Above the Durrington"biface" bluestone
Below -- large lumps of sarsen
I am intrigued by this mention of other biface bluestones found at Stonehenge. This is news to me......... The authors assume they are artifacts and that they were brought to the site. Is there any evidence at all in support of that contention?
Source:
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
https://www.wessexarch.co.uk/our-work/mod-durrington
Quote:
By Steve Thompson and Andrew B. Powell
Published by Wessex Archaeology, 2018
Quote:
"Several finds have been uncovered alongside many artefacts such as ceramic and worked flint typical of the period. 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.
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."
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.
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."
5 comments:
Don't think there's any clear evidence that bluestone artefacts were necessarily BROUGHT to the [Greater Stonehenge] landscape. But bluestone fragments from the Early Neolithic Greater Cursus (which has a quite probably very meaningful glacial geomorphically east - north - easterly direction) were properly identified geologically speaking by Ixer. Moreover, in 2008 as part of MPP'S Stonehenge Riverside Project, a further bluestone from the fill of the Cursus pit was identified as identical to one of the sandstone stumps in the Stonehenge bluestone circle. As Brian has written this is potentially very significant, since it means the lump of sandstone was present before 5,200 BP in this VERY EARLY earthwork.
See Also: Matt Leivers[ Wessex Archaeology] and others, February 2021......to be continued.....
Yes, the idea that any bluestones in the Stonehenge landscape must have been BROUGHT from outside by the builders of Stonehenge is so much a part of Stonehenge thinking that people don't even realise that it is a speculation or an assumption. Similarly, the assumption of an ARRIVAL DATE for the bluestones is similarly dodgy. Yet another assumption re Waun Mawn is the idea that the stones for the imaginary "lost circle" must have been BROUGHT from some way away, instead of being simply picked up from the local outcrops and erratic scatter. Slovenly thinking on all sides.......
..the Larkhill Bluestones Pebble. Wessex Archaeology at al. inc. Matt Leivers ( who I have communicated with in a Wiltshire Museum link - up)
Yes, Brian, slovenly thinking which would have the 1800 - vintage duo Colt Hoare and William Cunnington The First spitting teeth! Post Processualism gone bananas, amen.
Post a Comment