THE BOOK
Some of the ideas discussed in this blog are published in my new book called "The Stonehenge Bluestones" -- available by post and through good bookshops everywhere. Bad bookshops might not have it....
To order, click
HERE

Wednesday, 10 October 2012

Stonehenge was a huge prehistoric art gallery?



The daggers found on the face of sarsen stone 4

I thought the silly season was over -- but I was wrong. David Keys (in the Independent) has a bit of fun with this one -- but his tone appears deadly serious.  Surely he must be joking?  So the old ruin has been a concert hall, a temple, an observatory, and a lot more besides -- and now an art gallery.  Whatever next?


Revealed: Early Bronze Age carvings suggest Stonehenge was a huge prehistoric art gallery

A detailed laser-scan survey of the entire monument has discovered 72 previously unknown Early Bronze Age carvings chipped into five of the giant stones.

David Keys
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/revealed-early-bronze-age-carvings-suggest-stonehenge-was-a-huge-prehistoric-art-gallery-8202812.html

Tuesday 09 October 2012

Tuesday, 9 October 2012

Stump 32e again....


 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.



The Stonehenge laser scans

Thanks to Tony for drawing this to my attention.  There have been a number of reports of the recent laser work at Stonehenge -- although for the most part the conclusions do not seem to move things along all that much.  The idea that most dressing was done on the "visible" sides of the sarsens is surely a very old one......

The project seems to have been designed to generate powerful images to be used in future interpretations of the site for the sake of visitors. Fair enough.

I'm quite intrigued that Susan Greaney says: "I think we can say now that the monument certainly was finished – but where the stone went is still a puzzle." Evidence please, Susan?
====================
Stonehenge up close: digital laser scan reveals secrets of the past

Most detailed analysis yet of prehistoric stone circle shows how masons spent more time making key areas look the best

Maev Kennedy
The Guardian, Tuesday 9 October 2012



Like any corner-cutting modern builder, the ancient stonemasons who built Stonehenge lavished the most work and best materials where they would be first seen –shining in the last light of the setting winter solstice sun, or at dawn on the longest day.

The first complete 3D laser scan of the stone circle has also revealed tool marks made 4,500 years ago, scores of little axehead graffiti added when the enormous slabs were already 1,000 years old, and damage and graffiti contributed by Georgian and Victorian visitors.

The survey, carried out for English Heritage, exposes numerous details now invisible to the naked eye and will be used in displays for the long-awaited new visitor centre, due to open late next year. It shows the stones in unprecedented precision, from the double-decker bus height sarsens from Salisbury Plain that give the monument its unmistakable profile, to the smaller bluestones brought from west Wales by means still hotly debated, and the stumps of stones that have almost been destroyed.

It also confirms the importance of the prehistoric monument's alignment on the winter and summer solstice. The largest, most uniform and most imposing stones, carefully shaped and dressed through hundreds of hours of work with stone hammers, were set where they would be seen first by people approaching the monument from north-east along the Avenue, a processional way that would have been particularly spectacular at the midwinter sunset.

In an epic piece of work, the stones facing in that direction were laboriously shaped to appear straight and regular, their original rough brown surfaces hammered away, or pick-dressed, to expose the lighter inner layer of stone, which when newly worked would have shone in the sunlight. The gigantic lintels that bridge the uprights were also elaborately worked to even their size and height.

In contrast, on the opposite side of the circle the builders only bothered to pick-dress the inner faces of the surviving uprights. The backs, they clearly reckoned, would never be studied in detail.

Clive Ruggles, emeritus professor of archaeoastronomy at the University of Leicester, said it was already clear that Stonehenge was one of the earliest examples of a monument aligned on the winter and summer solstices.

"Now we can see how the utmost care and attention was devoted to ensuring the pristine appearance of Stonehenge for those completing their final approach to the monument along the solstitial axis. The effect would have been especially powerful at the two times of year when the sunlight itself shone along the alignment – when those approaching had the midsummer rising sun behind or the midwinter setting sun ahead."

Some hollows, cracks and lines interpreted in the past as carvings have been revealed as natural features, but what astonished Susan Greaney, an English Heritage historian and expert on Stonehenge, is the extent of surviving tool marks.

"Some are quite visible, and have long been noted, but the surprise to me was that everywhere we looked, on every surface, even on very weathered faces of stones which have been lying on the ground for centuries, we could see evidence of the stone working. On some you can see where different groups worked on different areas of the same stone – and with varying skills."

Long after the monument was built, when Bronze Age burial mounds rich in grave goods began to be scattered across the plain around Stonehenge, and the archaeological evidence suggests those who could make or trade in metal goods had an almost shamanic status, people carved little images of daggers and axes, many now invisible to the naked eye, into the stones. Scores more have been revealed by the scan, including 71 new axe heads, bringing the total to 115 – doubling the number ever recorded in Britain.

"It is wonderful to have discovered so many more, but what is fascinating is that they are carved without regard to the importance or the siting of the stones – almost as if the people who carved them could no longer quite remember the significance of the monument and how it worked," Greaney said.

Writing about the project in the new issue of British Archaeology, Marcus Abbott, head of geomatics and visualisation for ArcHeritage, and Hugo Anderson-Whymark, an Oxford based expert on ancient worked stone, note that the 850 gigabytes of data covering hundreds of faces of the stones were equivalent to 750m pages of printed text or 200,000 music files.

