I discovered this surface scatter in the spoil from animal burrows, the black round object is from a rabbit, last summer.
Over two hundred chips were seen on the surface. The find was very close to Stonehenge, in the landscape but not within the Stonehenge Triangle. It was on the footpath of the A344 between the tunnel and Heel Stone, which has now been covered over with the restoration of the landscape scheme.
Rob Ixer has very kindly examined a sample and provided me with a Press Release on the findings:
Lithics from within the Stonehenge landscape collected by Mr T. Daw.
A selection of small lithics were collected by Mr T. Daw from within the Stonehenge landscape, they were macroscopically identified using x20 magnification. Their uniform but very restricted size range is of note as this would be unusual for Stonehenge debitage.
They comprise a mixture of modern roadstones, mainly fine-grained basalt , altered basalt and felsite, plus a single Stonehenge saccharoidal sarsen. The majority of the lithics are fine-grained igneous and similar in appearance to the spotted dolerites comprising most of the bluestones. Although the lithics are too small to determine macroscopically they appear to include two different types. No non-dolerite bluestone (rhyolite, tuff/ashes, sandstone) was recognised.
Two representative samples were sectioned to determine if either main group of lithics was a Stonehenge bluestone but neither was. A sample of the abundant white feldspar and one of the rare, white feldspar classes of possible preselite were sectioned and petrographically described in transmitted and reflected light. Neither thin section showed Preseli Dolerite.
The abundant white feldspar is an altered feldspathic rock possibly a basalt and the rare white feldspar rock is an altered felsite and more acidic carrying primary quartz.
The two sections add to the large number of adventitious lithics-mainly 19th and 20th century roadstones found in the Stonehenge Landscape.
Saccharoidal sarsen 1.3g
Purple fine-grained lava same as from Fargo Wood Test Pits 1.9; 0.4g
Black, non-epidote bearing fine-grained dolerite with ?bornite 1.4g
Abundant white feldspar basalt 1.1; 0.9g
Few white feldspar 1.6; 1.5; 1.0; 0.6g
Rare, white feldspar, some pale green colouration felsite 1.6; 1.4; 1.3; 1.2; 3x0.8; 2x0.7; 0.6; 0.4
This 'obsession' to identify the exact location of the outcrop of Bluestones sums up the problems of archaeology today.ReplyDelete
Does it really matter??
Yes, to find out from what region the stones come from is interesting - Scotland , Ireland, Wales which gives us an insight to the logistics, but which outcrop in Wales - who cares, it's a typical worthless academic process which concentrates so much on the detail it overlooks the point!
There are thousands of these small pieces of Bluestone debris all over Stonehenge - yet no one (a part from me ;-)) has looked into the more important question of WHY is there a disproportionate number of Bluestone pieces discarded?
The current 'experts' believe that these were the remains of 'shaping' the stones to fit the stone holes - But who in their right mind would chip off pieces of hard bluestone to fit the chalk stone hole - you work the softer substance.
The other 'genius' idea is that this is the result of souvenir hunters - except there have found more bluestone chippings than sarsen, which is extraordinary as sarsen stones outnumber (in area) bluestones by about ten to one. Moreover, you would remove a sample normally to take home rather than throw on the floor (although I accept some smaller minor fragments as we see in the number of Sarsen stone bits would be left on the floor).
And for the same disproportionate reasons of Bluestones v Sarsens the dressing idea also bites the dust!
Although the details are interesting (up to a point) the overview is much more important in solving Stonehenge's mysteries.
As usual another catalogue of errors and misunderstandings .ReplyDelete
Pinpointing the source of the bluestones is incredibly important . Think about it . Evidence for quarrying or evidence for glacial action etc .
"There are thousands of these small pieces of Bluestone debris all over Stonehenge - yet no one (a part from me ;-)) has looked into the more important question of WHY is there a disproportionate number of Bluestone pieces discarded?"
That's probably due to the fact that there isn't a disproportionate number of bluestone fragments . Not only was the sampling area limited , much of the sarsen was excluded from the sampling and even then it still produced about 50 % .
Many of the stones were dressed above the section set into the sockets ,that surface area far exceeds the area set into the sockets .
" Think about it . Evidence for quarrying or evidence for glacial action etc "ReplyDelete
Yes think about it Sherlock, we know the area of source (if not the exact location) the exact location would prove nothing of value - if you believe that it disproves glacial movement then you have overlooked the obvious evidence that (unlike the sarsen stones) there isn't a single substantial erratic bluestone that has ever been found in situ anywhere near Stonehenge and absolutely no evidence that any glacier traveled south of the Bristol Channel.
