Local and exotic sources of sarsen debitage at Stonehenge revealed by geochemical provenancing

The application of novel geochemical provenancing techniques has changed our understanding of the construction of Stonehenge, by identifying West Woods on the Marlborough Downs as the likely source area for the majority of the extant sarsen megaliths at the monument. In this study, we apply the same techniques to saccharoid sarsen fragments from three excavations within and outwith the main Sarsen Circle to expand our understanding of the provenance of sarsen debitage present at the monument. Through pXRF analysis, we demonstrate that the surface geochemistry of 1,028 excavated sarsen fragments is significantly affected by subsurface weathering following burial in a way that cannot be overcome by simple cleaning. However, we show that this effect is surficial and does not have a volumetrically significant impact, thus permitting the subsequent use of whole-rock analytical methods. Comparison of ICP-AES and ICP-MS trace element data from 54 representative sarsen fragments with equivalent data from Stone 58 at Stonehenge demonstrates that none are debitage produced during the dressing of this megalith or its 49 chemical equivalents at the monument. Further inspection of the ICP-MS data reveals that 22 of these fragments fall into three distinct geochemical ‘families’. None of these families overlap with the geochemical signature of Stone 58 and its chemical equivalents, implying that sarsen imported from at least a further three locations (in addition to West Woods) is present at Stonehenge. Comparison of immobile trace element signatures from the 54 excavated sarsen fragments against equivalent data for 20 sarsen outcrop areas across southern Britain shows that 15 of the fragments can be linked to specific localities. Eleven of these were likely sourced from Monkton Down, Totterdown Wood and West Woods on the Marlborough Downs (25–33 km north of Stonehenge). Three fragments likely came from Bramdean, Hampshire (51 km southeast of Stonehenge), and one from Stoney Wish, East Sussex (123 km to the southeast). Technological analysis and refitting shows that one of the fragments sourced from Monkton Down was part of a 25.7 cm × 17.9 cm flake removed from the outer surface of a large sarsen boulder, most probably during on-site dressing. This adds a second likely source area for the sarsen megaliths at Stonehenge in addition to West Woods. At this stage, we can only speculate on why sarsen from such diverse sources is present at Stonehenge. We do not know whether the fragments analysed by ICP-MS were removed from (i) the outer surface of Stones 26 or 160 (which are chemically distinct to the other extant sarsen megaliths), (ii) one of the c.28 sarsen megaliths and lintels from the c.60 erected during Stage 2 of the construction of Stonehenge that may now be missing from the monument, or (iii) one of the dismantled and destroyed sarsen megaliths associated with Stage 1 of the monument. With the exception of the fragment sourced from Monkton Down, it is also possible that the analysed fragments were (iv) pieces of saccharoid sarsen hammerstones or their pre-forms, or (v) small blocks brought on-site for ceremonial or non-ceremonial purposes

Development of nanopackaging for storage and transport of loaded lipid nanoparticles

Easily deploying new vaccines globally to combat disease outbreaks has been highlighted as a major necessity by the World Health Organization. RNA-based vaccines using lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) as a drug delivery system were employed to great effect during the recent COVID-19 pandemic. However, LNPs are still unstable at room temperature and agglomerate over time during storage, rendering them ineffective for intracellular delivery. We demonstrate the suitability of nanohole arrays (nanopackaging) as patterned surfaces to separate and store functionalized LNPs (fLNPs) in individual recesses, which can be expanded to other therapeutics. Encapsulating calcein as a model drug, we show through confocal microscopy the effective loading of fLNPs into our nanopackaging for both wet and dry systems. We prove quantifiably pH-mediated capture and subsequent unloading of over 30% of the fLNPs using QCM-D on alumina surfaces altering the pH from 5.5 to 7, displaying controllable storage at the nanoscale

Mapping species distributions: A comparison of skilled naturalist and lay citizen science recording

To assess the ability of traditional biological recording schemes and lay citizen science approaches to gather data on species distributions and changes therein, we examined bumblebee records from the UK’s national repository (National Biodiversity Network) and from BeeWatch. The two recording approaches revealed similar relative abundances of bumblebee species but different geographical distributions. For the widespread common carder (Bombus pascuorum), traditional recording scheme data were patchy, both spatially and temporally, reflecting active record centre rather than species distribution. Lay citizen science records displayed more extensive geographic coverage, reflecting human population density, thus offering better opportunities to account for recording effort. For the rapidly spreading tree bumblebee (Bombus hypnorum), both recording approaches revealed similar distributions due to a dedicated mapping project which overcame the patchy nature of naturalist records. We recommend, where possible, complementing skilled naturalist recording with lay citizen science programmes to obtain a nation-wide capability, and stress the need for timely uploading of data to the national repository

Holocene history of the 79° N ice shelf reconstructed from epishelf lake and uplifted glaciomarine sediments