"Over the months we have recorded and scrutinised every square centimetre of Stonehenge in unparalleled detail, revealing over 700 areas of stoneworking, rock art, graffiti, damage and restoration."

They processed the data digitally to strip away weathering and surface texture, and as well as revealing carved details, were able to show that some stones that now appear insignificant were originally much more imposing, but have either broken naturally or been quarried for building stone.

"Fallen stones were particularly vulnerable – the analysis suggests that six have lost tens of tons of stone – and as Stonehenge became a major tourist attraction in the 19th century visitors could actually hire chisels to hack away their own souvenirs.

For Greaney their work answers one of the Stonehenge mysteries – but leaves another unsolved. Some had suggested because some stones are so much less imposing and others are missing, that Stonehenge was never finished.

"I think we can say now that the monument certainly was finished – but where the stone went is still a puzzle. At Avebury you can readily see stone reused in nearby buildings from medieval times on, but Stonehenge is some distance from the nearest village, so it's much less easy to see where the stone would have been taken – although we have looked far and wide, we have not succeeded in finding evidence of the re-use of the missing stones."

The Omphalos stone at Glastonbury


 I came across this reference to a "glacial erratic" at Glastonbury........  does anybody know more about this stone?

"One rather neglected and ignored omphalos is located at Glastonbury Abby—site of the revered Chalice Well. Behind the Abbot’s Kitchen an egg-shaped sandstone, approximately 3 feet long, 2 feet wide and 2 feet high rests. This particular omphalos contains an “eyestone”, a cavity located in the center of the stone. One theory of the “eyestone” is that it was a carved basin used to hold offerings."

Friday, 5 October 2012

Another hypothesis bites the dust


Above we can see one of the standing stones of the Waun Mawn group, not far from Tafarn y Bwlch on the northern flank of Mynydd Preseli.  On the left you can also see one of the recumbent stones.

I have another piece of intelligence from the MPP digging party of this summer.  A year ago, the thesis was being developed that there was once a gigantic Waun Mawn circle of standing stones, maybe using stones taken from the famous "quarry" at Rhosyfelin, which was later dismantled and hauled off to Stonehenge.  That was an essential part of the fanciful story which got me so worked up at the famous Newport presentation in September 2011.

I pointed out at the time (see my post of 11 Sept 2011) that there are only three stones that might be considered as part of a circle circumference, and that only one of those is a standing stone.  The others are recumbent, and may never have been used as standing stones in the first place.  You cannot fit the three stones onto a circumference without considerable jiggery pokery.  The stones are local dolerite erratics, derived from close at hand -- they are not foliated rhyolite.

Anyway, from a conversation with one of the MPP research team it now appears that they have done some geophysical investigations on the supposed "gigantic stone circle circumference" and have found nothing at all.  So it appears that the thesis has been quietly dropped -- and it appears that no further work was done on the site during the 2012 digging season.

Another example of a mad hypothesis dreamed up and publicised in haste, and then quietly dropped for lack of evidence.......

Monday, 1 October 2012

Multiple wild goose chases.....



Tony was moved to send this to me the other day.  Very kind of him.  It's a very nice Monet painting called "Geese in the Brook."  Symbolism is everything -- although the geese here don't seem to be very wild, and they are apparently not being chased.......

Moving on from the chase for bluestone quarries, I have been dipping into MPP's latest book, having now obtained my very own personal copy onto which I can scribble with wild abandon.  Having got used to the universally lousy photo reproduction and MPP's chatty and jovial writing style, I am looking forward to reading the bit about the bluestones, towards the end.  Thus far, I have dipped in here and there, and I find myself to be seriously concerned about fantasies, fables and wild goose chases.  I have read the section on Bluestonehenge, and cannot find any evidence anywhere that there ever was one bluestone on that revered site, let alone 25.  Does anybody else share my concern?

Then I moved on and had a look at the chapter called "Why Stonehenge is where it is."  I discover that it is where it is because there happened to be some periglacial stripes there, which happened to be pointing in more or less the right direction............  No presentation of proper evidence, no convincing process of deduction.  Does anybody share my conviction that that is all a load of old cobblers?

Sunday, 30 September 2012

The mystery of Stone 32e

Thanks to Rob for annotating the top photo.  These are all from the old Atkinson collection --  and 32e is the one which is assumed to provide a possible match for some of the Stonehenge debitage and maybe some of the samples from Rhosyfelin.  That's the one closest to Atkinson's head in the lower photo.  Now that worries me a bit, since it doesn't look anything like as flaky and foliated as 32d, next to it, and 32c, closest to the camera in the top photo.  And it doesn't look anything like the famous "proto-othostat" at Rhosyfelin either.

Note that these three stumps are packed very closely together -- with gaps of less than a foot in each case.  The honeycomb of intersecting sockets is very complex indeed.  So if these three stones ever were "complete" and standing as part of the bluestone circle, they must have created an impression of being almost a "wall" of stone -- unlike the other stones of the bluestone circle (what's left of it, if it ever was complete) which are more widely spaced.....

The standing pillar which we can see in the photos is bluestone 33.

Another Stonehenge puzzle...