Seriously scary....

This is an image from the Extreme Ice web site, taken in 2006.  Click to enlarge.

It shows part of the Columbia Glacier in Alaska.  But the main thing of interest here is the glacial trimline -- the line dividing the dark coloured uplands with snowbanks from the lighter coloured slopes below.  It's remarkably sharp here.  Apparently it marks the position of the glacier surface in 1984 -- that's just 22 years before this photo was taken.  During that interval the glacier surface has been lowered by 400m -- the height of the Empire State Building.

Who says that climate change isn't happening....??

http://extremeicesurvey.org/photography/alaska/

The Stonehenge Stones

Distribution of rock types in the Stonehenge Layer -- or rather, in that part of the Stonehenge Layer recently investigated.  There is an extensive area still not studied -- and there is no knowing what might pop up during future investigations.......

One of my moles has sent me some info from a lecture which has already been presented twice (I think) and which will be given again within the next fortnight by one of the key geologists involved.  Since all of this is already in the public domain, I don't suppose I am breaching any confidences by putting some of it onto the blog.

The summary of recent research involves the following:

1.  There are 31 dolerite orthostats, of which 14 have been sampled in 1991 and 2008.  Some are standing stones and some are stumps.  Some are spotted and some are unspotted. (I am a bit mystified as to why the unspotted dolerites do not appear on the diagrams above -- stones 45 and 62 are made of unspotted dolerite.)

2.  There are five crystal vitric ash flow tuffs represented in the orthostat collection.  (Stones 40, 48, 46, 38, 52c.  (Four distinct types?)  There is not much debris to match these in the Stonehenge debitage, but similar fragments are found in the great cursus field.  Research is ongoing, but they may come from the Preseli area.

3.  There are four volcanic ashes -- stumps 32c, 33e, 33f, 41d.

4.  There is one calcareous volcanic ash stump -- number 40c

5.  There are 2 micaceous sandstone stumps -- numbered 40g and 42c.  (More info is eagerly awaited on these......)  There are also lumps of Lower Palaeozoic sandstone scatterd about in the debitage -- the largest lump weighing c 8.5 kgs.  From SW Wales?

6.  There is another calcareous sandstone -- the Altar Stone (stone 80).  sampled more than a hundred years ago, but not since.  Probably from the Senni Beds of Carmarthenshire or Powys? (Not from Milford Haven)  Interestingly, no debitage has been recognized in recent digs from this stone or from anything like it.

7.  In the debitage there are lots of fragments of volcanics with sub-planar cleavage -- matching the Rhosyfelin rocks?  The "rhyolite with fabric" is not all the same -- but most appears to be from the Pont Saeson area.  There are NO matching orthostats.

8.  There are also some basic tuffs in the collection of fragments from the debitage -- two lithologically different types.  From the Fishguard Volcanics?

9.  Other lithics in the stone collections from the debitage -- some stones are adventitious / introduced / modern, but some (eg haematite, greensand, Mesozoic sandstones and gabbros appear genuine, and need further research.

10.  In the course of the recent geological research, 6,368 rock samples have been examined and classified -- and organized by archaeological context.  the total weight of samples thus far is in excess of 70 kg.  Most fragments are very small, weighing on average about 11 grams.

11.  Almost half of the material in the debitage is sarsen -- I suppose we should not be surprised by that, but it would be good to know how many types of sarsen there are, and where they came from.....

12.  This recent research matches pretty well with what I said in my post dated 3 December 2011:
http://brian-mountainman.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/bluestone-rock-types.html
I reckoned then that there are about 30 different rock types represented in the "bluestone assemblage" -- and unlike Rob, I give significance to the small bits as well as the orthostats, since I am interested in glacial and other processes and want to know where they came from and how they got here.

Some decent glaciology on the telly at last?

Sorry about the fuzzy pic -- but look here for a splendid picture gallery.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/galleries/p010fw9c

Better still, watch BBC2 tonight at 9 pm -- looks as if this will be interesting...

Operation Iceberg, with Alun Hubbard doing very silly things......... by the way, Alun is one of the guys who has been doing the modelling at Aberystwyth for the oscillations of the Irish Sea Glacier.

