I notice that the mistake about stump 32e is repeated in the new report on the laser survey of Stonehenge. On page 41 the text says "........rhyolite stump 32e has been proposed as the possible origin for much of the banded rhyolite debitage scattered throughout the Stonehenge landscape (Ixer and Bevins, 2011, 2011a, 2011b; Bevins et al 2011; 2012).
As we can see above, stump 32e (closest to the standing stone numbered 33) looks nothing like a banded flaky rhyolite. The one the authors probably meant to refer to was 32d -- in the middle of the group of 3 stumps. You can see the location on the plan below.
.jpg)
Brian,
ReplyDeleteQuoting from the quote in your post,
“...rhyolite stump 32e has been proposed as the possible origin for much of the banded rhyolite debitage scattered throughout the Stonehenge landscape (Ixer and Bevins, 2011, 2011a, 2011b; Bevins et al 2011; 2012).”
What human activity could account for the “rhyolite debitage scattered throughout the Stonehenge landscape” including the Cursus where such rhyolite debitage are also found? Doesn't make sense to me. Does it make sense to you?
Here is an idea. Could the bluestone stumps (e.g. stump 32e) be the result of people pilfering and using these stones for military purposes during the Roman and Medieval times? One “bluestone 69” in particular (in a photo by Atkinson when this stone was reset into the ground as you posted long ago) shows such stones may have been used as ramming heads in military equipment.
Kostas