Geologists pinpoint near exact source of some of Stonehenge's stones

Stonehenge. Image: Wikipedia.

( -- Robert Ixer and Richard Bevins, British geologists, after nine months of tedious research, have pinpointed the place from which some of the stones that make up Stonehenge were quarried. The stones in question, the so-named bluestones, the smaller kind used in the inner circle at Stonehenge, came from a sixty five meter long outcropping called Craig Rhos-y-Felin, which is close to the town of Pont Saeson in the north part of Pembrokeshire, in Wales; a site some one hundred and sixty miles from Stonehenge. The question now is, did the early Neolithic people who built Stonehenge bring them to the site over 5000 years ago, or was it due to natural causes, such as glacial movement?

That question may soon be answered as further research is conducted at the quarry site. If evidence can be found of human quarrying, little doubt will remain that the huge, four tonne stones were either loaded onto barges and sent around St. David's Head or carted directly across the mountainous terrain that sits between Stonehenge and the quarry site.

The researchers found the quarry site by a collecting and analyzing rocks in Pembrokeshire, looking for a match with the rhyolite debitage rocks at Stonehenge. When close matches were found, they took a closer look using petrography, a means for comparing . They kept up their search till they found specimens that were 99% identical to those at Stonehenge, a sure sign that the two were from the same place. The two believe their findings mean they have pinpointed the place where the Stonehenge rocks came from to within seventy meters.

News of the find has been greeted with excitement the world over - such is the connection people feel with the mystery that is , the circular monument believed to have been built from the period 3000 BC to 1600 BC by early people for an unknown reason. The outer bigger stones, called sarsens, are believed by most and historians to have been hauled to the site some two hundred years after the bluestones, and came from a much closer place; somewhere in Marlborough Downs, just twenty miles to the north.

If it can be proven that the rocks were in fact quarried by people, likely many other scientists will join in the debate that will no doubt ensue in attempting to explain how such a primitive people could have achieved such a feat as transporting such big and heavy such a great distance, and why.

Explore further

Prehistoric site found near UK's Stonehenge

© 2011

Citation: Geologists pinpoint near exact source of some of Stonehenge's stones (2011, December 20) retrieved 15 September 2019 from
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

Feedback to editors

User comments

Dec 20, 2011
In the bible in 1 Kings chapters 5 and 7, there is a description of what I believe to be the original use of the baalbek stones in Lebanon.

In 7,9 and 7, 10, the stones are said to have been "sawed" and of measures of 8 cubits and 10 cubits. Now there were two different versions of the "cubit" in the ancient world, one being about 18 to 21 inches, and the other being about 3ft.

12 to 15 feet is similar in size to the baalbek stones.

Now, contrary to what "scholars" claim on an article related to the baalbek stones, The Bible actually does tell you that Solomon ended up building a "House" for each of his wives "gods" as well, which means Solomon could well have built the house of Baal in addition to Yahweh. See 1 Kings chapter 11, which the incompetent scholars forgot to read.

so I said all that to point out that we have a Biblical text telling us how stones this big, an much bigger, are quaried and moved. Honestly, I had never quite noticed the detail of the description..

Dec 20, 2011
If you google "balbek stones" you'll get immediataly 4 pictures showing the stones, and judging by the humans in the photos, you can get a good estimate of the height of the stones, and 12 to 15 feet is perfect.

The text tells you that they were cut with "saws", implying gigantic, carbon-tipped circular saws spun by pully, much like the "Ancient Aliens" episode claimed must have been done in Egypt at the pyramids.

So the point is, the Bible tells you how these stones were CUT, which agrees with modern theory and conjecture that a machine tool must have been involved in cutting these megalithic stones.

It doesn't solve the mystery of how anyone in the ancient world could transport them so far as in the case of all the monuments.

It also doesn't solve the mystery of inside recess cuts on some stones which cannot be replicated even in the modern world, but that is another issue.

Rafts is a tough sell in nearly all cases, IMO...

Dec 20, 2011
So it's not the same monument, not the same people, and not in the same location, obviously, but clearly they explained how to CUT the stones.

I don't have any idea how on earth they moved the stones, nor how the horizontal cuts could have been made, unless they had huge horizontal saws as well...

Probably smarter than our engineers today. Sad really...

Dec 20, 2011
those comments appear to have little connection with Stonehenge and the other Neolithic megalithic monuments in North-West Europe

Dec 20, 2011
18" - 21" is NBA player sized. My unabridged Hebrew dictionary defines an "amah" as the distance between the elbow and the finger tips and the elbow, so as you say 12 to 15'

Understanding a building specification agreed between Solomon and his general contractor, Hiram (2300 years ago?) is an interesting challenge. Apparently the larger stones, described as expensive, were used for the foundation. (1 Kings 7-9). Sounds like there could be some sound engineering reason for this. Could not find the reference to sawing the stone in the original Hebrew old testament in the verses you mentioned. I understand "even gazit" to be stone dimensioned with a chisel -- but would happily defer to an experienced archaeologist or stone mason.

Fascinating stuff.

Dec 20, 2011
those comments appear to have little connection with Stonehenge and the other Neolithic megalithic monuments in North-West Europe

Well, the connection being two things:

1, There is the question in some cases of who did it or whether it was even humans.

2, the Question of how were they cut, and more importantly how were they moved.

All megalithic structures have this problem, since apparently we can't figure out how to build them even today with modern technology.

