Stone Selection in Megalithic Monuments

“There is an indelible myth about the Preselis. It is frequently asserted that there had been an epic transportation of bluestones from those hills to Stonehenge because they were a landmark to seafarers from Ireland, 'a sacred mountain' whose stones possessed virile and earthly powers. It is unlikely. ….. glaciation is a better explanation for the presence of bluestones on Salisbury Plain. Everywhere else in Britain and Ireland local people used local stones . But for mundane, not magical reasons. Slabs were chosen because they were the closest”. [1]

No Bluestones in Somerset
There is a misconception that Neolithic people were not capable of moving large stones great distances and argue that they simply used whatever material was at hand, claiming that “nearly all stones in a circle are local and seldom came from more than a mile or two away”. [2] These prejudices seem to originate from the notion that Neolithic people were primitive tribal savages; but primitive does not mean backward. Indeed, these megalithic constructions of the Neolithic bear witness to highly developed skills from an advanced civilisation as attested in the megalithic constructions around the world.

These same people, wallowing in their ignorance, argue that Neolithic people were not capable of collecting the Stonehenge bluestones from the Preseli Hills in south west Wales. In denial of the Neolithic peoples capabilities they promote the theory that the bluestones were moved to Salisbury Plain by the action of glaciers. But there is no evidence of glaciation occurring in Wiltshire. Consequently the glaciologists have come up with a revised, compromise theory; the bluestones were moved part way by glacier, part way by man, being transported from south west Wales by a hypothetical Irish Sea glacier that turned sharp left and traversed along the Bristol Channel and deposited the Preseli bluestones in Somerset around Glastonbury.

The first flaw in this argument is that Preseli bluestones are not found in any other megalithic construction outside of Wales. In fact there appear to be no bluestones in Somerset where this hypothetical Irish Sea glacier would have deposited its erratic train. Significantly Preseli bluestone are absent from nearby sites such as Stanton Drew and Avebury. Indeed, the only megalithic site we find them outside of Wales is Stonehenge. A bluestone was claimed to have been found in Boles Barrow on Salisbury Plain but there is considerable doubt about the whole episode.

Secondly, the area around Glastonbury is known as the Somerset levels, it was marshland, peat bog, until drained for agriculture. The many raised wooden trackways constructed across Somerset dating from the Neolithic period, such as the Sweet Track, [3] bear witness to the fact that is was water-logged marshland during this era. From this inhospitable terrain, or so the glacial theory goes, they found the bluestones, pulled them out of the peat bog and transported them to Salisbury Plain for use in the earliest stone construction at Stonehenge. The mind boggles at how you would locate, let alone retrieve 4 ton bluestones from a peat bog.

But using the glaciologists own argument, why would Neolithic people go to the effort of gathering bluestone glacial erratics from the Somerset marshes when ample sarsen stone was available much nearer the site of the monument?

Unless, of course, bluestone was preferable to local stone.

In the majority of stone circles local stone was used, but this cannot be used as an argument to emphasise deficiencies in Neolithic capabilities and against human transportation of the bluestones. Moving the massive sarsen stones, the largest estimated to weigh 50 tons, from Marlborough Downs to Stonehenge is quite an achievement. Likewise, moving the massive stones into the desired location at Avebury, the largest estimated at 60 tons, without modern lifting gear.

But move great stones great distances in the Neolithic they certainly did. But why was it necessary to move these large stones over great distances; why not just build the stone circle where the stones outcropped? Clearly the chosen site location was important, consequently stone had to be moved into that location, sometimes short distances, in other cases great distances, whatever was necessary.

