how to summarize a research article

• Privacy Policy

Home » Research Summary – Structure, Examples and Writing Guide

Research Summary – Structure, Examples and Writing Guide

Table of Contents

Research Summary

Definition:

A research summary is a brief and concise overview of a research project or study that highlights its key findings, main points, and conclusions. It typically includes a description of the research problem, the research methods used, the results obtained, and the implications or significance of the findings. It is often used as a tool to quickly communicate the main findings of a study to other researchers, stakeholders, or decision-makers.

Structure of Research Summary

The Structure of a Research Summary typically include:

• Introduction : This section provides a brief background of the research problem or question, explains the purpose of the study, and outlines the research objectives.
• Methodology : This section explains the research design, methods, and procedures used to conduct the study. It describes the sample size, data collection methods, and data analysis techniques.
• Results : This section presents the main findings of the study, including statistical analysis if applicable. It may include tables, charts, or graphs to visually represent the data.
• Discussion : This section interprets the results and explains their implications. It discusses the significance of the findings, compares them to previous research, and identifies any limitations or future directions for research.
• Conclusion : This section summarizes the main points of the research and provides a conclusion based on the findings. It may also suggest implications for future research or practical applications of the results.
• References : This section lists the sources cited in the research summary, following the appropriate citation style.

How to Write Research Summary

Here are the steps you can follow to write a research summary:

• Read the research article or study thoroughly: To write a summary, you must understand the research article or study you are summarizing. Therefore, read the article or study carefully to understand its purpose, research design, methodology, results, and conclusions.
• Identify the main points : Once you have read the research article or study, identify the main points, key findings, and research question. You can highlight or take notes of the essential points and findings to use as a reference when writing your summary.
• Write the introduction: Start your summary by introducing the research problem, research question, and purpose of the study. Briefly explain why the research is important and its significance.
• Summarize the methodology : In this section, summarize the research design, methods, and procedures used to conduct the study. Explain the sample size, data collection methods, and data analysis techniques.
• Present the results: Summarize the main findings of the study. Use tables, charts, or graphs to visually represent the data if necessary.
• Interpret the results: In this section, interpret the results and explain their implications. Discuss the significance of the findings, compare them to previous research, and identify any limitations or future directions for research.
• Conclude the summary : Summarize the main points of the research and provide a conclusion based on the findings. Suggest implications for future research or practical applications of the results.
• Revise and edit : Once you have written the summary, revise and edit it to ensure that it is clear, concise, and free of errors. Make sure that your summary accurately represents the research article or study.
• Add references: Include a list of references cited in the research summary, following the appropriate citation style.

Example of Research Summary

Here is an example of a research summary:

Title: The Effects of Yoga on Mental Health: A Meta-Analysis

Introduction: This meta-analysis examines the effects of yoga on mental health. The study aimed to investigate whether yoga practice can improve mental health outcomes such as anxiety, depression, stress, and quality of life.

Methodology : The study analyzed data from 14 randomized controlled trials that investigated the effects of yoga on mental health outcomes. The sample included a total of 862 participants. The yoga interventions varied in length and frequency, ranging from four to twelve weeks, with sessions lasting from 45 to 90 minutes.

Results : The meta-analysis found that yoga practice significantly improved mental health outcomes. Participants who practiced yoga showed a significant reduction in anxiety and depression symptoms, as well as stress levels. Quality of life also improved in those who practiced yoga.

Discussion : The findings of this study suggest that yoga can be an effective intervention for improving mental health outcomes. The study supports the growing body of evidence that suggests that yoga can have a positive impact on mental health. Limitations of the study include the variability of the yoga interventions, which may affect the generalizability of the findings.

Conclusion : Overall, the findings of this meta-analysis support the use of yoga as an effective intervention for improving mental health outcomes. Further research is needed to determine the optimal length and frequency of yoga interventions for different populations.

