sign in sign up
<<
Home , Megalith, Preseli Hills, River Nevern

ee Hamilton Derek oi Richards Colin enLcSchwenninger Jean-Luc 3 2 1 Pearson Parker Mike for quarry Welsh a Rhos-y-felin: Craig 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 hoie oeie rhsoi quarrying prehistoric dolerite, rhyolite, Keywords: ANTIQUITY  C N 0km niut ulctosLd 2015 Ltd, Publications Antiquity ctihUieste niomna eerhCnr,RnieAeu,Sots nepieTcnlg ak East Park, Enterprise UK Scottish 0QF, Netherlands Avenue, G75 the Rankine Kilbride Leiden, Centre, RA Research Environmental 2300 Universities 9514, Postbus Scottish University, Fern Leiden , Campus, Talbot of UK University, Faculty 9PL, UK Bournemouth M13 5BB, Science, Manchester BH12 Forensic Road, Poole and Barrow, Oxford Manchester, Anthropology of Archaeology, University of Cultures, Department 1BF, and Languages SO17 Arts, Southampton of Highfield, School Campus, Avenue Southampton, of UK UK University 3NP, Archaeology, CF10 (Email: of Cardiff UK Park, Department 0PY, Cathays , WC1H of London Museum Square, National Gordon 31–34 London, [email protected] College University Archaeology, of Institute eerhLbrtr o rhelg n h itr fAt nvriyo xod yo ern ulig South Building, Perrins Dyson Oxford, of University Art, of History the ParksRoad,Oxford,UK and UK Archaeology 6AF, for SA19 Laboratory Llandeilo Research Hall, Shire Trust, Archaeological eateto rhelg,Uiest fSefil,NrhaeHue etSre,Sefil 14T UK 4ET, S1 Sheffield Street, West House, Northgate Sheffield, of University Archaeology, of Department 938(05:13–32doi: 1331–1352 (2015): 348 89 rti,Peei tnhne eoihc elti,mglti,bluestone, megalithic, , , Stonehenge, Preseli, Britain, 400 4 aeWelham Kate , 7 ihr Macphail Richard , ) 1 Stonehenge ihr Bevins Richard , 9 le Simmons Ellen , London 5 e Chan Ben , 1331 1 al rneAeactivity. this Age and Bronze at Early Neolithic both the demonstrating for bluestone location, evidence of dating extraction direct with process along quarrying the of details provided have excavations Subsequent research. this in point turning a marked 2011 at in quarry Rhos-y-felin Craig bluestone megalithic a of of discovery they subject The controversy. a how and been experiment speculation, and long has extracted transported were were quarried, they were . stones when of these north-west precisely one achievements in Where is remarkable societies Stonehenge most Neolithic to the Wales of south from the of transport long-distance The ucnSchlee Duncan , 2 ,RobIxer 10 6 atnSmith Martin & ,KevanEdinborough 1 ohaPollard Joshua , 8 , 10.15184/aqy.2015.177 5 3 1 , ,

Research Mike Parker Pearson et al.

Figure 1. The locations of Craig Rhos-y-felin and Carn Goedog within the watershed of the valley on the northern edge of Mynydd Preseli, , Wales; drawn by Irene de Luis.

Introduction Stonehenge is notable for the unusually distant origins of some of its stones. The larger stones are of , a silicified sandstone that is found in dense concentrations within 20 miles of Salisbury Plain. The smaller ones, known as ‘bluestones’, are of a variety of lithologies that can have only come from in and around Mynydd Preseli (Preseli mountains) in west Wales, c. 140 miles away (Figure 1). Of the 43 identified Welsh bluestones at Stonehenge, 30 are of dolerite (mostly spotted). These have long been recognised as coming from Preseli (Thomas 1923), although only recently has a large sample of them been pinpointed to three sources, most on the northern flank of Mynydd Preseli (Bevins et al. 2014): r Group 1: from the outcrop of Carn Goedog. r Group 2: from the outcrops of Cerrigmarchogion and Craig Talfynydd (these lack the distinctive spotting). r Group 3: from Carn Breseb, Carn Gyfrwy, the Carn Alw area or an un-named outcrop west of Carn Ddafad-las; Group 3 might also come from an unsampled part of Carn Goedog. The largest of the spotted dolerite outcrops, (or Carn Meini), was once suggested as the source of the Stonehenge bluestones (Thomas 1923), although the sample set currently available provides no geological evidence for this (contra Darvill & Wainwright C Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2015

1332 rylt ihfbi’ hshsrcnl enpoeacdt nioae uco tCraig (Ixer at Goedog Carn outcrop from isolated downstream an miles Bevins to two & valley, provenanced as been macroscopically the recently described within has is Rhos-y-felin This monument, fabric’. the with around and ‘rhyolite within found chippings stone w ye fsnsoe(n fte samt-adtn,teohr h la tn;Ixer Stone; the other, the meta-sandstone, a is them of Turner (one & sandstone of types two set). sample present the of basis rmteSoeeg vne n a on nalyrbnahteAeu’ ak,adwas Darvill and (see banks, Avenue’s 27 BC the the cal beneath Of 2480–2280 layer 2008. before a chippings. in in deposited dolerite 7 found thus spotted was Hole the one Aubrey Avenue, from as Stonehenge recovered extensively the were from as chippings almost fabric’ environs, with its ‘rhyolite Six in occur also they but Bevins can Haven miles Milford 50 Turner near from Beds & (Ixer perhaps the out Beds, Beacons; ruled Senni Brecon be the the in from Preseli derives Mynydd of Stone east Altar the although area, Preseli oeta 20cipnsfo h 08Soeeg iesd rjc Pre Pearson (Parker (Pitts Project 1980 Riverside in Stonehenge Stonehenge 2008 the from 2012 chippings 1200 source than fabric’ More with ‘rhyolite the of prospection Geological margins its or Plain stones Salisbury the to that Age theory Ice The an far. during so transported come (Kellaway have glaciers, might by they carried why were and how about hypotheses is Menyn Carn 2014 h wrigwahrpten nJptr(xr&Bevins resembles & it (Ixer because Jupiter ‘Jovian’ on as patterns described weather microtonalite. and swirling of developed the (2–5cm) clasts seen extremely lithic is is ovoid foliation fabric flattened, the the contains Locally, section, and thin lensoidal, In slightly scale. be millimetre to the on developed foliation Age. prominent Bronze Early the before Stonehenge at present was fabric’ with rvre yti urzvista r ihl odd ihterflsbigailpaa to planar axial being folds their with folded, tightly are that veins quartz thin by traversed (Atkinson Holes R Clark eue ni o,ee huhteei oeiec o lca eoiinwti southern within deposition glacial for evidence no is (Thomas England there central though even now, until refuted rud30 C ogbfr h asncrl n rltoswr rce Pre Pearson (Parker erected were and circle sarsen al. the et before long BC, 3000 around (Darvill Holes Aubrey the within te ye fWlhbusoea tnhneaea es he ifrn ye frhyolite, of types different three least at are Stonehenge at bluestone Welsh of types Other h itn rgn fsm fSoeeg’ ooih aegvnrs oavreyof variety a to rise given have monoliths Stonehenge’s of some of origins distant The h arco hspriua yeo hoiei arsoial yial lnr iha with planar, typically macroscopically is rhyolite of type particular this of fabric The h letnswr etil npaea tnhneaon 50B ihnteQand Q the within BC 2500 around Stonehenge at place in certainly were bluestones The n h PCSpoet(avl Wainwright & (Darvill project SPACES the and ) because unsupportable is Menyn’ Gyfrwy/Carn ‘Carn as 3 Group of description their ; 2009 tal. et 2010 2011 2006 akrPearson Parker ; 1971 2012 Bevins ; .Tesucso h eann oktpshv e ob oae ihnthe within located be to yet have types remaining the of sources The ). ,advrosaglaeu uf.Oeo h ye frylt,konfrom known rhyolite, of types the of One tuffs. argillaceous various and ), ;Thorpe not ). 1956 mn h oeta elgclsucsietfidfrGop3o the on 3 Group for identified sources geological potential the among tal. et 65;Darvill 46–50; : 2011 1923 tal. et 1982 2012 2006 .Ms fteehv enfudi h eteo Stonehenge, of centre the in found been have these of Most ). Green ; 1991 ,hv encaatrsda rylt ihfbi’(xr& (Ixer fabric’ with ‘rhyolite as characterised been have ), 193). : ;Thomas tal et Williams-Thorpe ; ri Rhos-y-felin Craig . 1973 2012 tal. et 1333 tal. et McMillan ; g ) omn tn icea Stonehenge at circle stone a forming 3), fig. : 2012 2006 g ) n eepoal rtstup set first probably were and 4), fig. : tal et ). 2011 tal. et tal. et . 2009 2012 .Temi oki commonly is rock main The ). 2005 C 1997 niut ulctosLd 2015 Ltd, Publications Antiquity ,adfo xaain at excavations from and ), ,idctn ht‘rhyolite that indicating ), ibr Clark & Gibbard ; , 2006 ,hsntbeen not has ), 2011 ;