Stonehenge is unique amongst the stone circles of the British Isles; it is not a true henge which should have a bank and ditch in that order (Avebury is a perfect example of a large scale henge monument), but at Stonehenge the outer ditch and inner bank is the reverse of a true henge and has more in common with a defensive counterscarp arrangement found at earlier causewayed enclosures. Furthermore, Stonehenge has worked stones with smoothed faces, whereas most stone circles use unworked, rough stones, typcially Avebury, Stanton Drew, the Rollrights. Also unique to Stonehenge are the 6 ton sarsen lintels raised 6 metres atop the vertical stones, creating a series of portals, located with standard carpentry techniques; tongue and groove longitudinally around the lintel circle and mortise and tenon joints vertically on the sarsens. The lintel ring is almost perfectly level on a natural gradient. Why go to all that bother? The outer bank at typical henge monuments is said to act as a false horizon but at Stonehenge the bank and ditch arrangement is reversed so could not provide that function. For this reason it has been suggested that the purpose of the lintel ring was to provide a false horizon for the ancient stargazers, but it does not need to be set so precisely level to provide this aspect. Stonehenge is full of mystery and continues to pose more questions than answers. It's design is totally foreign amongst typical stone circles of the British Isles.

It should therefore be of no surprise that the choice of lithic materials at Stonehenge is also unique to stone circles. Ample evidence exists amongst other megalithic monuments to demonstrate that the Neolithic people were quite capable of gathering what ever stone was required for specific constructions.

Passage Tombs
Construction of megalithic (from the Greek 'megas lithos' = big stone) monuments began in north western Europe at the beginning of the Neolithic era, c.4000 BC, over a thousand years before the earliest stone circles. These early megalithic monuments, generally found in the west of the British Isles, are classified as types of tomb although of those excavated not all have been found to contain human remains. [4] This suggests classification as tombs is not correct in all cases with some other, as yet not fully understood, intended purpose of use. For this reason the term “temple” is often preferred. [5]

Newgrange passageway

Typical passage tombs possess a narrow passageway lined with orthostats (upright monoliths, often deeply decorated in Irish passage tombs) leading to a main chamber. The passage varies in length from less than 2 metres to over 40 metres as at Knowth in Ireland. Small chambers often lead off the passage way producing a cruciform plan. The passages were roofed with lintels or capstones but the main chamber was usually corbelled. The whole construction was said to be covered by a cairn, although there is little trace of these at some sites. Typical passage tombs are Newgrange in Ireland and Bryn Celli Ddu in Anglesey.

Bryn Celli Ddu

Portal tombs are perhaps the most spectacular monuments with their massive capstones seemingly perched precariously on half a dozen, or often less, upright orthostats. Often the side stones do not support the capstone, giving the appearance that it is resting on a tripod at front and back. Many possess two tall supporting orthostats, the portal stones, at one end providing a distinctive angle to the capstone. In south west England these are called “Portal Dolmens” (from Breton 'taol – maen' meaning 'table stone') or in Wales “Cromlech” (from Welsh 'crom' – 'llech' meaning 'bent flagstone'). In English these are often named as “quoits”, such as Arthur's Quoit. The massive capstone at Kernanstown (Browne's Hill) Dolmen, in County Carlow, Ireland, is thought to be the largest in Europe, weighing an estimated 140 tons. The purpose of these Portal Dolmens has continued to puzzle archaeologists as much as Stonehenge, and yet they share the mystery of raising stone.

Arthur's Quoit

The dolmens and cromlechs possess little evidence of human burials; the small amounts of human remains found underneath the capstone could have been connected with burials, or perhaps was placed as offerings. Indeed in most cases the portal stones are blocked with a smaller stone that fails to support the capstone. The tomb was therefore blocked before the capstone went on. In many cases human remains and other objects appear to have been placed inside the tomb and under the capstone from gaps around the blocking stone between the portals indicating that the primary function was not a tomb; I suspect the offerings, human or otherwise, were inserted later, certainly after construction, and, as we find at many megalithic constructions from the period, were intended for sanctification. Furthermore, no trace of a cairn survives at the majority of portal tomb sites; it is doubtful they were covered at all as many seem to purposefully mimic, or frame a significant view of the local landscape in the shape and positioning of the capstone. [6]

Materialitas
Material selection in many passage tombs and dolmens incorporates both locally and distantly sourced foreign raw materials. The presence of luminescent white quartz within passage graves and long barrows is common right across the distributions of these monument types. In some passage tombs quartz is present as complete boulders used as orthostats or kerbing, while at others it is present as veins running through prominently placed stones. On other sites quartz can be present in the form of pebbles placed within or around the monument as if signifying a boundary.

