Pages

Thursday, 13 August 2020

Bluestone and sarsen at Durrington


The Durrington MOD site "bluestone lithic" -- possibly rhyolite or ash?  The fresh rock is exposed where a geological slice was taken off for lab analysis.  It's certainly not spotted dolerite......

Thanks to Tony for drawing attention to this -- a short report on what was found during investigations at the old MOD HQ at Durrington prior to development as a housing estate.  The site is about 1 km north of the Durrington Walls scheduled monument

https://www.wessexarch.co.uk/our-work/mod-durrington

There is also a longer published report:

Along Prehistoric Lines: Neolithic, Iron Age and Romano-British Activity in the Former MOD Headquarters, Durrington, Wiltshire
By Steve Thompson and Andrew B. Powell
Published by Wessex Archaeology, 2018

Among the probable Neolithic finds, ..........."the most impressive, at least in size where the pieces of worked sarsen stone blocks found in the posthole alignment, the largest weighing in at 15 kg, with two smaller fragments, interpreted as broken flakes, being found alongside it. The use of sarsen as a material to construct stone circles such as Stonehenge and Avebury may suggest this material had some importance to the occupants of Neolithic Durrington, however it is suggested that the stone was discarded after being unable to be worked further. It is also broadly contemporary with the sarsen phase of Stonehenge, however it is possible sarsen was more commonplace than it is today as a number of solitary standing stones are known locally."

Then we find this, also in a Neolithic context;
A piece of worked ‘bluestone’ known as a biface was found in a later ditch close to the intersection of the two posthole alignments. This object is similar to ones found at Stonehenge and is almost certainly of Neolithic date. However, whilst it is likely to have been brought to the site at this time, it could equally be a Romano-British curio or trophy. ‘Bluestone’ is a key material of non-local rocks, many of which were brought from Wales, and most famous for its use at Stonehenge and the ritual activity taking place there.

This is interesting, in spite of the all too typical assumption that the bluestones found in the area must have been "brought from Wales".......

The lump of bluestone doesn't look much like a typical "biface artifact" to me, but there is a great 3D animation on the Wessex Archaeology web site:
This is the description:
The ‘bluestone’ object is a bifacial lithic with polishing and flaking. It was found in a possibly Romano-British feature, next to two Late Neolithic posthole alignments at MOD Durrington. It resembles objects made out of ‘bluestone’, the same as some of the Stonehenge stones. A number of ‘bluestone’ objects have been found across the Stonehenge Landscape, even though not local to the geology.

It is unknown when the object was created, or how it came to be buried at Durrington. Its proximity to the Neolithic posthole alignments could suggest a similar prehistoric date. However, the association with the Romano-British feature could suggest a later curation of the artefact, taken as a memento or trophy.


A section was taken to identify the geology of the rock and shows its original midnight blue colour when it was freshly made. The exterior surface is the result of 4500 years of weathering and wear.


This is all quite intriguing.  No doubt the petrology of the stone will have been sorted out by now.  My best guess is that it is a rhyolite or ash.   The "lithic" is very small, and it does not matter very much whether it is from a Neolithic context or a Romano-British one.  I'll hazard a guess that it is a small erratic pebble that has been bashed about a bit -- but I am unconvinced that the "flaking and polishing" are the results of human interference.  They could be natural features -- and its interesting that the weathered crust (assumed to be the result of just 4500 years of exposure) extends across the whole face of the pebble.  One would have expected the Neolithic (?) flaked areas to show up as a different colour -- with a less well marked crust.   It's difficult to tell what is going on here, even on that wonderful animated 3D image!

Anyway, somebody will probably enlighten us.........

PS.  I knew I wouldn't have to wait for long!  Rob Ixer kindly informs us that it is a piece of foliated rhyolite similar to that found at Rhosyfelin in North Pembrokeshire.  So it can be grouped together with assorted other fragments of the same rock type found  in the Stonehenge landscape.  But this is the first one I've seen that looks like a pebble rather than a fragment knocked off a larger stone.







15 comments:

  1. Amazing how a combination of lateral thinking and serendipity summoned up this Wessex Archaeology report! Thanks to Rob Ixer for his geological analysis too.....

    ReplyDelete
  2. Impossible to tell anything from the photo but I'll take Rob's word for it. The weathering looks authentic :)

    I recently read about a 2016 report in which Bluestone fragments were reported from Silbury Hill. Is anything known about these?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Like you say, it's a bit exasperating this Report talks of bluestones as having been "brought" from Wales - mama mia, here we go again! this ruling MPP hypothesis blandly churned out again and again....... WHAT ABOUT GLACIATION!! Take the plank out of your eye!

    Alon the same (metaphorical, not geological) vein, the report's authors refer to "BLUESTONE OBJECTS", i.e. objects rather than debris or stones. There seems to be an in - built assumption by these archaeologists that bluestone from Wales necessarily has been 'worked' by Man, i.e. brawny prehistoric boyos from Preseli. Mama mia, here we go again, how do we convince him/them!?!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Chris -- no reason to doubt Rob's identification here. He will have looked at a thin section and found a reasonable match. In fact the surface of the pebble looks like a lot of the bits and pieces scattered about in the Brynberian Valley.

