None of the Stonehenge Stones are Local

The new paper on the Cuckoo and Tor stones (*) posits that they are not local to Salisbury Plain and were brought from West Woods. It goes further and claims that no large numbers of large sarsens with a chemistry the same as those at West Woods are likely to have originated near Stonehenge.

This is surprising. They debate the obvious question here:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/proceedings-of-the-prehistoric-society/article/earliest-movement-of-sarsen-into-the-stonehenge-landscape-new-insights-from-geochemical-and-visibility-analysis-of-the-cuckoo-stone-and-tor-stone/C7C6D363A6E59D0BBF5C3158077ABB24#s4

Geological implications

Our inference that the Cuckoo Stone and Tor Stone probably originated in the West Woods area directly challenges the suggestion made by Richards (Reference Richards and Parker2020) that both stones were either already situated at, or close to, their source locations when they were monumentalised. There is, however, a potential counter argument that would support Richards’ view: rather than the two stones being moved from West Woods, could it be that large sarsen boulders with a geochemistry similar to those at West Woods were already present in the Stonehenge landscape near the sites where the two stones were raised?

Their answer is no and I find their reasoning compelling.

* HARDING, P. et al. (2025) ‘Earliest Movement of Sarsen Into the Stonehenge Landscape: New Insights from Geochemical and Visibility Analysis of the Cuckoo Stone and Tor Stone’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, pp. 1–23. doi:10.1017/ppr.2024.13.

Earliest Movement of Sarsen Into the Stonehenge Landscape:

Earliest Movement of Sarsen Into the Stonehenge Landscape: New Insights from Geochemical and Visibility Analysis of the Cuckoo Stone and Tor Stone

Abstract: This paper presents the results of new research on two sarsen stones, known as the Cuckoo Stone and Tor Stone, both former standing stones that lie on opposite banks of the River Avon and straddle the eastern border of the Stonehenge and Avebury World Heritage Site. Geochemical analysis indicates that both stones were probably transported to their present site from West Woods on the Marlborough Downs in north Wiltshire, a source that likely also supplied the large sarsen monoliths at Stonehenge. The paper examines the geological conditions necessary for the formation of sarsen across the site of the present-day Salisbury Plain to address the apparent absence of natural sarsen in the area. The results are integrated with those of archaeological fieldwork from nearby contemporaneous sites to suggest that the Cuckoo Stone and Tor Stone were probably introduced into the Stonehenge landscape in the early part of the Late Neolithic period, ie, contemporary with Phase 1 of Stonehenge and some 400–500 years before the construction of the principal sarsen settings at the monument. Visibility analysis indicates that the two stones were probably intervisible and likely to have formed part of a planned landscape and were positioned to create a formal portal to the Stonehenge area on either bank of the River Avon.

HARDING, P. et al. (2025) ‘Earliest Movement of Sarsen Into the Stonehenge Landscape: New Insights from Geochemical and Visibility Analysis of the Cuckoo Stone and Tor Stone’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, pp. 1–23. doi:10.1017/ppr.2024.13.

Stonehenge and its Altar Stone: the significance of distant stone sources

The long awaited MPP article on Stonehenge has arrived:

 https://journals.uclpress.co.uk/ai/article/id/3293/

Locations of stone sources for Stonehenge (red) and Brú na Bóinne passage tombs (green). The location of the source of the Altar Stone is only approximate. Other sites mentioned in the text are in grey

Abstract

Geological research reveals that Stonehenge’s stones come from sources beyond Salisbury Plain, as recently demonstrated by the Altar Stone’s origins in northern Scotland more than 700 km away. Even Stonehenge’s huge sarsen stones come from 24 km to the north, while the bluestones can be sourced to the region of the Preseli Hills some 225 km away in west Wales. The six-tonne Altar Stone is of Old Red Sandstone from the Orcadian Basin, an area that extends from the Northern Isles of Orkney and Shetland to Inverness and eastwards to Banff, Turriff and Rhynie. Its geochemical composition does not match that of rocks in the Northern Isles, so it can be identified as coming from the Scottish mainland. Its position at Stonehenge as a recumbent stone within the southwest arc of the monument, at the foot of the two tallest uprights of the Great Trilithon, recalls the plans of recumbent stone circles of north-east Scotland. Unusually strong similarities in house floor layouts between Late Neolithic houses in Orkney and the Durrington Walls settlement near Stonehenge also provide evidence of close connections between Salisbury Plain and northern Scotland. Such connections may be best explained through Stonehenge’s construction as a monument of island-wide unification, embodied in part through the distant and diverse origins of its stones.


Parker Pearson, M., Bevins, R., Bradley, R., Ixer, R., Pearce, N. & Richards, C., (2025) “Stonehenge and its Altar Stone: the significance of distant stone sources”, Archaeology International 27(1). doi: https://doi.org/10.14324/AI.27.1.13

The Altar Stone Source - the essential points

The research paper provides key evidence indicating that the Stonehenge Altar Stone likely originated from a Laurentian rock source. Here's a breakdown of the significant points:

Mineral Composition and Age

The researchers analyzed three types of mineral grains found in the Altar Stone fragments:

1. Detrital zircon: Largely composed of Mesoproterozoic and Archaean sources (very old, ranging from about 1 to 3.5 billion years) [1][3].

2. Rutile and apatite: Dominated by a mid-Ordovician source (approximately 460 million years old) [1][3].

Laurentian Origin

The ages of these grains strongly suggest derivation from a Laurentian crystalline source region [1][3]. Laurentia refers to the ancient continental craton that formed the core of North America and Greenland[2]. This is significant because:

- The presence of very old zircon grains (Mesoproterozoic and Archaean) matches igneous events in Laurentia [2].

- These events did not occur in other terranes like Gondwana, Ganderia, Meguma, or East Avalonia, which now form most of England and Wales[2].

Grampian Overprint

The mid-Ordovician ages (around 460 million years ago) of the rutile and apatite grains indicate that the Laurentian source region was overprinted by Grampian magmatism [1][3]. This refers to a phase of the Caledonian orogeny, a major mountain-building event that affected what is now Scotland.

Similarity to Orcadian Basin

Detrital age comparisons with sedimentary rocks throughout Britain and Ireland revealed a remarkable similarity between the Altar Stone and the Old Red Sandstone of the Orcadian Basin in northeast Scotland [1][3]. This basin includes parts of northeastern Scotland, Orkney, and Shetland [2].

This evidence collectively points to a Scottish origin for the Altar Stone, specifically from an area north of the Iapetus Suture, where rocks with Laurentian characteristics are found [2]. 

But not Orkney 

However, a follow-up study published in September 2024 in the Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports specifically examined megaliths from Orkney and concluded that the Altar Stone was not sourced from Mainland Orkney. This research used portable X-rays to analyze stones at the Stones of Stenness and the Ring of Brodgar, comparing their composition to that of the Altar Stone [4].

.

Citations:

[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07652-1

[2] https://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=2146415628

[3] https://research.aber.ac.uk/en/publications/a-scottish-provenance-for-the-altar-stone-of-stonehenge

[4] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2024.104738

Unearthing Britain's Darkest Chapter: The Early Bronze Age Massacre at Charterhouse Warren

A recent study has shed light on one of prehistoric Britain’s most gruesome episodes: the massacre of at least 37 individuals at Charterhouse Warren, Somerset, around 4,000 years ago. This discovery, led by Professor Rick Schulting of the University of Oxford, challenges the notion of the Early Bronze Age as a peaceful era and reveals a chilling narrative of violence and dehumanization.

The Discovery

The remains—over 3,000 bone fragments—were first unearthed in the 1970s but largely overlooked until now. Found in a 15-meter-deep natural shaft, these bones belonged to men, women, and children, with nearly half being adolescents. The evidence indicates that the victims were killed, dismembered, and possibly cannibalized before their remains were discarded.

Gruesome Evidence

Analysis revealed cut marks, shattered skulls, and signs of defleshing and marrow extraction. Some bones even bore human bite marks. Researchers believe this brutality was not driven by survival needs but as an act of ritualistic "othering" or vengeance. The attackers likely sought to dehumanize their victims and send a powerful message to others.

Significance

This massacre represents the largest known act of interpersonal violence in Early Bronze Age Britain. It starkly contrasts with the era’s typical archaeological focus on trade, farming, and burial practices. The findings highlight how prehistoric communities were capable of extreme violence akin to modern atrocities

Schulting RJ, Fernández-Crespo T, Ordoño J, et al. ‘The darker angels of our nature’: Early Bronze Age butchered human remains from Charterhouse Warren, Somerset, UK. Antiquity. Published online 2024:1-17. doi:10.15184/aqy.2024.180

How did prehistoric people respond to natural disasters? - Rune Iversen et al

NEW How did prehistoric people respond to natural disasters? New research suggests a volcanic eruption that blocked out the sun caused people in Neolithic Denmark to ritually sacrifice 'sun stones' to ensure a good harvest.

Strap in for a volcanic #AntiquityThread 1/14 🧵 pic.twitter.com/fZ7V0FxwAr

— 🅰ntiquity Journal (@AntiquityJ) January 16, 2025

Click to visit thread on X, the artist formerly known as Twitter.

For the whole thread, off X, see https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1879827188263887239.html

For the paper discussed see; Iversen, R. et al. (2025) ‘Sun stones and the darkened sun: Neolithic miniature art from the island of Bornholm, Denmark’, Antiquity, pp. 1–17. doi:10.15184/aqy.2024.217.

I think the paper is excellent, climate chaos causing resources being wasted in pointless attempts to assuage the weather gods seems all too likely. At other times and places in prehistory rapid changes in the climate are probably linked to activities such as monument building.

There are the obvious quibbles with the premise which the authors address such as why just on one small island and where was this unrecorded volcanic eruption.

My first reaction is that the disc illustrated looks more like an annual calendar or similar, than a sun disc, with periods being marked out with radial lines and then maybe individual days or events marked out with cross lines. But that is just my opinion based on minutes of superficial study.

 

Norfolk Sarsens

Mamillated sarsen found on Sidestrand beach in November 2010.

West Runton beach September 2016 It is in the museum at Seaview beach café

Longwater gravel pit, Horstead

Out on the wave cut platform again towards Sheringham.

Silica cemented sand and gravels. Layered and swirled Pudding Stone at West Runton towards Sheringham

Click any to enlarge, all of these photographs are Copyright Russell Yeomans 2025.

Many thanks to Russell for providing them.

'How did ancient people move large stones?' - Dr Hugh Thomas

Archaeologists are constantly asked is 'How did ancient people move large stones?'. The thought of people moving 2/20/200 tonne stones thousands of years ago just seems impossible. But what if I told you we have a lot of photos/video of people moving huge stones today? 🧵1/ pic.twitter.com/tjNg1LHxEw

— Dr Hugh Thomas (@hughs_news) January 8, 2025

Click to visit thread on X, née Twitter.

For the whole thread, off X, see https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1876792234625957994.html

The Tectonic Movement of Stonehenge

This week there are press releases about the Southern Levantine 5000 year old megalithic structure Rujm el-Hiri's astronomical purpose being questioned.

The new research claims "Geomagnetic analysis shows that since the entire region has rotated over time, the Rujm el-Hiri’s location shifted from its original position for tens of meters for the thousands of years of the object’s existence, challenging theories of the alignment of its walls with astronomical bodies and raising questions regarding its possible identification as an observatory."

Stonehenge doesn't have the same problem.

The Eurasian plate has been rotating clockwise primarily in a north-easterly direction over the past several thousand years at a rate of approximately 25 millimeters per year. Given this rate of movement, over the last 5,000 years the Eurasian plate has moved approximately 125 meters northward .This shift represents about one-thousandth of a degree of latitude, which is insignificant.

https://www.newscientist.com/lastword/mg24632801-400-mysterious-alignment-how-do-ancient-monoliths-still-line-up-with-the-sun/ 

https://geoscience.blog/where-is-the-eurasian-plate-moving/

https://researchportal.port.ac.uk/en/publications/the-tectonic-pattern-of-britain-and-ireland