巨石阵的祭坛石是否来自奥克尼?调查奥克尼老红砂岩和新石器时代圆形纪念碑的矿物学和地球化学特征

IF 1.5 2区 历史学 N/A ARCHAEOLOGY Journal of Archaeological Science-Reports Pub Date : 2024-08-30 DOI:10.1016/j.jasrep.2024.104738
{"title":"巨石阵的祭坛石是否来自奥克尼?调查奥克尼老红砂岩和新石器时代圆形纪念碑的矿物学和地球化学特征","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.jasrep.2024.104738","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Recent petrological, mineralogical and geochemical investigations of the Stonehenge Altar Stone have negated its source in the Old Red Sandstone (ORS) Anglo-Welsh Basin. Further, it has been suggested that it is time to look wider, across northern Britain and Scotland, especially in areas where geological and geochemical evidence concur, and there is evidence of Neolithic communities and their monuments. In this context the islands of Orkney, with its rich Neolithic archaeology, are an obvious area worthy of investigation. The same techniques applied to investigations of the Altar Stone and ORS sequences in southern Britain have been applied to two major Neolithic monuments on Mainland Orkney, namely the Stones of Stenness and the Ring of Brodgar. In addition, field samples of ORS lithologies from the main stratigraphic horizons on Mainland Orkney have been investigated.</p><p>Portable XRF analyses of the five exposed stones at the Stones of Stenness and seven of the exposed stones at the Ring of Brodgar show a wide range of compositions, having similar compositions to field samples analysed from both the Lower and Upper Stromness Flagstone formations, with the stones at Stenness appearing to have been sourced from the Upper Stromness Flagstone Formation while the Ring of Brodgar stones possibly being sourced from both formations. Examination of the mineralogy of ORS field samples and the Stonehenge Altar Stone, using a combination of X-ray diffraction, microscopy, Raman spectroscopy and automated SEM-EDS shows there to be no match between the Orkney samples and the Altar Stone. Only two samples from Orkney showed the presence of baryte, a characteristic mineral of the Altar Stone. Another key discriminant is the presence of abundant detrital K-feldspar in all of the Orkney field samples, a mineral which has only very low abundance in the Altar Stone. In addition, the regularly interstratified dioctahedral/dioctahedral smectite mineral tosudite is present in the clay mineral assemblage of the Altar Stone, but not detected in the Orkney samples.</p><p>It is concluded that the Altar Stone was not sourced from Mainland Orkney, despite considerable evidence for long-distance communications between Orkney and Stonehenge around 3000/2900 BCE.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48150,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Archaeological Science-Reports","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X24003663/pdfft?md5=8f8b0d7100f50a97dd54fc4f43968da8&pid=1-s2.0-S2352409X24003663-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Was the Stonehenge Altar Stone from Orkney? Investigating the mineralogy and geochemistry of Orcadian Old Red sandstones and Neolithic circle monuments\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jasrep.2024.104738\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Recent petrological, mineralogical and geochemical investigations of the Stonehenge Altar Stone have negated its source in the Old Red Sandstone (ORS) Anglo-Welsh Basin. Further, it has been suggested that it is time to look wider, across northern Britain and Scotland, especially in areas where geological and geochemical evidence concur, and there is evidence of Neolithic communities and their monuments. In this context the islands of Orkney, with its rich Neolithic archaeology, are an obvious area worthy of investigation. The same techniques applied to investigations of the Altar Stone and ORS sequences in southern Britain have been applied to two major Neolithic monuments on Mainland Orkney, namely the Stones of Stenness and the Ring of Brodgar. In addition, field samples of ORS lithologies from the main stratigraphic horizons on Mainland Orkney have been investigated.</p><p>Portable XRF analyses of the five exposed stones at the Stones of Stenness and seven of the exposed stones at the Ring of Brodgar show a wide range of compositions, having similar compositions to field samples analysed from both the Lower and Upper Stromness Flagstone formations, with the stones at Stenness appearing to have been sourced from the Upper Stromness Flagstone Formation while the Ring of Brodgar stones possibly being sourced from both formations. Examination of the mineralogy of ORS field samples and the Stonehenge Altar Stone, using a combination of X-ray diffraction, microscopy, Raman spectroscopy and automated SEM-EDS shows there to be no match between the Orkney samples and the Altar Stone. Only two samples from Orkney showed the presence of baryte, a characteristic mineral of the Altar Stone. Another key discriminant is the presence of abundant detrital K-feldspar in all of the Orkney field samples, a mineral which has only very low abundance in the Altar Stone. In addition, the regularly interstratified dioctahedral/dioctahedral smectite mineral tosudite is present in the clay mineral assemblage of the Altar Stone, but not detected in the Orkney samples.</p><p>It is concluded that the Altar Stone was not sourced from Mainland Orkney, despite considerable evidence for long-distance communications between Orkney and Stonehenge around 3000/2900 BCE.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48150,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Archaeological Science-Reports\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X24003663/pdfft?md5=8f8b0d7100f50a97dd54fc4f43968da8&pid=1-s2.0-S2352409X24003663-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Archaeological Science-Reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X24003663\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"N/A\",\"JCRName\":\"ARCHAEOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Archaeological Science-Reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X24003663","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"N/A","JCRName":"ARCHAEOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