Even if you did find a quarry this will not prove it was used in the transport of the bluestones to stonehenge as it could have been used for other purposes elsewhere - so its a pointless exercise!
"much of the sarsen was excluded from the sampling and even then it still produced about 50 % " Well according to Cleal et al (1995) there was 2170 Sarsen Stones and 3600 Bluestone - you really need to improve your maths old man! Although since then (as Tim has started) more of both have been revealed and recorded. But even if it was 50/50 that would favour of Bluestone chippings as the greater proportion as the physical area covered by Sarsen stones are ten times larger than the bluestone (as I have already stated and you missed, yet again) - you'll find the concept of area in any primary school maths book.
"Many of the stones were dressed above the section set into the sockets ,that surface area far exceeds the area set into the sockets" ???
Turn that into English and we can probably rebuke idea as well if you wish?
The more you respond the more mistakes we get . Looks like you didn’t think very hard about it .ReplyDelete
Pinpointing the source saves time and energy .If there is any evidence to be found in relation to quarrying or glaciation we know exactly where to look , not just in the general area . It has nothing to do with disproving glaciation .
Dartmoor is south of the Bristol Channel and was glaciated .
“Even if you did find a quarry this will not prove it was used in the transport of the bluestones to stonehenge as it could have been used for other purposes elsewhere - so its a pointless exercise! “
If you don’t understand the implications of a quarry found at the site that is the source for the bluestones then maybe it is not really that surprising .
If you had read the Cleal comments on the worked sarsen you would have noticed “it is very difficult to estimate the amount of sarsen which has been discarded or otherwise made unavailable “ and “Hawley collected mauls and waste flakes and fragments but retained only the mauls “ .More to the point the recent sampling i.e. post Cleal , shows, as was mentioned earlier nearly 50% sarsen despite much of the sarsen being excluded .
"Many of the stones were dressed above the section set into the sockets ,that surface area far exceeds the area set into the sockets" ???
I imagine that only you found it difficult .Take your time .
"Pinpointing the source saves time and energy .If there is any evidence to be found in relation to quarrying or glaciation we know exactly where to look , not just in the general area ."ReplyDelete
How can spending so much time on a pointless exercise save time and energy? You've created a circular argument Sherlock!
Snow covered high regions do not a glacier make!! Especially when they are supposed to be pushed stones from Presceli - my tutor sam would love you on his logic course at UCL.
It maybe hard to count the little blighters (Tim found it easy, but he's not an academic and maths is probably easier for him!) But yet they did and publish the numbers as stated!
Now if your suggesting that archaeologists can't count or lie constantly about there findings - you may have a point! Moreover, if you comment ".More to the point the recent sampling i.e. post Cleal , shows, as was mentioned earlier nearly 50% sarsen despite much of the sarsen being excluded ." is to be believed there must be a reference to post cleal NUMBERS so can you quote the references (as I have done) to confirm your comments or is archaeology a 'science' of guesstimates??
Who knows one day we might get you to answer the question first posed " why are there more more stone chippings than Sarsens when the physical area (or mass if you don't understand the concept of area) of the sarsens is ten times larger than the Bluestones???
As for the last piece of gobbledygook - well lets be honest, that sums up your grasp of the subject.
As expected you didn’t think about the pinpointing .ReplyDelete
The glaciation on Dartmoor was due to a glacier . See “The glaciation of Dartmoor: the southernmost independent Pleistocene ice cap in the British Isles “
David J.A. Evans, Stephan Harrison, Andreas Vieli, Ed Anderson
Quaternary Science Reviews 45 (2012) 31-53 . The clue is in the title . Poor Sam ,it must have been a thankless task .
As also expected you conveniently the ignored the references from Cleal and quoted i.e. “it is very difficult to estimate the amount of sarsen which has been discarded or otherwise made unavailable “ and “Hawley collected mauls and waste flakes and fragments but retained only the mauls “, making a mockery of your numbers (caps removed ) .Being unaware of the more recent findings and writing on the subject is also to be expected .
Here was the comment that you couldn’t understand “"Many of the stones were dressed above the section set into the sockets ,that surface area far exceeds the area set into the sockets" . The lack of understanding of concepts was apparent in your inability to comprehend that simple comment in relation to surface area ,which is obviously what matters in relation to the dressing not mass .