In addition to the presence of quartz some passage tombs integrate many stone types. On the Channel island of Jersey, the passage tomb La Hougue Bie incorporates at least 9 different types of stone from sources across the eastern half of the Island. At Newgrange in Ireland there are 5 main stone types incorporated into the construction of the Neolithic tomb, collected from distances of up to 40 km both north and south of the Boyne Valley. [7]

The different stone types used at the entrance to Newgrange

Pebbles used in the Newgrange cairn were derived from a local source, the lower river terrace immediately north of the Boyne, about 750m south of the cairn. Orthostats from the passage, the chamber, the roof corbels and all the kerbstones (except 4 of sandstone) are all greywacke stone derived from an area 3- 5 km north and east of Newgrange where the rock naturally outcrops. No doubt much of the stone was collected from the surface but there is also evidence that some was quarried. Further quantities are thought to have been collected from the coastal cliffs at Clogher Head, 10 km north of the mouth of the river Boyne.

Gaps in the Newgrange passage roof were packed with burnt soil mixed with sea sand brought from the mouth of the Boyne, 20 km downstream. Five types of cobbles collected from non-local sources were used to embellish the facades and entrance areas of both Newgrange and Knowth, inclusive of rounded granodiorite cobbles from the Mourne Mountains, 50 km to the north; banded siltsone cobbles and gabbro cobbles originally from the Carlingford mountains which are thought to have been collected from the shoreline of Dundalk Bay, a similar distance from Newgrange. The mysterious granite basins found within the chamber recesses are thought to have also come from the Mourne Mountains.

The reconstructed quartz facade at Newgrange

Perhaps the most fascinating stone type used at Newgrange was the masses of white quartz found around the entrance area and used in the controversial reconstruction of the facade by Michael O'Kelly from 1962 to 1975. This quartz type is distinctive for the flecks of mica it contains, originating in the Wicklow Mountains, 50 km to the south. A smaller quantity was used at Knowth in a platform at the entrance. Many argue that the quartz at Newgrange should not have been used in the facade, striking as it is when the sun hits it, but alternatively, like at Knowth and other passage tombs, spread around the entrance to mark a sacred boundary. [8]

Indeed it is significant that many materials, cobbles and sand, used at the Boyne valley monuments were brought in from the coast some 40km distant, suggesting this may have been to reconstruct such a boundary; water is known to have formed liminal barriers throughout the mythologies of the world.

The construction of the monuments at the Boyne valley, such as Newgrange and Knowth, demonstrate a very considerable investment of time and other resources. It is estimated that about 2,000 large stones were needed for the orthostats, roof and kerbstones, in addition to the 200,000 smaller stones used in the mound construction of Newgrange alone, as we have seen above , many brought great distances. Evidently the Boyne valley temple complex must have fulfilled a very special role in society. [9]

Specific stone selection in megalithic monument construction was not unique to passage tombs. Studies of the composition of the chambered tombs of the Cotswold-Severn group has found that they were constructed from specifically selected materials. [10] Although studies on the dolmens and cromlechs have not been carried out to such depth it is immediately apparent at some sites that not just local stone has been used in the construction.

In south west Wales we find Carreg Samson, probably better known locally as Long House cromlech, resting in a field above the bay of Aber Castle gazing out across the Irish Sea. From a distance the cromlech has the appearance of a seven-legged stone beast scuttling across the landscape. The large capstone measuring 4.5 metres long by over 2.7 metres wide rests on three of the beast's seven uprights, legend states that St. Samson put the capstone in place himself with just one finger. On closer examination it is immediately obvious that the supporting orthostats are constructed of differing materials. The capstone and three of the supports have quartz inclusions, a conglomerate rock which outcrops locally, the largest piece of quartz found at the entrance to the chamber. Quartz has been specifically selected but the other orthostats are not and must have been imported from another location.

