Did Humans Move Stonehenge Bluestones? Boulder Discovery Raises Doubts

A century-old debate over the origins of Stonehenge’s iconic bluestones has been reignited by the recent re-examination of a small, seemingly unremarkable stone unearthed during excavations at the ancient site back in 1924.¹ 

This unassuming rock, known as the Newall Boulder, may hold the key to unlocking a mystery that has baffled archaeologists and historians for generations: Did humans truly transport these massive stones from Wales, or could a far more natural force be responsible?

The Newall Boulder

Geomorphologist Brian John argues that the Newall Boulder, a small, unassuming stone, displays clear signs of glacial transport and shaping. This evidence suggests that ice, not humans, may have been responsible for moving Stonehenge’s massive megaliths.

In his paper, published in the open-access E&G Quaternary Science Journal, John writes:

“The simplest explanation of the presence of the bluestones at Stonehenge is that they are glacial erratics from the west, emplaced by ice at some site still to be discovered, on or near Salisbury Plain, where they were later collected up and used by the builders of the stone monument.”

This, he argues, suggests that the massive bluestones, each weighing several tons, might not have been laboriously hauled over 200 kilometers by Neolithic people, as widely believed, but were instead delivered to the Stonehenge site by the relentless forces of ice.

Newall Boulder Analysis

To unravel the Newall Boulder’s history at Stonehenge, John conducted a detailed visual analysis, meticulously examining its shape, facets, and surface features. 

The boulder, measuring about 9 x 6 x 4 inches, exhibits a distinctive bullet-like shape with a pointed end and a blunt end. It boasts at least five major facets and several smaller ones, with abraded surfaces and edges. 

Intriguingly, there are also fracture scars, faint scratches, and what appear to be crescentic gouges — all potential indicators of glacial transport and erosion.

Evidence of Human Modification

John also examined evidence of human modification, including apparent percussion scars from a prehistoric attempt to shape the boulder into a tool, possibly an axe. More recent damage from geological sampling was also evident. 

To establish the boulder’s provenance, John compared its petrology and geochemistry to potential source rocks in Wales.

Glacial Transport Indicators

The cumulative evidence from the Newall Boulder’s shape and surface features makes a compelling case for glacial transport to Stonehenge. Its bullet-like morphology with a distinct “stoss” (upstream) and “lee” (downstream) end is classic for clasts (rock fragments) that have been subglacially dragged, rolled, and lodged in flowing ice. 

The facets, striations, and chatter marks are also highly consistent with the boulder having been scraped and crushed at the base of a glacier.

Weathering Rind & Human Interaction

Curiously, the boulder has a weathering rind up to 0.2 inches thick on its upper surface but fresh, unweathered facets on its flanks and underside. This suggests it once lay partially buried for an extended period, with its top exposed to the elements. 

Subsequent human modification left percussion scars on this weathered surface, hinting that Stonehenge’s builders found the boulder as a loose, pre-weathered erratic at the site—not as freshly quarried stone.

Stonehenge Bluestones

Six of the Stonehenge bluestones belong to the bluestone circle in the northeast quadrant of the stone monument. They are overlooked by the larger sarsens (silicified sandstone blocks) of the outer circle.

For the most part, the bluestones are not elegant pillars but heavily abraded and weathered erratic boulders and slabs.

Lack of Precedent for Long-Distance Megalith Transport

Despite the prevailing belief that Neolithic people transported the bluestones to Stonehenge, John cites numerous studies showing the numerous problems with this theory. 

First and foremost, there is no evidence from any other British Neolithic site of megaliths being moved such vast distances. In fact, the builders of other monuments consistently used whatever large stones were locally available.

Geological Diversity Challenges Deliberate Selection

If Stonehenge’s stones were specifically selected and brought from Wales, it’s odd that they come from at least 30 different rock sources—a geological diversity more consistent with the random “sampling” of glacial action than deliberate human choice.

The sheer variety of stone types at Stonehenge also argues against the idea of a special connection to Wales or the “sacredness” of the bluestones, as does the lack of any evidence that these particular rocks were prized or venerated in their homeland. 

If acquiring the bluestones was a major driver of Stonehenge’s construction, it’s puzzling that no Neolithic quarries, stone-moving equipment, or infrastructure have been found.

Missing Technological Evidence

Experimental archaeology has also highlighted the immense practical challenges of transporting multi-ton monoliths across the boggy, densely forested Neolithic landscape using only Stone Age technology.

There is also no evidence of the kind of sophisticated stone-moving culture that should have existed if Neolithic Britons had undertaken such a massive feat of megalith transport.

The skill, planning, and organization needed to move Stonehenge’s monoliths are curiously absent from the archaeological record before and after the monument’s construction. If the builders had such advanced capabilities, why did they not use them at other sites or pass them down to their descendants?

Takeaways

The study suggests that the monument’s location may have been chosen precisely because of the convenient scattering of giant boulders, not the other way around.

And it would overturn the orthodox archaeological narrative of long-distance human transport in favor of a simpler story of our ancestors opportunistically making use of an “erratic quarry” created by nature.

Source:

1. E&G Quaternary Science Journal

Read Next

In a turn of events, a similar enigmatic stone structure has been discovered beneath the waters of a lake in the United States. Astonishingly, this submerged monument is estimated to be approximately 5,000 years older than its British counterpart, dating back an astounding 10,000 years.

Don’t Miss: Ancient ‘Stonehenge’ Discovered in U.S. Lake, Potentially 5,000 Years Older Than Britain’s