I think these conclusions made by Brian John are critical. Does the evidence prove a large 110 metre diameter stone circle existed here?
I have edited Brian 's comments but would love to hear in the light of further survey evidence in 2020 whether he still believes there is little or no evidence for such a large circle.
"Waun Mawn and the search for “Proto-
Stonehenge”
Brian John
Dept of Geography, University of Durham (retired). Current address: Trefelin, Cilgwyn, Newport,
Pembrokeshire SA42 0QN, UK. Email: brianjohn4@mac.com
Greencroft Working Paper No 4, October 2020, 30 pp
Abstract
This paper examines Waun Mawn in its regional context, on the northern flank of Mynydd Preseli
in Pembrokeshire. The geology is typical for the area, with outcrops of Ordovician mudstones and
meta-mudstones and igneous rocks belonging to the Fishguard Volcanic Group. The landscape has
been intensively glaciated on more than one occasion, and glacial and periglacial deposits are
widespread. There is an extensive litter of erratic boulders (mostly of dolerite) scattered across the
hillside. Many of these boulders have been used in prehistoric stone settings around Waun Mawn,
Tafarn y Bwlch and Banc Llywdlos. Included in these stone settings are single and double standing
stones, ring cairns, passage and gallery graves, and what appear to be collapsed cromlechs. Parker
Pearson (2017, 2019) has claimed that Waun Mawn carries traces of a dismantled “giant stone
circle” which provided bluestone monoliths for Stonehenge. The evidence cited in two publications
is examined, and does not withstand scrutiny. From examinations of the shallow excavations in
2017 and 2018, it is concluded that there might have been some small standing stones which were
later removed or broken up, but it is not demonstrated that there ever was a small stone circle here,
let alone a “giant” one. Furthermore, there have been no control studies in the neighbourhood
which might demonstrate that the speculative feature has any significance. There is nothing at
Waun Mawn to link this site in any way to Stonehenge, and it is concluded that the archaeologists
have simply “discovered” what they wanted to find, and have created an elaborate and unnecessary
bluestone narrative around it. No evidence has been brought forward in support of the claim that
“this was one of the great religious and political centres of Neolithic Britain”.
Something is not right. This message is just to keep things from messing up down the road