About time too for a programme like this -- the BBC has been far too slow at reacting to the fact that glaciers don't just tell us a lot about how the natural world works, but also about what is happening right now to the global climate.  Please watch!

Postscript 10.30 pm:  I was pretty pleased with that.  Some wonderful footage, and a fair amount of decent glaciology too........ not nearly as much dumbing down as one normally sees on "popular science" programmes.

Have a look here too:

http://www.aber.ac.uk/greenland/index.shtml

Another review for The Bluestone Enigma

 Since I seem to spend so much time giving puffs for other people's books, here is one for my own book, for a change.....  and I promise I have no idea who Dr K James might be!

The Bluestone Enigma: Stonehenge, Preseli and the Ice Age 

by Dr Brian John.

17 Sept 2012

Dr. K. James

This is a fascinating and thought-provoking book. I bought it for a little light reading whilst on holiday in Pembrokeshire, intending to dip into just a couple of chapters per day. But I found it so engrossing that I ended up reading it cover-to-cover in one sitting. I have since read it on two further occasions, and each time I have been impressed by the thoroughness of the author's argument.

With regard to the book's content, I wouldn't add much to the previous reviews except to say that the text is clear, accessible and well structured; and it appears to have been researched rigorously.

I am not a geologist or archaeologist, so I have no particular axe to grind, but I have to say that I found Dr John's case for glacial transport very convincing indeed.

The opposing view - that humans dragged, floated and levered the bluestones all the way from Preseli - obviously makes a good story for the media. And it's not surprising that millions of people take it on trust when every other book, magazine article and TV documentary on Stonehenge repeats the human transport theory as though it were established fact. But, judging by Dr John's account, there is obviously significant scope for doubt; and in view of the petrographic, glacial and other evidence discussed it seems astounding that some archaeologists and other authorities continue to adhere so rigidly to the human transport theory.

I hope that Dr John's work will help to redress the balance. It deserves to be widely read - both by those in the field and by the general public. This is the most compelling book I have encountered in a long time and I would highly recommend it.

5.0 out of 5 stars 

More about Bluestone magic

I just came across a reference to this book, which apparently came out about a year ago without me noticing it........
Preseli Bluestone: Healing Stone of the Ancestors 
by Simon Lilly and Sue Lilly
116 pages, Tree Seer Publications (30 Nov 2011) Price £9.95
ISBN-13: 978-1905454082

Here is the publisher's blurb, in case  anybody is interested.

Stonehenge is one of the most iconic and evocative symbols of Britain's past. At its heart is a mysterious rock, Preseli bluestone, which was transported from West Wales and placed in the centre of this important site. Up to eighty monoliths of bluestone may have been present at some periods of Stonehenge's development, arranged and rearranged into different shapes and patterns. It now looks as though the giant sarsen stones were only a framework to hold and protect these centrally important bluestones. In this book we examine the reasons why stones from the remote upland of Mynydd Preseli in Pembrokeshire might have captured the imagination of our ancestors. Clues can be found in archaeology, in literature and myth, and in the two very different landscapes of Preseli and Stonehenge. Most of all, our experience of working with the healing and spiritual properties of Preseli bluestone suggests to us that it was these qualities that made the stone so special. Not only can bluestone be helpful in a wide range of healing situations, but it can also open our awareness to other levels of reality and broaden our personal understanding of time and space. Visionaries and alternative researchers have often seen the ancient, sacred sites of the distant past as part of an integrated, vast system of energy pathways that encompass the planet. This new research suggests that Preseli bluestone has an important role to play in understanding the subtle structures of the Earth and in bringing balance and harmony once more. Presented here for the first time, and central to the book, is a unique collection of more than twenty five original layouts and techniques that have been designed to help you to explore the potential of Preseli bluestone, both working by yourself and within groups.

 This raises quite interesting issues about the attribution of special or sacred qualities to bits of stone or other inanimate objects -- such as the relics which caused such economic and psychological mayhem in the Middle Ages and also much more recently. The Roman Catholic Church seems to have been particularly prone to this sort of thing.   Are there always some people who WANT to find healing or mystical qualities in things which the rest of us find rather mundane?  Are such people in possession of insights or spiritual qualities that the rest of us do not have?  Or are they just slightly dotty but otherwise harmless?    Hmmm -- I think we have been here before......

