "The enigmatic ‘Newall boulder’ excavated at Stonehenge in 1924: New data and correcting the record" by Richard E. Bevins and colleagues (2025), of which I am a co-author. My review is based on the content of John's blog posts and the paper. My analysis tries to remain objective, focusing on strengths, weaknesses, and the broader debate between human transport (supported by the paper) and glacial transport (advocated by John).

Summary of the Paper (Bevins et al., 2025) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2025.105303

The 15-page paper systematically addresses the Newall boulder's history, petrography, geochemistry, morphology, and context to argue against it being a glacial erratic. It corrects perceived errors in prior works, including John's 2024a paper, and reinforces human transport of Stonehenge's bluestones from west Wales.

• Key Arguments:

  • Historical Clarifications (Section 2): Details the boulder's excavation, sampling (1970s IGS, 1980s OU), and storage. Corrects John's claims about its "rediscovery" and sample numbering.
  • Provenancing (Section 3): Petrographic matches (e.g., stilpnomelane, chlorite, titanite, resorbed zircons) and new pXRF data link the boulder to Craig Rhos-y-Felin. High Ca is attributed to post-depositional tufa in chalky soils, not disproving the source.
  • Stone Identification (Section 4): Clarifies mislabelling of buried stumps 32c, 32d, 32e (e.g., 32d as foliated rhyolite from Craig Rhos-y-Felin, not spotted dolerite).
  • Morphology (Section 5): The boulder's bullet shape matches weathered pillar tops at Craig Rhos-y-Felin, not glacial wear. Disputes John's "diagnostic features" as weathering artefacts.
  • Glacial Hypothesis (Section 6): No striations or clear glacial indicators; disputes ice extent models, erratics in Bristol Channel, and Anglian glaciation claims. Models like BRITICE-CHRONO limit ice to Celtic Sea margins.
  • Assemblage (Section 7): Restricted to 12–15 lithologies from discrete sources (mostly west Wales, plus NE Scotland), not 46+ as John claims. Includes debitage but argues against diverse glacial deposits.
  • Distribution (Section 8): No erratics or glacial features on Salisbury Plain; fragments near Stonehenge are human-dispersed debitage.
  • Archaeological Context (Section 9): Evidence from quarries (Craig Rhos-y-Felin, Carn Goedog), tools, and parallels (e.g., Irish megaliths) supports human effort. Disputes lack of haulage evidence.
  • Conclusions (Section 10): Reaffirms human transport; no glaciation on Salisbury Plain.

The paper is data-driven, interdisciplinary, and corrective, acknowledging scant evidence for either transport mechanism but favouring human agency based on provenancing and archaeology.

Summary of Brian John's Reply

John's response is presented across two blog posts, self-described as a "very silly rant" (though serious in intent), written three months post-publication. The first post (dated September 2025) frames the paper as an "ad hominem attack" by a "gang of eleven" to silence glacial transport debate. He cites himself extensively (e.g., his 2024a paper in E&G Quaternary Science Journal, 2024b in Quaternary Newsletter, and blog posts) and accuses the authors of bias, selective evidence, pseudo-science, and obsession with "precision provenancing" to uphold a human-transport narrative linked to Neolithic quarries.

John structures his critique around the paper's sections (2–10), disputing claims point-by-point:

• Section 2 (The Newall Boulder): Calls it "petty and sterile," criticising terminology (e.g., "areas" vs. "sampling locations" or "facets") and accusing the authors of targeting him unfairly for not citing unpublished works.
• Section 3 (Testing a Craig Rhos-y-felin Source): Disputes the provenancing as unconvincing, arguing similarities don't prove origin and calling for denser sampling across nearby outcrops to rule out alternatives.
• Section 4 (Clarification of Craig Rhos-y-felin Rhyolite at Stonehenge): Agrees on labelling confusion but rejects the claim that Stone 32d is from Craig Rhos-y-felin, calling it "disingenuous" based on old photos.
• Section 5 (Morphology of the Newall Boulder): Rejects interpretations of a "monolith extraction point" at Craig Rhos-y-felin, arguing fracture scars show natural, multi-stage breakage (not quarrying). He accepts the boulder could be a broken block but attributes breakage to glacial processes.
• Section 6 (So is the Newall Boulder a Glacial Erratic?): Defends glacial transport, refuting the paper's dismissal of erratics in the Bristol Channel/Somerset Lowlands and ice-sheet models. He accuses authors of fundamental errors on glaciation, ice rafting, and dating (e.g., Anglian glaciation), citing his own experience and publications.
• Section 7 (The Bluestone Assemblage): Argues the assemblage includes ~46 lithologies (including debitage, hammer stones, etc.), not 12–15, indicating a glacial erratic collection. He calls the paper's restricted-source claim "disingenuous" and notes inconsistencies in the authors' past arguments.