Research Mike Parker Pearson et al. e artificial platform; 4) the recess . Photograph by Adam Stanford. c ; 8) the Neolithic occupation left by the extracted ; 5)area; 9) the the orthostat Early beside Mesolithic the ; prone 10) monolith; 6) the the lower platform orthostat beside and the revetment; 11) recess of the the location removed of monolith; the 7) close the match Neolithi for Stonehenge ‘rhyolite with fabric’ Figure 2. The outcrop at Craig Rhos-y-felin under excavation (viewed from the north-west): 1) the prone 4m-long monolith; 2) the threshold slab; 3) th

C Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2015

1334 94a sotddlrt’busoe vntog t pernei otulk spotted unlike most is in appearance Piggott its and though Atkinson even identify by bluestone, ( Ixer recorded dolerite’ dolerite and ‘spotted stump Bevins a laminated access appearance, as makes unsampled macroscopic 1954 stones and of its buried and basis a Stonehenge the of areSH32d, On status orthostats protected difficult. rhyolitic highly sampling exposed the currently for and four type, the this determined; of positively not been yet not has Craig of outcrop the specifically Bevins & Preseli, (Ixer Mynydd age Ordovician of of 2010 Group, Volcanic north the just to area belonging Rhos-y-felin, Saeson a Pont but the texture primary in a not probably most is fabric. fabric laminated flattening rock its (tectonic) the stumps); later stone that three suggesting the foliation, Heritage. English of the of middle permission by (the rhyolite; 32d Rhos-y-felin Craig Stone the showing of 1954, that like in most Stonehenge appears structure at Excavations 3. Figure iefil esn fecvto eecridoti 0121 otenrhadwest and north the 2m-deep to a form 2011–2015 deposits in Archaeological out outcrop. carried oriented were north-east–south-west excavation this of of seasons field Five with ‘rhyolite source Rhos-y-felin in fabric’ Craig 11 the location of to excavation Archaeological adjacent 4 (location sample matching the 2 of Figure location the to adjacent 1995 uco’ ervria etr de( edge western near-vertical outcrop’s h culpsto fa‘hoiewt arc ooih(rmnlts tStonehenge at monoliths) (or monolith fabric’ with ‘rhyolite a of position actual The outcrops with found been has fragments rhyolite these for match petrographic strong A Bevins ; 2,fis10&11 orsodcoeywt hs farcs tCagRhos-y-felin, Craig at recess a of those with closely correspond 141) & 120 figs 226, : ). iue3 Figure tal. et .Isdmnin of dimensions Its ). 2011 .Ti ac scoetfrsmlsfo h ot n fthe of end north the from samples for closest is match This ). iue2 Figure ri Rhos-y-felin Craig c .0.4 1335 × lcto akda 11]). as marked [location .5 nwdhadtikes(Cleal thickness and width in 0.45m C niut ulctosLd 2015 Ltd, Publications Antiquity tal. et

Research Mike Parker Pearson et al.

Figure 4. South-east–north-west (A–B) section of the stratigraphic sequence on the west side of the outcrop, with the latest radiocarbon date for each layer; drawn by Irene de Luis.

Figure 5. South-west–north-east (B–C) section of the stratigraphic sequence on the west side of the outcrop, with the latest radiocarbon dates for each layer (selected layers only); drawn by Irene de Luis.

stratigraphic sequence on the west side that extends from the Early Mesolithic, through the Neolithic and to the , to the ninth to eleventh centuries AD onwards (Figures 4–6). Colluvium has buried and protected the remains of prehistoric quarrying from subsequent stone removal and disturbance in the medieval and modern era. The archaeological sequence lies on a bed of glacial till within a small tributary valley on the west side of the outcrop. This tributary valley feeds into the Brynberian stream, which rises at various points in Mynydd Preseli, including the dolerite bluestone sources of Carn Goedog (Group 1) and Cerrigmarchogion (Group 2). C Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2015

1336 iyfln ae hr a oeiec fayMslti uryn rwrigo rhyolite of working or quarrying Mesolithic any of outcrop. evidence the no was from There 5210–4947 flake. outcrop: probability flint the tiny of 95.4% a tip northern at the 6114 at (SUERC-46204; BC 069 comes BC layer cal activity cal in Mesolithic shell 7490–7190 for hazelnut carbonised date to a Another from SUERC-51163). dated and that OxA-30523 of charcoal (combine oak containing (098) u i.Egtdtso abnsdhzlu hl n onwo rmteehearths these from roundwood humanly and ( large, (SUERC-50761; shell a BC cal of hazelnut 8550–8330 between 9229 top carbonised range but the on consistency stratigraphic within little dates show sequentially Eight set pit. were dug hearths Mesolithic Early Four activity Mesolithic in red) in (marked sections the of Locations 6. Figure iue7 Figure ± 1B) n 2079 a C(UR-16;8851 (SUERC-51165; BC cal 8220–7790 and BP), 21 ; al 1 Table .Tehatswr noprtdwti h oio fabre soil buried a of horizon A the within incorporated were hearths The ). ± 1B) h nyatfc rmtesqec fhatswas hearths of sequence the from artefact only The BP). 31 ri Rhos-y-felin Craig iue 4 Figures 1337 – 5 htgahb dmStanford. Adam by photograph ; ±  C 4B)a 54 probability 95.4% at BP) 44 niut ulctosLd 2015 Ltd, Publications Antiquity

Research Mike Parker Pearson et al.

