Stonehenge revisited: A geochemical approach to interpreting the geographical source of sarsen stone #58
Archaeometry, June 2024
DOI: 10.1111/arcm.12999
by Ronald G V Hancock, Michael P Gorton, William C Mahaney, Suzanne Aufreiter and Kostalena Michelaki
Archaeometry, June 2024
DOI: 10.1111/arcm.12999
by Ronald G V Hancock, Michael P Gorton, William C Mahaney, Suzanne Aufreiter and Kostalena Michelaki
ABSTRACT
It is tempting in material sourcing analyses to treat chemical data primarily as numbers to be sorted, while disregarding their interlinked geochemistries. Consideration of geochemistry, however, often leads to the drawing of more nuanced and reliable conclusions. In this paper we re-examine data published in 2020, related to the sourcing of stone #58 at Stonehenge, paying attention to geochemistry. We question the potential single-source interpretation of these data and suggest instead that three to six sources cannot be ruled out.
========================
Well well -- this is a surprise. I knew that some new research was under way involving the Altar Stone, but I was unaware that new geochemistry work was also going on with regard to Sarsen 58 and the West Woods connection. Readers of this blog will recall that I had a vigorous spat with David Nash a few years ago, in 2020, on the grounds that I was not convinced that his analytical plots did actually show a strong connection between West Woods and Stonehenge. I thought that there was "over interpretation" going on, particularly with regard to the visual messages coming out of scatter diagrams etc.
In fairness to all concerned, the original stark proposition which got the full media treatment in 2020 ("Stonehenge sarsen mystery solved" and so forth) has subsequently been abandoned and replaced by something more nuanced, with multiple sarsen sources for Stonehenge now broadly accepted. Unfortunately, the media do not do subtlety and truth -- they just want spectacular discoveries and banner headlines -- and so the developments since 2020 have been largely ignored. That's the way of the world, and those who rush into print should perhaps be more mindful of the fact.....
See also:
Quote from the new article:
........the Nash et al. (2020) proposal of West Woods as a possible source for stone #58 from Stonehenge was taken to be more certain by Ixer and Bevins (2021) and Worsley (2021), and by 2024 it was treated as a given by Ciborowski et al. (2024).
In fairness to all concerned, the original stark proposition which got the full media treatment in 2020 ("Stonehenge sarsen mystery solved" and so forth) has subsequently been abandoned and replaced by something more nuanced, with multiple sarsen sources for Stonehenge now broadly accepted. Unfortunately, the media do not do subtlety and truth -- they just want spectacular discoveries and banner headlines -- and so the developments since 2020 have been largely ignored. That's the way of the world, and those who rush into print should perhaps be more mindful of the fact.....
Anyway, the other thing that is interesting about this article is that it cites Lionel Jackson and myself (2009) as the authorities on glacial transport, ignoring the fact that there has been a vast literature since then. As authors based in North America, I am not sure that they are up to speed on the different arguments involving sarsen origins and bluestone origins, but they say:
and also:
England as the last Pleistocene ice melted, as documented by John and Jackson (2009). While the sources of sarsen stones remain controversial, glacial transportation should be considered seriously in the explanation of the source of silicified sandstones used to form Stonehenge."
So it's good to see the glacial theory applied to both sarsens and bluestones, although many of their statements relating to dating and ice movement directions are rather unreliable.
No comments:
Post a Comment