For a question to be “first posed “ it needs to have been asked first . You didn’t ask it ,despite putting one quote around the start of it .
Now that you have asked the question .Think about the surface area , not the mass of the sarsens that had been dressed .Not only is the surface area far greater than the bluestones there were far more sarsens dressed than bluestones . Volume becomes applicable when we consider the stumps and missing bluestones .
"“The glaciation of Dartmoor: the southernmost independent Pleistocene ice cap in the British Isles “ David J.A. Evans, Stephan Harrison, Andreas Vieli, Ed Anderson"ReplyDelete
Sherlock the clue is in the title of the book - 'independent ice cap' - its not connected to the main ice cap so it can't move stones from Preseli - is your ability to read and comprehend as poor as your maths??
And still no evidence by qualified reference for your outrageous claims just the same old repetition of gobbledygook and archaeological fantasy - no surprise to anyone really.
"Not only is the surface area far greater than the bluestones there were far more sarsens dressed than bluestones" no shit Sherlock!! - So why are there more bluestone chippings than sarsen as reported by cleal et al in 1995.
Logically, you have two options (I've tried to make it simple so you understand) you are wrong or cleal et al are lying??
I go for the former as it matches the catalogue of nonsense from previous posts!
Neil - I'm feeling the devastating impact of those 'dead sheep' you warned me about previously.....lol!
You said " absolutely no evidence that any glacier traveled south of the Bristol Channel." . There was one on Dartmoor which is south of the Bristol channel , by it 's nature it was travelling . I wasn't talking about moving anything from Preseli , simply pointing out your error .ReplyDelete
As always if you see an error quote it then refute it . we are all aware of a of a catalogue of yours , would you like them quoted . ?
Among the problems mentioned in the text of the Cleal book referenced twice and ignored by you ,is Hawley’s “large dump of sarsen chips “ found just south of the Heelstone which amounted to 3760 fragments .Also ,despite being pre publication , the mass of sarsen fragments found by Mike Pitts in his 1979-80- trench were not included in the sarsen sarsen figures count ,they amounted to 170 kg , the bluestone was not included either but this amounted to 1 kg. There were also 6500 sarsen fragments , more than the Cleal bluestone and sarsen combined , found in a trench 5m x5 excavated as part of the SRP .
Your problem is partly based on this misunderstanding “ who in their right mind would chip off pieces of hard bluestone to fit the chalk stone hole - you work the softer substance. “ . You don’t see what finishes up in the hole , the point of the dressing was visual . And the surface area and number of dressed sarsens were far greater than that of the bluestones . Further there clearly was souvenir chipping that could only have contributed to the fragments .
The dressing is self evident on the stones , and was confirmed , by the laser scans .This is not the same as your fantasy view of the “carving “ of the Slaughter stone which had been dressed but not where you believed .
Don't forget to remind us of the you tube vid .
The Ten Commandments of LogicReplyDelete
1. Thou shalt not attack the person’s character ─ but the argument. (Ad Hominem)
2. Thou shalt not misrepresent or exaggerate a person’s argument in order to make them easier to attack. (Straw Man Fallacy)
3. Thou shalt not use small numbers to represent the whole (Hasty Generalization)
4. Thou shalt not argue thy position by assuming one of its premises is true. (Begging the Question)
5. Thou shalt not claim that because something occurred before, it must be the cause. (Post Hoc/False Cause)
6. Thou shalt not reduce the argument down to two possibilities. (False Dichotomy)
7. Thou shalt not argue that because of ignorance, the claim must be true or false. (Ad Ignorantum)
8. Thou shalt not lay the burden of proof onto him that is questioning the claim. (Burden of proof Reversal)
9. Thou shalt not assume ‘This’ follows ‘that’ when it has no logical connection. (Non Sequitur)
10. Thou shalt not claim that because a premise is popular, it must therefore be true. (Bandwagon Fallacy)
There also a glacier in the Alps... absolute nonsense!!ReplyDelete
"much of the sarsen was excluded from the sampling and even then it still produced about 50 % " - Prove it!! I 'refute' your claim - a bag here and a bit there, total nonsense.
And yes if we go outside the monument I'm sure we can find a lot more Sarsen Stones - probably quite a few at Avebury if that satisfies you need to qualify your inaccurate observations.