    Tony -- it's amazing just how many researchers are infected with the Stonehenge bluestone mythology,having been taught to believe in the heroic human transport story as if it is fact. They just trot out phrases like this without thinking. Over on Twitter, Kenneth Brophy has just been having a go at Dan Snow for continuing the marketing of the Stonehenge myth in yet another TV documentary......

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dan Snow ought to know better. He's a very bright person, I seem to recall from what I've read; and he's got the luxury of having married into 'loadsa money' as Harry Enfield used to say, so he may henceforth simply concentrate on his hobbies and interests one way and another - YET he seems to get drawn into these all - encompassing self - fulfilling "prophetic" bubbles pumped out of bubble - making, arms - waving exponents such as certain senior archaeologists and the like.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Chris, I suggest you contact Avebury Museum by email to enquire about the 2016 report you mention. I'm pretty sure Ros Cleal is still in charge. Jim Leary, now based at York, co - authored his book "The Story of Silbury Hill" back in 2010, following his excavations with David Field.

    It is possible a sometime - contributor to this Blog, Pete, may know something about any bluestone fragments from Silbury Hill, as he has longtime had a keen interest in Avebury and Silbury Hill archaeology and beyond.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Chris -- use the search facility on this blog. Atkinson reported bluestone fragment finds on or in Silbury Hill, and we had quite a discussion about the evidence. Schist or spotted dolerite? Not quite sure what the latest thinking may be....... but there was a big debate about whether bluestone bits were "deliberately imported" to the site or just accidentally incorporated into the mass of the hill when it was being built. Jim Leary had some strong views, as I recall!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Jim Leary & David Field's book "The Story of Silbury Hill", 2016, says, in relation to the summit of the mound, and Atkinson's earlier excavation:-

    "One of the most intriguing finds was a fragment of stone considered to be identical with some of the 'bluestone' at Stonehenge, and at a stroke a link was inferred. Unfortunately, this fragment came from the topsoil rather than a secure archaeological context, and therefore could have been brought to the mound from any date up to the present. A further fragment of stone was recovered, this time in an in situ context, but after detailed examination this turned out to be Cornish greenstone, and again any connection with Stonehenge was unwarranted."**

    **CLOUGH T H McK and CUMMINS, W A 1988 Stone Axe Studies, 2,
    160, 162

    ReplyDelete
  9. Back in 2011 we had some discussion on all of this, and when we moved on to other things the situation seemed to be that there were four or five fragments of spotted dolerite identified at Silbury Hill, but all from insecure archaeological contexts.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Yes, what is interesting in particular is the Post "THE SILBURY HILL BLUESTONES (AGAIN)" 29th DEC 2011, and the various comments.

    The Post [from British Archaeology Jan/Feb 2012] quotes our friend Rob Ixer as saying that all 4 flakes "come from a single block of spotted dolerite. They are artefacts, so must have been put there by people......" The date they were put there, and what the original block was like, remain a mystery.

    "The Story of Silbury Hill" book was rapidly reprinted in order to mention the extra flakes. I have the original book edition.

    ReplyDelete
  11. When you get flakes and broken fragments like these in the spoil or soil, I'm not sure you can call them "artefacts" -- fragments of debris, maybe, from the breaking up of an inconvenient block. Was that "inconvenient block" (or maybe just a cobble or a small boulder) of spotted dolerite imported from somewhere else? Maybe, but why would anybody want to do that? More likely that the block was mixed up in the debris and chalk rubble used to build the mound, and was either destroyed deliberately, or used for the creation of an implement or an ornamental object.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Some further info:
    Sarsen boulders have also been found in the mound. Such stones are scarce in the immediate vicinity of Silbury today, but it was likely that they were far more common in the prehistoric period. Yet even though the stones may not have travelled far, they should not be dismissed as merely a convenient source of hardcore. Some boulders found high up in the mound would have needed a couple of people to manhandle them up the incline, making them far from the most convenient building material. Among this potent mix of local produce, space seems to have been made for at least one example of a rather more exotic stone type. A fragment of rock from the mongrel ‘bluestone’ geology that famously made its way from the Welsh Preseli hills to Stonehenge was found on the summit by Atkinson. Sadly, the bluestone lay loose in the topsoil, leaving its role a mystery. To this can now be added three further small ‘bluestone’ flakes from the 2007 summit excavations, but none of these were within secure Neolithic contexts either. One possibility is that a monolith once crowned the mound; another is that its presence is a product of the destruction of some Stonehenge bluestones during the Neolithic period.

    https://www.archaeology.co.uk/articles/the-many-faces-of-silbury-hill.htm
    (Article from Current Archaeology)

    ReplyDelete
  13. We should take account of the theory currently held by archaeologists (such as Jim Leary and David Field) that the construction of Silbury Hill was the product of different communities of prehistoric peoples bringing topsoil from multiple locations in every direction beyond Silbury. So perhaps we shouldn't be too surprised if pieces of differing geologies of Preseli "bluestone" should turn up ANYWHERE within the multiple layers of the mound.

    ReplyDelete
  14. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I'm not up to speed on this -- but I thought the latest thinking was that most of the debris that makes up the mound has come from the surrounding ditch? Did I read somewhere that the volume of material taken from the ditch was pretty well the same as the volume of material in the mound?

    ReplyDelete

Please leave your message here