Acknowledgements This work was funded by a NERC standard grant (grant no. NE/N011228/1), and some radiocarbon analysis was funded by NEIF (grant NE/S011587/1; allocation number 2169.1118). We thank the Alfred Wegener Institute, particularly Angelika Humbert and Hicham Rafiq, for significant logistic support through the iGRIFF project. Additional support was provided by Station Nord (Jorgen Skafte), Nordlandair, Air Greenland, and the Joint Arctic Command. Naalakkersuisut (government of Greenland) provided scientific survey (VU-00121) and export (046/2017) licences for this work. Finally, we would like to thank our (Nanu Travel) field ranger Isak (and dog Ooni) for keeping us safe in the field and taking great pleasure in beating James A. Smith at cards. Financial support This research has been supported by the Natural Environment Research Council (grant no. NE/N011228/1).Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Effects of habitat composition and landscape structure on worker foraging distances of five bumblebee species

Bumblebees (Bombus spp.) are important pollinators of both crops and wild flowers. Their contribution to this essential ecosystem service has been threatened over recent decades by changes in land use, which have led to declines in their populations. In order to design effective conservation measures it is important to understand the effects of variation in landscape composition and structure on the foraging activities of worker bumblebees. This is because the viability of individual colonies is likely to be affected by the trade-off between the energetic costs of foraging over greater distances and the potential gains from access to additional resources. We used field surveys, molecular genetics and fine resolution remote sensing to estimate the locations of wild bumblebee nests and to infer foraging distances across a 20 km2 agricultural landscape in southern England. We investigated five species, including the rare B. ruderatus and ecologically similar but widespread B. hortorum. We compared worker foraging distances between species and examined how variation in landscape composition and structure affected foraging distances at the colony level. Mean worker foraging distances differed significantly between species. Bombus terrestris, B. lapidarius and B. ruderatus exhibited significantly greater mean foraging distances (551 m, 536 m, 501 m, respectively) than B. hortorum and B. pascuorum (336 m, 272 m, respectively). There was wide variation in worker foraging distances between colonies of the same species, which was in turn strongly influenced by the amount and spatial configuration of available foraging habitats. Shorter foraging distances were found for colonies where the local landscape had high coverage and low fragmentation of semi-natural vegetation, including managed agri-environmental field margins. The strength of relationships between different landscape variables and foraging distance varied between species, for example the strongest relationship for B. ruderatus being with floral cover of preferred forage plants. Our findings suggest that favourable landscape composition and configuration has the potential to minimise foraging distances across a range of bumblebee species. There is thus potential for improvements in the design and implementation of landscape management options, such as agri-environment schemes, aimed at providing foraging habitat for bumblebees and enhancing crop pollination services

Local and exotic sources of sarsen debitage at Stonehenge revealed by geochemical provenancing

The application of novel geochemical provenancing techniques has changed our understanding of the construction of Stonehenge, by identifying West Woods on the Marlborough Downs as the likely source area for the majority of the extant sarsen megaliths at the monument. In this study, we apply the same techniques to saccharoid sarsen fragments from three excavations within and outwith the main Sarsen Circle to expand our understanding of the provenance of sarsen debitage present at the monument. Through pXRF analysis, we demonstrate that the surface geochemistry of 1,028 excavated sarsen fragments is significantly affected by subsurface weathering following burial in a way that cannot be overcome by simple cleaning. However, we show that this effect is surficial and does not have a volumetrically significant impact, thus permitting the subsequent use of whole-rock analytical methods. Comparison of ICP-AES and ICP-MS trace element data from 54 representative sarsen fragments with equivalent data from Stone 58 at Stonehenge demonstrates that none are debitage produced during the dressing of this megalith or its 49 chemical equivalents at the monument. Further inspection of the ICP-MS data reveals that 22 of these fragments fall into three distinct geochemical ‘families’. None of these families overlap with the geochemical signature of Stone 58 and its chemical equivalents, implying that sarsen imported from at least a further three locations (in addition to West Woods) is present at Stonehenge. Comparison of immobile trace element signatures from the 54 excavated sarsen fragments against equivalent data for 20 sarsen outcrop areas across southern Britain shows that 15 of the fragments can be linked to specific localities. Eleven of these were likely sourced from Monkton Down, Totterdown Wood and West Woods on the Marlborough Downs (25–33 km north of Stonehenge). Three fragments likely came from Bramdean, Hampshire (51 km southeast of Stonehenge), and one from Stoney Wish, East Sussex (123 km to the southeast). Technological analysis and refitting shows that one of the fragments sourced from Monkton Down was part of a 25.7 cm × 17.9 cm flake removed from the outer surface of a large sarsen boulder, most probably during on-site dressing. This adds a second likely source area for the sarsen megaliths at Stonehenge in addition to West Woods. At this stage, we can only speculate on why sarsen from such diverse sources is present at Stonehenge. We do not know whether the fragments analysed by ICP-MS were removed from (i) the outer surface of Stones 26 or 160 (which are chemically distinct to the other extant sarsen megaliths), (ii) one of the c.28 sarsen megaliths and lintels from the c.60 erected during Stage 2 of the construction of Stonehenge that may now be missing from the monument, or (iii) one of the dismantled and destroyed sarsen megaliths associated with Stage 1 of the monument. With the exception of the fragment sourced from Monkton Down, it is also possible that the analysed fragments were (iv) pieces of saccharoid sarsen hammerstones or their pre-forms, or (v) small blocks brought on-site for ceremonial or non-ceremonial purposes