Provenancing bluestones popular account by Robert Ixer

New science pinpoints source of Bluestones

Richard Bevins,
Keeper of Natural Sciences,
National Museum of Wales
Rob Ixer,
Institute of Archaeology,
University College London

https://www.academia.edu/5541901/Provenancing_bluestones_popular_account

Click to enlarge

From Earth Heritage Summer 2013

The Solstitial Arrow at Stonehenge

English Heritage has installed a large Brass arrow on the old A344 to point out the Solstitial alignment of Stonehenge.

Here it is freshly installed and a photo from Simon Banton to show it works with the mid-winter sunset.

Stukeley. Stonehenge, a temple restor'd to the British druids - online copy.

The ongoing mystery and obsession with Stonehenge, along with speculation on its supposed purpose, should be credited to William Stukeley (1687 –1765), a harbinger of modern archeological study and a pioneer in the restoration and preservation of ancient monuments and sites. Stukeley, a friend and biographer of Isaac Newton (acknowledged with creating the “apple falling” story), was a fascinating character in his own right. An English gentleman, scholar, historian, physician, freemason, and druid, Stukeley surveyed Stonehenge in the 1720s and published his principal work on the ancient monument in 1740. Although Stukeley incorrectly theorized that the monument was part of the druidic religion, he was the first to recognize and describe the alignment of Stonehenge with the solstice. His meticulous observations and thorough survey remain significant and valuable in the history of the monument.



“Stonehenge stands not upon the very summit of a hill, but pretty near it, and
for more than three quarters of the circuit you ascend to it very gently from
lower ground. At half a mile distance, the appearance of it is stately and awful,
really august. As you advance nearer, especially up the avenue, which is
to the north-east of it, (which side is now most perfect) the greatness of its con-
tour fills the eye in an astonishing manner… Nothing in nature could be of a more
simple idea than this vast circle of stones, and its crown-work or corona at top ;
and yet its effect is truly majestic and venerable, which is the main requisite
in sacred structures. A single stone is a thing worthy of admiration… ”
- William Stukeley


A complete copy of Stukely's book is available here:

Stukeley, William. Stonehenge, a temple restor'd to the British druids. London : Printed for W. Innys and R. Manby, at the West End of St. Paul's, 1740.

Best Book on Stonehenge for Christmas, and it is free!

262 pages of excellent Stonehenge Research, this is what Stonehenge is really about. Without out doubt the best book on Stonehenge for Christmas reading, and it is free!

Stonehenge World Heritage Site Synthesis Prehistoric Landscape, Environment and Economy

Report Number: 45/2013 English Heritage Research Department Reports

This report is a synthesis of the archaeological evidence for the environment and economy of the prehistoric period in the Stonehenge landscape. It draws together existing information and analyses from a variety of specialist areas of archaeology and science. The synthesis has been produced in order to inform the interpretation content of the new visitor centre at Stonehenge, feeding particularly into reconstructions and graphics depicting the area around Stonehenge in different time periods.

Edited by Matthew Canti, Gill Campbell and Susan Greaney

Download it here

CONTENTS
1. Summary and Introduction -Susan Greaney and Gill Campbell
2. Geology, Landscape and Soils - Matthew Canti
3. Vegetation History - Zoe Hazell and Mike Allen
4. Plant Resources - Gill Campbell and Ruth Pelling
5. Animal Resources - Fay Worley
6. People - Simon Mays
7. Diet - Gill Campbell, Simon Mays, Jonathan Last, Fay Worley and Ruth Pelling
8. Houses and Settlement - Susan Greaney and Jonathan Last
9. Depositional Practice - Jonathan Last
10. Design, Clothing and Personal Adornment - Alison Sheridan and Gill Campbell
11. Technology and Domestic Objects - Richard Brunning, Jonathan Last, Hugo Anderson-Whymark, Gill Campbell, Alison Sheridan, David Dungworth, Glyn Davies and Angela Middleton
12. Social Organisation and Gender - Jonathan Last
Bibliography