Figure 7. Chronological model of radiocarbon dates from the stratigraphic sequence at Craig Rhos-y-felin; those inconsistent with the stratigraphy are shown in green (thought to be later contaminants) and red (thought to be residual material, mostly from pit fills); compiled by Derek Hamilton.

C Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2015

1338 2UprptfilA 3–3 1575 430–535 AD fill pit Upper 42 2Uprptfil11–35B 3081 BC 1415–1305 fill pit Upper 42 6Caca con- Charcoal 66 2Uprptfil24–45B 4074 BC 2840–2495 fill pit Upper 42 6Caca con- Charcoal 66 3Lwrptfil39–95B 4400 BC 3095–2925 3410 fill pit BC Lower 1765–1635 fill pit Lower 43 43 3Caca con- Charcoal 63 4Caca con- Charcoal 44 4Caca con- Charcoal 44 8 oe osi D16–...161 . . . 1660– AD topsoil Lower 081 4Caca con- Charcoal 44 olvu D7014 1090 780–1040 AD Species Material Colluvium number Sample BP Date 5 BC/AD cal Date type Context dates Calibrated order. Context stratigraphic in Rhos-y-felin probability. Craig 95.4% from at dates given OSL are and Radiocarbon 1. Table 8 oe osi 4–9 C2394 BC 740–390 topsoil Lower 081 1Occupation 41 olvu D8013 1080 810–1030 AD Colluvium 8 8 oe osi 0090B 2825 BC 1050–910 topsoil Lower 081 0Bre ol7030B 2400 1470 BC 750–390 540–650 AD Occupation soil Buried soil Buried 41 20 20 9AhlyrA 7–5 1444 570–650 AD 1165 780–970 AD layer Ash Colluvium 39 9 5Cluim51–50B 6500 2841 BC 5410–3590 2799 BC 1090–920 Sediment BC 1030–890 Colluvium 2504 Colluvium 40 Colluvium BC 35 790–540 35 topsoil Lower 35 081 centration centration centration centration centration centration layer layer charcoal with 2023 C3717 BC 2200–2030 3–1 C2432 BC 735–410 4–1 C2434 BC 745–410 9–0 C2243 BC 390–200 1–9 C2377 BC 710–390 5–0 C2434 BC 750–400 4–9 C2387 BC 540–390 4–0 C2416 BC 540–405 7–0 C2216 BC 373–203 ri Rhos-y-felin Craig 1339 ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± 5SEC511Roundwood SUERC-51161 35 3 S X5455 OSL 130 1 S X5456 OSL 110 1 S X5454 OSL 910 9SEC441Roundwood SUERC-46481 19 0SEC440 Roundwood SUERC-46480; 20 9SEC493Roundwood SUERC-42903 19 8SEC495Roundwood SUERC-42905 18 7SEC418Wood SUERC-46198 27 9SEC496Nutshell SUERC-42906 19 9SEC416Roundwood SUERC-43196 29 3SEC443Nutshell SUERC-46483 23 Roundwood SUERC-46482 21 9SEC415Roundwood SUERC-43195 29 9SEC414Roundwood SUERC-43194 29 6SEC426Roundwood SUERC-44286 16 7SEC425Roundwood SUERC-44285 17 5SEC512Nutshell SUERC-51162 35 5SEC314RudodUnidentified Roundwood SUERC-38134 Grain 35 SUERC-38132 35 0SEC427RudodPomoideae Roundwood SUERC-46207 30 Roundwood SUERC-38133 35 5OA354Roundwood OxA-30504 25 7SEC426RudodPomoideae Roundwood SUERC-46206 27 8SEC423Wood SUERC-46203 Wood 28 Nutshell SUERC-46199 30 OxA-30546 29  C niut ulctosLd 2015 Ltd, Publications Antiquity Quercus Quercus Tilia Quercus Tilia Corylus Quercus Corylus Quercus Corylus Corylus Corylus Quercus Corylus Hordeum Corylus Corylus Quercus Quercus Corylus Corylus avellana avellana avellana avellana avellana avellana avellana avellana avellana avellana sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp.

Research Mike Parker Pearson et al.

Table 1. Continued. Context Context type Date cal BC/AD Date BP Sample number Material Species

40 Sediment with 1415–1265 BC 3076±26 OxA-30508 Nutshell Corylus charcoal avellana 115 Platform under 2140–1950 BC 3665±28 OxA-31779 Roundwood Corylus monolith avellana 115 Platform under 2200–1980 BC 3700±30 OxA-31780 Roundwood Corylus monolith avellana 115 Platform under 4330–4050 BC 5367±33 OxA-31812 Nutshell Corylus monolith avellana 59 Occupation 3500–3120 BC 4590±30 SUERC-46205 Nutshell Corylus layer avellana 59 Occupation 3620–3360 BC 4667±30 OxA-30502 Nutshell Corylus layer avellana 110 Orthostat pit 7940–7650 BC 8750±30 Beta-392850 Roundwood Corylus fill avellana 116 Orthostat pit 8280–7970 BC 8966±38 OxA-30504 Roundwood Corylus fill avellana 116 Orthostat pit 8190–7680 BC 8795±40 OxA-30547 Roundwood Quercus sp. fill 69 Sediment with 5210–4950 BC 6114±31 SUERC-46204 Nutshell Corylus charcoal avellana 69 Sediment with 7490–7190 BC 8301±37 OxA-30503 Roundwood Corylus charcoal avellana 153 Palaeochannel 5800–5640 BC 6833±40 OxA-32021 Roundwood Corylus basal fill avellana 153 Palaeochannel 5620–5460 BC 6543±37 OxA-32022 Wood Tilia sp. basal fill 98 Buried soil 7460–7180 BC 8279±37 OxA-30523 Wood Quercus sp. 98 Buried soil 7540–7300 BC 8355±48 SUERC-51163 Wood Quercus sp. 100 Hearth 8290–7970 BC 8984±47 SUERC-51164 Roundwood Corylus avellana 100 Hearth 8210–7790 BC 8848±37 OxA-30506 Roundwood Corylus avellana 102 Hearth 8290–7970 BC 8970±45 OxA-30548 Roundwood Corylus avellana 102 Hearth 8240–7850 BC 8890±40 OxA-30549 Roundwood Corylus avellana 106 Hearth 8210–7790 BC 8851±44 SUERC-51165 Roundwood Corylus avellana 106 Hearth 8530–8280 BC 9157±40 OxA-30507 Nutshell Corylus avellana 111 Hearth 8210–7960 BC 8888±21 SUERC-50760 Roundwood Corylus avellana 111 Hearth 8550–8330 BC 9229±21 SUERC-50761 Nutshell Corylus avellana

C Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2015

1340 abnsdPmieerudodt 2023 a C(UR-60;3717 (SUERC-46206; BC cal 2200–2030 to roundwood Pomoideae carbonised ( outcrop the of end north the against (059 hearth layer occupation a Neolithic includes localised a which by covered was 069 layer Mesolithic The activity Neolithic in line white solid the as shown is section this of location the context; each from 059 dates layer radiocarbon with Neolithic outcrop, showing the section East–west 8. Figure h elti ae 059 layer Neolithic The deposits Age Bronze BC cal 3500–3120 of dates provide layer this from shells 4590 (SUERC-46205; hazelnut carbonised on dates rw yIeed Luis. de Irene by drawn a ml u ut-aee erh e nasalbw-hpdpt ls otevertical ( the stone to burnt close of pit, 5kg bowl-shaped with small associated a and in outcrop set the hearth, of multi-layered face but small a was (059 sediment charcoal-rich otiscaca fMslti n al rneAedt.Temnlt rbbydates probably monolith The date. that Age artificial Bronze level Early a and on Mesolithic rests of 3076 monolith charcoal prone (OxA-30508; a contains BC face, cal north-west outcrop’s 1420–1260 the to beside shell hazelnut by and used was it flakes. that rhyolite indicate and vicinity flake its flint small in a stone include burnt Finds localised times. of many quantity the and hearth the which into contained below). layers that Mesolithic detailed millennium Early (as pits eighth the cut in from early were residual to pits set thus the ninth probably orthostats late are the stone fragments to these are dating BC; with fragments these associated nutshell of or features Two wood three carbonised . are of horizon stratigraphic quarrying this the Within probability. 95.4% at h elti cuainlyr(mNE–SW (2m layer occupation Neolithic The ± 0B)ad32–30clB OA352 4667 (OxA-30502; BC cal 3620–3360 and BP) 30 = = 5 a oee yadpst(4)rdoabndtdby dated radiocarbon (040) deposit a by covered was 159 5)a h oto h otentpo h uco.Isfocus Its outcrop. the of tip northern the of foot the at 159) ri Rhos-y-felin Craig = 1341 5 nrlto oeriradltrdpst ttenrhedof end north the at deposits later and earlier to relation in 159 × .mS–W ossso akbrown, dark of consists SE–NW) 3.5m iue8 Figure C iue8 Figure niut ulctosLd 2015 Ltd, Publications Antiquity ± 6B) ate south, Farther BP). 26 .Tecmlxt of complexity The ). .Toradiocarbon Two ). ± 0B) both BP), 30 ± = iue11 Figure 7BP) 27 159), ;

Research Mike Parker Pearson et al. to the Early or Middle Bronze Age (see below) as the terrace is stratigraphically below Late Bronze Age and Iron Age deposits. Most of the site was then covered by a layer of yellow colluvium (035), dated by oak charcoal to 1030–910 cal BC (combine SUERC-46199; 2799±30 BP and SUERC-46203; 2841±28 BP). This deposit is contemporary with the uppermost fill of a palaeochannel of the Brynberian stream that flowed past the northern tip of the outcrop. Charcoal of Corylus and Tilia from the basal fill of this palaeochannel dates to 5800–5640 cal BC (OxA- 32021; 6833±40 BP) and 5620–5460 cal BC (OxA-32022; 6543±37 BP), both at 95.4% probability.

Iron Age occupation The Late Bronze Age colluvial deposit did not reach the north-western face of the outcrop, where the prehistoric buried soil (098) was covered by a layer (081) with a wide range of dates from the Late Bronze Age onwards. Layer 81 was covered by a sequence of Iron Age layers (041 and 020) and localised deposits (e.g. pit 047). The Iron Age activity consisted of a sequence of two cultural layers with cut features, an iron artefact, worked flints and sherds of . Dates of 3095–2925 cal BC (SUERC-46483; 4400±23 BP) and 2840–2495 cal BC (SUERC-42906; 4074±19 BP) fall within the Neolithic but come from hazelnut shell fragments in the fill of an Iron Age pit (047). Thus, their context cannot be considered to relate to the Neolithic horizon.

Megalith-quarrying features Six megalith-quarrying features have been discovered at Craig Rhos-y-felin, three of them dating to the Bronze Age. From south-west to north-east, they consist of a prone monolith sitting on an artificial platform, a threshold slab embedded in the north end of this platform, two stone orthostats set in pits, a recess from which a pillar has been removed and a lower artificial platform revetted with a drystone wall above the bank of the palaeochannel.

Bronze Age quarry features: the prone monolith and platform A 4m-long prone megalith sits on a bed of horizontally laid stones, the largest of which are two rail-like pillars to its rear (south-west) end (Figure 9). This bed of stones lies on a level artificial terrace 6m long and at least 4m wide, built on the sloping ground beside the outcrop. This platform was formed from at least 8 tons of 0.3–0.4m-diameter dumps of sediment and stones (layer 115), to reach a depth of 0.5m at its north end. Three determinations on Corylus charcoal from this platform fill date to 2140–1950 cal BC (OxA- 31779; 3665±28 BP), 2200–1980 cal BC (OxA-31780; 3700±30 BP) and 4330–4050 cal BC (OxA-31812; 5367±33 BP), all at 95.4% probability. The megalith is matched petrographically with the adjacent near-vertical face of the outcrop. It has been split off the rock face but is not dressed or shaped in any way. A large stone shard has splintered off the base of the monolith, possibly explaining why the monolith was never moved out of the quarry. C Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2015

1342 meitl ot-ato h hehl lb rn ooihadpafr (and platform and monolith prone in slab, 115 and threshold 110 layers see the them; than earlier of stratigraphically north-east slab threshold the Immediately of north-east orthostat the : quarry Undated was stone removed large was megalith a extracted that previously indicate a when marks possibly quarry. scrape slab, the at this and from perpendicularly of Crush lies top slab terrace. the ‘threshold’ over artificial pulled large the a of megalith, front prone the this of (north-east) front In slab threshold the feature: quarry Age Bronze trench archaeological an is left Stanford. the Adam to by monolith; photograph the sits; end; of south-west monolith the underside the beneath which the pillars on from long platform detached two artificial has of the one flake through showing large south), dug a the side from south-east (viewed monolith its prone along 4m-long The 9. Figure simdaeybsd eesi h tews vnsraeo h okfc,js .mwest 1.5m just face, rock the of surface even otherwise location precise the Its in outcrop. recess the a of beside end north immediately bluestone the fabric’ is near with ‘rhyolite taken the was Stonehenge for match from outcrop closest chippings the the from provides that removed sample pillar geological a The by left recess the feature: quarry Undated eaihwti h ury hsfauewsstit agrEryMslti i iha with a pit moving Mesolithic for Early fulcrum larger or a prop into a set as supported was served hearths. have feature have of must to This sequence it quarry. appears that It the indicating point. within top, some megalith its ( at sizes on stone different damage heavy of crush a stones has with packed stone densely standing hole, small a within upright set was ri Rhos-y-felin Craig 1343 iue5 Figure C niut ulctosLd 2015 Ltd, Publications Antiquity ,a1-ihorthostat 1m-high a ), iue2 Figure .This ).

Research Mike Parker Pearson et al. of the Neolithic occupation layer. The dimensions of the recess indicate that a pillar 2.5m long, 0.4m wide and c. 0.4m thick was removed from here in antiquity (Figure 10).

