Local and exotic sources of sarsen debitage at Stonehenge revealed by geochemical provenancing
Local and exotic sources of sarsen debitage at Stonehenge revealed by geochemical provenancing
The application of novel geochemical provenancing techniques has changed our understanding of the construction of Stonehenge, by identifying West Woods on the Marlborough Downs as the likely source area for the majority of the extant sarsen megaliths at the monument. In this study, we apply the same techniques to saccharoid sarsen fragments from three excavations within and outwith the main Sarsen Circle to expand our understanding of the provenance of sarsen debitage present at the monument. Through pXRF analysis, we demonstrate that the surface geochemistry of 1,028 excavated sarsen fragments is significantly affected by subsurface weathering following burial in a way that cannot be overcome by simple cleaning. However, we show that this effect is surficial and does not have a volumetrically significant impact, thus permitting the subsequent use of whole-rock analytical methods. Comparison of ICP-AES and ICP-MS trace element data from 54 representative sarsen fragments with equivalent data from Stone 58 at Stonehenge demonstrates that none are debitage produced during the dressing of this megalith or its 49 chemical equivalents at the monument. Further inspection of the ICP-MS data reveals that 22 of these fragments fall into three distinct geochemical ‘families’. None of these families overlap with the geochemical signature of Stone 58 and its chemical equivalents, implying that sarsen imported from at least a further three locations (in addition to West Woods) is present at Stonehenge. Comparison of immobile trace element signatures from the 54 excavated sarsen fragments against equivalent data for 20 sarsen outcrop areas across southern Britain shows that 15 of the fragments can be linked to specific localities. Eleven of these were likely sourced from Monkton Down, Totterdown Wood and West Woods on the Marlborough Downs (25–33 km north of Stonehenge). Three fragments likely came from Bramdean, Hampshire (51 km southeast of Stonehenge), and one from Stoney Wish, East Sussex (123 km to the southeast). Technological analysis and refitting shows that one of the fragments sourced from Monkton Down was part of a 25.7 cm × 17.9 cm flake removed from the outer surface of a large sarsen boulder, most probably during on-site dressing. This adds a second likely source area for the sarsen megaliths at Stonehenge in addition to West Woods. At this stage, we can only speculate on why sarsen from such diverse sources is present at Stonehenge. We do not know whether the fragments analysed by ICP-MS were removed from (i) the outer surface of Stones 26 or 160 (which are chemically distinct to the other extant sarsen megaliths), (ii) one of the c.28 sarsen megaliths and lintels from the c.60 erected during Stage 2 of the construction of Stonehenge that may now be missing from the monument, or (iii) one of the dismantled and destroyed sarsen megaliths associated with Stage 1 of the monument. With the exception of the fragment sourced from Monkton Down, it is also possible that the analysed fragments were (iv) pieces of saccharoid sarsen hammerstones or their pre-forms, or (v) small blocks brought on-site for ceremonial or non-ceremonial purposes.
Geochemical provenancing, ICP-AES, ICP-MS, pXRF, Sarsen, Silcrete, Stonehenge
Ciborowski, T. Jake R.
5e1f392b-da99-4eb6-b7ab-19442ca69826
Nash, David J.
a364e478-e641-48a9-ad56-93984f811c16
Darvill, Timothy
bbcbe539-a666-4cde-91f5-f62ae08764d5
Chan, Ben
7fa328a9-d32c-4e6f-8b4e-01296ffe5138
Parker Pearson, Mike
cd0f9361-0def-46ea-b4e5-e1c7a2581f98
Pullen, Rebecca
e68dce7a-e524-429d-8b10-8cd644950e41
Richards, Colin
0c02cdaf-1fff-474c-9e78-1c6cd4d50bd1
Anderson-Whymark, Hugo
0b96a86d-1eed-4358-9dcb-06554f6cf839
26 January 2024
Ciborowski, T. Jake R.