References :

• Cramer, H., Lauche, R., Langhorst, J., Dobos, G., & Berger, B. (2013). Yoga for depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Depression and anxiety, 30(11), 1068-1083.
• Khalsa, S. B. (2004). Yoga as a therapeutic intervention: a bibliometric analysis of published research studies. Indian journal of physiology and pharmacology, 48(3), 269-285.
• Ross, A., & Thomas, S. (2010). The health benefits of yoga and exercise: a review of comparison studies. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 16(1), 3-12.

Purpose of Research Summary

The purpose of a research summary is to provide a brief overview of a research project or study, including its main points, findings, and conclusions. The summary allows readers to quickly understand the essential aspects of the research without having to read the entire article or study.

Research summaries serve several purposes, including:

• Facilitating comprehension: A research summary allows readers to quickly understand the main points and findings of a research project or study without having to read the entire article or study. This makes it easier for readers to comprehend the research and its significance.
• Communicating research findings: Research summaries are often used to communicate research findings to a wider audience, such as policymakers, practitioners, or the general public. The summary presents the essential aspects of the research in a clear and concise manner, making it easier for non-experts to understand.
• Supporting decision-making: Research summaries can be used to support decision-making processes by providing a summary of the research evidence on a particular topic. This information can be used by policymakers or practitioners to make informed decisions about interventions, programs, or policies.
• Saving time: Research summaries save time for researchers, practitioners, policymakers, and other stakeholders who need to review multiple research studies. Rather than having to read the entire article or study, they can quickly review the summary to determine whether the research is relevant to their needs.

Characteristics of Research Summary

The following are some of the key characteristics of a research summary:

• Concise : A research summary should be brief and to the point, providing a clear and concise overview of the main points of the research.
• Objective : A research summary should be written in an objective tone, presenting the research findings without bias or personal opinion.
• Comprehensive : A research summary should cover all the essential aspects of the research, including the research question, methodology, results, and conclusions.
• Accurate : A research summary should accurately reflect the key findings and conclusions of the research.
• Clear and well-organized: A research summary should be easy to read and understand, with a clear structure and logical flow.
• Relevant : A research summary should focus on the most important and relevant aspects of the research, highlighting the key findings and their implications.
• Audience-specific: A research summary should be tailored to the intended audience, using language and terminology that is appropriate and accessible to the reader.
• Citations : A research summary should include citations to the original research articles or studies, allowing readers to access the full text of the research if desired.

When to write Research Summary

Here are some situations when it may be appropriate to write a research summary:

• Proposal stage: A research summary can be included in a research proposal to provide a brief overview of the research aims, objectives, methodology, and expected outcomes.
• Conference presentation: A research summary can be prepared for a conference presentation to summarize the main findings of a study or research project.
• Journal submission: Many academic journals require authors to submit a research summary along with their research article or study. The summary provides a brief overview of the study’s main points, findings, and conclusions and helps readers quickly understand the research.
• Funding application: A research summary can be included in a funding application to provide a brief summary of the research aims, objectives, and expected outcomes.
• Policy brief: A research summary can be prepared as a policy brief to communicate research findings to policymakers or stakeholders in a concise and accessible manner.

Advantages of Research Summary

Research summaries offer several advantages, including:

• Time-saving: A research summary saves time for readers who need to understand the key findings and conclusions of a research project quickly. Rather than reading the entire research article or study, readers can quickly review the summary to determine whether the research is relevant to their needs.
• Clarity and accessibility: A research summary provides a clear and accessible overview of the research project’s main points, making it easier for readers to understand the research without having to be experts in the field.
• Improved comprehension: A research summary helps readers comprehend the research by providing a brief and focused overview of the key findings and conclusions, making it easier to understand the research and its significance.
• Enhanced communication: Research summaries can be used to communicate research findings to a wider audience, such as policymakers, practitioners, or the general public, in a concise and accessible manner.
• Facilitated decision-making: Research summaries can support decision-making processes by providing a summary of the research evidence on a particular topic. Policymakers or practitioners can use this information to make informed decisions about interventions, programs, or policies.
• Increased dissemination: Research summaries can be easily shared and disseminated, allowing research findings to reach a wider audience.

