The enigmatic ‘Newall boulder’ excavated at Stonehenge in 1924: New data and correcting the record
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some authors have questioned whether the bluestone megaliths present at the Stonehenge Neolithic stone circle were transported from their source area in north Pembrokeshire, over 200 km to the west, by ice, rather than humans. There is scant evidence for either hypothesis and much debate on the matter since the 1990s has involved the so-called ‘Newall boulder’, a stone collected in 1924 by Lt-Col Hawley. Initial studies considered the boulder to be a glacial erratic and hence supported the ice transport hypothesis. More recent work discounted this interpretation and proposed that the boulder was a piece of rhyolite debitage, itself derived from a broken-up monolith, most likely Stone 32d, originally sourced from Craig Rhos-y-Felin, in north Pembrokeshire although this has been challenged in a recent study. This paper aims to clarify the record regarding previous studies on the Newall boulder and samples taken from it for analysis and to correct errors of fact introduced into the current literature. Petrographic, automated SEM-EDS analysis and portable XRF investigation (including new analyses) relating to the characteristics and composition of the Newall boulder are presented, supporting (a) the interpretation that its original source was Craig Rhos-y-Felin, in north Pembrokeshire and (b) that there is no evidence to support an interpretation that it is a glacial erratic. In addition, it is shown that the overall non-sarsen lithological assemblage at Stonehenge is restricted, supporting derivation by human activity from a limited number of sites, predominantly from west Wales, but also NE Scotland, and not derived from glacial erratics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".