Natural, Manuport or Artefact?

The boulder discussed below  is an excellent case where the terminology of found stones is important.

A "natural" object is one that is found where nature has placed it and in its natural state.

A manuport is a natural object, especially a stone, that has been carried and deposited somewhere by humans but has not been artificially shaped.

An artefact is usually a simple object showing human workmanship or modification as distinguished from a natural object. It can still be in its natural place, for instance a rock carving.

When discussing glacial transport unless the natural place is known very little can be inferred from an object. Once it has been humanly moved it could come from anywhere. 

 

The stone under discussion has marks on it and from the limited photos I have it is hard to tell what they are.

Some seem to follow the curve of the stone and appear to be natural foliations. Others appear to be more like incised lines. They might be scratches from glacial transport, or just striae of the rock structure.

If they are glacial then the rock is more likely to be a natural and brought to Salisbury Plain by ice; if they are just the surface of the rock then it is more likely it is a manuport brought from Wales by humans.

But if they are tooling marks where the stone has been dressed, and maybe it was knocked off a megalith, a little sibling to the "Boles Barrow" stone, then it is an artefact.

So skilled examination, rather than speculation from an imperfect photo, is needed to decide what this stone is. Only then can it inform us as to how it ended up under the ground at Stonehenge.

 

An Erratic Source

In: KELLAWAY, G.A.. (Ed.), Hot Springs of Bath. Bath City Council, Bath a small rock is pictured:

This small lump of "bluestone" found at "Stonehenge" in 1924, known as RSN18, was considered by Kellaway as being an important indicator of glacial transport of erratics to the area. The lack of a recorded find spot has been problematic.

Transport of the Stonehenge Bluestones: Testing the Glacial Hypothesis by JD SCOURSE · 1997 http://publications.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/pubs/proc/files/92p271.pdf highlights this: 

In Hawley's 6th Report Jan 1926 Vol V1 No.1 The Antiquaries Journal which is of his 1924 excavations he describes finding a foreign stone and also a photo of the excavation.

I think the stone pictured in the middle of the very left hand side of the excavations around stone 8, judging by the scale, is about the right depth and size to be the foreign stone he mentions. This provides the original context for the stone.  (Click to embiggen)

Kellaway's description seems to match it very well:

Now we need expert analysis as to whether the striae are glacial marks or simply Rhyolite layers as originally suggested.

Expert Review of The Field Guide to the Glacial Erratics of Salisbury Plain.

The field guide to the glacial erratics of Salisbury Plain.

Tim Daw.

Limited edition

The presence or absence of generally accepted glacial erratics on the Plain has been a matter of speculation and controversy for a century and for many people the debate has been central to any discussion of why Stonehenge was built were it was built. This debate has included both professional and amateur geologists, archaeologist, antiquarians and quite frankly the barmy. Indeed these groups are not mutually exclusive as Stonehenge seems to bring out the bizarre and absurd in everyone it touches.

Although the text of this self-published book is succinct almost to a fault it is suitably illustrated and this above all else provided food for Daw’s scepticism. Simply, this is the definitive tome on the subject for here each picture says a thousand words. 

Also remarkably, the back cover blurb is totally accurate with no hyperbole stating “A complete guide to glacial erratic stones, such as Welsh Bluestones, known on Salisbury Plain to have been naturally deposited”.

R.A.Ixer FSA

The Field Guide to the Glacial Erratics of Salisbury Plain - The Book.

The proof copies were sent out and well received by the expert reviewers: 

"Pithy, well researched, exhaustive."

I'm not sure I can be bothered with the hassle of looking for a larger print run, the information is out there and does anyone care enough about erratics to buy a book?

"said it was the best Stonehenge book she has ever read …..told her everything she wanted to know about Stonehenge."

Mike Parker Pearson has described it as the authoritative and definitive volume with an exhaustive and comprehensive handling of the subject. And he has read a copy.

And the first review is in from someone who hasn't seen or read the book:

".. I have a Geography degree which included studies of glaciation processes etc, and since having been a Chartered Librarian specialising in information, I place prime importance on accuracy and objectivity. As I expected, you are predictably sadly not engaging with the subject sensibly, unlike Dr Brian John. Your so - called publication is simply a parrot-like mimic of Mike Pitts' dismissive remark in his recent book. Sand, head in, and ostrich are the keywords that apply. You take a purely binary stance and insist on adopting an adversarial approach instead of showing consideration. Putin, aggression and imperialism over Ukraine are not dissimilar. Some people insist they know-it-all whilst immediately saying there is nothing-to-know.....But do you think they are serious in their pursuit of all the possible scientific evidence? Ostrich, sand, head in, "I see no ship", looking with my blind eye' all spring to mind. Also, flat-earthers."

 

All Cannings Cross Round Barrow?