Undated quarry feature: the orthostat associated with the recess At the foot of the recess, 0.5m from the rock face, a 0.65m-high standing stone was set vertically in a pit amongst large packing stones. Signs of damage on the standing stone’s top and the stone’s evident displacement suggest that it once supported a heavy weight. It is interpreted as a fulcrum for pivoting a monolith after it had been detached from the outcrop.

Undated quarry feature: the platform above the palaeochannel A level terrace or platform, 4.3m E–W × 3.5m N–S, was constructed 4m north of the north-east end of the outcrop by levelling up the uneven surface of the underlying glacial till with re-deposited sediment. Five stones were set on edge within this sediment, forming an arc with its open side facing north-eastwards (Figure 11). This array may have served to consolidate the platform’s looser material. Remains of a three-course drystone revetment wall (Figure 12)form the platform’s north-eastern edge, located above the Mesolithic sediments of the palaeochannel but covered by those of the Bronze Age. This artificial stone wall would originally have stood 0.9m high. We suspect that this platform and revetment wall formed a ‘loading bay’ where monoliths could be lowered onto wooden sledges or cradles to be transported away from the quarry. Two very large stone blocks sit at each end of the platform, although one of these—the north-eastern one—has slid off the wall. A flat-bottomed hollow way (not illustrated) leads northwards from the foot of the platform. Figure 10. The recess left by the extracted monolith, with the standing orthostat at its base (left), viewed from the west (photograph by Mike Parker Pearson).

Dating the quarrying activity Most of the quarry features at Craig Rhos-y-felin cannot yet be dated more closely than to the fourth to second millennia BC. The prone monolith and its artificial platform date to after C Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2015

1344 al rneAewsapro hnnmru tnigsoe eeqare n erected Stonehenge. to and taken quarried been were had stones bluestones standing the numerous after when long Pembrokeshire, period in a was Age Bronze Early ae oteEryBoz g sato uryn aigt 1016 a Ca 95.4% at BC cal 2160–1960 to dating Wainwright quarrying & of Darvill (start dolerite-working]; of Age [start also Bronze probability Menyn Early Carn Middle at the the pillar after to dolerite years spotted thousand dates a a of than quarrying more the Age, Intriguingly, Bronze activity. Early Neolithic the it. to from dates platform, away its 1.5m and just layer occupation small the from shells 4590 hazelnut (SUERC-46205; carbonised 4667 BC by (OxA-30502; cal BC 3500–3120 are cal recess 3620–3360 removal its and the from with pillar associated rhyolite dates of probable the dates most of the The than Stonehenge. later at centuries erections many are bluestone thus the and probability) 95.4% (at BC the cal solid within 2140–1950 the monolith; edge extracted on the stones by of left in recess arc illustrated the the section 5) 3) the palaeochannel; the of lines); the from location of dashed (viewed the bank white detached shows south was by line the monolith (outlined white of a revetment area which the occupation from 4) recess the platform; the 2) lower of hearth; north the area occupation 1) Neolithic north-east): Middle The 11. Figure rmterc,a skonfo h ot tla lsweei a sdt eahlong detach to used was it where (P Alps axeheads Italian make north to the boulders monoliths jadeite from the from known split flakes to is thermal fire-setting as of detaching evidence for rock, any used the there methods is from the Nor indicate face. to rock the quarry from the monoliths within dressed? debris they little were relatively is when There and extracted bluestones the were How h ae hs fqariga ri hsyfln ersne ytepoemonolith prone the by represented Rhos-y-felin, Craig at quarrying of phase later The ri Rhos-y-felin Craig iue8 Figure 1345 ± 0B) oha 54 rbblt,provided probability, 95.4% at both BP), 30 htgahb dmStanford. Adam by Photograph . etrequin ´ C 2014 niut ulctosLd 2015 Ltd, Publications Antiquity tal. et .Ti ugssta the that suggests This ). 2008 ). ± 0BP) 30

Research Mike Parker Pearson et al.

Figure 12. The surviving courses at the west end of the revetment wall forming the north end of the lower platform, viewed from the north; photograph by Mike Parker Pearson.

The rock’s tendency to break into natural pillars makes the outcrop’s near-vertical north- west face an ideal place to extract such pillars with comparatively little effort and little need for stone . It seems probable that monoliths were detached by exploiting pre- existing fissures in the rock, hammering in wooden wedges and perhaps enlarging fissures to allow access for such wedges. In the case of the recess from which the ‘rhyolite with fabric’ monolith was extracted, a 0.07m-wide indentation on its north edge appears to be a hollowed-out wedgehole. The only other archaeological excavation of a Neolithic megalith quarry in Britain, at Vestra Fiold (), provides similar inferences that monoliths were detached by driving wooden wedges into jointing fissures (Richards et al. 2013: 140). Stonehenge is the only in Britain to have dressed stones. Current evidence suggests that this happened long after the bluestones reached Stonehenge. Most of Stonehenge’s bluestones, however, were never dressed. Of those that were, most form the inner horseshoe of bluestones that share a pattern of dressing similar to that of the sarsen trilithons but not the sarsen circle (Abbott & Anderson-Whymark 2012: 25), making it probable that these inner-horseshoe bluestones and the sarsen trilithons were dressed at the same time: this was probably around 2780–2485 cal BC at 95.4% probability (Model 1: start_stone_settings) (Darvill et al. 2012; Marshall et al. 2012: 38). C Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2015

1346 hr r orhpteie otsfrtkn h letnsfo yydPeeito Preseli Mynydd from bluestones the taking for routes hypothesised Stonehenge: four are Stonehenge? There to moved bluestones the were How eeo vrg uhlgtrta ihr tisnsetmt f4tn ah h new the Anderson-Whymark & each; (Abbott tons less 4 or tons of 2 estimate of bluestones Atkinson’s estimates the Richard accurate that than more reveals provides lighter analysis stones much Stonehenge’s average of on images were The laser-scanned thought. previously of than challenging analysis less been have recent may route land the that it suggests that route, coastal ( a favoured’ suggest most Stonehenge was at that Stones route [sic] inland Prescelly the the was ‘Although that state to as rx o ua otso oeettruhsuhWlsietfidti vradroute (Webley overland this in identified corridor Wales major south a through as movement Brecon of through routes for proxy entrep Turner an & as (Ixer served Haven Haven Milford being inland. heading as would before quarries source mountains the Preseli of the out of route foot obvious steep the most to the The northwards up valley Haven. been the Milford brought have to to been slopes to Cleddau southern have the Afon southwards down to the taken carried have of being ever before would Preseli were Mynydd megaliths of bluestones the edge the northern this, slopes that do northern To unlikely the Haven. on it Milford bluestones makes dolerite recent mountains, spotted the the these with of of together source Preseli, of dominant Mynydd can position the of points The of north transport. of discovery quarry megalith number monolith of ( land—a Rhos-y-felin directions routes and Craig by methods the or hypothesised probable sea the the about by of made way—whether be any that along passed evidence having bluestones no is there Although h e ot o h letnshsbe oua o eae,ytteei e information new is there yet decades, for popular been has bluestones the for route sea The h vradruecnb aordfrtoraos h eeto fteAtrStone’s Altar the of rejection The reasons. two for favoured be can route overland The r r r r rudtesuhWlscatt nln,cosn h eenEtayadthen and (Atkinson Plain Estuary Salisbury Severn towards the Avon crossing Somerset England, the to up coast Wales brought and south boats onto the loaded around were they where Haven Milford to south Overland h ogradmr aadu e ot,iiilyaogtesuhWlscoast (Atkinson Wales Avon Wiltshire south the the of mouth along the to initially End Land’s route, around sea then and hazardous more and longer The epr,Pmrksie n hneb e rudS ai’ ed route a (Atkinson Head, at currents David’s sea and St cliffs the dangerous around to of westwards sea because then improbable by Nevern, considered thence River and the Pembrokeshire, of valley Newport, the to north Overland 103). hlttesotrsaruei bu 8 ie og hsln ot saround is route land this long, miles 180 about is miles. route 220 sea shorter Plain. the Salisbury beside to Whilst south pass River thence the The and over enclosure Gloucester. Usk taken causewayed bluestones of Neolithic Tywi, Hill the north Crickley Teifi, and Longford, here, the forded at been Severn of have could River Severn valleys the glaciated meet to flat-bottomed, Wye conjoining and of along thence series and valley a Nevern upper the along eastwards overland Alternatively, 101). tfrtebusoe.Scnl,asuyo nmlmgaina a as migration animal of study a Secondly, bluestones. the for ot ˆ ri Rhos-y-felin Craig 1347 1976 2006 26). : eue h ieiodta Milford that likelihood the reduces ) 1976 C niut ulctosLd 2015 Ltd, Publications Antiquity .Wbe vnge ofar so goes even Webley ). 1956 iue13 Figure 104). : )forthe 1956 1956 : :

Research Mike Parker Pearson et al.

Figure 13. Hypothesised routes for the bluestones to be moved to Stonehenge; the land route is suggested as the most probable; drawn by Irene Deluis.

2012: 60). Monoliths of this weight can be easily moved by lifting and carrying them on rows of poles and rectangular frameworks of poles, as recorded in China, Japan and , especially across hilly and forested terrain (Gowland 1902: 74, pl. 5; Hutton 1929: 337, pl. 14). A 4m-long monolith of 2 tons could have been carried by up to 60 people, with the average weight thus borne by each carrier being no more than 30–50kg. Such a mode of transport would enable the weight-bearers to protect the monolith from breakage while traversing uneven ground. In our view, the land route is the most probable because of this simple carrying arrangement, the minimisation of risk by avoiding open water, and the capacity for integrating communities along the route into the ceremony and spectacle that the megalith-moving would have attracted as the stones were passed from community to community.

When did the bluestones travel? The mystery of Boles Barrow The Neolithic known as Boles or Bowls Barrow at Heytesbury, 12 miles west of Stonehenge, was excavated by William Cunnington in 1801. At a depth of 1.37m he C Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2015

1348 iue1.Tebusoepla rgettogtt come ( to Cunnington from thought Wiltshire; fragment Barrow, pillar Boles from bluestone The 14. Figure stones] laid of were ridge which [the on them flints among of discover surface “I a notes: 3.2m He at skeletons. and 13 flints, of and stones remains of the ridge a found ihbra eoisi h rthl ftefut ilnimB n umntn with culminating and later BC or millennium millennium the of fourth half the second the of (Whittle in half enlargements and and/or first infillings structures, the 42 stone in Amesbury deposits commencing construction, period, of Stonehenge’swith phases multiple this have of barrows long Wessex Within all Other respectively). BC date. cal or 3520–3350 to some early (dated 4645 Plain Salisbury [SUERC-24308; that on this rhyolite built were a possibility barrows at long for Stoke the recess Winterbourne obtained the raise beside were activity Rhos-y-felin Neolithic bluestones Craig for BC at cal 3500–3120 monolith and BC cal 3360 2012 90clB 9.%poaiiy ic osrce;Darvill constructed; ditch probability, (95.4% BC cal 2920 arw,BlsBro’ tn hs a o osrce ni h eodhl ftefourth the BC. of cal half 3500–3120 second the at until constructed BC not millennium, cal was 3760–3630 phase stone to Barrow’s latest Boles barrows, the dated, 4896 been (Wk18474; probability have 95.4% five Barrow, Boles from inhumations 14). n ntle tSoeeg ihnisAbe oe uigSae1 nti epc,it Marshall deposit; respect, collected structured this bones start In animal probability, 1? curated (68.2% Stage BC contains during cal ditch Holes 3400–2910 enclosing in Aubrey Stonehenge’s that its interesting within Stonehenge is at installed and Whittle Stukeley; 2004 William by recorded (as 1994 near Millbarrow at orthostats sarsen fac for and kerbs form lhuhteGop3sotddlrt orermisuecvtd h ae f3620– of dates the unexcavated, remains source dolerite spotted 3 Group the Although eebusoe brought bluestones Were 13)? : 9?O eete ruh tmn ifrn ae,utmtl ob one up rounded be to ultimately dates, Field different & many (Eagles at Bishopstrow brought Barrow, they King were possibly Or and 59)? Warminster, : Hill, Arn ), 1994 after Schulting ; h uryn vnsa ri hsyflni 6036 a Cand BC cal 3620–3360 in Rhos-y-felin Craig at events quarrying the ae o esxln arw ntesm anra documented as manner same the in barrows long Wessex for ¸ades ± 0B]ad33–30clB SEC450 4680 [SUERC-42530; BC cal 3630–3360 and BP] 30 2000 nmasse en ;Bayliss 1924 ± ri Rhos-y-felin Craig 1B) ti osbeta,a ihohrWse long Wessex other with as that, possible is It BP). 31 tal. et oSlsuyPana hserydt,prasto perhaps date, early this at Plain Salisbury to ). 1349 2007 fteurgtSoe ny ne Circle inner ye in (Cunnington Stones atStonehenge” some upright to same the ye of also, Stone hard Blue the Pitts ftefis tg fSoeeg n3100– in Stonehenge of stage first the commencement of so the Plain even Salisbury before well such on early, arrived would have Why stone puzzle. a a of proved has something third discovery the this in BC, built millennium was Stonehenge and millennium BC fourth the in constructed were (Bevins 3 2014 Group of dolerite spotted ( broken Museum fragment Salisbury the in pillar currently is bluestone un-dressed this but that probable highly Whittle ; .Gvnta rts ogbarrows long British that Given ). 2001 9–0) o dnie as identified now 198–204), : tal. et  C tal. et niut ulctosLd 2015 Ltd, Publications Antiquity 2007 2012 .O h 3primary 13 the Of ). Marshall ; 1924 tal. et iue14 Figure ± 9BP] 29 .I is It ). 2012 tal. et tal. et ; :

Research Mike Parker Pearson et al.

