The Altar Stone at Stonehenge is a greenish sandstone thought to be of Late Silurian-Devonian (‘Old Red Sandstone’) age. It is classed as one of the bluestone lithologies which are considered to be ...exotic to the Salisbury Plain environ, most of which are derived from the Mynydd Preseli, in west Wales. However, no Old Red Sandstone rocks crop out in the Preseli; instead a source in the Lower Old Red Sandstone Cosheston Subgroup at Mill Bay to the south of the Preseli, has been proposed. More recently, on the basis of detailed petrography, a source for the Altar Stone much further to the east, towards the Wales-England border, has been suggested. Quantitative analyses presented here compare mineralogical data from proposed Stonehenge Altar Stone debris with samples from Milford Haven at Mill Bay, as well as with a second sandstone type found at Stonehenge which is Lower Palaeozoic in age. The Altar Stone samples have contrasting modal mineralogies to the other two sandstone types, especially in relation to the percentages of its calcite, kaolinite and barite cements. Further differences between the Altar Stone sandstone and the Cosheston Subgroup sandstone are seen when their contained zircons are compared, showing differing morphologies and U-Pb age dates having contrasting populations. These data confirm that Mill Bay is not the source of the Altar Stone with the abundance of kaolinite in the Altar Stone sample suggesting a source further east, towards the Wales-England border. The disassociation of the Altar Stone and Milford Haven undermines the hypothesis that the bluestones, including the Altar Stone, were transported from west Wales by sea up the Bristol Channel and adds further credence to a totally land-based route, possibly along a natural routeway leading from west Wales to the Severn estuary and beyond. This route may well have been significant in prehistory, raising the possibility that the Altar Stone was added en route to the assemblage of Preseli bluestones taken to Stonehenge around or shortly before 3000 BC. Recent strontium isotope analysis of human and animal bones from Stonehenge, dating to the beginning of its first construction stage around 3000 BC, are consistent with the suggestion of connectivity between this western region of Britain and Salisbury Plain.This study appears to be the first application of quantitative automated mineralogy in the provenancing of archaeological lithic material and highlights the potential value of automated mineralogy in archaeological provenancing investigations, especially when combined with complementary techniques, in the present case zircon age dating.
•Automated mineralogy is used for the first time in lithic provenancing.•Results are complemented by findings for U–Pb zircon age dating.•Results show that the Stonehenge Altar Stone is not derived from west Wales.•The findings undermine the theory that the Stonehenge bluestones were transported by sea.
The Stonehenge bluestones were first sourced to outcrops in the high parts of the eastern Mynydd Preseli in SW Wales by H.H. Thomas in the early 1920s. He recognised the distinctive ‘spotted ...dolerite’ from his fieldwork in that area and suggested that the tors of Carn Meini (also known as Carn Menyn) and Cerrigmarchogion were the most likely sources. In the early 1990s, in a major contribution to our understanding of the Stonehenge bluestones, the geochemistry of a set of samples from Stonehenge monoliths and debitage was determined and compared against the geochemistry of dolerites from the eastern Mynydd Preseli by a team from the Open University led by R.S. Thorpe. They argued that the majority of the Stonehenge dolerites could be sourced from outcrops in the Carn Meini-Carn Gyfrwy area, based on the concentrations of the so-called ‘immobile’ elements (elements which are not affected by rock alteration processes), in particular TiO2, Y, and Zr. However, these elements are incompatible during crystallization of mineral phases in basaltic systems (that is they do not enter into the mineral phases which are crystallizing but are concentrated in the residual liquid) which severely hampers their use in discriminating between different pulses of an evolving magma (as is the case of the doleritic sills emplaced high in the crust and now exposed in the Mynydd Preseli). An alternative strategy in this study re-examines the data set of Thorpe's team but investigates the concentration of elements which are compatible in such basaltic systems (that is elements which do enter into the crystallizing mineral phases), namely MgO, Ni, Cr and Fe2O3. On the basis of the abundances of these elements on bivariate plots and also by using Principal Component Analysis on the dataset available and various sub-sets we identify three compositional groupings for the Stonehenge doleritic monolith and debitage samples and conclude that the majority of them (Group 1 of this paper) can be sourced to the prominent outcrop in the eastern Mynydd Preseli known as Carn Goedog. We also offer potential sources (with one exception) for those Stonehenge dolerites which appear not to relate to Carn Goedog.
•Stonehenge doleritic bluestones were first sourced to Carn Meini and Cerrigmarchogion in west Wales by Thomas in 1923.•Thorpe et al., in 1991 used incompatible element geochemistry to in part support Thomas's attribution.•These attributions have been re-assessed using compatible element geochemistry.•Nearby Carn Goedog is now clearly identified as the major source of Stonehenge doleritic bluestones.
The source of the Stonehenge bluestones was first determined in the early 1920s by H.H. Thomas who was an officer with the Geological Survey of England and Wales. He determined that the so-called ...‘spotted dolerites’ could be petrographically matched to a small number of outcrops in the Mynydd Preseli district in south-west Wales. The bluestones, however, comprise a number of additional lithologies, including rhyolite and ‘calcareous ash’, as well as various sandstones. Thomas was convinced that the volcanic lithologies in the bluestone assemblage were all sourced from a small area at the eastern end of the Mynydd Preseli, with the rhyolites originating from the prominent outcrop known as Carn Alw. Recently, provenancing of these rhyolites to Carn Alw has been questioned on the evidence of whole-rock geochemistry. This raised concerns over the original petrographical attribution. Accordingly a re-investigation was undertaken of the rhyolite petrography by re-examining the original specimens used by Thomas. Three of the original four thin sections studied by Thomas were re-examined, along with a newly made thin section from the fourth of Thomas' rock samples as the original thin section could not be located. The new petrographical evidence demonstrates convincingly that the two pairs of thin sections from the Preseli and Stonehenge as examined by Thomas do not match despite his contention and argues strongly that Carn Alw is not the source of the Stonehenge rhyolites which Thomas described. This reinforces the geochemical evidence presented recently and supports the contention that Craig Rhos-y-felin, to the north of Mynydd Preseli, is an important source of rhyolitic debris in the Stonehenge Landscape. Nevertheless, there remain uncertainties over the provenance of other Stonehenge rhyolites (and dacites), including four of the orthostats themselves.
•Stonehenge rhyolitic bluestones were sourced by Thomas (1923) to Carn Alw, Wales.•Recent geochemical investigations have questioned that west Wales source.•The original thin sections studied by Thomas have been re-investigated in this study.•Thomas's proposed provenance of the Stonehenge rhyolites to Carn Alw is disproven.
The source of the bluestone component found in the Stonehenge landscape has long been the subject of great interest and considerable debate. The bluestones are a mix of lithologies, the standing ...orthostats being predominantly dolerites, variably ‘spotted’, with only four of them being of dacitic and rhyolitic composition and the Altar Stone being sandstone. However in the 1920s the spotted dolerites were sourced to outcrops which comprise tors in the summit regions of the Mynydd Preseli in north Pembrokeshire, west Wales. There were also speculations about the possible sources of the dacitic and rhyolitic components, ideas which were elaborated on in the early 1990s when the original petrological provenancing was supplemented by whole-rock geochemical analysis. Most recently, new petrographical investigations have been combined with zircon geochemical data to determine the possible source of one type of rhyolite, the so-called ‘rhyolite with fabric’, found abundantly as débitage in the Stonehenge landscape (but not composing the four orthostats) to outcrops in the vicinity of Pont Saeson, especially a large craggy outcrop called Craig Rhos-y-felin, located in low ground to the north of the Mynydd Preseli. In order to test this provenance whole-rock geochemical analysis has been undertaken on samples of débitage from the Stonehenge landscape and from the Pont Saeson area, including Craig Rhos-y-felin. These data are then compared with other new and existing geochemical data for dacitic and rhyolitic lithologies recovered from the Stonehenge landscape, including the four orthostats, as well as geochemical data from outcrops of the same lithologies from the two main volcanic horizons exposed across north Pembrokeshire, namely the Fishguard Volcanic Group and the Sealyham Volcanic Formation, both of Ordovician age. This study concludes that previous, 20th century, attributions of provenance to a number of dacitic and rhyolitic outcrops in the north Pembrokeshire have been in error whilst the new data for the Pont Saeson rhyolite accords well with elemental contents recorded in the ‘rhyolite with fabric’ lithology from the Stonehenge landscape débitage. This study therefore endorses the proposal that the Pont Saeson area is indeed the source of the ‘rhyolite with fabric’ lithology recovered from numerous sites in the Stonehenge landscape, and is the only reliable provenance for any of the dacitic and rhyolitic bluestone material collected to date. It also serves to endorse the use of zircon chemistry as a provenancing tool in archaeopetrological investigations.