The more I read about "Heliopolis" at baalbek, the more convinced I am that it is in fact Solomon's original temple. In Ezekiel and Jeremiah, it even tells you that the original temple priesthood was infiltrated by Sun worshippers (Ez. 8,16).

So it's consistent with the notion that each cult or civilization which took over the site simply replaced the previous during different historical periods of occupation, and then lied about it's origins. the lions also give it away..

Dec 20, 2011
The temple in the Bible was also allegedly repaired several times between Solomon and it's ultimate destruction (reportedly by Babylon,) and then re-built again, etc. It's possible the first temple was never in Jerusalem to begin with, and the people "re-built" the replacements in the wrong spot. After all, they were controlled by Babylon for several generations between all those events.

The point I'm getting at, even though it's not the same monument, is there most certainly is an explanation to it all, and I'm personally extremely fascinated by these monuments.

Just because its on the other side of a continent doesn't mean the same principles and techniques weren't involved in moving them.

The verb and noun rendered "sawed" and "saws" are from:




At least as it's spelled in Vines.

It is rendered as "saw" in other contexts as well, although it is also given as "axe" on one or two occasions, so it may be a matter of translational preference.

Dec 20, 2011
And now we need to find where they got the wood for the roof. Only fools would do all that work putting immense stones and lintels in a circle, and more stone circles inside that probably supported wooden columns at one time, if they did not want to put a roof over it to protect themselves from the rain/cold/snow/sleet/wind/whatever!! All other explanations are tomfoolery; and to fool really good, one has to fool oneself first. The large stones on the outside are to absorb the thrusting forces from the rafters on the conical roof that would act to transfer vertical loads to the surrounding large heavy base. Since these loads are resisted only by the supports and ultimately by the end support, a multivariable calculus in three dimensional solution can be found to give this wall thrust. Have the formula if you want. Given prehistoric peoples' propensity for large and ungainly construction, trust me THAT roof would have been very heavy; and the outer stones reflect that.

Dec 20, 2011
Further evidence of an ancient roof could be the missing or otherwise pushed off lintels, signifying a mistake made in roof construction that may have led to an prehistoric tragedy when that roof pushed those lintel stones off or otherwise 'out of the way' before collapsing. Maybe the initial roof did this...the builders then made heavier the outer stones and made lighter the roof or used a narrower conical angle and/or/both a lighter roof construction.......test a)fail...rinse lather repeat or b)success....use it till it falls in...rebuild. One can see this as stones always fell outward from the center.

Dec 20, 2011
To Nanobanano: The cutting can be explained simply. It's just a matter of how you cut it. First start with a ledge type position of the rock, whether it be by digging or just using a cliff ledge. Then you use your cutting tool to cut/carve the bottom of the stone, then afterwards cut each of the 3 sides that aren't the ledge. What is more intriguing and the real mystery to me is the moving of the stones and placing them upright, like in easter island.

Dec 20, 2011
Vendicar, they probably cast their cutting tools in those carvings in the floor of that recently discovered room in Jerusalem.

Beware! Any rock you cut into may contain miniature intelligent life.
...the "rock" may be the home of very small beings....One has to wonder what could possibly have motivated the NASA scientists to destroy the glassy covering on this rock, and thereby probably killing the creatures that lived inside. Perhaps they should have created a set of laws or Prime Directives to adhere to in the eventuality of coming across possible living Beings on Mars, no matter what type of residence the Beings are in OR THE SIZE OF THE BEINGS, in order to preserve life on another world, rather than allowing the Rover to move about like a bull in a china shop.

Dec 20, 2011
It also appears that at least one of the tools on the Spirit's arm has cut open the little pie-shaped creature that is within the porthole-like round object on the rock. The creature has a face with 2 eyes, a possible nose and a mouth. It is apparently dead. It is hard to say whether or not the cutting open of the creature can be counted as murder of an alien since it is the Mars Rover that is the alien and not the creature who is on its home planet. It is most likely a case of accidental death since how could the Rover know that it was cutting into a living Being who was on its own planet. The Rover has to be held blameless.
But, at the same time, the scientists who guided the Rover's actions had to have seen the Being and should have stopped the killing at once before the Being could be hurt. Unfortunately, the creature appears to have died in the porthole. I consider it a very bad start for Mars exploration and a terrible shame and waste of a life.

Dec 20, 2011
Perhaps they didn't float each Blue-stone *on* a barge, but *under* a raft. Given the generous tidal ranges there, they could readily drag a sledded stone down the beach then, a few hours later, float a raft over it and attach the bindings before paddling off...

Dec 21, 2011
I find it interesting that three of the Libertarians we have here RyggTard, OmaTard and Spirochete all clearly are suffering from a significant psychiatric illness, as the quotes above from Spirochete's Blog clearly show in his case.

Here is someone that Spirochete finds a reliable source of information...


Did or HuffintonPost tell you that was Fox News? LOL

Dec 21, 2011
Nice projection Noumenon. Pirouette has quoted Alex Jones directly as a reliable source of information. Your bias is showing.

Dec 21, 2011
So conceited of us to think ancient people were morons. Ancient civilizations were very dispersed and some of them were quite capable. For instance some ancient island-bound greek city had flushing toilets.
What really is astonishing is the fact that due to the precedence of religion and tradition, for millenia, some of that knowledge was completely forgotten or even censored - Erathosthenes comes to mind.
Yet, here we are again in our smarty pants culture, rejecting the idea that our ancestors could have been nearly as smart as we are, repeating the pattern.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more