AS ALWAYS Sherlock your missing the point and keep stating the bleeding obvious as if its a revelation - yes we know the large Sarsens were dressed (lots of chippings as a result) and there are a lot more sarsen volume to dress than Bluestone - we know by observation (thats looking with your eyes and using a ruler to measure) that there is ten times more in sq area (see your primary school text books for details of how to calculate) so if both were dressed similarly there should be ten times more Sarsen stones than bluestone within the monument.
We know from cleal et al (who lied to us according to you!) there was 3600 Bluestone - now here comes the hard bit for you, but bear with me as I know maths is not your strong point - 3600 bluestones x 10 = 36,000 sarsen stones if its a 50/50 comparison... you won't get that will you Sherlock?
Consequently, the only 'scientific' comparison to date is Cleal et al 1995 - but then again when have your comments ever been classified as scientific?
“We know from cleal et al (who lied to us according to you!)”ReplyDelete
Your inability to understand basic English ,gets you into a lot of bother . Go wash your mouth out . What a level for even you to stoop to.
You don’t understand that when you get something wrong , by not reading or misunderstanding the text the problem is yours ,not the authors or others who pointed out your problem .
For the third time , if you would read the text in Cleal you might begin to understand .
You made the same mistake with the antlers , when , referencing Cleal ,you suggested that there were only 82 antlers ,which were indeed noted , but you missed the references to all the others which were on the same page . A bit like just looking at the pictures and missing the text, sometimes you have to dig a little deeper .
To refute a claim means producing evidence not just saying it .
You have produced nothing except a misunderstood a pair of figures from Cleal whilst omitting the relevant info from that book and also ignoring the info not contained in the book . I have given you figures , do they have to be repeated . ?
Hawley’s “large dump of sarsen just south of the Heelstone which amounted to 3760 fragments .Also ,despite being pre publication , the mass of sarsen fragments found by Mike Pitts in his 1979-80- trench were not included in the sarsen sarsen figures count ,they amounted to 170 kg , the bluestone was not included either but this amounted to 11 kg. There were also 6500 sarsen fragments , more than the Cleal bluestone and sarsen combined , found in a trench 5m x5 excavated as part of the SRP .
Yes , it is all obvious .
There is glacier on Dartmoor , which is south of the Bristol Channel .
You have produced a catalogue of errors and will continue to do so ,would you like a reminder of them ? As far as maths go , why don’t we get to see some ?,i.e. your “calculation “ in "4200BC where I have calculated the Avenue was constructed due to the TRUE central alignment of the Sunrise." .
I agree Cleal et al was right which of course means you are wrong Sherlock - shock!, horror!!ReplyDelete
You failed to give us any evidence of sarsen stones (within the monument) to match the number of Bluestones.
You failed to understand that Glaciers on Dartmoor had no effect on Welsh Quarries.
You failed to understand that only 82 antler bases were found at Stonehenge
You failed to understand that 2600BC - 2400BC is a lot more Bronze age than Neolithic
And when eventually you did give us some qualified evidence about antler excavation rates - you failed to see that they contradicted themselves!!
Sherlock - hate to be the one to tell you, but you're a bit of a failure.
Nurse...the dead sheep are ready for its medication!!
The 10 rules of logic obviously never apply to you .ReplyDelete
Every one of your points bears absolutely no relation to your original erroneous comments.
You ignore the text and evidence from the Cleal book and the evidence from Hawley , Pitts and the SRP .
There was no mention of affecting Welsh quarries ,you said there were no glaciers south of the Bristol channel . There are .
There was no mention of bases ,the term was antlers . It's all in the in book .
You said that 2600 -2400 was not Neolithic , but BA ,you were wrong .
The evidence from the antler trials contradicted you .
Don't you realise that people see right through the bluff and bluster and the lack of quotes and evidence .
To go through the catalogue would take some time ,but would you like a list of your recent errors complete with refuting evidence and quotes ?
Still waiting on an example of your "calculation " .
The attempts at humour are getting very tired ,if it's not playing with names it's nurses and medication ,how many times have you used that ? It's as pathetic as your attempts at logic and saying anything meaningful about Stonehenge .
"The attempts at humour are getting very tired ,if it's not playing with names it's nurses "ReplyDelete
Sorry MR GEO CUR.... but I'd rather play with the nurses!!
mmmm very 70’s .ReplyDelete
“Carry on Fantasising “ ?
or is it “Stonehenge –east of Bristol Channel “ sub –titled “or is it south or west ? “ .
“On the water front “ I could have been a Convendor “ ?