Stonehenge's Origins: A Unifying Monument for Ancient Britons - PR

Recent archaeological research, building on two prior studies, points to a fascinating possibility about Stonehenge: it may have been reconstructed in England between 2620 and 2480 BC to serve as a unifying symbol for ancient Britons amidst the arrival of newcomers from Europe. This new study, detailed in Archaeology International, sheds light not only on the monument's purpose but also on the monumental task of transporting a 6 tonne stone over a staggering distance of 435 miles (700 kilometers) from its original location.

  
The research draws intriguing parallels between Stonehenge, situated on England's Salisbury Plain in Wiltshire, and similar stone circles in Scotland. These similarities suggest a greater degree of connectivity between these ancient societies than previously imagined, painting a picture of a well-networked Neolithic world where cultural exchanges could have influenced monumental architecture across Britain. This connectivity could imply shared rituals, beliefs, or social structures that transcended geographical boundaries, offering a new lens through which we view the interactions among ancient peoples.

 
“These new insights have significantly expanded our understanding as to what the original purpose of Stonehenge might have been. It shows that this site on Salisbury Plain was important to the people not just living nearby, but across Britain, so much so that they brought massive monoliths across sometimes hundreds of miles to this one location.” - Mike Parker Pearson

Paper in Archaeology International - https://journals.uclpress.co.uk/ai/issue/602/info/

I have a review

 "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."

How charmingly Pooteresque, though being compared to Putin might be considered du trop for this festive time in polite company. Personally I would echo the Dickensian wish: "A Merry Christmas to us all; God bless us, everyone!”

The Myth of Bristol Channel High-level Glacial Erratics

I came across an intriguing claim about glacial erratics on the shores of the Bristol Channel that underpins a Stonehenge creation theory.

"Further, of the scores of known glacial erratics on the shores of the Bristol Channel, many are found at altitudes in excess of 100m, indicating that during at least one glacial episode the ice of the Irish Sea Ice Stream was thick enough and dynamic enough to press inland across the coasts of Devon and Cornwall. It is therefore probable that glacier ice also reached Salisbury Plain, and that the bluestone boulders and smaller fragments at Stonehenge — from more than 30 different sources — were glacially transported. " 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381775577_Quaternary_Newsletter_Article_AN_IGNEOUS_ERRATIC_AT_LIMESLADE_GOWER_AND_THE_GLACIATION_OF_THE_BRISTOL_CHANNEL

The claim is that many glacial erratics are found at altitudes in excess of 100m, and that this fact would indicate all sorts of stuff. And that this is the "abstract" of a paper that has presumably had some sort of review.

So let's look at the paper: An Igneous Erratic at Limeslade, Gower & the Glaciation of the Bristol Channel linked from https://www.qra.org.uk/quaternary-newsletter/qn-162-archive/

What does it say?

Not what the author's abstract says.

The references are Harmer's Erratic Map of 1928: Here's the extract, click to embiggen.

No, I can't see any.

Maybe Madgett & Ingliss 1987 references some "high level erratics", after all the convention is that if it is within quote marks it should be a quote:

https://devonassoc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/A-Reappraisal-Madgett-TDA-1987.pdf

Nope.

For the Ilfracombe-Berrynarbour reference see below.

Paul Berry - https://devongeography.wordpress.com/2021/10/27/coastal-walk-at-baggy-point-north-devon/ has some good photos of the Baggy Point erratics - 46, 60 and 80m in altitude. So they aren't part of the many at over 100m. More about them later.

The author of the claim has elsewhere provided a useful table of the erratics he knows of:

Here are some of the recorded altitudes of erratics on or near the coasts of Cornwall, Devon and Somerset:

Lundy 138m

Shebbear 150m

Westonzoyland 10m

Baggy Point 80m, 60m and 45m

Ilfracombe 150m - 175m

Kenn 7m

Court Hill 68m (ice surface was above 85m)

Nightingale Valley / Portishead Down 85m

Let's look at them in turn:

Lundy - the most comprehensive report is https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/380559/1/LFS_Journal_2014-Rolfe_et_al.pdf  They are local rocks that have been pushed around on the island, not relevant.

Shebbear - A sarsen stone not a glacial erratic https://sarsen.substack.com/p/the-shebbear-erratic-sarsenhtml

Westonzoyland - 10m - basically within tidal range.

Baggy Point 80m, 60m and 45m - 

Yes - under 100m. But the author has repeatedly written about them:

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2023/10/pink-tuff-erratics-from-baggy-point.html

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2023/10/glacial-traces-near-baggy-point-devon.html

THE RAMSON CLIFF ERRATIC (THE "HIGH ERRATIC" ON BAGGY POINT)  

In 1969 this boulder was in the middle of a pasture field, right on the crest-line of Baggy Point above Ramson Cliff, though in a low-point of that crest-line. It was standing upright, part-buried in the thin soil.... in the early 1970s this same farmer decided to plough those fields, initially simply resulting in the boulder being dislodged and lying prone; then shortly afterwards he dragged it to the edge of the field, where it has been ever since, adjacent to the Coast Path,...Some have suggested that this erratic (in its 1969 context) represents a prehistoric Standing Stone - quite feasible, and there is another standing stone nearer to Putsborough, though that one is a local slabby sandstone. Because of the occurrence of erratic boulders on the southern shore of Baggy, at Saunton Down End, and under Saunton cliffs, it was then suggested that the boulder might have been dragged up from such a location. Against this is the shape of the boulder - which is rather angular and rough-surfaced - not at all like those on the foreshore,

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-erratics-at-baggy-point-croyde-and.html

What? It is a standing stone that the farmer has moved to the edge of his field. And the others are so small they wouldn't even fill a wheelbarrow, and seem to be moved about at will. The lack of reliable context makes them irrelevant.