Are there more "periglacial stripes" at Stonehenge?

I was struck when I came across this "micro-morphology" map in the 2010 Pearson/Field report (published by EH) by the realization  that the old monument is located on the edge of a very gentle spur.  It's not obviously apparent when you are walking about on the site, but these contours -- at intervals of just 25 cm -- show it clearly.

The periglacial stripes which MPP has written about quite extensively are in the avenue, which runs away from the embankment and ditch towards the NE.  The stripes, so we are told, run in exactly the right direction, exactly parallel with the edges of the avenue and just right for something astronomically highly auspicious.  Hey presto!  So that is why, in the view of MPP, Stonehenge is where it is -- because the periglacial stripes were aligned in the right direction.

From a geomorphological perspective, the stripes do indeed run in the expected direction -- straight down the rather gentle slope.  Just in that one location.   But what about everywhere else on the map shown above?  If there are stripes in the chalk surface over a wider area, as we might expect, we can speculate that they should have a more or less radiating pattern, always running perpendicular to the contours.  So to the north of the Avenue, they would be running NNE, and to the south of the Avenue ENE and then, further round, more or less E-W, and then further south still, ESE and then SE and then SSE.  If the stripes were visible at the time when Neolithic people were thinking about building the first earthworks at Stonehenge, ALL of these stripes, with many different compass orientations, will have been visible to the naked eye.

That particular MPP theory about the location of Stonehenge looks increasingly dodgy -- and clearly there is a need for more work on this interesting little periglacial problem.

More missing Stonehenge stones

 Some of the stones from the collection.  The row of stones to the left of the number 5 are labelled as "diabase" -- but they all look different.  It looks to me as if there are at least 10 different rock types represented here........ not counting the flint flakes in the tin.  Some of the bits to the right of the tin may be the rhyolites referred to in the notes.

Many thanks to Pete Glastonbury for bringing our attention to yet another batch of material from Stonehenge that has gone missing.  Apparently it was sold off on Ebay about 6 years ago -- and goodness knows where it is now.......

Not all of the material in the collection came from Stonehenge, but there are written notes which describe the most interesting finds.  Extracts:

The gentleman in question (an archaeologist) assisted Col Hawley for a short time in 1921 with excavations around the inner and outer circles of Stonehange, a project which took Hawley a number of years
As a thankyou for his assistance Col Hawley gave this gentleman a number of specimens of items he had uncovered

The collection, which weighs around 8 kilos comes with a letter / statement handwritten by the previous owner which reads as follows:-

Stonehenge September 1921 Brockham End Nr Bath Specimens given to me today 13th September 1921 at Stonehenge by Col Hawley who is excavating the circular foss outside the rampart. While working with him this afternoon John found a very large vertebrae and found a large reindeer antler.

A. Fragments of Rhyolite B. Fragments of Diabase C. Fragments of sarsen stone ( hard) D. Fragments f shaley slate E. Fragments of sarsen stone (soft) F. Flint flakes from the foss

C&E and also quartzite pounding stones are relics of a xxxxxx bed of bagshot sand and are a land formation sometimes showing flaws from roots of palm trees E is the same as C with the absence of xxxxx xxxxx

The flint flakes are abundant and are surely the remnants knocked off in making flint tools

The sarsen stone may have been local when Stonehenge was built though not now found in the immediate ring. They form the largest standing stone and lintel and were also used for packing the bases of the standing stones underground

Rhyolite and diabase are two of the five kinds of stone used in the inner ring and inner horsehoe of smaller standing stones. All of these have been brought a long distance and the diabase has recently been identified as coming from Pembrokeshire

Shale slate is also a xxxx stone having less durable characters possibly they were originally standing stones.

Group of stones and pieces of stone Some labelled Stonehenge 1921 with letters that correspond to description on statement above.

 

Two lumps of rock with rounded edges -- labelled as "soft sarsen"

This is an intriguing group of fragments, which seems to include some pottery.  But some of the pieces look rather like the shales and mudstones which I find all over the place in North Pembrokeshire.......

Another interesting batch.  Again, some pottery pieces, but including some bits of shale and mudstone.  (The notes refer to "shaley slate" -- but these don't look like metamorphics......