Wednesday, 4 March 2026

The Slaughter Stone Legend: Iron Oxides, Algae, and the “Blood” Pools of Stonehenge

For generations, the Slaughter Stone (Stone 95) at Stonehenge has captivated imaginations with its pools of vivid red rainwater collecting in natural hollows after showers. Victorian antiquarians and visitors interpreted the crimson tint as blood from human sacrifices performed on an “altar,” giving the recumbent sarsen its macabre name and embedding it in romantic tales of ancient rituals.

Scientific scrutiny reveals a far more prosaic — yet fascinating — explanation. The red colouration arises from two interacting factors: trace iron oxides in the sarsen stone provide a subtle rusty background, while pigmented terrestrial algae deliver the intense, blood-like drama.


Sarsen stone at the Long Barrow at All Cannings, March 2026

Sarsen, a highly durable silcrete (>99.7 % SiO₂), contains low but variable levels of iron oxides and hydroxides (such as goethite and limonite), typically 0.09–0.12 wt.% Fe₂O₃ overall, with higher concentrations in localised bands or pore linings. Rainwater percolates through the stone’s porous network (7–9 % porosity), slowly mobilising these reactive iron phases. Upon exposure and evaporation in shallow depressions, the iron oxidises to insoluble reddish-brown forms, imparting a classic rusty hue. This process is gradual and ongoing, protected by the stone’s resistant quartz framework, and accounts for the faint to moderate rust tones often described in official sources, such as English Heritage’s note that rainwater “reacts with iron in the stone and turns a rusty red.”

However, for the strikingly vivid, saturated blood-red pools that inspired the legend, as shown in my photograph, algae play the dominant role. Species of Trentepohlia, a common terrestrial green alga in the UK, produce abundant carotenoid pigments (including beta-carotene and astaxanthin-like compounds) that give colonies an intense orange-red to deep rust appearance, completely masking underlying chlorophyll. These algae thrive subaerially on damp, exposed rock surfaces, particularly in small hollows where rainwater lingers, providing humidity and occasional wetting without constant flushing. Organic debris — leaves, twigs, and nutrient-rich matter — further encourages growth, allowing pigments to leach into standing water or spread as streaky films across the stone.

My photograph illustrates this perfectly: a concentrated, irregular red-orange patch fills and surrounds a shallow depression, centred on a mass of decaying leaves and organic fragments. The vivid, patchy saturation and felt-like quality scream algal colonisation rather than uniform mineral leaching. In contrast, iron alone tends to produce more diffuse, subtler rusting.

It may be no coincidence that my example occurs on a sarsen where we have sheep over winter, where grazing animals deposit dung, trample organic material, and enrich the micro-habitat with nutrients that fuel algal blooms. The Slaughter Stone, now in the sterile, closely managed grassland of the Stonehenge visitor site with minimal organic accumulation, likely supports far less algal growth. Reduced nutrient input and drier, more exposed conditions could limit Trentepohlia to a minor role, leaving iron’s rusty contribution more prominent — and the pools less dramatically red than in nutrient-rich settings.

In summary, iron supplies a reliable rusty undertone from slow leaching, but the dramatic “blood” effect that so impressed the Victorians stems primarily from carotenoid-rich algae thriving in moist, nutrient-enhanced microhabitats.



Tuesday, 3 March 2026

What the REF doesn't see

 

Earley, B. (2026) ‘The popularity of “new antiquarianism” challenges how we understand research impact’, LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog, 2 March. Available at: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2026/03/02/the-popularity-of-new-antiquarianism-challenges-how-we-understand-research-impact/ (Accessed: 3 March 2026).

Ben Earley’s blog post highlights a real tension in the academic archaeological community: traditional grants and REF frameworks still demand that tidy, linear model of public engagement — the university-led talk, the press release that generates newspaper headlines, and the TV documentary with your name prominently attached as presenter or consultant — yet the real magic often happens through non-academic dissemination, the parallel “reception at scale” that he describes so well. My posts, Paul Whitwick’s videos, independent channels like History Time, and Pen & Sword books absorb those academic outputs, chew them over with care and citations, then pass them on to tens or hundreds of thousands of readers and viewers who would never attend a campus seminar. This deeper, cumulative, uncontrollable uptake — which goes far beyond one-off newspaper coverage or academic-fronted TV programmes — genuinely shapes how the public actually encounters the past, yet it remains invisible to current metrics because there is no neat pathway or institutional ownership to tick. To keep academics incentivised and happy — and to stop the system quietly discouraging them from feeding the very ecosystem that keeps their research alive — we simply need to start recognising and measuring this non-academic dissemination alongside traditional engagement, whether through reception logs, altmetric multipliers or a new “uptake” box on the form, so the knowledge flows both ways and everyone wins.


(I wonder if this will be picked up as engagement with his blog article)