The formation of the sarsens

Two of the rougher sarsens......

The sarsen stones have generally been interpreted as broken remnants of a duricrust layer. But there is an interesting new theory put together by Steve Marshall. Also, there is a fantastic new map. Read about the theory here:

http://www.stevemarshall.org.uk/sarsen_stone.htm

Bluestone 69

What an extraordinary shape there is on the base of this stone! Has there been any discussion in the literature about it? It is one of the bluestone horseshoe stones.

I have seen some mention of the TOP of the stone being shaped to support a lintel, at some stage, but it's the base that really interests me.....

Stumps near Bluestone 41

Stumps near Bluestone 33

Where the stumps are

This plan (acknowledgement to Anthony Johnson) shows where all of the standing stones and stumps are.

The numbers are easier to read if you double-click on the image to enlarge it.

More on Bluestone stumps

According to Atkinson, there are ten bluestone stumps. One (35) is above ground, and there are nine that are wholly buried beneath the surface: 32c, 32d, 32e, 33e, 33f, 40c,40g, 41d, 42c.

Of these, four (32c and 33e and 33f and 41d) are of "altered volcanic ash, dark olive-green in colour when unweathered, with a laminated fracture and a noticeably softer texture than the other bluestones." (Atkinson, p 48) Stone 32e is supposedly rhyolite, and stump 40c is a calcareous ash, referred to by Atkinson as a laminated blue rock. Stumps 40g and 42c are supposedly of Cosheston sandstone, "a blue-grey rock spangled with mica". This leaves 35 and 32d which are presumably dolerites, spotted or otherwise......

Another interesting point is that Hawley discovered four sockets and two stumps between stones 32 and 33, and Atkinson showed that there were five stones between 32 and 33, and no less than eight stones between 40 and 41. There are other big gaps between 33 and 34, and between 41 and 42. Did these gaps ever hold stones, or were they simply left empty while the builders of the monument searched for suitable stones and fiddled about with the ones they already had?

We already know that the "Cosheston sandstone" has been mis-identified -- and it will be interesting to see what else comes up when the new geology by Rob Ixer and Richard Bevins (arising from the 2008 Darvill-Wainwright dig) is published.

Fragments, stumps and layers

This old photo shows stumps 32c, 32d and 32e, together with standing stone 33. Note also the sockets or pits that presumably held different stones, or maybe the same stones in different settings.......... Note the large number of fragments beneath the turf, in the "Stonehenge layer."

Does it actually matter whether the debris in this litter is the same as, or different from, the rocks represented in the bluestone settings? Not sure that it matters very much, one way or another. As Rob Ixer reminds us, many of the standing stones themselves are not properly identified or sourced -- very few of them have actually been sampled and examined with the use of modern techniques, and the identification of the monoliths as dolerite, spotted dolerite, rhyolite and ash is based mostly on rather primitive visual identifications by Thomas, Atkinson and others.

On the whole, we know just a little about the makeup of the bluestone settings, about the stumps and about the precise lithologies represented in the Stonehenge layer. Most the the superficial layer within the stone settings is a complete mystery still -- as some have pointed out, the popular view that Stonehenge is thoroughly excavated and well known is actually far wide of the mark.