Connect with us

Science

New Evidence Confirms Humans Transported Stonehenge Bluestones

Editorial

Published

on

New research led by Aberystwyth University has confirmed that the enigmatic Newall boulder, a significant fragment associated with Stonehenge, was transported by Neolithic people rather than by glacial activity. This finding sheds light on the origins of the bluestones, which are crucial to the archaeological understanding of the site.

Stonehenge, located on Salisbury Plain in England, is famed for its towering stone structures, but the smaller blue-hued megaliths, known as bluestones, have sparked considerable debate among archaeologists. These stones, sourced from Craig Rhos-y-Felin in Wales, are located over 200 kilometers away from the monument. While some researchers have suggested that glacial ice could have carried the stones to their current location, others have maintained that deliberate human transport was responsible.

The Newall boulder, a hand-sized fragment excavated in 1924 during a dig led by Lt-Col Hawley, has been pivotal in this discussion. It was removed from the site by R.S. Newall, who retained 18 stones, initiating an ongoing investigation into the boulder’s origins. As a distinct piece of stone with a detailed excavation history, the Newall boulder has served as a test case for both theories regarding the transport of the bluestones.

In the study titled “The enigmatic ‘Newall boulder’ excavated at Stonehenge in 1924: New data and correcting the record,” published in the Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, researchers conducted extensive mineralogical, petrographic, and geochemical analyses on the boulder. Measuring 22 × 15 × 10 cm, the analyses revealed that the boulder is consistent with materials from the Rhyolite Group C, also found at Craig Rhos-y-Felin.

Further investigations showed that the Newall boulder’s bullet-shaped profile aligns with the tops of in situ rhyolite pillars at Craig Rhos-y-Felin, supporting the argument that it likely originated from the same site as other bluestones. Notably, no glacial striations were observed on the boulder, indicating that any surface abrasions were the result of weathering and not glacial transport.

Field studies across Salisbury Plain also reinforced these findings, revealing no glacial deposits or erratics—rocks carried by glaciers—within a 4-kilometer radius of Stonehenge. The absence of glacial movement signs in the area, alongside angular fragments near the monument showing evidence of human shaping, points to a clear conclusion regarding the Newall boulder’s transport.

Researchers concluded that the Newall boulder is a piece of Craig Rhos-y-Felin rhyolite, most likely broken from a monolith such as Stone 32d at Stonehenge. The combination of mineralogical and geochemical data strongly supports the hypothesis that Neolithic people were responsible for transporting the bluestones to the site.

By discrediting the glacial transport theory for the Newall boulder, this research strengthens the overall argument that all the bluestones at Stonehenge were brought there by ancient human efforts. This significant finding adds a new layer to our understanding of the site and the ingenuity of the people who built it.

The research was meticulously reviewed by experts in the field, ensuring its credibility and aligning with the rigorous standards of scientific inquiry. The implications of this study not only clarify the origins of the bluestones but also enrich the narrative surrounding one of the world’s most famous prehistoric monuments.

Our Editorial team doesn’t just report the news—we live it. Backed by years of frontline experience, we hunt down the facts, verify them to the letter, and deliver the stories that shape our world. Fueled by integrity and a keen eye for nuance, we tackle politics, culture, and technology with incisive analysis. When the headlines change by the minute, you can count on us to cut through the noise and serve you clarity on a silver platter.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © All rights reserved. This website offers general news and educational content for informational purposes only. While we strive for accuracy, we do not guarantee the completeness or reliability of the information provided. The content should not be considered professional advice of any kind. Readers are encouraged to verify facts and consult relevant experts when necessary. We are not responsible for any loss or inconvenience resulting from the use of the information on this site.