Fourth Report of the Sub-Committee of the South-Western Group of Museums and Art Galleries on the Petrological Identification of Stone Axes

THE PREHISTORIC SOCIETY area, confirms that production was on a massive scale and the variations in strategy and methods of extraction suggest a development through time towards greater sophistication and organization. Estimates of relative flake quantities for each group of sites have been used to compare the varying levels of activity at each group. A similar analysis was used to estimate the extent to which differing strategies were used at the two main production areas. Petrographic analysis of the outcrops which were exploited and the debitage associated with axe manufacture suggest that it may be possible to attribute dispersed products to specific production areas.

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

The Neolithic Quarries and Axe Factory Sites of Great Langdale and Scafell Pike: A New Field Survey

Claris¹,

Quartermaine²,

Woolley³

1989

“…Boulder of spotted dolerite c. 750 lb (Chippindale 1983, 186); sarsens also used in the barrow construction Cunnington 1929, 266;Howard in Pitts 1982 , 125 Cunnington 1924 1 0 9 TABLE 2: THE OCCURRENCE OF DOLERITE AND RHYOLITE BLUESTONES IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXTS IN THE UK OUTSIDE STONEHENGE (EXCLUDING MONUMENTS, SEE TABLE 3) Stone 1950, 145;Grimes 1935, 270;Roe;. ' in Clough &>c Cummins 1979 (Carmarthenshire Assumed to be the same as 'Newport' in Roe, in Clough &c Cummins 1979, 46, (PE) Stone 1950, 147;Evens et al 1962, 247 (Dorset 41,262) Stone 1950Evens et al 1962, 250 (Hampshire 41, 420) Stone 1950Evens et al 1962, 250 (Wiltshire 118, 401) 3 1950;Evens et al 1962, 251 (Wiltshire 133, 434) Evens et al 1962; Stone &c Wallis 1951, 129 Evens et al 19621972, 263 Clough &C Cummins 1988,234 rhyolites only, including axes (Group XIII spotted dolerites) and information from the Stonehenge Environs Project (from J. C. Richards, pers. comm., 1989) in table 2.…”

Section: Finds Of Milestones In Archaeological Contexts Outside Stonementioning

confidence: 99%

The Geological Sources and Transport of the Bluestones of Stonehenge, Wiltshire, UK

Thorpe

Williams-Thorpe

Jenkins

et al. 1991

106

Stonehenge on Salisbury Plain is one of the most impressive British prehistoric(c.3000–1500 BC) monuments. It is dominated by large upright sarsen stones, some of which are joined by lintels. While these stones are of relatively local derivation, some of the stone settings, termed bluestones, are composed of igneous and minor sedimentary rocks which are foreign to the solid geology of Salisbury Plain and must have been transported to their present location. Following the proposal of an origin in south-west Wales, debate has focused on hypotheses of natural transport by glacial processes, or transport by human agency. This paper reports the results of a programme of sampling and chemical analysis of Stonehenge bluestones and proposed source outcrops in Wales.Analysis by X-ray-fluorescence of fifteen monolith samples and twenty-two excavated fragments from Stonehenge indicate that the dolerites originated at three sources in a small area in the eastern Preseli Hills, and that the rhyolite monoliths derive from four sources including northern Preseli and other (unidentified) locations in Pembrokeshire, perhaps on the north Pembrokeshire coast. Rhyolite fragments derive from four outcrops (including only one of the monolith sources) over a distance of at least 10 km within Preseli. The Altar Stone and a sandstone fragment (excavated at Stonehenge) are from two sources within the Palaeozoic of south-west Wales. This variety of source suggests that the monoliths were taken from a glacially-mixed deposit, not carefully selected from anin situsource. We then consider whether prehistoric man collected the bluestones from such a deposit in south Wales or whether glacial action could have transported bluestone boulders onto Salisbury Plain. Glacial erratics deposited in south Dyfed (dolerites chemically identical to Stonehenge dolerite monoliths), near Cardiff, on Flatholm and near Bristol indicate glacial action at least as far as the Avon area. There is an apparent absence of erratics east of here, with the possible exception of the Boles Barrow boulder, which may predate the Stonehenge bluestones by as much as 1000 years, and which derived from the same Preseli source as two of the Stonehenge monoliths. However, 18th-century geological accounts describe intensive agricultural clearance of glacial boulders, including igneous rocks, on Salisbury Plain, and contemporary practice was of burial of such boulders in pits. Such erratics could have been transported as ‘free boulders’ from ‘nunataks’ on the top of an extensive, perhaps Anglian or earlier, glacier some 400,000 years ago or more, leaving no trace of fine glacial material in present river gravels. Erratics may be deposited at the margins of ice-sheets in small groups at irregular intervals and with gaps of several kilometres between individual boulders.‘Bluestone’ fragments are frequently reported on and near Salisbury Plain in archaeological literature, and include a wide range of rock types from monuments of widely differing types and dates, and pieces not directly associated with archaeological structures. Examination of prehistoric stone monuments in south Wales shows no preference for bluestones in this area. The monoliths at Stonehenge include some structurally poor rock types, now completely eroded above ground. We conclude that the builders of the bluestone structures at Stonehenge utilized a heterogeneous deposit of glacial boulders readily available on Salisbury Plain. Remaining erratics are now seen as small fragments sometimes incorporated in a variety of archaeological sites, while others were destroyed and removed in the 18th century. The bluestones were transported to Salisbury Plain from varied sources in south Wales by a glacier rather than human activity.

“…The major categories of British stone implements were first outlined by Sir John Evans (1897). Since then, the main contributions in this field have been those of Mrs F. E. S. Roe (1966;1967; and these have formed the basis for all subsequent work, this included.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Nature of the Source and the Manufacture of Scottish Battle-axes and Axe-hammers.

Fenton

1984

A total of 190 axe-hammers and 82 battle-axes from all over Scotland were studied. Attention was focused on the key question of whether the implements were made from cobbles or from scree-outcrop blocks. In glaciated regions such as Scotland, the nature of the source exploited is critical, since the area from which a rock-type may be obtained is greatly enlarged if cobble-blanks were used. Exhaustive petrological and typological studies suggest that a rather haphazard exploitation of suitable-looking locally available rock-types took place. The manufacturing experiments described here were designed to discover how the implements were made, and the essential properties required of the blanks. They showed that a blank should be (a) free of flaws, (b) of a suitable rock-type, and (c) close in form to the implement required. Thirty-one timed searches were made of cobble-deposits and scree/outcrop sites within the areas of distribution of the artefacts. Cobbles, because they are more often free of flaws and better-shaped, proved much superior to scree/outcrop blocks as blanks. The main conclusion of this paper, therefore, is that the great majority of Scottish battle-axes and axe-hammers were made from cobbles. There is evidence to suggest that this conclusion may be extended to the rest of Britain, and to other types of implement made by pecking and grinding, including some unperforated stone axes.