Why were the bluestones moved to Stonehenge? The discovery that the dominant bluestone sources (so far provenanced) lie on the north side of Mynydd Preseli removes one of the main lines of evidence for the healing theory proposed to explain the bluestones’ transportation, for as yet there is no convincing geological evidence that Carn Menyn provided pillars for Stonehenge (Bevins et al. 2014). Associations with medieval holy and healing-related springs on the south side of Preseli (Darvill 2007; Darvill & Wainwright 2009: 17–18; 2014: 1112) are thus no longer sustainable on the current evidence. Similarly, the relevance of the infirmities of the Beaker-period Amesbury Archer and Early Bronze Age trepanned individuals from the Stonehenge environs (Darvill 2007), all of them a thousand years after the Middle Neolithic quarrying at Craig Rhos-y- felin, can now be called into question. So why might the bluestones have been brought to Stonehenge around 3000 BC? Gordon Childe (1957: 331) suggested that they were indicative of political unification or a sacred peace. Unification is certainly a possibility given the increasingly widespread distribution of shared styles of material culture such as Middle Neolithic Peterborough Ware (c. 3400– 2900 BC) across southern Britain at this time (Darvill 2010: 132–36). Equally, the date of quarrying at Craig Rhos-y-felin is around the same time or shortly after evidence of conflict (c. 3400 BC) at the causewayed enclosures of Crickley Hill, Gloucestershire, and Hambledon Hill, Dorset (Dixon 1988;Mercer1999;Mercer&Healy2008). Alternatively, the bluestones were brought by communities migrating eastwards and settling on Salisbury Plain. This could explain the recent strontium and oxygen isotopic results for a male burial (3630–3360 cal BC at 95.4% confidence; SUERC-42530; 4680±29 BP) in a single grave beneath Winterbourne Stoke long barrow, 1.5 miles (2.4km) from Stonehenge (Alistair Pike & Susan Greaney pers. comm.). He grew up on Silurian and Devonian substrate in a region of high rainfall, characteristic of western Britain. Thus the motivation for moving the bluestones such a distance was probably related to their significance as symbols of identity. This supports the hypothesis that their identity was ancestral, with stones representing the deceased ancestors (Parker Pearson & Ramilisonina 1998), because the earliest contexts in which bluestones were placed—Boles Barrow and the Aubrey Holes—were monuments with ancestral and funerary associations (Parker Pearson et al. 2009; Parker Pearson 2012). It is possible that the bluestone monoliths were taken directly from their quarries to Salisbury Plain. An alternative explanation postulates ‘the removal of a venerated stone circle from Preseli to Salisbury Plain’ (Thomas 1923: 258). Might the bluestones have formed one or more monuments within Wales that were dismantled and moved in order to be incorporated, eventually, into Stonehenge? Such an act could have served to merge two sacred centres into one, to unify two politically separate regions, or to legitimise the ancestral identity of migrants moving from one region to another. Future research into Neolithic monuments within north Pembrokeshire may shed light on these possibilities.

Acknowledgements We thank landowners Huw and Dilys Davies, our many project staff and volunteers, Phil Bennett and colleagues at the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park, Christian Baars and Jim Turner (photomicrography), Amanda

C Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2015

1350 B C A D C B C C B A References Wales Environment of Natural Museum the National Society, the London, Geographic of Institute. National Antiquaries Archaeological the Royal of paper). the Society by this and the of funded dating), version is (radiocarbon earlier an Council project suggestion on Research Stonehenge his comments (for of (for Sheridan and Stones India Alison stone-carrying The College, on and observations Field Deccan any further Dave of of (for Cummings, Rainbird lack Vicki Mohanty Paul Daw, moving), the R.K. Tim on carried), Plain), were literature Salisbury monoliths recent bluestone reaching to that sheets attention our ice drawing for (for evidence Bowen D.Q. sections), (thin Valentine-Baars TKINSON EVINS EVINS AYLISS BBOTT LARK HILDE UNNINGTON LEAL ARVILL Hamilton. odn oteg ea Paul. Kegan & Routledge London: archaeology Malone C. & Barraclough (ed.) D.A. in purpose, its and Magazine Barrow. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2010.10.014 Science Archaeological for lithics. new rhyolitic a provenancing as chemistry zircon of the application and sources bluestone rhyolitic Stonehenge http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2010.07.019 Sheet. Ice Reviews British-Irish Science last Quaternary the of retreat of timing .A D. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2013.11.009 179–93. analysis. components principal and geochemistry compatible element on based Stonehenge evidence of bluestones: source doleritic major likely the is Goedog http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0959774307000182 Journal West the barrow. of long date Kennet the generation: my about Talking 8Ags 2015). August 28 ResearchReportsPdfs/032_2012WEB.pdf http://services.english-heritage.org.uk/ at: Available 32/2012. report 2012. ..J C.J. ..I R.A. excavations twentieth-century landscape: its in Stonehenge ... ..W K.E. R.M.J., , .. ...H A.L.C. C.D., , .. ..I R.A. R.E., , ,R.E.,N.G.P . ...W A.W.R. A., , ..1957. V.G. , ,M.&H.A ..20.Twrstewti:Stonehenge within: the Towards 2007. T.C. , SPDEN uti otx:rcnieigrta in reconsidering context: in Cult ORDAN odn nls eiaeRsac Report Research Heritage English London: . XER ...1956. R.J.C. , tnhnelsrsa:acaooia analysis archaeological scan: laser Stonehenge 7(upeet:85–101. (supplement): 17 ithr rhelgcladNtrlHistory Natural and Archaeological Wiltshire ora fAcaooia Science Archaeological of Journal ,M.P ..12.Te‘lesoe rmBoles from stone’ ‘blue The 1924. B.H. , 2 431–37. 42: odn nls Heritage. English London: . 4–7 xod Oxbow. Oxford: 148–57. : ,A.B &H.P.S ARKER XER NDERSON h ano uoencivilization European of dawn The ADCOCK EARCE HITTLE ALKER UGHES &N.G.P Stonehenge abig Archaeological Cambridge 8 605–22. 38: EJRUP P ..I R.A. & EARSON ,G.D &R.M -W ,S.L.G &M.W 4 112–46. 44: 02 atr and Pattern 2012. . HYMARK ora of Journal EARCE odn Hamish London: . AVIES &C.R XER ONTAGUE REENWOOD YSOCKI 2011. . 04 Carn 2014. . ,M.F with ICHARDS 42: 2007. . (accessed ELTER 1995. . ri Rhos-y-felin Craig , . , . 1351 D 2010. – I H E G G D 01 ri hsyfln otSeo sthe is Saeson Pont Rhos-y-felin, Craig 2011. – D and quarry Menyn Carn Stonehenge: Beyond 2014. – G XER AGLES REEN OWLAND IBBARD ARVILL IXON ARVILL UTTON 324–38. tnhneproblem. Stonehenge http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/243214a0 eot nentoa eis43:7–8 Oxford: Archaeopress. 75–88. 403): series international Reports Europe Western of Neolithic & (ed.) Mordent Maddison C. M. Topping, P. Burgess, C. in Hill, Hobnob. Avebury Smith an Isobel of archaeologist: honour in papers culture: (ed.) material Pollard in J. Wylye, & River Cleal the R.M.J. of barrows long the and http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0261340900008882 Archaeologia http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00048225 Antiquity oiatsuc fteSoeeg rhyolitic ‘’. Stonehenge the of source dominant Magazine History Natural the Stonehenge. from Field, lithics of provenance and affinity http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00115340 1099–114. Wales. the south-west in of extraction Hills bluestone Preseli of date and origin the http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S000358150900002X xaain 2008. excavations 10.1016/B978-0-444-53447-7.00007-6 abig M) Elsevier. (MA): 75–93. Cambridge 15): Science Quaternary in (Developments look closer chronology—a and glaciations—extent (ed.) Hughes Ehlers, P.D. J. & in Gibbard P.L. Britain, Great in limits glaciation ..W G.J. ..&RE B R.E. & R.A. , .18.TeNoihcstlmnso Crickley on settlements Neolithic The 1988. P. , ..17.Pesoeervrgaesadthe and gravels river 1973. C.P. , ,B.&D.F rhsoi Britain Prehistoric ,T.C.&G.J.W ,T.C,P.M ,P.L.&C.D.C ..12.Asmmegaliths. Assam 1929. J.H. , .10.Rcn xaain tStonehenge. at excavations Recent 1902. W. , AINWRIGHT 6 1021–40. 86: rhelg nWales in Archaeology 8 37–105. 58: C IELD ARSHALL EVINS niut ulctosLd 2015 Ltd, Publications Antiquity niure Journal Antiquaries 02 tnhneremodelled. Stonehenge 2012. . ithr rhelgcland Archaeological Wiltshire 04 ila Cunnington William 2004. . nlsrsaddfne nthe in defences and Enclosures AINWRIGHT LARK Nature 00 h petrography, The 2010. . odn Routledge. London: . ,M.P 76.Salisbury: 47–69. : 01 Pleistocene 2011. . 0:1–15. 103: BiihArchaeological (British http://dx.doi.org/ 4:214–16. 243: ARKER ouet and Monuments 0 21–32. 50: 09 Stonehenge 2009. . Antiquity Quaternary Antiquity P 9 1–19. 89: EARSON 88: 11: &