5e1f392b-da99-4eb6-b7ab-19442ca69826
Nash, David J.
a364e478-e641-48a9-ad56-93984f811c16
Darvill, Timothy
bbcbe539-a666-4cde-91f5-f62ae08764d5
Chan, Ben
7fa328a9-d32c-4e6f-8b4e-01296ffe5138
Parker Pearson, Mike
cd0f9361-0def-46ea-b4e5-e1c7a2581f98
Pullen, Rebecca
e68dce7a-e524-429d-8b10-8cd644950e41
Richards, Colin
0c02cdaf-1fff-474c-9e78-1c6cd4d50bd1
Anderson-Whymark, Hugo
0b96a86d-1eed-4358-9dcb-06554f6cf839
Ciborowski, T. Jake R., Nash, David J., Darvill, Timothy, Chan, Ben, Parker Pearson, Mike, Pullen, Rebecca, Richards, Colin and Anderson-Whymark, Hugo
(2024)
Local and exotic sources of sarsen debitage at Stonehenge revealed by geochemical provenancing.
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 53, [104406].
(doi:10.1016/j.jasrep.2024.104406).
Abstract
The application of novel geochemical provenancing techniques has changed our understanding of the construction of Stonehenge, by identifying West Woods on the Marlborough Downs as the likely source area for the majority of the extant sarsen megaliths at the monument. In this study, we apply the same techniques to saccharoid sarsen fragments from three excavations within and outwith the main Sarsen Circle to expand our understanding of the provenance of sarsen debitage present at the monument. Through pXRF analysis, we demonstrate that the surface geochemistry of 1,028 excavated sarsen fragments is significantly affected by subsurface weathering following burial in a way that cannot be overcome by simple cleaning. However, we show that this effect is surficial and does not have a volumetrically significant impact, thus permitting the subsequent use of whole-rock analytical methods. Comparison of ICP-AES and ICP-MS trace element data from 54 representative sarsen fragments with equivalent data from Stone 58 at Stonehenge demonstrates that none are debitage produced during the dressing of this megalith or its 49 chemical equivalents at the monument. Further inspection of the ICP-MS data reveals that 22 of these fragments fall into three distinct geochemical ‘families’. None of these families overlap with the geochemical signature of Stone 58 and its chemical equivalents, implying that sarsen imported from at least a further three locations (in addition to West Woods) is present at Stonehenge. Comparison of immobile trace element signatures from the 54 excavated sarsen fragments against equivalent data for 20 sarsen outcrop areas across southern Britain shows that 15 of the fragments can be linked to specific localities. Eleven of these were likely sourced from Monkton Down, Totterdown Wood and West Woods on the Marlborough Downs (25–33 km north of Stonehenge). Three fragments likely came from Bramdean, Hampshire (51 km southeast of Stonehenge), and one from Stoney Wish, East Sussex (123 km to the southeast). Technological analysis and refitting shows that one of the fragments sourced from Monkton Down was part of a 25.7 cm × 17.9 cm flake removed from the outer surface of a large sarsen boulder, most probably during on-site dressing. This adds a second likely source area for the sarsen megaliths at Stonehenge in addition to West Woods. At this stage, we can only speculate on why sarsen from such diverse sources is present at Stonehenge. We do not know whether the fragments analysed by ICP-MS were removed from (i) the outer surface of Stones 26 or 160 (which are chemically distinct to the other extant sarsen megaliths), (ii) one of the c.28 sarsen megaliths and lintels from the c.60 erected during Stage 2 of the construction of Stonehenge that may now be missing from the monument, or (iii) one of the dismantled and destroyed sarsen megaliths associated with Stage 1 of the monument. With the exception of the fragment sourced from Monkton Down, it is also possible that the analysed fragments were (iv) pieces of saccharoid sarsen hammerstones or their pre-forms, or (v) small blocks brought on-site for ceremonial or non-ceremonial purposes.
Text
1-s2.0-S2352409X24000348-main
- Version of Record
More information
Accepted/In Press date: 18 January 2024
e-pub ahead of print date: 26 January 2024
Published date: 26 January 2024
Keywords:
Geochemical provenancing, ICP-AES, ICP-MS, pXRF, Sarsen, Silcrete, Stonehenge
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 507165
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/507165
ISSN: 2352-409X
PURE UUID: 719f80d6-421b-45be-9d61-54c9246ef844
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 28 Nov 2025 17:34
Last modified: 29 Nov 2025 02:50
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
T. Jake R. Ciborowski
Author:
David J. Nash
Author:
Timothy Darvill
Author:
Mike Parker Pearson
Author:
Rebecca Pullen
Author:
Colin Richards
Author:
Hugo Anderson-Whymark
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics