The Twenty Most Notable Stone Circles in the UK and their Stone Sources

By combining various sources I created a list of the twenty most notable neolithic stone circles, of course there are many others that could have been in the list but this seems to be a representative sample. I have started investigating the sources of their megaliths. For most there are just assumptions, but where there has been research it seems that the stones are very deliberately chosen and brought to the site.

1. Arbor Low: The stone circle is made up of about 50 large limestone blocks arranged in an egg-shaped pattern assumed to be local but no research on sources has been published. The monument is situated on a Carboniferous Limestone plateau in the White Peak area of Derbyshire
2. Avebury: Probably local but see Gillings, Mark & Pollard, Josh. (2016). Making Megaliths: Shifting and Unstable Stones in the Neolithic of the Avebury Landscape. Cambridge Archaeological Journal. -1. 1-23. 10.1017/S0959774316000330. for discussion on stone sources.
3. Beaghmore: No research, assumed local.
4. Boscawen-Un: No research but assumed sourced from the surrounding Cornish landscape, where granite is naturally abundant. The quartz stone may have been specially selected from a different local source due to its unique appearance.
5. Calanais: the exact quarry site is not specified but the stones are described as being "of local Lewisian Gneiss"
6. Castlerigg Stone Circle: Assumed to be sourced locally from metamorphic slate that was naturally available in the area as glacial erratics.
7. Gors Fawr: The stones at Gors Fawr come from two distinct sources: Half of the stones are made of bluestone, which is sourced from the nearby Preseli Mountains.The other half of the stones are composed of local rock types found in the immediate area
8. Long Meg and Her Daughters, Cumbria: The rhyolite stones of the main circle were likely gathered from the surrounding landscape. The red sandstone of Long Meg was deliberately brought from a different location, possibly due to its distinctive appearance or perceived special properties
9. Machrie Moor, Isle of Arran: The circles include a variety of stone types, found on the Isle of Arran. This includes both red sandstone and granite
10. Merry Maidens: assumed to be local granite.
11. Mitchell’s Fold: assumed to be dolerite stones from nearby Stapeley Hill approx 2000m
12. Moel Ty Uchaf Stone Circle: assumed to be local
13. Nine Ladies Stone Circle: assumed to be local Millstone Grit
14. Rollright Stones: assumed to be local naturally occurring surface oolitic limestone boulders
15. Stanton Drew: "There are at least four distinct rock types to be found within the monument site and the origins of the rock types appear to be from geographically as well as geologically diverse areas."https://www.mendipgeoarch.net/stones.html
16. Stonehenge: many distant sources
17. Swinside: assumed to be local porphyritic slate
18. The Hurlers : "During the excavation, geological inspection of the stones which made up the pavement revealed a wide variety: granites, elvan, altered wall rock, vein material, black fault surface rock, phyllite, quartz and mica (Beeson 2013), many with sharp edges forming an irregular lumpy fresh surface. This variety brought colour with pink and orange granites and shiny gold pieces of phyllite. Crystals in the granite were visually inspected and differences were noted, and we learnt that the rocks were sourced from a variety of places. A comparison of the sizes and ratios of feldspar and quartz crystals in the individual standing stones which made up the central and northern circles also provided another surprising insight: there were differences in the parent material which could also suggest the possibility that the granite for the standing stones in at least two of the circles had also come from different sources. Moreover, the rocks in the pavement showed no specific link to the standing stones of the circles. Such new information on the materiality of The Hurlers has potential to reveal new insights about how EBA ceremonial monuments are made (Beeson in Nowakowski and Gossip 2017)";(Investigating Archaeology and Astronomy at The Hurlers 61© 2020 EQUINOX PUBLISHING LTD)
19. The Ring of Brodgar: The megaliths used to construct the Ring of Brodgar were sourced from various locations across Orkney "at least seven different lithologies". Specifically: Many of the stones were quarried from Vestrafiold in Sandwick, about 8 miles away from the site. Archaeological evidence, including ancient stoneworking tools and remnants of quarried stones, has been found at Vestrafiold.Other stones were sourced from different areas of Orkney, possibly aligned to their points of origin within the circle. One distinctive yellow stone came from an outcrop at Houton in Orphir, approximately 9 miles from the site
20. Tregeseal East stone circle: Assumed to be local granite

Rod Allday / Tregeseal stone circle

As Gillings et al 2016 say: "Whilst it could be argued that the setting of any megalith requires some degree of relocation, even a cursory examination of the monumental literature reveals that when it comes to comment and consideration, not all megaliths are afforded the same degree of interest. Where the component stones seem unusual or exotic with regard to size, shape and/or composition, there is active consideration of where they might have come from and the practicalities of movement. In contrast, when the stones are generic and plentiful, extraction and movement are rarely mentioned at all. Cooney has contrasted these latter ‘mundane’ or ‘routine’ stones with the more academically stimulating blocks that might find their way into megalithic monuments (and thus archaeological narratives). Mundane stone is lithic material that elicits no impulse towards explanation or interpretation on the part of the researcher (Cooney 2009, 64-5; Gillings 2015, 208-10). It is generally unworked, local, ubiquitous and used pragmatically in the process of construction. Local, generally unworked and ubiquitous, the sarsens of Avebury’s monuments often suffer from such mundane ascription. Further, while recent accounts have served to direct academic attention towards the highly charged and significant nature of extracting, moving and erecting stones (e.g. Richards 2013), it could be argued that with the emphasis that is placed upon metaphoric and metonymic significance, there is still a tendency to subordinate these ‘projects of stone’ to a higher goal. For example, Richards has argued convincingly that at Stenness ‘people were not simply moving stones – they were re-ordering a materiality directly related to personal and group identity’ (2009, 62). All that we would add is that they were also moving stones and the precise manner in which this movement was effected may be of critical and direct significance."

Cooney, G., 2009. Mundane Stone and its Meaning in the Neolithic, in Materialitas: working stone, carving identity, eds. B. O’Connor, G. Cooney & J. Chapman. Oxford: Prehistoric Society/Oxbow Books, 64–75.

Gillings, M., 2015. Betylmania? small standing stones and the megaliths of South-West Britain. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 34(3), 205–31.

Richards, C. (ed.), 2013. Building the Great Stone Circles of the North. Oxford: Windgather Press.