1. Ireland’s Neolithic people came mainly from Britain. Chronological data and shared material culture, like carinated bowl pottery and lithics, suggest western Britain as the source. Ancient DNA shows nearly identical genetic signatures, supporting this migration.
2. Intense interactions followed. Shared monuments (portal tombs, court tombs) and artifacts (porcellanite axes, Antrim flint) indicate strong, ongoing connections across the Irish Sea, unlike weaker continental links.
3. Connections grew over time. Starting in Ireland’s Early Neolithic II (c. 3800 BC), rapid monument construction (e.g., Poulnabrone portal tomb) and later enclosures show ties intensified, with aDNA suggesting intermarriage.
4. Political maintenance of ties. Whittle argues these links were "political," driven by social groups using a shared past to reinforce lineage and identity, contrasting with slower continental Neolithisation. This is seen in varied mortuary practices and kinship patterns.
Given the increasing evidence for group and personal mobility in recent years, this begs the question of whether such similarities are the result of accidental convergence on the basis of a broadly shared “Neolithic” lifeway, or rather the result of contacts, whether direct or as part of a large-scale, but loose network of interaction. The papers in this volume provide initial case studies to address this issue. Regional case studies of Britain, Ireland, southern Scandinavia, northern France and northern Germany form the basis for reflecting on the similarities and differences of sites and materials to those from adjacent areas, and on the forms and rhythms any potential contact might have taken. Authors draw on both archaeological studies of specific material categories or site patterns, as well as on aDNA evidence or modelling of 14C dates. Papers also offer theoretical reflections on the modalities of contacts and connections at this time, defining more directed questions and priorities to further develop this line of research in the future.
Stonehenge is full of mysteries, but how well do you know its lesser-known details? Take this seven-question quiz to find out! Each question dives into verified but obscure facts about the iconic monument. Write down your answers, then check them below.
What is the significance of the 56 Aubrey Holes found at Stonehenge?
Recent research revealed that Stonehenge’s Altar Stone, a large sandstone slab, likely came from an unexpected location. Where is it believed to have been quarried?
What unusual property was discovered about Stonehenge’s original complete structure through acoustic research?
What was found beneath the old Stonehenge car park, dating back to around 8000 BC?
What is the purpose of the Y and Z Holes, two rings of pits dug around Stonehenge’s sarsen stones?
What evidence suggests Roman activity at Stonehenge?
Why did Charles Darwin visit Stonehenge in 1877?
Ready to see how you did? Click below to reveal the answers and explanations!
Question 1: The Aubrey Holes
Answer: b) They likely held timber posts or stones in the earliest phase of the monument.
Explanation: The Aubrey Holes, named after 17th-century antiquarian John Aubrey, are a circle of 56 pits just inside Stonehenge’s earthwork enclosure. Archaeological evidence suggests they were part of the site’s first phase around 3000 BC, possibly holding timber posts or even stones, though some contained cremated remains, indicating a ceremonial role.
Question 2: The Altar Stone’s Origin
Answer: c) Northeast Scotland
Explanation: In 2024, studies published in Nature showed that the Altar Stone, unlike the Welsh bluestones, was likely sourced from northeast Scotland, over 450 miles away. This suggests Neolithic people transported it an astonishing distance, possibly by land or sea, challenging assumptions about their logistical capabilities.
Question 3: Acoustic Properties
Answer: a) It amplified sounds made inside the circle while containing them within.
Explanation: Research by acoustic engineers at the University of Salford found that Stonehenge’s original unbroken circle of stones amplified voices and music by about 4 decibels inside the monument, with minimal sound escaping outside. This suggests it could have enhanced ceremonial performances for those within the circle.
Question 4: Mesolithic Postholes
Answer: b) Four or five large postholes from pine posts
Explanation: Excavations near Stonehenge’s former car park uncovered four or five large postholes from around 8000 BC, predating the main monument by thousands of years. These held pine posts about 2.5 feet in diameter, likely part of a Mesolithic structure, hinting at early human activity in the area.
Question 5: The Y and Z Holes
Answer: b) Their purpose remains unknown, with no clear archaeological evidence.
Explanation: The Y and Z Holes, concentric rings of pits dug between 1800 and 1500 BC, surround the sarsen stones. Despite extensive study, archaeologists have found no definitive evidence of their function—whether structural, ceremonial, or otherwise—making them one of Stonehenge’s enduring mysteries.
Question 6: Roman Artifacts
Answer: b) Pottery, coins, and other artifacts were found during excavations.
Explanation: Excavations at Stonehenge have uncovered Roman pottery, coins, and metal objects, indicating that Romans visited or used the site, possibly as a place of curiosity or ritual. These finds, displayed at the Stonehenge visitor center, show the monument’s significance persisted into later periods.