The second post (dated 24 September 2025) continues the critique:

• Section 8 (Salisbury Plain and the Distribution of Bluestone Fragments): Accuses the authors of being "economical with the truth" by claiming no bluestones beyond 4 km from Stonehenge, ignoring inconvenient fragments. Cites finds near West Kennet/Avebury (e.g., granodiorite), Boles Barrow as a glacial erratic, and disputes fieldwalking surveys and gravel analyses (e.g., contra Green, Scourse, Parker Pearson). Argues some Stonehenge fragments show glacial abrasion, not solely human shaping.
• Section 9 (The Archaeological Context): Denies quarrying at Craig Rhos-y-felin and Carn Goedog as "misinterpreted natural features," dismissing haulage evidence from cromlechs (e.g., local sourcing at Pentre Ifan). Rejects long-distance transport as supposition, cites alternative views (e.g., Stonehenge as a quarry per Thorpe et al., 1991), questions Altar Stone's origin, and dismisses Waun Mawn (citing his 2024b paper). Omits referencing the paper's cited critiques but accuses authors of ignoring his 2015 papers (John et al., 2015a, b).
• Section 10 (Conclusions): Reiterates disagreements, claims no "killer facts" resolve the debate, credits himself for forcing "retreats" from "wilder narratives," and accepts potential Rhos-y-felin links but insists on glacial transport. Dismisses quarrying as "flimsy" and decries Stonehenge's "curse."

John ends both posts with quips (e.g., steamrollers as scrap metal) and includes images (e.g., of the boulder, sites like Bedd yr Afanc, with no detailed descriptions but linked to glacial arguments). He provides links to his blog posts and ResearchGate articles.

Evaluation of John's Points

John's expertise in glacial geomorphology shines in discussions of ice dynamics, but his tone (e.g., "condescending nonsense," "deluded") and self-referential approach undermine objectivity. The full paper addresses many of his concerns with data, revealing some misrepresentations in his reply.