Carreg Samson

Other portal stones, such as at Brackley, Kintyre, and King Orry's Grave on the Isle of Man, include quartz as if marking the significance of the entrance. Quartz is one of the most distinctive stone types used in the chambered tombs of the Irish Sea zone. Although quartz is one of the common minerals in the world the chambered tombs are never constructed solely of this material; in the vast majority quartz seems to have been positioned specifically to mark out important parts of the monument. At many sites quartz is often used for the backstone of the chambers (Greenamore Co. Antrim, Sannox on Arran), at other sites quartz is found solely in the capstone (Tamlaght Co. Derry and Whitehouse, Pembrokeshire). At Ossians's Grave in Co. Antrim quartz is found only on the right handside of the monument and at others quartz is not used in the chamber but is found in the cairn material. Quartz is evidently used differently at different monuments but always for transitional areas such as the entrance or the rear of the chamber. Yet at other sites quartz, although locally ubiquitous is deliberately avoided (Glenvoidean on Bute and Carreg Samson as stated above). Other sites in west Wales used stone not from the local area: Parc y Cromlech, Pembrokeshire and Ty Newydd, North Wales. Quartz was often found as deposits, often as crystals or pebbles, at many sites suggesting it was considered a powerful substance in the Neolithic period.

Conclusions
The evidence suggests that the constructors of these monuments did not simply use the most convenient local stone but purposefully selected specific stone types for its properties, in some cases travelling great distances if necessary. [11]

Contrary to the negative views of those who are of the opinion that Neolithic people just picked up any old local stone available, it seems beyond doubt that the materials selected and used in the construction of their megalithic monuments were purposefully selected and employed in a range of meaningful ways.

The materials themselves may be taken to represent tokens of other landscapes, pieces of significant places brought together in a new order or a microcosm of the original, maintaining a link with the past. We see this arrangement with the materials used at Stonehenge. Whereas the sarsen stones are quite local, the bluestones derive from south west Wales. The fact that the bluestones do not come from a single deposit but consist of a number of rock types obtainable from the same region suggests it was the original landscape of the rocks that was important. [12]

Significantly, at Stonehenge we find the inner horseshoe comprised of the finely worked spotted-dolerites from the main ridge of Carn Meini in the Preseli Hills, with the outer bluestone circle comprising of unworked rhyolites, tuffs and unspotted dolerites from the outlying landscapes north and south of the main ridge. The Preseli Hills purposefully created in microcosm in the Stonehenge landscape. [13]

Evidently the choice of materials was purposefully selective in the construction of megalithic monuments with Neolithic people travelling great distances to collect specific stone types:

"Since everything else about these monuments is carefully ordered and planned and the labour involved in constructing them was massive, it is highly unlikely that the inclusion of these structural stones was the result of mere chance or the contingencies of local availability” [14]

*

Notes:
1. Aubrey Burl, A Guide to Stone Circles of Britain, Ireland, and Brittany, Yale University Press, 2nd Edition, 2000, p.179.
2. Aubrey Burl, A Guide to Stone Circles of Britain, Ireland, and Brittany, Yale University Press, 1995, p. 18
3. The Sweet Track is an ancient causeway in the Somerset Levels, England, built c. 3806 BC. It was claimed to be the oldest road in the world and certainly the oldest timber trackway discovered in Northern Europe until a 6,000 year-old trackway was discovered at Belmarsh Prison in 2009. The track way extended for 2,000 metres (6,600 ft) across the marsh between what was then an island at Westhay and a ridge of high ground at Shapwick. The Sweet Track, constructed of crossed wooden poles driven into waterlogged ground to support a walkway of planks of oak, laid end-to-end, is one of a network that once crossed the Somerset Levels. Various artefacts, including a jadeitite axe head, have been found along its length. The Sweet Track was largely built over the course of an earlier structure, the Post Track, dated from around 3838 BC.
4. Less than 10% of the sixteen hundred or so recorded megalithic tombs in Ireland have been excavated – Elizabeth Shee Twohig, Irish Megalithic Tombs, Shire, 2004, p.7.
5. Chris Tilley, Body & Image: Explorations in Landscape Phenomenology 2, Left Coast Press 2008.
6. Chris Tilley, Phenomenology of Landscape, Berg, 1994, pp. 76 – 109.
7. Timothy Darvill, Megaliths, Monuments, and Materiality. European Megalithic Studies Group, 2010.
8. Gabriel Clooney, Newgrange: A View from the Platform, Antiquity, 2006.
9. Elizabeth Shee Twohig, Op. cit. p.59.
10. Vicki Cummings, Neolithic Irish Sea Zone, Oxbow, 2009, p.89.
11. Ibid. pp. 94 – 97.
12. Richard Bradley, The Archaeology of Natural Places, Routledge, 2000, pp. 92 – 94.
13. Timothy Darvill and Geoffrey Wainwright, The Stones of Stonehenge - Current Archaeology magazine, Issue 252, March 2011, pp. 28 – 35.
14. Chris Tilley, Body & Image: Explorations in Landscape Phenomenology 2, Left Coast Press 2008, p.160.