Click to enlarge

Bluestone Chips, Paper by Ixer and Bevins And A New Discovery

A very interesting paper about the Bluestone chips or debitage at Stonehenge has just been released:

CHIPS OFF THE OLD BLOCK:

THE STONEHENGE DEBITAGE DILEMMA

Rob Ixer and Richard Bevins

Within this century there has been a renewed interest in
the lithology of the Stonehenge bluestones, both for the
standing orthostats and also for the vast numbers of broken
bluestone material, now referred to as debitage.
Increasingly it has been recognised that there are a number
of interesting problems associated with this debitage found
within the ‘Stonehenge Landscape’, most notably their
original geographical provenance, their internal Stonehenge
provenance (matching debitage to parent orthostat), the
reason for their presence and finally explanations for the
apparent mismatch between the lithologies of the (aboveground)
bluestone orthostats and the debitage both in terms
of type and numbers....

Full paper and download at https://www.academia.edu/5464937/Chips_off_the_old_block

This coincides with Rob Ixer kindly confirming that the bluestones chips pictured below (click to enlarge)look like Preseli Spotted Dolerite - a chemically altered igneous rock containing spots or clusters of plagioclase feldspar.

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 have been seen so far on the surface. It is close to Stonehenge, in the landscape but not within the Stonehenge Triangle. I have of course informed the archaeologists at Stonehenge, and can't tell anyone else the location. Sorry.

UPDATE - They aren't "bluestones", Rob Ixer has done further analysis and provides this Press Release.

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 19^th and 20^th century roadstones found in the Stonehenge Landscape.

Archive

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

Basalt/micrite                                                                                                0.4g

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

Stonehenge: A Decade of Discovery (full version)

Published on 17 Dec 2013

Research funded by the AHRC over the last decade is directly feeding into the new multimillion pound visitors' centre to be launched at Stonehenge this week. The research has overturned previously held views on the origins and the history of the UK's foremost prehistoric monument and one of the most famous heritage sites in the world

To mark the opening of the new building and the central role these research findings will play in the visitor experience, the AHRC is launching a new film that examines a decade of research at Stonehenge, and how this research has transformed our knowledge of Stonehenge.

This AHRC film features Professor Mike Parker-Pearson whose research at the site has reached a global audience, Professor Parker Pearson's research at Stonehenge spans three major research projects that total a £1.75million investment by the AHRC. The Stonehenge Riverside Project in 2006 led to the discovery of a second, smaller stone circle. Dubbed 'Blue Stonehenge', the discovery made the front pages of newspapers around the world. The two subsequent projects, The Beaker People, and more recently, Feeding Stonehenge have furthered our understanding of the ancient monument, suggesting that Stonehenge was built to unite the tribes of stone age Britain with one another, and, crucially, with their ancestors, that periglacial formations which are coincidentally aligned with the winter solstice may have been the reason that the site was first chosen by the first builders and indeed that the main axis is the mid-winter sunset rather than midsummer sunrise. This last finding confirms the long-held belief that Stonehenge was built with an astronomical purpose.

North Barrow and The Missing Station Stone

The one thing we know about the North Barrow at Stonehenge is that it isn't a "barrow". This circular feature with a an outer bank, ditch and flat central section held a missing Station Stone originally. Where it fits into the chronology of Stonehenge is unclear. Atkinson's section of it is badly recorded and fails to answer one of the fundamental questions, is the circular structure older or younger, is it overlain or does it overlie the main henge bank. Even the age of it in relation to the Aubrey holes in it is unclear.

The best evidence seems to be from Sharpe's balloon photo which to my mind shows the barrow as a complete circle (partly destroyed by the track, with the henge bank overlying it, but others see the photograph as proving the opposite.

I also attach a detail from a photo Adam Stanford took this summer which shows the parch marks and a hint of the position of the Station Stone on the very edge of the path.

Click to embiggen