Question 7: Charles Darwin’s Visit
Answer: b) To investigate the earth-moving activities of earthworms
Explanation: Darwin visited Stonehenge to study how earthworms affected soil and objects over time. He observed that a fallen stone had sunk deeper into the ground due to worm activity, part of his broader research on earthworms’ ecological impact, later published in his book The Formation of Vegetable Mould.
How did you do? Count one point for each correct answer. 7 points: You’re a Stonehenge sage! 5-6: Impressive knowledge of the obscure. 3-4: Solid effort, but there’s more to uncover. 0-2: Time to revisit Salisbury Plain’s secrets!
In his April 2025 paper, Brian John dusts off the creaky old glacial transport chestnut to argue—yet again—that Carn Goedog wasn’t a Neolithic quarry for Stonehenge’s bluestones. Ignoring a mountain of evidence from actual scientists like Parker Pearson et al., John leans on his pet theory that ice, not people, schlepped these massive stones 200 km across Britain. What we get is less an academic paper and more a petulant blog post, stuffed with sneers at professionals who’ve done the fieldwork he hasn’t bothered with, all while recycling his same old unsubstantiated nonsense.
Here we go again: Brian John’s latest salvo in his one-man crusade to convince the world that glaciers, not Neolithic ingenuity, built Stonehenge. Published on ResearchGate in April 2025, this so-called paper takes aim at the well-supported idea that Carn Goedog was a bluestone quarry, as meticulously documented by Parker Pearson and colleagues. Instead of engaging with their data—geochemical matches, radiocarbon dates, and actual quarry features—John trots out his glacial fairy tale, spiced up with snarky digs at “biased” archaeologists. Spoiler: it’s as convincing as a flat-earther’s PowerPoint.
John’s argument is a broken record: Carn Goedog’s dolerite doesn’t perfectly match Stonehenge’s stones (shock!), the site’s features are “natural” (because he says so), and glaciers did all the heavy lifting. Never mind that the glacial transport theory has been laughed out of serious debate for decades—lacking any evidence of ice dragging 4-ton monoliths across Wales to Wiltshire with surgical precision. He cites frost-shattered blocks and smoothed bedrock as “proof,” but offers zero data showing glaciers could manage this feat. It’s the academic equivalent of waving your hands and shouting “magic ice!” while ignoring Bevins et al. (2014), which pins Carn Goedog as a bluestone source with hard geochemistry.
What John lacks in evidence, he makes up for in venom. Parker Pearson et al. get the full treatment: their work’s “biased,” their publications suspiciously sparse (gasp!), their quarry hypothesis a mere “invention.” This isn’t critique—it’s a tantrum. Meanwhile, these professionals have spent years excavating, dating (e.g., 3000 BC from UCL’s 2019 findings), and analyzing—stuff John wouldn’t know about, given his apparent allergy to original fieldwork. His own contribution? A few strolls around Preseli and a stack of self-citations (e.g., John, 2018; 2024a), propping up his glacial obsession like a house of cards.
The paper’s logic is a mess. John dismisses quarry features—platforms, ditches, tool marks—as “natural,” but provides no comparative analysis to back it up. He claims radiocarbon dating doesn’t support quarrying, yet forgets to mention any dates or sources—probably because they’d contradict him (see Parker Pearson et al., 2019). His glacial transport “hypothesis” skips over pesky details like how ice avoids scattering stones willy-nilly or why it conveniently dropped them at Stonehenge. It’s cherry-picking dressed up as science, ignoring the consensus—like Sci.News (2019)—that humans quarried and moved these rocks.
John boasts over 50 citations, but don’t be fooled. A chunk are his own ramblings (e.g., John, 1970; 2024b), padding it out like the stuffing in a Toby Carvery turkey. Sure, he name-drops Bevins and Patton, but only to twist their work into his narrative, not to engage with it. Missing are specific counters to the quarry evidence—like the inconvenient radiocarbon data he vaguesplains away. It’s a bibliography that screams “look busy,” not “look credible.”
This paper isn’t scholarship; it’s a rehash of John’s glacial transport fan fiction, dolled up with academic trappings and a hefty dose of spite. While real researchers like Parker Pearson unearth evidence—literally—John snipes from the sidelines, offering nothing new beyond his tired ice-age daydreams and cheap shots. Carn Goedog’s quarry status stands firm, backed by data John can’t touch. Save your time: read the pros instead.
The academic paper "Carn Goedog on Mynydd Preseli Was Not the Site of a Bluestone Megalith Quarry" by Brian John, published in April 2025, challenges the idea that Carn Goedog in Wales was a Neolithic quarry for Stonehenge's bluestones. It critiques claims by Parker Pearson et al., suggesting natural processes like glaciation better explain the site's features.