Further Reading:
The Specific Selection of Stone in Prehistory by A. Whitaker, 2011, Ancient Wisdom website.

* * *

Bluestones, Bluestones, everywhere but not a Rock to Haul

“...although you make think this self-evident, apparently not everyone does: it is possible for a gang of ordinary people with rope and timbers to erect a rough stone without resorting to mysterious lost powers or the help of aliens. There's no mystery, but there is magic. Erecting even the smallest stone is an event. It requires planning and organisation, people and equipment. It attracts attention and bequeaths stories – it generates a buzz. It gives an anonymous rock a unique identity. In a word, it creates a megalith”. [1]

Recent claims by scientists that they have made the most significant discovery in 15 years, see New Discovery Questions Bluestone Transportation Route, is being interpreted by some as the final nail in the coffin of the theory of human transportation of the bluestones to Salisbury Plain.

Unique to megalithic monuments outside of Wales are the Stonehenge bluestones, the smaller distinctive stones that form the inner circle and inner horseshoe standing between the larger sarsens. Their presence on Salisbury Plain has continued to baffle geologists and archaeologists for centuries; how and why were these rocks transported from the Preseli Hills in Wales to Salisbury Plain, 200 miles away?

Although being hailed as such, at no point do any of the official press releases state that this discovery confirms the bluestones were moved to Stonehenge by glaciation. However, this does question the route proposed by Richard Atkinson that the bluestones were transported from Preseli to Milford Haven, where it was proposed the Neolithic people collected the Altar Stone, before disembarking for Salisbury Plain.

With regard to this anomaly Dr Ixer reported, “The first result was the recognition that the huge sandstone Altar stone does not come from Milford Haven but from somewhere between West Wales and Herefordshire and has nothing to do with the Preseli Hills. This calls into question the proposed transport route for the Stonehenge bluestones.” [2]


The study by a team of scientists from Universities of Leicester, Aberystwyth and the National Museum of Wales, claims to have identified the source of one of the Stonehenge bluestones types, a volcanic rhyolite, matching this one particular type to an area north of the Mynydd Preseli range, in the vicinity of Pont Saeson (the Bridge of the Saxon's, or English), on the B4239 road between Crosswell and Brynberian, Pembrokeshire, south west Wales.

Indeed the Pont Saeson find is much nearer the west Welsh coast and the sea at Newport Bay; why would you transport 4 ton stones across country when it is so much easier by water? Clearly, the assumption has been made that the Altar stone was collected at the same time by the same party, but it is extremely unlikely that 80 bluestones, the figure usually estimated as being used in the construction of Stonehenge, would have been collected on one expedition. More likely that different parties went at different times. The fact that the Altar stone has nothing to do with the Preseli Hills is nothing new, but who knows where they could have found this stone? But of course this is seen by some as a glacial erratic. However, this poses the question; why only one?

Glacial Modelling
The results released thus far from this study by Ixer et al indicates the geological provenance of one type of bluestone from north of the main Preseli ridge at Pont Season, but it fails to explain where the stones were collected from. Very conveniently, so the theory goes, a glacier swept across southwest Wales, no one is exactly sure when, and then turned sharp left and travelled in an easterly direction along the Bristol Channel before depositing the 80 bluestones in southern England.

