On Sourcing Stonehenge Sarsen Stone #58: A Response to Nash and Ciborowski's Comments

R. G.V. Hancock; M. P. Gorton; W. C. Mahaney; S. Aufreiter; K. Michelaki

doi:10.1111/arcm.70028

On Sourcing Stonehenge Sarsen Stone #58: A Response to Nash and Ciborowski's Comments

R. G.V. Hancock
, M. P. Gorton
, W. C. Mahaney
, S. Aufreiter
, K. Michelaki

Human Evolution and Social Change, School of (SHESC)

Research output: Contribution to journal › Comment/debate › peer-review

2 Scopus citations

Abstract

This is a brief response to Nash and Ciborowski's comments in 2025 on our 2024 paper, which focused on the reinterpretation of geochemical data for Stonehenge stone #58 published by Nash et al. in 2020. We address the problems they perceived in our use of absolute elemental concentrations, our selection of discriminating elements, and single-sample comparisons and show the limited relevance of their arguments to our conclusions. We maintain that no definitive geochemical match for stone #58 can be argued based on the available data.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	48-50
Number of pages	3
Journal	Archaeometry
Volume	68
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1111/arcm.70028
State	Published - Feb 2026

Keywords

Stonehenge
geochemical sourcing
sarsens
silcrete
silicified sandstone

ASJC Scopus subject areas

History
Archaeology

Access to Document

10.1111/arcm.70028

Cite this

@article{81ba2d48daba48f597e2116b57fc6d97,

title = "On Sourcing Stonehenge Sarsen Stone \#58: A Response to Nash and Ciborowski's Comments",

abstract = "This is a brief response to Nash and Ciborowski's comments in 2025 on our 2024 paper, which focused on the reinterpretation of geochemical data for Stonehenge stone \#58 published by Nash et al. in 2020. We address the problems they perceived in our use of absolute elemental concentrations, our selection of discriminating elements, and single-sample comparisons and show the limited relevance of their arguments to our conclusions. We maintain that no definitive geochemical match for stone \#58 can be argued based on the available data.",

keywords = "Stonehenge, geochemical sourcing, sarsens, silcrete, silicified sandstone",

author = "Hancock, \{R. G.V.\} and Gorton, \{M. P.\} and Mahaney, \{W. C.\} and S. Aufreiter and K. Michelaki",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2025 The Author(s). Archaeometry published by John Wiley \& Sons Ltd on behalf of University of Oxford.",

year = "2026",

month = feb,

doi = "10.1111/arcm.70028",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "68",

pages = "48--50",

journal = "Archaeometry",

issn = "0003-813X",

publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - On Sourcing Stonehenge Sarsen Stone #58

T2 - A Response to Nash and Ciborowski's Comments

AU - Hancock, R. G.V.

AU - Gorton, M. P.

AU - Mahaney, W. C.

AU - Aufreiter, S.

AU - Michelaki, K.

PY - 2026/2

Y1 - 2026/2

N2 - This is a brief response to Nash and Ciborowski's comments in 2025 on our 2024 paper, which focused on the reinterpretation of geochemical data for Stonehenge stone #58 published by Nash et al. in 2020. We address the problems they perceived in our use of absolute elemental concentrations, our selection of discriminating elements, and single-sample comparisons and show the limited relevance of their arguments to our conclusions. We maintain that no definitive geochemical match for stone #58 can be argued based on the available data.

AB - This is a brief response to Nash and Ciborowski's comments in 2025 on our 2024 paper, which focused on the reinterpretation of geochemical data for Stonehenge stone #58 published by Nash et al. in 2020. We address the problems they perceived in our use of absolute elemental concentrations, our selection of discriminating elements, and single-sample comparisons and show the limited relevance of their arguments to our conclusions. We maintain that no definitive geochemical match for stone #58 can be argued based on the available data.

KW - Stonehenge

KW - geochemical sourcing

KW - sarsens

KW - silcrete

KW - silicified sandstone

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105011188311

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105011188311#tab=citedBy

U2 - 10.1111/arcm.70028

DO - 10.1111/arcm.70028

M3 - Comment/debate

SN - 0003-813X

VL - 68

SP - 48

EP - 50

JO - Archaeometry

JF - Archaeometry

IS - 1

ER -

On Sourcing Stonehenge Sarsen Stone #58: A Response to Nash and Ciborowski's Comments

Abstract

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this