Limitations of Research Summary

Limitations of the Research Summary are as follows:

• Limited scope: Research summaries provide a brief overview of the research project’s main points, findings, and conclusions, which can be limiting. They may not include all the details, nuances, and complexities of the research that readers may need to fully understand the study’s implications.
• Risk of oversimplification: Research summaries can be oversimplified, reducing the complexity of the research and potentially distorting the findings or conclusions.
• Lack of context: Research summaries may not provide sufficient context to fully understand the research findings, such as the research background, methodology, or limitations. This may lead to misunderstandings or misinterpretations of the research.
• Possible bias: Research summaries may be biased if they selectively emphasize certain findings or conclusions over others, potentially distorting the overall picture of the research.
• Format limitations: Research summaries may be constrained by the format or length requirements, making it challenging to fully convey the research’s main points, findings, and conclusions.
• Accessibility: Research summaries may not be accessible to all readers, particularly those with limited literacy skills, visual impairments, or language barriers.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Conceptual Framework – Types, Methodology and...

Informed Consent in Research – Types, Templates...

Problem Statement – Writing Guide, Examples and...

Research Paper – Structure, Examples and Writing...

What is a Hypothesis – Types, Examples and...

References in Research – Types, Examples and...

The Sheridan Libraries

• Write a Literature Review
• Sheridan Libraries
• Evaluate This link opens in a new window

Not every source you found should be included in your annotated bibliography or lit review. Only include the most relevant and most important sources.

Get Organized

• Lit Review Prep Use this template to help you evaluate your sources, create article summaries for an annotated bibliography, and a synthesis matrix for your lit review outline.

Summarize your Sources

Summarize each source: Determine the most important and relevant information from each source, such as the findings, methodology, theories, etc.  Consider using an article summary, or study summary to help you organize and summarize your sources.

Paraphrasing

• Use your own words, and do not copy and paste the abstract
• The library's tutorials about plagiarism are excellent, and will help you with paraphasing correctly

Annotated Bibliographies

     Annotated bibliographies can help you clearly see and understand the research before diving into organizing and writing your literature review.        Although typically part of the "summarize" step of the literature review, annotations should not merely be summaries of each article - instead, they should be critical evaluations of the source, and help determine a source's usefulness for your lit review.  

Definition:

A list of citations on a particular topic followed by an evaluation of the source’s argument and other relevant material including its intended audience, sources of evidence, and methodology

• Explore your topic.
• Appraise issues or factors associated with your professional practice and research topic.
• Help you get started with the literature review.
• Think critically about your topic, and the literature.

Steps to Creating an Annotated Bibliography:

• Find Your Sources
• Read Your Sources
• Identify the Most Relevant Sources
• Cite your Sources
• Write Annotations

Annotated Bibliography Resources

• Purdue Owl Guide
• Cornell Annotated Bibliography Guide
• << Previous: Evaluate
• Next: Synthesize >>
• Last Updated: Jul 30, 2024 1:42 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.jhu.edu/lit-review

• Resources Home 🏠
• Try SciSpace Copilot
• Search research papers
• Add Copilot Extension
• Try AI Detector
• Try Paraphraser
• Try Citation Generator
• April Papers
• June Papers
• July Papers

How To Write A Research Summary

It’s a common perception that writing a research summary is a quick and easy task. After all, how hard can jotting down 300 words be? But when you consider the weight those 300 words carry, writing a research summary as a part of your dissertation, essay or compelling draft for your paper instantly becomes daunting task.

A research summary requires you to synthesize a complex research paper into an informative, self-explanatory snapshot. It needs to portray what your article contains. Thus, writing it often comes at the end of the task list.

Regardless of when you’re planning to write, it is no less of a challenge, particularly if you’re doing it for the first time. This blog will take you through everything you need to know about research summary so that you have an easier time with it.

What is a Research Summary?