The glaciologists claim there is no evidence of mankind moving these stones to Salisbury Plain. We also see no evidence of how they built the pyramids, but they are there. But there is also no evidence of glaciation on Salisbury Plain. Consequently the glacial model is modified and said to have deposited the bluestones in Somerset south of Glastonbury. From here the Neolithic people collected the bluestones for their construction of Stonehenge. The Altar stone was moved by south Wales ice and picked up by the glacier moving east along the Bristol Channel.

Significantly the glacier deposited exactly the right number of bluestones and just the one Altar stone for the construction of Stonehenge. Oddly, south Wales bluestones are not found in any megalithic construction in Somerset were we would expect to see them littered about the place. Indeed, to date, apart from the dubious claim of a 'bluestone' being found in Boles Barrow, we are presented with a complete absence of bluestones in any other megalithic monument outside of Wales. [3]

Stonehenge bluestones

Conjoined to the glacial hypothesis is the argument promoted against human transportation of the bluestones; Neolithic people had neither the technical capability or the inclination to move 4 ton megalliths across rugged terrain some 200 miles to Salisbury Plain.

Let's consider the first point; is it possible to move huge megaliths over considerable distances without the use of modern lifting aids? But move these massive blocks of stone they did, the evidence is there around the world for all to see; because we do not know how we cannot dismiss it out of hand.

Moving Megaliths
The sarsens used at Stonehenge are thought to have been collected from Marlborough Downs some 20 miles away. Moving these sarsens weighing up to 50 tons over that distance was a significant feat in itself and suggests transporting 4 ton stones was certainly not beyond the capabilities of Neolithic man. Indeed there are ample examples around the world of mankind moving huge megaliths (from the Greek 'great stone'). They left behind no evidence of their techniques, we are simply left to scratch our heads and gape in awe but move these huge blocks of stone they certainly did.

Noting that modern cranes lift weights in the region of 200 tons, stone blocks of 400 tons were used in the construction Khafre's Pyramid at Giza. The Great Pyramid, or Khufu's Pyramid, built around 2560 BC, contains 43 blocks of granite weighing between 30 to 70 tons that were transported 500 miles from the quarry site and raised 150 feet into the King's Chamber. At the nearby Sphinx temple 100 ton blocks were raised 40 feet above the ground. The wonders of the pyramids and how they were constructed persists but they retain their secrets. However, many ancient monuments used stones far exceeding these weights.

A massive statue estimated to have weighed a colossal 1000 tons was transported 170 miles from the quarry at Aswan, by the ancient Egyptians to the Ramesseum, the mortuary temple of the Pharaoh Ramesses II, who reigned from 1279 to 1213 BC, to the Theban necropolis in Upper Egypt. This a a similar distance to the Stonehenge bluestones, and probably most of its journey was on water.

The two massive statues of Amenhotep III (14th century BC) known as the Colosii of Memnon are estimated to weigh 700 tons each. The statues were transported 420 miles from el-Gabal el-Ahmar, near modern-day Cairo, over land to the necropolis at Thebes.

Ancient South American temples used massive stones in their constructions, typically at Tiwanaku, Bolivia, several ashlars weighing 100 to 130 tons were transported over 6 miles and at Sacsayhuamán wall near Cusco, Peru, the largest stones weigh over 125 tons. But perhaps the most remarkable feat in the New World is around 45 miles northwest of Cusco, at the Sun Temple at Ollantaytambo, Peru, constructed with six enormous stone blocks of pink granite, known in modern times as the Wall of the Six Monoliths, estimated to weigh around 100 tons each. Perhaps not the heaviest megaliths when compared with others mentioned here but remarkable in that the stones were quarried from Kachiqhata, about 2.5 miles away on the other side of a deep ravine across the Urubamba River. Then these massive stones were somehow raised hundreds of feet up the steep mountainside to the site of the Sun Temple.

Wall of the Six Monoliths, Ollantaytambo, Peru.

