Acknowledgement and Citation
- Stone
32c: altered volcanic ash,
- Stone
32d: spotted dolerite,
- Stone
32e: rhyolite.
- Stone
32c (northernmost stump): This appears as a darker, rounded, domed
stump with a parallel fabric or parting, indicating weathering. It matches
Atkinson's description of altered volcanic ash (tuff). Petrographic
examination confirms it as Andesite Group A (Ixer et al., 2022, 2023;
Bevins et al., 2025, Section 4). Thin sections from a sample collected by
Henry Cunnington in 1881 (Salisbury Museum accession 1983.20.46)
corroborate this, showing a chlorite-rich volcanic tuff (Bevins et al.,
2025, Section 4).
- Stone
32d (central stump): This stump exhibits a strong foliation, breaking
into planar sheets on a centimetre scale, forming steps and small ledges.
Visible light/dark banding parallels the foliation (Bevins et al., 2025,
Figure 5b). These characteristics are inconsistent with spotted dolerite
(a massive, non-foliated igneous rock) but identical to foliated rhyolite
from Craig Rhos-y-felin in north Pembrokeshire (Rhyolite Group C; Bevins
et al., 2025, Section 4). For comparison, in-situ exposures at Craig
Rhos-y-felin show similar centimetre-scale foliation and fracturing
(Pitts, 2022; Bevins et al., 2025, Figure 5c).
- Stone
32e (southernmost stump, closest to Stone 33): This is a massive,
blocky stump with flattish facets, lacking foliation. It aligns with
spotted dolerite, not rhyolite as Atkinson described. Its resistance to
weathering (evident in the domed but robust shape) further supports a
dolerite classification, possibly spotted (Bevins et al., 2025, Section
4).
- Stone
32c: Volcanic Group A (now Andesite Group A),
- Stone
32d: Rhyolite Group A-C (now Rhyolite Group C),
- Stone
32e: Dolerite (possibly spotted).
- Bevins,
R.E., Pearce, N.J.G., Ixer, R.A., Scourse, J., Daw, T., Parker Pearson,
M., Pitts, M., Field, D., Pirrie, D., Saunders, I., Power, M., 2025. The
enigmatic ‘Newall boulder’ excavated at Stonehenge in 1924: New data and
correcting the record. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports
66, 105303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2025.105303.
- Atkinson,
R.J.C., 1956. Stonehenge. Hamish Hamilton, London.
- Atkinson,
R.J.C., 1979. Stonehenge. Penguin Books, Harmondsworth.
- Bevins,
R.E., Pearce, N.J.G., Ixer, R.A., 2011. Stonehenge rhyolitic bluestone
sources and the application of zircon chemistry as a new tool for
provenancing rhyolitic lithics. Journal of Archaeological Science
38, 605-622.
- Bevins,
R.E., Ixer, R.A., Webb, P.C., Watson, J.S., 2012. Provenancing the
rhyolitic and dacitic components of the Stonehenge landscape bluestone
lithology: new petrographical and geochemical evidence. Journal of
Archaeological Science 39(4), 1005-1019.
- Bevins,
R.E., Ixer, R.A., Pearce, N.J.G., Scourse, J., Daw, T., 2023a.
Lithological description and provenancing of a collection of bluestones
from excavations at Stonehenge by William Hawley in 1924 with implications
for the human versus ice transport debate of the monument's bluestone
megaliths. Geoarchaeology 38, 771-785.
- Chippindale,
C., 1987. Stonehenge Complete. Thames and Hudson, London.
- Cleal,
R., Walker, K.E., Montague, R., 1995. Stonehenge in its landscape:
twentieth-century excavations. Archaeological Report, 10. English
Heritage, London.
- Ixer,
R.A., Bevins, R.E., 2010. The petrography, affinity and provenance of
lithics from the Cursus Field, Stonehenge. Wiltshire Archaeological
& Natural History Magazine 103, 1-15.
- Ixer,
R.A., Bevins, R.E., 2011. Craig Rhos-y-felin, Pont Saeson is the dominant
source of the Stonehenge rhyolitic debitage. Archaeology in Wales
50, 21-31.
- Ixer,
R.A., Bevins, R.E., Pearce, N.J.G., Dawson, D., 2022. Victorian gifts: New
insights into the Stonehenge Bluestones. Current Archaeology 391,
48-52.