A research summary is the part of your research paper that describes its findings to the audience in a brief yet concise manner. A well-curated research summary represents you and your knowledge about the information written in the research paper.

While writing a quality research summary, you need to discover and identify the significant points in the research and condense it in a more straightforward form. A research summary is like a doorway that provides access to the structure of a research paper's sections.

Since the purpose of a summary is to give an overview of the topic, methodology, and conclusions employed in a paper, it requires an objective approach. No analysis or criticism.

Research summary or Abstract. What’s the Difference?

They’re both brief, concise, and give an overview of an aspect of the research paper. So, it’s easy to understand why many new researchers get the two confused. However, a research summary and abstract are two very different things with individual purpose. To start with, a research summary is written at the end while the abstract comes at the beginning of a research paper.

A research summary captures the essence of the paper at the end of your document. It focuses on your topic, methods, and findings. More like a TL;DR, if you will. An abstract, on the other hand, is a description of what your research paper is about. It tells your reader what your topic or hypothesis is, and sets a context around why you have embarked on your research.

Getting Started with a Research Summary

Before you start writing, you need to get insights into your research’s content, style, and organization. There are three fundamental areas of a research summary that you should focus on.

• While deciding the contents of your research summary, you must include a section on its importance as a whole, the techniques, and the tools that were used to formulate the conclusion. Additionally, there needs to be a short but thorough explanation of how the findings of the research paper have a significance.
• To keep the summary well-organized, try to cover the various sections of the research paper in separate paragraphs. Besides, how the idea of particular factual research came up first must be explained in a separate paragraph.
• As a general practice worldwide, research summaries are restricted to 300-400 words. However, if you have chosen a lengthy research paper, try not to exceed the word limit of 10% of the entire research paper.

How to Structure Your Research Summary

The research summary is nothing but a concise form of the entire research paper. Therefore, the structure of a summary stays the same as the paper. So, include all the section titles and write a little about them. The structural elements that a research summary must consist of are:

It represents the topic of the research. Try to phrase it so that it includes the key findings or conclusion of the task.

The abstract gives a context of the research paper. Unlike the abstract at the beginning of a paper, the abstract here, should be very short since you’ll be working with a limited word count.

Introduction

This is the most crucial section of a research summary as it helps readers get familiarized with the topic. You should include the definition of your topic, the current state of the investigation, and practical relevance in this part. Additionally, you should present the problem statement, investigative measures, and any hypothesis in this section.

Methodology

This section provides details about the methodology and the methods adopted to conduct the study. You should write a brief description of the surveys, sampling, type of experiments, statistical analysis, and the rationality behind choosing those particular methods.

Create a list of evidence obtained from the various experiments with a primary analysis, conclusions, and interpretations made upon that. In the paper research paper, you will find the results section as the most detailed and lengthy part. Therefore, you must pick up the key elements and wisely decide which elements are worth including and which are worth skipping.

This is where you present the interpretation of results in the context of their application. Discussion usually covers results, inferences, and theoretical models explaining the obtained values, key strengths, and limitations. All of these are vital elements that you must include in the summary.

Most research papers merge conclusion with discussions. However, depending upon the instructions, you may have to prepare this as a separate section in your research summary. Usually, conclusion revisits the hypothesis and provides the details about the validation or denial about the arguments made in the research paper, based upon how convincing the results were obtained.

The structure of a research summary closely resembles the anatomy of a scholarly article . Additionally, you should keep your research and references limited to authentic and  scholarly sources only.

Tips for Writing a Research Summary

The core concept behind undertaking a research summary is to present a simple and clear understanding of your research paper to the reader. The biggest hurdle while doing that is the number of words you have at your disposal. So, follow the steps below to write a research summary that sticks.

1. Read the parent paper thoroughly

You should go through the research paper thoroughly multiple times to ensure that you have a complete understanding of its contents. A 3-stage reading process helps.

a. Scan: In the first read, go through it to get an understanding of its basic concept and methodologies.

b. