Antler used to dig the Ditch

Sample: submitted by R Atkinson in 1966

Material: antler Cervus elaphus

Initial comment: from the primary silt of the Ditch near the western terminal.

Calibrated date range: 2920-2460 cal BC (95% confidence)

Archaeological comment (R Atkinson): the sample dates the construction of the Bank and Ditch, and by inference the Aubrey Holes which are concentric with them.

AML comment: this sample was measured in the mid-1960s when the preparation of bone and antler samples was a vexed issue. First the outer surface was abraded, and the inner material selected for dating. Mineral matter was then removed with hydrochloric acid after crushing the bone or antler (Berger et al 1964). The residual organic material was dated by gas proportional counting. Although this treatment would have removed the carbonates introduced by the chalk environment, the humic acids, which are almost insoluable in acid but are mobile in the alkaline environment of the Monument (c pH 8.5 in the ditches) would have remained in the organic residue which was dated (Longin 1970; 1971). This humic acid contamination may have made the result significantly too recent.

References: Atkinson 1967; Buckley et al 1968

Sample: S54.810, context 3899, submitted by M Allen on 11 March 1994

Material: animal bone, Bos, scapula (D Serjeantson)

Initial comment: from the upper (secondary) fill of the main Ditch, west of the main entrance (C42).

Objectives: to determine how long it took for the Ditch to silt up, and whether this phase of activity overlapped with the stone settings of phase 3.

Calibrated date range: 2660-2400 cal BC (95% confidence)

Archaeological comment (M Allen): the extra archive of the 1954 excavations which became available after the submission shows that this piece came from rabbit disturbance.

Residual result from the Sarsen Circle

Sample: S64.41, context 3547, submitted by M Allen on 11 March 1994

Material: animal bone, long bone fragment (D Serjeantson)

Initial comment: from stonehole 27 of the Sarsen Circle, noted as from among the packing stones.

Objectives: to determine the chronological order of the settings within phase 3, and to determine the length of this phase and its chronological relationship with phase 2.

Calibrated date range: 4360-3990 cal BC (95% confidence)

Archaeological comment (M Allen): this earlier Neolithic date was surprising because there is virtually no other evidence in the Stonehenge environs for activity at this time. The sample must have been residual in its context.

Rejected Results from the Bluestone Settings

Sample: S64.49, context 3813, submitted by M Allen on 11 March 1994

Material: animal bone, immature pig humerus (D Serjeantson)

Initial comment: from a Q Hole; noted as `in fill near top of fill'. These holes were backfilled after the bluestones were removed, and so the sample is associated with their backfilling. Although the specific Q Hole from which this sample came cannot be identified, Prof. Atkinson's attribution should be trusted.

Objectives: to determine the chronological order of the settings within phase 3, and to determine the length of this phase and its chronological relationship with phase 2.

Calibrated date range: 2460-2040 cal BC (95% confidence)

Archaeological comment (M Allen): if the stratigraphic information that the Q Holes must be earlier than the Sarsen Circle and the Bluestone Circle is included in the mathematical model of phase 3, then the model is statistically inconsistent at more than 95% confidence. Thus either this result is anomalous or the three dates from the Sarsen Circle and Bluestone Circle are all from residual material. Re-examination of the archive did not produce any further information relating to the context of this sample, and so we suggest that the dated item may in fact have come from a feature which was wrongly described as a Q Hole by Prof. Atkinson.

AML comment: although this result appears not to relate to the Q Holes, there is nothing to suggest that the result is scientifically anomalous, consequently it can be regarded as a reliable determination on a (unprovenanced) pig humerus.

Sample: 556.47.2, submitted by R Atkinson in 1967

Material: antler

Initial comment: from feature 556.47.2, to the north of stonehole 16, which is an incomplete R Hole.