Ilfracombe:  again we can go back to the blogger behind the claim:

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2022/03/ilfracombe-erratic-spread.html

The sole reference is to page 202 of https://data.jncc.gov.uk/data/965f9190-c00b-4a6b-aa9f-8e3855492404/gcr-v14-quaternary-of-south-west-england-c7.pdf 

"there is some evidence provided by erratic material that ice extended to about 150-175 m OD on the western plateau behind Ilfracombe and Berrynarbour."

Pretty thin gruel to base a theory on as I can find no other supporting sources. Certainly there are no erratic boulders recorded.

Kenn - 7m - hardly high-level. The best reference is: https://geoguide.scottishgeologytrust.org/p/gcr/gcr14/gcr14_kennchurch.pdf and put in context in: https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/documents/3923/92p271.pdf  as is,

Court Hill 68m - https://geoguide.scottishgeologytrust.org/p/gcr/gcr14/gcr14_courthill  No relevant erratic boulders

Nightingale Valley / Portishead Down 85m -https://geoguide.scottishgeologytrust.org/p/gcr/gcr14/gcr14_nightingalevalley  No relevant erratic boulders.

So that list was a wash.

What about the erratics found in the Fremington Clay Pits near Barnstable?

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/geological-magazine/article/erratic-boulders-within-the-fremington-clay-of-north-devon/B34A6E72966498B37FB95BE11B3CB6B5 

Claypits Cover lies between 20 - 30 m -  the erratics were found in the clay some metres below ground.

Oh dear, not a single reliable reference to a "high-level erratics", let alone many of them. The still magisterial JNCC report says it best: And is worth a read for details of the evidence across the region.

Click to embiggen - as with all the images.

https://data.jncc.gov.uk/data/965f9190-c00b-4a6b-aa9f-8e3855492404/gcr-v14-quaternary-of-south-west-england-c6.pdf

Dr John - Ice Age - Enjoy

The search for a second Altar Stone - Andrew Collins

 Collins, Andrew. (2024). The Stonehenge Altar Stone: Its Origins, Composition, and Function, And the Search for Its Lost Companion. 

The most enigmatic "foreign" stone at Stonehenge is its Altar Stone. Long thought to have been sourced from the Old Red Sandstone beds of South Wales, new studies have focused on its origin in the Orcadian Basin of northeastern Scotland, either in the Caithness region or in the Orkney Isles. Despite one paper (Bevins et al, 2024) providing compelling evidence that the Altar Stone does not exactly match the composition of Old Red Sandstone beds on the Orkney Mainland, those responsible for transporting the stone to Stonehenge were almost certainly its original builders, the Grooved Ware culture, who first emerged on Orkney during the Late Neolithic. We look at everything known about the Altar Stone and how its presence at Stonehenge might relate to its construction. We also go in search of its lost companion, and examine where both these huge monoliths might have stood within the monument, and how all this might relate to the monument's underlying geometry.

Woodhenge Dating

"Woodhenge now appears to be a multi-phase monument with at least two main phases – an “astronomical” monument comprising concentric oval timber rings, later enclosed by a bank and ditch... (Demonstrating) possible contemporaneity of the Stonehenge phase 3 stone settings and Woodhenge timber settings. ..The functioning astronomical monument appeared to be of relatively short duration, and presumably was no longer used when the timber rings decayed and the bank and ditch was erected (the latter might have prevented solstitial viewing too). The timber monument was ‘wrapped’ when the enclosing bank and ditch were constructed after a interval of 75–440 years (95% probability) and probably 145–280 years (68% probability)"

"Radiocarbon dating and chronological modelling of samples from Woodhenge suggest that the timber monument was constructed in 2635–2575 cal BC (95% probability), probably in 2635–2610 cal BC (54% probability) or 2595–2580 cal BC (14% probability) and enclosed by the ditch and bank in 2555–2505 cal BC (2% probability) or 2495–2180 cal BC (93% probability), probably in 2465–2345 cal BC (68% probability)."

Woodhenge, Durrington, Wiltshire - Radiocarbon Dating and Chronological Modelling 

Peter Marshall, Amanda Chadburn, Irka Hajdas, Michael Dee and Joshua Pollard 

Historic England Research Report Series 94/2024 

https://historicengland.org.uk/research/results/reports/9070/WoodhengeDurringtonWiltshire_RadiocarbonDatingandChronologicalModelling

Dolmen Capstone Assumptions

 

DZSWS:1998.1008 Drawing of Carreg Samson  Wiltshire Museum

The capstones of the great Preseli Dolmens, Carreg Samson, Carreg Coitan, and Pentre Ifan, and slightly further afield Tinkinswood, are an intriguing mystery.

They are all large, in Tinkinswood's case about 40 tonnes, monoliths that are described as erratics. In Carreg Samson's case the igneous rock is obviously different to some of the supports which are a conglomerate.

There is a reasonable assumption that these different stones all ended up on site by natural processes, and pits under the dolmens might be where they were extracted from. But these are just assumptions, there is no evidence. And as the builders obviously could move and shape the undersides of these very large rocks it is also reasonable to believe they were just as likely to have been brought to the sites by the builders. But without evidence no useful conclusions can be made

As they say to assume is to make an ass out of u and me.

Avebury Stones

 As a part of their wonderful ongoing project to make the information free  The Avebury Papers write: "As an experiment, we have also added the stones of Avebury to Wikidata, along with their coordinates, and, in a few cases, photographs from the archive. This data can now be queried to create an interactive map of the stones (below), or you can run the query yourself here, just click the blue ‘play’ button on the page you land on".