Research Mike Parker Pearson et al.

IXER, R.A. & P. TURNER. 2006. A detailed RICHARDS,C.,J.BROWN,S.JONES,A.HALL & re-examination of the petrography of the Altar T. M UIR. 2013. Monumental risk: megalithic Stone and other non-sarsen sandstones from quarrying at Staneyhill and Vestra Fiold, Mainland, Stonehenge as a guide to their provenance. Wiltshire Orkney,inC.Richards(ed.)Building the great stone Archaeological and Natural History Magazine 99: circles of the North: 119–48. Oxford: 1–9. Windgather. KELLAWAY, G.A. 1971. Glaciation and the stones of SCHULTING, R.J. 2000. New AMS dates from the Stonehenge. Nature 232: 30–35. Lambourn long barrow and the question of the http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/233030a0 earliest Neolithic in southern England: repacking MARSHALL,P.,T.DARVILL,M.PARKER PEARSON & the Neolithic package. Oxford Journal of Archaeology G.J. WAINWRIGHT. 2012. Stonehenge, Amesbury, 19: 25–35. Wiltshire: chronological modelling. London: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-0092.00097 English Heritage Research Report 1/2012. THOMAS, H.H. 1923. The source of the stones of Available at: http://services.english-heritage.org.uk/ Stonehenge. Antiquaries Journal 3: 239–60. ResearchReportsPdfs/001_2012WEB.pdf (accessed http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003581500005096 28 August 2015). THOMAS, R.G., B.P.J. WILLIAMS, L.B. MORRISSEY, MCMILLAN, A.A., R.J.O. HAMBLIN &J.W.MERRITT. W.J. B ARCLAY &K.C.ALLEN. 2006. Enigma 2005. An overview of the lithostratigraphical variations: the stratigraphy, provenance, framework for the Quaternary and Neogene palaeoseismicity and depositional history of the deposits of Britain. British Geological Survey Lower Old Red Sandstone Cosheston Group, south Research Report RR/04/04. Pembrokeshire, Wales. Geological Journal 41: MERCER, R. 1999. The origins of warfare in the British 481–536. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/gj.1053 Isles, in J. Carman & A. Harding (ed.) Ancient THORPE, R.S., O. WILLIAMS-THORPE,D.G.JENKINS & warfare: archaeological perspectives: 143–56. Stroud: J.S. WATSON. 1991. The geological sources and Sutton. transport of the bluestones of Stonehenge, MERCER,R.&F.HEALEY. 2008. Hambledon Hill, Wiltshire, UK. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society Dorset, England: excavation and survey of a Neolithic 57: 103–57. monument complex and its surrounding landscape. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0079497X00004527 London: English Heritage. WEBLEY, D. 1976. How the west was won: prehistoric PARKER PEARSON, M. 2012. Stonehenge: exploring the land-use in the southern marches, in G.C. Boon & greatest mystery. London: Simon & J.M. Lewis (ed.) Welsh antiquity: 19–35. Cardiff: Schuster. NationalMuseumofWales. PARKER PEARSON,M.&RAMILISONINA. 1998. WHITTLE, A.W.R. 1994. Excavations at Millbarrow Stonehenge for the ancestors: the stones pass on the chambered , Winterbourne Monkton, north message. Antiquity 72: 308–26. Wiltshire. Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine 87: 1–53. PARKER PEARSON,M.,A.CHAMBERLAIN,M.JAY, P. M ARSHALL,J.POLLARD,C.RICHARDS, WHITTLE, A.W.R., A. BAYLISS &M.WYSOCKI. 2007. J. THOMAS,C.TILLEY &K.WELHAM. 2009. Who Once in a lifetime: the date of the Wayland’s wasburiedatStonehenge?Antiquity 83: 23–39. Smithy long barrow. Cambridge Archaeological http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00098069 Journal 17 (supplement): 103–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0959774307000194 PETREQUIN´ , P., A.-M. PETREQUIN´ ,M.ERRERA,J.JAIME RIVERON,M.BAILLY,E.GAUTHIER &G.ROSSI. WILLIAMS-THORPE,O.,C.P.GREEN &J.D.SCOURSE. 2008. Premiers episodes´ de la fabrication des 1997. The Stonehenge bluestones: discussion, in longues hachesˆ alpines: ramassage de galets ou choc B. Cunliffe & C. Renfrew (ed.) Science and thermique sur des blocs? Bulletin de la Soci´et´e Stonehenge: 315–18. London: British Academy & pr´ehistorique franc¸aise 105: 309–34. Oxford University Press. PITTS, M.W. 1982. On the road to Stonehenge: report WILLIAMS-THORPE,O.,M.C.JONES,P.J.POTTS & on the investigations beside the A344 in 1968, P. C . W EBB. 2006. Preseli dolerite bluestones: 1979 and 1980. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society -heads, Stonehenge monoliths, and outcrop 48: 75–132. sources. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 25: 29–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0079497X00008392 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ j.1468-0092.2006.00247.x – 2001. Hengeworld. London: .

Received: 9 January 2015; Accepted: 3 April 2015; Revised: 18 April 2015

C Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2015

1352 Copyright of Antiquity is the property of Cambridge University Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.