- Ixer,
R.A., Bevins, R.E., Pirrie, D., Power, M., 2023. Treasures in the Attic.
Testing Cunnington's assertion that Stone 32c is the 'type' sample for
Andesite Group A. Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History
Magazine 116, 1-15.
- John,
B.S., 2024a. A bluestone boulder at Stonehenge: implications for the
glacial transport theory. E&G Quaternary Science Journal 73,
117-134.
- Johnson,
A., 2008. Diagram of Stonehenge. Available at: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stone_Plan.jpg.
- Parker
Pearson, M., Bevins, R.E., Ixer, R.A., Pollard, J., Richards, C., Welham,
K., Chan, B., Edinborough, K., Hamilton, D., Macphail, R., Schlee, D.,
Simmons, E., Smith, M., 2015. Craig Rhos-y-felin: a Welsh bluestone
megalith quarry for Stonehenge. Antiquity 89(348), 1331-1352.
- Parker
Pearson, M., Bevins, R.E., Pearce, N.J.G., Ixer, R.A., Pollard, J.,
Richards, C., Welham, K., 2022a. Reconstructing extraction techniques at
Stonehenge’s bluestone megalith quarries in the Preseli hills of west
Wales. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 46, 103697.
- Pitts,
M., 2011. Bluestones on News at Ten. Mike Pitts Digging Deeper blog. https://mikepitts.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/bluestones-on-news-at-ten/.
- Pitts,
M., 2022. How to build Stonehenge. Thames & Hudson.
- Thorpe,
R.S., Williams-Thorpe, O., Jenkins, D.G., Watson, J., Ixer, R., Thomas,
R., 1991. The geological sources and transport of the bluestones of
Stonehenge, Wiltshire, UK. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society
57, 103-157.
- Williams-Thorpe,
O., Thorpe, R.S., 1992. Geochemistry, sources and transport of the
Stonehenge Bluestones. Proceedings of the British Academy 77,
131-161.
- Stones
of Stonehenge website: http://www.stonesofstonehenge.org.uk/2020/07/below-ground-stumps.html
(accessed 2025).
- stumps.html (accessed 2025).
This standalone research extraction is derived directly from
the following source, which provides the primary data, analysis, and evidence
discussed herein:
Bevins, R.E., Pearce, N.J.G., Ixer, R.A., Scourse, J., Daw, T., Parker Pearson, M., Pitts, M., Field, D., Pirrie, D., Saunders, I., Power, M., 2025. The enigmatic ‘Newall boulder’ excavated at Stonehenge in 1924: New data and correcting the record. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 66, 105303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2025.105303.(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X25003360)
All interpretations, evidence, and conclusions presented
below are based on this paper, with specific references to its sections,
figures, and supporting data. This updated version integrates historical
context from prior publications by Bevins and Ixer (and co-authors), tracing
the evolution of identifications for Stones 32d and 32e. These earlier works
progressively linked rhyolitic debitage to potential parent monoliths, shifting
focus from 32e (suggested in 2011) to 32d (confirmed in 2015 onward), culminating
in the 2025 correction.
Introduction
The Stonehenge monument includes several buried stumps of
bluestones, which are smaller megaliths distinct from the larger sarsen stones.
Among these, the stumps designated as Stones 32c, 32d, and 32e—located in the
bluestone circle between upright bluestones 32 and 33—have been subject to
historical misidentification (Bevins et al., 2025, Section 4). Originally
excavated by Richard John Copland Atkinson in 1954, these stumps were described
in Atkinson's publications (1956, 1979) as follows:
This identification has been perpetuated in subsequent
literature, including plans by Thorpe et al. (1991), Williams-Thorpe and Thorpe
(1992), and Cleal et al. (1995), leading to ongoing confusion (Bevins et al.,
2025, Section 4). Recent re-examination of photographic evidence from
Atkinson's 1954 excavation, combined with petrographic analysis, indicates that
the identifications of Stones 32d and 32e were reversed. This correction aligns
with the petrographical characteristics of known bluestone lithologies and
supports provenancing efforts linking certain bluestones to sources in north
Pembrokeshire, Wales (Bevins et al., 2025, Sections 3 and 4).
