0
Comment on: 'Stonehenge revisited: A geochemical approach to interpreting the geographical source of sarsen stone #58'
David J. Nash, T. Jake R. Ciborowski, 2025. Archaeometry.
The West Woods authors' reply to Hancock et al.: absolute concentrations are unsuitable for silcrete with variable introduced silica, Si and Fe are too mobile to discriminate sources, and single samples miss the variability within an outcrop.
What it's used for here
The methodological rebuttal of the multi-source reanalysis.
Cited by on this site 2 records
EVD
Stonehenge
MYSThe mystery article
Cite it
Nash, D. J., & Ciborowski, T. J. R. (2025). Comment on: 'Stonehenge revisited: A geochemical approach to interpreting the geographical source of sarsen stone #58'. Archaeometry. https://doi.org/10.1111/arcm.13105
@article{nash2025comment,
author = {Nash, David J. and Ciborowski, T. Jake R.},
title = {Comment on: 'Stonehenge revisited: A geochemical approach to interpreting the geographical source of sarsen stone \#58'},
journal = {Archaeometry},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.1111/arcm.13105},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1111/arcm.13105}
}TY - JOUR TI - Comment on: 'Stonehenge revisited: A geochemical approach to interpreting the geographical source of sarsen stone #58' AU - Nash, David J. AU - Ciborowski, T. Jake R. PY - 2025 JO - Archaeometry DO - 10.1111/arcm.13105 UR - https://doi.org/10.1111/arcm.13105 ER -
Nash, David J. and T. Jake R. Ciborowski. “Comment on: 'Stonehenge revisited: A geochemical approach to interpreting the geographical source of sarsen stone #58'.” Archaeometry (2025). https://doi.org/10.1111/arcm.13105.