• Section 2 (The Newall Boulder): John's dismissal as "petty and sterile" overlooks the paper's aim to correct factual errors (e.g., his claims of "brief examination" and "rediscovery"). His terminology critique ("areas" vs. "facets") is minor; the paper's Fig. 1 and Table 1 provide clarity. Fair point on citing unpublished works, but the section is archival, not primarily targeting him.
• Section 3 (Testing a Craig Rhos-y-Felin Source): John concedes new data's interest but deems it unconvincing, demanding denser regional sampling. The paper counters with specific matches (e.g., stilpnomelane aggregates, resorbed zircons in hundreds of samples) and new pXRF/PCA analyses (Fig. 3) distinguishing Craig Rhos-y-Felin from other rhyolites. John's stilpnomelane ubiquity claim lacks specifics; the paper notes its unique association here. High Ca is explained as post-burial tufa, not disproving the source—John overlooks this.
• Section 4 (Clarification of Craig Rhos-y-Felin Rhyolite at Stonehenge): John agrees on labelling confusion but calls the 32d identification "disingenuous" based on old photos. The paper provides evidence (Fig. 5, Atkinson's 1954 photo) showing 32d's foliation matching Craig Rhos-y-Felin, correcting historical errors (e.g., Cleal et al., 1995). This strengthens the monolith link, weakening John's speculation dismissal.
• Section 5 (Morphology of the Newall Boulder): John rejects monolith extraction, arguing natural fractures, and accepts broken block but glacial breakage. The paper (Fig. 6) shows pillar tops naturally bullet-shaped and tapering, matching 32d's dimensions—attributing breakage to human/natural processes at Stonehenge, not glaciation. John's "blunt bullet-shaped clasts" commonality is noted but contextualised as non-diagnostic.
• Section 6 (So is the Newall Boulder a Glacial Erratic?): John defends glacial features (e.g., facets, scratches) and models (e.g., Anglian extent, Bristol Channel erratics). However, the paper disputes diagnostics as weathering, notes no striations, and critiques models (e.g., BRITICE-CHRONO limits ice; Ely et al., 2024 on surge events). John's refutation of glacimarine transport lacks counter-evidence; the paper cites Pearce et al. (2024) for rafting. His "ground truthing" emphasis is valid, but the paper highlights absent glacial deposits on Salisbury Plain.
• Section 7 (The Bluestone Assemblage): The discrepancy in lithology counts (46 vs. 12–15) stems from definitions—John includes all fragments, while the paper focuses on monoliths. This isn't inconsistency on the authors' part but differing scopes; John's "rubbish stones" argument (citing Thorpe et al., 1991) is intriguing but doesn't disprove human transport if stones were multi-purpose.
• Section 8 (Salisbury Plain and the Distribution of Bluestone Fragments): John accuses the authors of being "economical with the truth" by claiming no bluestones beyond 4 km from Stonehenge, ignoring inconvenient fragments. He cites finds near West Kennet/Avebury (e.g., granodiorite), Boles Barrow as a glacial erratic, and disputes fieldwalking surveys and gravel analyses (e.g., contra Green, Scourse, Parker Pearson). He also argues some Stonehenge fragments show glacial abrasion, not human shaping. The paper emphasises the restricted distribution of non-sarsen lithics, supported by systematic surveys showing no far-flung erratics; fragments beyond Stonehenge are rare and not diagnostic of glaciation. Boles Barrow's debated status (likely local or from Stonehenge) does not prove glacial transport, and gravel analyses (e.g., Green) remain robust. John's reliance on blog posts and undated 'future postings' lacks peer-reviewed substantiation; we maintain that angular debitage near Stonehenge derives from monolith dressing, not ice.
• Section 9 (The Archaeological Context): John denies quarrying at Craig Rhos-y-felin and Carn Goedog as "misinterpreted natural features," dismissing haulage evidence from cromlechs (e.g., local sourcing at Pentre Ifan). He rejects long-distance transport as supposition, cites alternative views (e.g., Stonehenge as a quarry per Thorpe et al., 1991), questions Altar Stone's origin, and dismisses Waun Mawn (citing his 2024b paper). He omits referencing the paper's cited critiques but accuses authors of ignoring his 2015 papers (John et al., 2015a, b). The paper highlights archaeological parallels (e.g., Brittany megaliths moved kilometres) and direct evidence from excavations (Parker Pearson et al., 2019; 2022a), including engineering features like ramps and props. Local sourcing for cromlechs does not negate broader Neolithic capabilities; trading networks (e.g., axe-heads) support feasibility. John's dismissal of Waun Mawn ignores our contextualisation within Preseli's monumental landscape.
• Section 10 (Conclusions): John reiterates disagreements, claims no "killer facts" resolve the debate, credits himself for forcing "retreats" from "wilder narratives," and accepts potential Rhos-y-felin links but insists on glacial transport. He dismisses quarrying as "flimsy" and decries Stonehenge's "curse." The paper synthesises data showing the boulder's non-glacial nature and restricted lithologies from human-selected sites. John's final concessions (e.g., boulder as monolith fragment) align with our findings but contradict his glacial insistence without new evidence.

Overall Observations

John's critique makes a couple of valid points about potential sampling gaps and model uncertainties but ultimately fails to dismantle our data, including new geochemical analyses (e.g., portable XRF), photographic evidence (e.g., Figures 5–6), and interdisciplinary insights (e.g., quarrying at Craig Rhos-y-felin and Carn Goedog, distributions lacking erratics). This leaves his glacial hypothesis less tenable, particularly without explanations for absent deposits or erratics on Salisbury Plain. His reply often misrepresents our work (e.g., ignoring the tufa explanation for calcium or the specific context of stilpnomelane features). Such continued misrepresentation of scientific evidence risks aligning his contributions with pseudoscientific narratives surrounding Stonehenge, potentially tarnishing an otherwise notable legacy in glacial geomorphology.