Mike Pitts Profile picture
15 Feb, 11 tweets, 4 min read
A thread on the new Welsh stone circle and #Stonehenge.

What is at Stonehenge today can inform the theory that the original monument in Wiltshire was a “second-hand” Welsh ring.

How does it stand up?
All known stones at Waun Mawn (4 megaliths & 1 flake) are unspotted dolerite. This is rare at Stonehenge: currently 3/30 dolerite megaliths are unspotted – 7.3% of all bluestones. If we infer 35 missing stones, we have a total of 6 unspotted dolerite stones (7.3% of 35 = 2.5)
Actual figure could be lower, as dolerite stones appear to have survived better than non-dolerite (guesstimate 3/4 megaliths are dolerite, but only 1/4 buried fragments) so the current pattern may not be representative of the original monument. But let’s say 6 megaliths
Parker Pearson et al (Antiquity 2021) say “Most of the stoneholes [at Waun Mawn] comprised shallow pits (0.80–1.20m in diameter × 0.30–0.50m deep).” How does that compare to stone pits at Stonehenge?

cambridge.org/core/journals/…
Reviving Hawley’s original 1920s case that the Aubrey Holes he excavated at Stonehenge held the site’s first megaliths, Parker Pearson & colleagues (Antiquity 2009) showed that these pits had similar dimensions to known bluestone pits

cambridge.org/core/journals/…
I redrew their diagram for British Archaeology (Mar/Apr 2016), where you can see how Aubrey Holes are similar to known Stonehenge stoneholes (Bluestones 3iv & Q/R Holes), but different from known postholes
So if the Welsh stones came to Stonehenge around 3000BC, they would have been placed in Aubrey Holes, part of the first identified structures at the site. However, we can see that the described dimensions of Waun Mawn pits (blue rectangle) are significantly smaller.
Where does this leave second-hand circle theory? Not strong
1. pits at the two sites are of different sizes
2. 4 stones remain in Wales, guess 25 missing. If surviving stones are representative, estimate 6 stones of the right type at Stonehenge. Six of c 30 is not a Welsh circle
And 3. Even if all 25 Welsh stones went to Stonehenge, that is less than half the number needed to put a stone in all 56 Aubrey Holes.

And here’s the twist...
Most of this is recognised by Parker Pearson et al (Antiquity 2021), who ask "whether multiple monuments in Wales contributed monoliths to Stonehenge and Bluestonehenge”? The archaeologists themselves do not argue for a “second-hand” Welsh circle
So headlines such as "England’s Stonehenge was erected in Wales first (sciencemag.org/news/2021/02/e…) are a bit premature.

Still, a great find

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Mike Pitts

Mike Pitts Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @pittsmike

13 Feb
I’ve just seen the new BBC #Stonehenge film. To those archaeologists upset by The Dig (a movie drama) I say: watch this (a documentary). Some lovely film, & great to see dig sequences (congrats Ian Potts, Fiona Scott & colleagues). And the new stone circle is a great discovery...
Drive of MPP & colleagues to achieve that is v impressive. The discovery feeds into a growing picture of links between the Preseli and Stonehenge areas in prehistory. Sledge experiment was fun. Fascinating stuff, and more could be said. So why all the guff, BBC?
It doesn't make Stonehenge second-hand: c 25 stones (+ 4 left behind) does not make a ring of 56 stones in Wiltshire. That those 25 went to Stonehenge is entirely hypothetical. OSL "perfect" date of c 3300BC? Actual OSL = 3530±330.
Read 4 tweets
12 Nov 20
Here from my quick reading is a summary of some key points from the #Stonehenge tunnel consent (long thread coming up!). Whatever your views it's a momentous decision
…structure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/projects/south… Image
Examining Authority recommended in Jan 2020 that Secretary of State for Transport withhold consent. If SoS decided otherwise, ExA recommended a form of consent

SoS sees clear need with benefits that weigh significantly in their favour

Can be challenged only by judicial review
• over 30 years of acute congestion problems on part of Strategic Road Network

• existing traffic problem has not been exaggerated

• would help reduce collisions & casualties

• important benefits for communities suffering from rat running
Read 20 tweets
10 Aug 20
There’s much confusion in these comments, and rather than respond to each one I think it’s more helpful if I address it all in a new thread. What’s happening in the #Stonehenge World Heritage Site is complex, has a long history and has no easy solutions. Sorry for the length 🙂
No one who cares about Stonehenge would wish roadworks anywhere near it. Anyone who understands the Stonehenge landscape knows that something has to change. The tunnel proposal is the least damaging option, on the table or in anyone's imaginations. There are real benefits.
An essential rule of thumb is that if someone says there’s a simple answer, they are missing the picture. The Stonehenge Alliance thinks so. They are wrong, & are misleading the public, causing misdirected anger especially from people unable to engage from overseas
Read 20 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!