The paper presents detailed arguments, questioning the geochemical link between Carn Goedog and Stonehenge's stones and arguing that features like platforms and ditches are natural. However, some arguments, such as dismissing archaeologists' work as biased, may feel more like personal critique than evidence-based reasoning. The claim that glacial transport explains stone movement lacks direct proof, especially given the 200 km distance, which is debated.
The paper cites over 50 sources, including independent works by Bevins, Ixer, and Parker Pearson, showing engagement with research. However, key claims, like radiocarbon dating not supporting quarrying, lack specific citations, which might weaken its support. While self-citation is present, it's balanced by other studies, suggesting reasonable independence.
The author assumes glacial activity moved the stones, but this isn't fully justified, as it's debated whether glaciers could transport large monoliths far. Assuming site features are natural rather than man-made also lacks comparative evidence, leaving room for doubt. These assumptions highlight areas where more data could strengthen the argument.
The academic paper "Carn Goedog on Mynydd Preseli Was Not the Site of a Bluestone Megalith Quarry" by Brian John, published in April 2025, presents a comprehensive critique of the hypothesis that Carn Goedog, a dolerite tor in Pembrokeshire, Wales, was a Neolithic quarry for Stonehenge's bluestones. The author challenges claims by Parker Pearson et al., arguing that natural processes, particularly glacial activity, better explain the observed features.
The paper argues against the "precise provenancing" of Stonehenge's spotted dolerite to Carn Goedog, highlighting the geochemical heterogeneity of dolerite sills in the area and the limited accessibility of suitable monolith pillars, which are mostly frost-shattered and weathered. It suggests that features identified as quarrying evidence, such as "engineering features" and stone tools, may be natural or unrelated to quarrying, and that radiocarbon dating does not support the hypothesis. The author proposes glacial activity as a likely mechanism for stone transport, concluding that Carn Goedog likely saw intermittent occupation rather than quarrying.
The paper's logical structure is generally robust, with systematic counterarguments to Parker Pearson et al.’s claims. For instance, it questions the interpretation of features like an "access point" through scree and "recesses in the rock face," suggesting they are natural rather than engineered, supported by observations of frost-shattered blocks and ice-moulded surfaces, which align with geological processes.
However, there are potential logical weaknesses:
These gaps suggest that while the paper raises valid points, some arguments could be strengthened by avoiding personal critiques and providing more evidence for key claims.
The paper includes an extensive bibliography, with over 50 references covering geological, glaciological, and archaeological studies, indicating broad engagement with the literature:
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), Patton et al. (2013) |
| 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, and the paper engages significantly with independent research.
The paper makes several assumptions that may not be fully justified, potentially weakening its argument:
There is a significant body of research supporting the quarrying hypothesis at Carn Goedog. For instance, Megalith quarries for Stonehenge's bluestones (2019) confirms that excavations at Carn Goedog and Craig Rhos-y-felin revealed evidence of quarrying around 3000 BC, contemporaneous with Stonehenge’s construction. Similarly, Carn Goedog is the likely major source of Stonehenge doleritic bluestones (2014) uses geochemical analysis to identify Carn Goedog as the major source, aligning with Parker Pearson et al.’s findings. However, Brian John’s blog post, Stonehenge and the Ice Age: The Carn Goedog bluestone provenancing is unsupported by the evidence, critiques this view, suggesting the stones could be glacial erratics, reflecting ongoing debate. A 2024 article, Research claims Stonehenge bluestones did not come from west Wales, also casts doubt on the origin of some bluestones, indicating the topic remains contentious.
To enhance the paper’s rigour, the author could:
The paper offers a detailed critique of the quarrying hypothesis at Carn Goedog, supported by geological and geomorphological evidence, with a broad range of references. However, it contains logical gaps (e.g., ad hominem critiques, insufficient evidence for glacial transport), some claims lack specific citations (e.g., radiocarbon dating), and it makes unjustified assumptions (e.g., natural origin of features). These weaknesses suggest areas for improvement, particularly in addressing controversies and providing more robust evidence, to strengthen its contribution to the ongoing debate about Stonehenge’s bluestones, as evidenced by the scientific consensus in Stonehenge’s Bluestones Were Quarried in Wales 5,000 Years Ago | Sci.News.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
John’s paper relies on several assumptions that may not be fully justified, potentially undermining its conclusions:
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.
The paper includes an extensive bibliography, with over 50 references covering geological, archaeological, and local studies, indicating broad engagement:
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.
The paper follows a logical progression to dismantle the Waun Mawn-Stonehenge connection:
However, there are logical gaps:
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.
The findings have implications for understanding Stonehenge’s origins:
To enhance the paper’s rigor, John could:
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.