The source of the bluestones at Stonehenge has long been debated, and while there is general consensus that the so-called spotted dolerites are derived from a relatively small number of outcrops ...exposed in the highest parts of Mynydd Preseli, in southwest Wales the source of the rhyolitic component has attracted relatively little detailed attention. This is largely because unlike the uniqueness of the spots in the coarser grained doleritic rocks, the rhyolites are fine-grained in character and lack any obvious distinctiveness, especially in hand specimen. This makes their provenancing difficult. A recent study, however, suggested that there was a close lithological similarity between the informally-termed ‘rhyolite with fabric’ bluestone component and rhyolitic rocks from the Ordovician Fishguard Volcanic Group exposed in the Pont Saeson area of north Pembrokeshire. This study aims to see if the chemistry of zircons, which are present in both sets of samples, could be used to support the petrographical association. Analyses for certain high field strength elements (including the rare earth elements) obtained by LA-ICP-MS showed that indeed the analyses were nearly identical when compared using a range of statistical approaches, including similarity coefficients, statistical distance, and principal component analysis, while showing clear differences to sample sets which had no reason to be correlated with the Pont Saeson samples. There are two important conclusions arising from this study. Firstly, the identification of the Pont Saeson source of the ‘rhyolite with fabric’ bluestone from outcrops in low ground to the north of the Mynydd Preseli will without doubt lead to fresh debates about the mechanisms of transport of this component of the bluestones to the Stonehenge site. Secondly, the chemistry of zircons may well prove to have a wider application in the provenancing of fine-grained rhyolitic rocks which have an archaeological context.
► Stonehenge bluestone rhyolite lithology source identified. ► Confirmed by zircon analysis by LA-ICP-MS. ► Potential for zircon as a tool in provenancing rhyolite lithics, especially stone axes.
A Neolithic stone circle at Waun Mawn, in the Mynydd Preseli, west Wales, has been proposed as the original location of some dolerite megaliths at Stonehenge, including one known as Stone 62. To ...investigate this hypothesis, in-situ analyses, using a portable XRF, have been obtained for four extant non-spotted doleritic monoliths at Waun Mawn, along with two weathered doleritic fragments from a stonehole (number 91). The data obtained have been compared to data from spotted and non-spotted dolerite outcrops across the Mynydd Preseli, an area known to be the source of some Stonehenge doleritic bluestones, as well as data from in-situ analysis of Stone 62 (non-spotted dolerite) and ex-situ analysis of a core taken from Stone 62 in the late 1980′s.
Recently, Stone 62 has been identified as coming from Garn Ddu Fach, an outcrop some 6.79 km to the east-southeast of Waun Mawn. None of the four dolerite monoliths at Waun Mawn have compositions which match Stonehenge Stone 62, and neither do the weathered fragments from stonehole 91. Rather the data show that the Waun Mawn monoliths, and most probably the weathered stonehole fragments, can be sourced to Cerrig Lladron, 2.37 km southwest of Waun Mawn, suggesting that a very local stone source was used in construction of the Waun Mawn stone circle. It is noted that there is evidence that at least eight stones had been erected and subsequently removed from the Waun Mawn circle but probability analysis suggests strongly that the missing stones were also derived, at least largely, from Cerrig Lladron.
•Portable XRF analysis was applied to provenancing the Stonehenge bluestones.•In situ analysis was undertaken on Stone 62 at Stonehenge and on key Preseli outcrops.•The source of Stone 62 is ...attributed to the Garn Ddu Fach Preseli outcrop.•A robust analytical strategy was developed and implemented to take into account a range of factors possibly expected to influence the analyses.
The doleritic bluestone monoliths at Stonehenge have long been known to have been sourced from the Mynydd Preseli area in west Wales, some 225 km away. On geochemical grounds, based on a range of major and trace elements determined by laboratory-based X-ray fluorescence spectrometry, they have been divided into three groups (Groups 1–3). Subsequently, rare earth element data obtained by solution nebulization ICP-MS showed Group 2 Stone 45 to have been sourced from Cerrigmarchogion with Group 2 Stone 62 showing similarities to the outcrops of Carn Ddafad-las and Garn Ddu Fach. In order to test this possible link, portable XRF (pXRF) analyses were obtained in situ from Stone 62 at Stonehenge and from key outcrops in the Preseli.