An unfinished obelisk lies in an Aswan quarry and is estimated to weigh over 1000 tons. It lies still attached to the bedrock from which it was being carved, perhaps it was never meant to be moved, but if the initial intention was to quarry and use this massive block the stone masons were certainly undeterred by its size and weight. A similar stone lies in a quarry less than a mile from the ancient temple complex at Baalbek, high above the Beqaa plain in Lebannon. Known as the Stone of the Pregnant Woman, or Stone of the South, and like the the unfinished obelisk at Aswan, it is still attached to the bedrock. Measuring 71 feet long, 14 feet high, and 13 feet wide it is estimated to weigh 1000 tons. A second ancient monolith was discovered in the same quarry in the 1990s, its weight estimated at 1,242 tons.

The Roman temple complex at Baalbek, then known as Heliopolis (City of the Sun) appears to have been constructed on the base of an ancient temple site, suspected to have originally been constructed by the Canaanites and dedicated to the god Ba'al and his consort Astarte. Legend records it as the construction of Cain before the Deluge and rebuilt by a race of giants under the command of Nimrod after the flood. Incorporated into the foundations of this ancient temple are three massive stones estimated to weigh 800 tons each known as the Trilithons. The Trilithons were raised 20 feet to sit in the third course of the temple foundations, beneath these 24 blocks of 300 tons make up a lower course. The Trilithons have been so accurately placed it is not possible to push a knife blade between them.

The above are but a few examples of the many cases worldwide in which man has moved massive stones over difficult terrain and long distances; it is undeniable fact [4] and all pose exactly the same question as the Stonehenge bluestones; how and why?

Yet this evidence is ignored by some who promote the notion that the ancients were incapable of moving such massive weights. But as Aldous Huxley once said, “Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.”

Now does moving 4 ton bluestones still sound beyond the capability of ancient man?

Next: Stone Selection in Megalithic Monuments

See: Bluestone Source Pinpointed

*

Notes:
1. Mike Pitts, Hengeworld, Arrow, 2001, p.210.
2. New Discovery 'will rewrite Stonehenge history' – University of Leicester, 25 Feb 2011.
3. There is significant doubt about the claimed 'bluestone' found in Boles Barrow. For a full account see: Mike Pitts, Hengeworld, Arrow, 2001.
4. Largest Monoliths in the World.

* * *

Discovery Questions Bluestone Transportation Route

The origins of the Stonehenge bluestones, the smaller distinctive stones that form the inner circle and inner horseshoe standing between the larger sarsens, has continued to baffle geologists and historians for centuries; how and why were these rocks transported from the Preseli mountains in Wales to Salisbury Plain, 200 miles away? Now scientists claim to have made their most significant discovery in 15 years.

'Bluestone' is a term loosely used by geologists for the group of exotic non-sarsen stones at Stonehenge. One type of bluestone at Stonehenge, the so-called ‘spotted dolerite’, were first identified as having originated in south west Wales and convincingly traced to the Preseli Hills area in north Pembrokeshire in the early 1920's by the geologist Herbert Thomas. However, the sources of the other bluestones - chiefly the volcanic rhyolites and the rare sandstones remained, until recently, unknown.

Now a team of geologists claim to have identified the source of one of the volcanic types of rhyolite, matching this one particular type to an area north of the Mynydd Preseli range, in the vicinity of Pont Saeson (the Bridge of the Saxon's, or English), on the B4239 road between Crosswell and Brynberian, Pembrokeshire, south west Wales.

This latest news is being heralded as an exciting new discovery that ‘will rewrite Stonehenge’s history’, providing an opportunity for a new debate on how the bluestones might have been transported to Salisbury Plain and the theory that they were regarded as 'sacred' rocks held in special reverence by Neolithic man.

Stonehenge: the smaller bluestones standing between the huge sarsens.

Dr Richard Bevins, Keeper of Geology at Amgueddfa Cymru, in partnership with Dr Rob Ixer, University of Leicester and Dr Nick Pearce of Aberystwyth University, have concentrated on the rhyolite element of the bluestones from the 8000 rock samples available, leading them to believe it is of Welsh origin and have uncovered new evidence of its source. Their findings are published in the March 2011 edition of the Journal of Archaeological Science.