On the edge of the downland promontory above All Cannings Cross I think there is a round barrow. It wouldn't be unusual to find a barrow in such a position overlooking the vale. The Historic environment record only has an undated ring ditch in the same approximate position.  https://services.wiltshire.gov.uk/HistoryEnvRecord/Home/ViewHERItem?HER=MWI8613 

Is the ring what I think is the ditch around the barrow or is it the feature to the south of the mound on the Lidar - I couldn't find it on the ground. 

There is a chance that the mound is from the digging of a dewpond to the north west of it. There isn't a pond there now but maybe just a hint there was an unmapped one? On balance I don't think so but I like to consider other possibilities.

Click photos to embiggen

Aerial from Mike McQueen

1916 - The Glacial Drift Question

From the 1916 Stonehenge guidebook - the key question that the Glacial Drift theorists still can't answer.

THE FOREIGN STONES

While the Sarsens usually awake the greatest interest by reason of their bulk, and the problem of how a primitive people was able to deal with them, a far greater problem is presented by the small uprights, or Foreign Stones, the like of which cannot be matched within a hundred miles of Salisbury Plain, while some can only be found upon the continent of Europe. Fragments carefully removed and submitted to mineralogists have made this fact abundantly clear, and consequently it is possible to arrive at the very definite conclusion that Stonehenge is certainly not a "Wiltshire " monument, and probably that it is not even "British" at all.

Where have the stones come from? One school of writers ventures to suggest Kildare in Ireland. Others suggest Wales, Cornwall, Dart moor, Shropshire, or Cumberland, where similar rocks are to be found, though perhaps not absolutely identical in character. Yet another theory advanced is that the Foreign Stones were transported to the plain as boulders of the "glacial drift." It has even been stated that the gravels of the district contain small pebbles composed of rock similar to these mysterious Foreign Stones. The statement has indeed been made, but as yet no Wiltshire geologist has produced one of these pebbles of which so much is written, and so little seen.

These Glacial Drift theorists, further account for the absence of these foreign stones elsewhere than at Stonehenge, by yet another theory, that they, like most of the Sarsens, have all been used up for millstones, gateposts, and road metal.

There are many millstones and gateposts in Wiltshire, but where is there one which corresponds in any way to the upright Foreign Stones at Stonehenge? The production of pebbles from the gravels of Wilts, or of a specimen gatepost or millstone would at once settle this question. Unhappily this tangible evidence is wanting, so, alluring as the Glacial Drift theory may appear, it must reluctantly be set aside for want of convincing evidence.

Finally, there seems every reason to believe that the small upright stones are "naturalised aliens. from abroad, and that is why they have been described at the commencement of this section as "Foreign Stones." It must not be taken for granted that the small upright stones at present standing represent all the foreign rocks employed. Probably they are merely the hardest and most durable of those used in the original structure, the softer and more friable examples having disappeared entirely, owing to the action of the weather, and possibly also to the assaults of the unchecked relic-monger, who until recent years could with his hammer collect souvenirs with impunity.

 

STONEHENGE TODAY & YESTERDAY BY 

FRANK STEVENS

Curator of the Salisbury museum with Plans and Illustrations by HEYWOOD SUMNER.F.S.A.

LONDON :

Sampson Low, Marston & Co. Ltd Price 1/3 net

1916.

 

Stanenges, where stones of wonderful size have been erected after the manner of doorways.

Keeping time at Stonehenge - Timothy Darvill - https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2022.5 - may not have "solved the mystery of Stonehenge" by detailing how the sarsens may have been used as quotidian markers but it has brought to attention one of the puzzling features of the sarsen ring. 

As far as we can tell, the ring being incomplete, the ring seems to be marked into three equal portions by "entrances". The well known one on the solstitial alignment; by stone 11 it being noticeably thinner than average and only half height, the stone having been broken; and by stone 21. Stones 21 and 22 form the posts of the accidental trilithon nearest the path. 

Click to embiggen - Stones 21, 22, 122 

From the paper: Plot showing the spacing and size of stones forming the Sarsen Circle (figure by T. Darvill). 

Having spent hundreds of hours standing near it I became convinced that it was an entrance because of the width of the gap and the dressing of the stones. The lintel has a false keystone appearance and the uprights maybe vertical grooves.

However it would have been the trilithon of the fallen 20 and 21 that would have been either side of the theoretical Darvillian gap that would mark one of the three divisions of the circle. So this isn't the trilithon we should be looking at. 

Of course if the central trilithon wasn't twisted there would have been a sightline across its front between the two lesser doorways, but it was and so there wasn't. 

https://www.academia.edu/12401342/The_Twisted_Trilithon_of_Stonehenge_Corrected_Version 

Not a solution to Stonehenge but another intriguing nugget that may help build a more complete understanding.