Calibrated date range: 2140-1750 cal BC (95% confidence)

AML comment:this sample was measured in the mid-1960s when the preparation of bone and antler samples was a vexed issue. First the outer surface was abraded, and the inner material selected for dating. Mineral matter was then removed with hydrochloric acid after crushing the bone or antler (Berger et al 1964). The residual organic material was dated by gas proportional counting. Although this treatment would have removed the carbonates introduced by the chalk environment, the humic acids, which are almost insoluable in acid but are mobile in the alkaline environment of the Monument (c pH 8.5 in the ditches) would have remained in the organic residue which was dated (Longin 1970; 1971). This humic acid contamination has made the result significantly too recent.

References: Atkinson 1967

Rejected Results from the Avenue

Sample: submitted by G Smith in 1973

Material: antler, Cervus elaphus

Initial comment: from the lower layer of the northern ditch 55C(5) at the east end of the avenue ditch near the Amesbury terminal.

Calibrated date range: 1690-820 cal BC (95% confidence)

Laboratory comment (R Burleigh): `Smith's sample...was rather a poor specimen and yielded little collagen and I think may have been contaminated by humic material to some extent though we have, of course, tried to remove this'(R Burleigh to R Atkinson 20/6/1974).

AML comment: The humic acid contamination has made this result significantly too recent.

References: Burleigh and Hewson 1979, 341

Sample: submitted by F Vatcher in 1967

Material: bone, Bos scapulae and antler tine

Initial comment: one scapula from primary silt of the western ditch and one scapula and one antler tine from the primary silt of the southern ditch (C86), about 0.5km from the Amesbury terminal.

Calibrated date range: 1250-790 cal BC (95% confidence)

Archaeological comment (M Allen):the composition of this sample, including bones from deposits which were over 26m apart and material from different ditches is considered unacceptable, simply because they may not all have been of the same date and the ditches may not have been dug at the same time. Thus, even if the radiocarbon age produced is an accurate measurement of the radiocarbon content of the sample, this measurement is probably not an accurate estimate of the date of the ditches.

AML comment: this sample was measured in the mid-1960s when the preparation of bone and antler samples was a vexed issue. First the outer surface was abraded, and the inner material selected for dating. Mineral matter was then removed with hydrochloric acid after crushing the bone or antler (Berger et al 1964). The residual organic material was dated by gas proportional counting. Although this treatment would have removed the carbonates introduced by the chalk environment, the humic acids, which are almost insoluable in acid but are mobile in the alkaline environment of the Monument (c pH 8.5 in the ditches) would have remained in the organic residue which was dated (Longin 1970; 1971). This humic acid contamination has made the result significantly too recent.

Rejected Result from the Y Hole

Sample: context 3927, submitted by R Atkinson in 1967

Material: antler

Initial comment: stacked on the base of Y Hole 30.

Calibrated date range: 1740 - 1220 cal BC (95% confidence)

AML comment: this sample was measured in the mid-1960s when the preparation of bone and antler samples was a vexed issue. First the outer surface was abraded, and the inner material selected for dating. Mineral matter was then removed with hydrochloric acid after crushing the bone or antler (Berger et al 1964). The residual organic material was dated by gas proportional counting. Although this treatment would have removed the carbonates introduced by the chalk environment, the humic acids, which are almost insoluable in acid but are mobile in the alkaline environment of the Monument (c pH 8.5 in the ditches) would have remained in the organic residue which was dated (Longin 1970; 1971). This humic acid contamination may have made the result slightly too recent.

References:Atkinson 1967

Rejected result from the later use of the Monument

Sample: SH80-104, submitted by M Pitts on 19 October 1981

Material: charcoal, Rosaceae, sub-family Pomoideae, Prunus sp., Rhamnus catharticus (C Keepax), and a charred stone of Prunus sp. (N Prichard)

Initial comment: from a small quantity of charcoal from a hearth in the centre of a stone floor, near the Heelstone (C91).

Calibrated date range: 2140-1410 cal BC (95% confidence)

AML comment: this sample was measured in the mini-counter system (Otlet et al 1983) at AERE Harwell in 1981, and a preliminary result (above) was produced on 16 July 1982. A note made at the time by Otlet states that this error term was a `pure guess'. There is no evidence that a final result was produced.

Reference: Pitts 1982