Dr Ixer said, “The first result was the recognition that the huge sandstone Altar stone does not come from Milford Haven but from somewhere between West Wales and Herefordshire and has nothing to do with the Preseli Hills. This calls into question the proposed transport route for the Stonehenge bluestones.

“The second unexpected result was that much of the volcanic and sandstone Stonehenge debris does not match any standing stones (so far only 2 stones out of thousands from the debris match)- it may be the debris is all that is left of lost standing stones- it is difficult to see what else it could be.

“The third is that the geographical origins for many of the Stonehenge rocks are not from impressive outcrops high on the hilltops but in less obvious places, some deep in valleys.”

Ixer added that work already undertaken and more in progress suggests that, unlike the belief of the last 80 years, namely that all of the Stonehenge bluestones were from the top of ‘sacred’ Preseli hills and moved southwards to the Bristol Channel and then onto Stonehenge, most or all of the volcanic and sandstone standing stones and much of the debris at Stonehenge comes from rocks in the low-lying ground to the north and northwest of the Preseli Hills and, if, they were moved by man, then they travelled initially in the Irish sea before heading south and east.

Dr Bevins said: “It has been argued that humans transported the spotted dolerites from the high ground of Mynydd Preseli down to the coast at Milford Haven and then rafted them up the Bristol Channel and River Avon to the Stonehenge area.

“However, the outcome of our research questions that route, as it is unlikely that they would have transported the Pont Saeson stones up slopes and over Mynydd Preseli to Milford Haven, we would assume that they would not carry the rocks up and over a steep mountain range.

“If humans were responsible then an alternative route might need to be considered.”


Richard Atkinson proposed the bluestones were brought from the Preseli Hills down to the Milford Haven estuary, from where he proposed they collected the Altar stone, then transported by raft along the South Wales coast of the Bristol Channel, then either through Somerset and down the river Avon or rounding Land's End and along the south coast of England to the site of the modern Christchurch harbour and up the Hampshire Avon into Wessex.

Mike Parker Pearson, Professor of Archaeology at Sheffield University, added: “This is a hugely significant discovery which will fascinate everyone interested in Stonehenge.

“It forces us to re-think the route taken by the bluestones to Stonehenge and opens up the possibility of finding many of the quarries from which they came.

“It’s a further step towards revealing why these mysterious stones were so special to the people of the Neolithic.”

The Stones of Stonehenge
We must keep this new discovery in its proper context; it is one type of bluestone and does not represent all the foreign bluestones at Stonehenge, and certainly not the spotted dolerites of the inner horseshoe.

The Stones of Stonehenge - Anthony Johnson

The inner horseshoe of bluestones, stones 61 – 72 above, are comprised of spotted dolerites, identified as occurring at just a few outcrops along the central spine of the Preseli ridge, and have been finely worked, tapering in height toward the back of the sarsen horseshoe, mirroring the sarsen horseshoe, increasing in height toward the great trilothon of stones 56 and 55 (now fallen) and lintel 156 (also fallen). The outer circle of bluestones, 31 – 49 above, are unworked and comprises of rhyolites, tuffs and non-spotted dolerites, which outcrop in the landscape north and south of the main Preseli ridge.

In an article in the March edition of Current Archaeology magazine archaeologists Timothy Darvill of Bournemouth University and Geoffrey Wainwright, former Chief Archaeologist for English Heritage, propose that quite literally the physical landscape of Preseli is reproduced in microcosm at Stonehenge in the disposition of the selection and placement of the stones. Darvill and Wainwright's viewpoint would appear to be in line with these new findings of Ixer et al.

Next: Moving Megaliths

See: Bluestone Source Pinpointed

Sources:
1. New Discovery 'will rewrite Stonehenge history' – University of Leicester, 25 Feb 2011.
2. New Discovery in Stonehenge Bluestone Mystery – National Museum of Wales, 22 Feb 2011.
3. New discovery in Stonehenge bluestone mystery – Aberystwyth University, 22 February 2011.
4. Timothy Darvill and Geoffrey Wainwright, The Stones of Stonehenge - Current Archaeology magazine, Issue 252, March 2011, pp. 28 – 35.

* * *