最近对巨石阵祭坛石进行的岩石学、矿物学和地球化学调查否定了其来源于盎格鲁-威尔士盆地的老红砂岩(ORS)。此外,还有人建议,现在应该把目光放得更远,放眼整个不列颠北部和苏格兰,特别是那些地质学和地球化学证据一致的地区,那里有新石器时代族群及其遗迹的证据。在这种情况下,拥有丰富的新石器时代考古资料的奥克尼群岛显然是一个值得研究的地区。对英国南部祭坛石和 ORS 序列的调查所采用的技术同样适用于奥克尼大陆的两个主要新石器时代遗迹,即斯滕内斯石和布罗德加环。此外,还对奥克尼大陆主要地层中的 ORS 岩石进行了实地取样调查。对斯滕内斯之石的五块裸露石头和布洛德加之环的七块裸露石头进行的便携式 XRF 分析表明,这些石头的成分范围很广,与分析的下斯特罗姆内斯旗石地层和上斯特罗姆内斯旗石地层的野外样本的成分相似,斯滕内斯之石似乎来自上斯特罗姆内斯旗石地层,而布洛德加之环的石头可能来自这两个地层。通过结合使用 X 射线衍射、显微镜、拉曼光谱和自动扫描电子显微镜,对奥克尼野外样本和巨石阵祭坛石的矿物学进行了研究,结果表明奥克尼样本和祭坛石之间并不匹配。只有两个奥克尼样本显示出重晶石的存在,而重晶石是祭坛石的特征矿物。另一个关键的判别因素是奥克尼的所有实地样本中都含有丰富的碎屑长石,而这种矿物在祭坛石中的含量非常低。此外,在祭坛石的粘土矿物组合中还发现了规则层间化的二八面体/二八面体辉石矿物托苏铁,但在奥克尼的样本中却没有检测到。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Was the Stonehenge Altar Stone from Orkney? Investigating the mineralogy and geochemistry of Orcadian Old Red sandstones and Neolithic circle monuments

Recent petrological, mineralogical and geochemical investigations of the Stonehenge Altar Stone have negated its source in the Old Red Sandstone (ORS) Anglo-Welsh Basin. Further, it has been suggested that it is time to look wider, across northern Britain and Scotland, especially in areas where geological and geochemical evidence concur, and there is evidence of Neolithic communities and their monuments. In this context the islands of Orkney, with its rich Neolithic archaeology, are an obvious area worthy of investigation. The same techniques applied to investigations of the Altar Stone and ORS sequences in southern Britain have been applied to two major Neolithic monuments on Mainland Orkney, namely the Stones of Stenness and the Ring of Brodgar. In addition, field samples of ORS lithologies from the main stratigraphic horizons on Mainland Orkney have been investigated.

Portable XRF analyses of the five exposed stones at the Stones of Stenness and seven of the exposed stones at the Ring of Brodgar show a wide range of compositions, having similar compositions to field samples analysed from both the Lower and Upper Stromness Flagstone formations, with the stones at Stenness appearing to have been sourced from the Upper Stromness Flagstone Formation while the Ring of Brodgar stones possibly being sourced from both formations. Examination of the mineralogy of ORS field samples and the Stonehenge Altar Stone, using a combination of X-ray diffraction, microscopy, Raman spectroscopy and automated SEM-EDS shows there to be no match between the Orkney samples and the Altar Stone. Only two samples from Orkney showed the presence of baryte, a characteristic mineral of the Altar Stone. Another key discriminant is the presence of abundant detrital K-feldspar in all of the Orkney field samples, a mineral which has only very low abundance in the Altar Stone. In addition, the regularly interstratified dioctahedral/dioctahedral smectite mineral tosudite is present in the clay mineral assemblage of the Altar Stone, but not detected in the Orkney samples.

It is concluded that the Altar Stone was not sourced from Mainland Orkney, despite considerable evidence for long-distance communications between Orkney and Stonehenge around 3000/2900 BCE.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
12.50%
发文量
405
期刊介绍: Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports is aimed at archaeologists and scientists engaged with the application of scientific techniques and methodologies to all areas of archaeology. The journal focuses on the results of the application of scientific methods to archaeological problems and debates. It will provide a forum for reviews and scientific debate of issues in scientific archaeology and their impact in the wider subject. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports will publish papers of excellent archaeological science, with regional or wider interest. This will include case studies, reviews and short papers where an established scientific technique sheds light on archaeological questions and debates.
期刊最新文献
The precise and accurate dating of medieval bridge remains at Ancrum, Scottish Borders, using stable isotope dendrochronology Challenging the Atacama desert: Agronomic and water conditions for pre-Hispanic maize agriculture in hyper arid environments inferred by δ18O isotopes Scientific analysis on decorative sheet metals of the Spring and Autumn period unearthed from Zaoshulin cemetery, Hubei, China In the search for the origin of the barley at Norse farms in Greenland The impact of the volcanic double event in AD 536 and AD 539/540 on tree-ring growth and felling activity in Danish oak trees
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1