Historical Identifications in Bevins and Ixer
Publications
Research by Bevins and Ixer on Stonehenge bluestones has
evolved over time, initially focusing on debitage (stone fragments) and later
linking these to buried stumps. Early work introduced the 'rhyolite with
fabric' lithology (now Rhyolite Group C) from Craig Rhos-y-felin (formerly Pont
Saeson), but did not address specific stumps (Ixer and Bevins, 2010; Bevins et
al., 2012). By 2011, they tentatively suggested Stone 32e as a potential parent
monolith for rhyolitic debitage, noting: "There is one buried stump at
Stonehenge (stone 32e) that they say could well be from Pont Saeson (to be
confirmed)" (Ixer and Bevins, 2011, as summarized in secondary sources
like Pitts, 2011). This was based on petrographic matches but remained
provisional.
In 2015, as co-authors with Parker Pearson et al., Bevins
and Ixer shifted focus to Stone 32d, identifying it macroscopically as foliated
rhyolite despite Atkinson's dolerite classification: "On the basis of
macroscopic appearance, Bevins and Ixer identify SH32d... as a ‘spotted
dolerite’ bluestone, even though its appearance is most unlike spotted
dolerite. Its dimensions... correspond closely with those of a recess at Craig
Rhos-y-felin" (Parker Pearson et al., 2015). This marked the first explicit
re-identification of 32d as rhyolite, with no further emphasis on 32e in this
context.
Subsequent references in later works (e.g., Bevins et al.,
2023a; Parker Pearson et al., 2022a) reinforce this, but the 2025 paper
provides the definitive correction using archival photos.
Evidence for Re-identification
Atkinson's excavation (Section C45) exposed the three buried
stumps immediately north of Stone 33. A previously unpublished photograph from
Historic England's archives (image P50774), taken during the 1954 excavation,
provides visual evidence of their morphologies (Bevins et al., 2025, Figure
5a). Analysis of this photograph reveals distinct features:
The misidentification likely stems from an error in
Atkinson's recording or transcription, as the rock types are visually and
texturally distinct (Bevins et al., 2025, Section 4). Cleal et al. (1995)
compounded the issue by labelling both 32d and 32e as "spotted
dolerite" in cross-sections, while marking 32c as uncertain. Other
publications, such as Chippindale (1987) and Johnson (2008), often refer to
these stumps generically as "bluestones" without specifying
lithologies, perpetuating ambiguity (Bevins et al., 2025, Section 4).
Current online resources, such as the Stones of Stonehenge
website (accessed 2025), reflect the corrected identifications:
This aligns with broader provenancing studies, where
Rhyolite Group C debitage at Stonehenge matches Craig Rhos-y-felin
petrographically and geochemically (Bevins et al., 2011, 2012, 2023a; Bevins et
al., 2025, Sections 3 and 4).
Implications
Correcting the identifications of Stones 32d and 32e has
significant implications for understanding Stonehenge's construction and the
sourcing of its bluestones (Bevins et al., 2025, Sections 4 and 10). Stone 32d,
as foliated rhyolite, likely represents the parent monolith for debitage
fragments, including the Newall boulder (excavated nearby in 1924 by Lt-Col
Hawley; Bevins et al., 2025, Sections 2 and 4). This supports human transport
from Welsh sources rather than glacial deposition, as the limited lithological
variety at Stonehenge suggests selective quarrying from discrete locations like
Craig Rhos-y-felin (Bevins et al., 2025, Sections 7 and 10).
The reversal also resolves discrepancies in earlier
literature challenging links between Stonehenge rhyolites and Welsh outcrops
(e.g., John, 2024a; Bevins et al., 2025, Section 4). Future studies should
prioritise direct sampling of these stumps where feasible, though non-invasive
methods (e.g., portable XRF) could confirm the re-identification without
disturbance (Bevins et al., 2025, Section 3.2).
Conclusions
Re-examination of Atkinson's 1954 excavation photograph and
petrographic comparisons demonstrates that Stone 32d is foliated rhyolite
(Rhyolite Group C) and Stone 32e is spotted dolerite, reversing their original
identifications. Stone 32c remains correctly identified as altered volcanic ash
(Andesite Group A) (Bevins et al., 2025, Section 4). This correction refines
the bluestone assemblage inventory and strengthens provenancing ties to north
Pembrokeshire, emphasising the need for critical review of historical records
in archaeological geology (Bevins et al., 2025, Section 10).
References
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments welcome on fresh posts - you just need a Google account to do so.