To obtain reliable results from heterogeneous coarse-grained igneous rocks using pXRF to enable comparisons between orthostats and possible sources, a robust analytical strategy was developed. For outcrops this involved a series of horizontal traverses through individual outcrops comprising 10 to 15 analyses a few centimetres apart, giving 60–175 independent analyses per outcrop. This gives a large, analysed surface area per outcrop providing representative data and also has potential to show any vertical variation in source outcrops. Analyses were taken from similarly weathered surfaces on orthostats and outcrops to minimise compositional changes from surface weathering, and a minimum of 20 analyses were taken from orthostats at various locations across the stone. This approach provides a set of well-determined elements which can reliably be used for provenance studies (including K, Fe, Mn, Zn, Rb, Sr, Zr, Nb, Ba). Nickel, Ti and V are affected slightly more by weathering but still prove useful in comparisons, but Cr, used in earlier studies as a compositional discriminant with Ni, here has poor accuracy by pXRF and is not used.
The pXRF analyses show that Stone 62 sits within the same ‘compositional space’ (for multiple element concentrations and ranges) as analyses from Carn Ddafad-las and Garn Ddu Fach, two outcrops of the same intrusion which differ from all other analysed outcrops. More specifically, analyses from Stone 62 and Garn Ddu Fach overlap, these forming a subset of the analyses from Carn Ddafad-las, which shows a more extensive range of those same elements. On this basis it is suggested that Garn Ddu Fach is the likely source of Stonehenge non-spotted dolerite Stone 62, a suggestion supported by indistinguishable petrographic characteristics between Stone 62 and dolerite sample PGDF24 from Garn Ddu Fach.
•Rare earth element geochemistry applied to provenancing the Stonehenge bluestones.•New data suggests Groups 1 and 3 spotted dolerites may be from a single source.•The source of one Stonehenge ...non-spotted dolerite is identified as Cerrigmarchogion.•The source of three other non-spotted dolerites remains uncertain.•The REE data are analysed using shape factors derived from polynomial curve fitting.
The doleritic bluestones of Stonehenge, sourced from the Mynydd Preseli in west Wales, have been previously classified into three geochemical groups on the basis of compatible element geochemistry (Bevins et al., 2014). The majority of Group 1 (spotted) dolerites were identified as coming from the outcrop of Carn Goedog, Group 3 (spotted) dolerites were linked to the outcrops Carn Breseb, Carn Gyfrwy, outcrops in the vicinity of Carn Alw and an un-named outcrop west of Carn Ddafad-las and Group 2 (non-spotted) dolerites were identified as coming from either Cerrigmarchogion or Craig Talfynydd. A sub-set of the samples used by Bevins et al. (2014) have been re-analysed by solution nebulisation ICP-MS, including analyses of the rare earth elements (REE).
Analysis of the REE data reveals that Groups 1 and 3 dolerites from both Stonehenge and the Preseli have very similar REE patterns which strongly suggests that they are derived from a single intrusive body. Group 2 non-spotted dolerites are now divided, on the basis of their REE contents, into four Preseli and two Stonehenge sub-groups, (Groups 2i-2iv and Groups 2v-2vi, respectively) while Stonehenge orthostat sample SH44 plots apart from all other Stonehenge and Preseli samples in all discriminant diagrams used. The new data show that Preseli Group 2i dolerites have very distinct concave down “humped” patterns and bear no resemblance to any analysed Stonehenge dolerites. The source of Stonehenge Group 2v dolerites remains equivocal; they plot close to Preseli Group 2ii dolerites from Carn Ddafad-las and Garn Ddu Fach and have in common the presence of notable positive Eu anomalies, but they show minor differences, especially in relation to their Gdn/Ybn ratios. However, Stonehenge orthostat sample SH45 shows a near identical REE composition to Preseli Group 2iii dolerites from Cerrigmarchogion.
In terms of the interpretation of REE contents and chondrite-normalized patterns we found no differences whether using the ‘standard’ techniques used by geochemists, based on chondrite-normalized elemental ratios and values, or the quantitative approach using shape factors derived from polynomial curve fitting.
PDF
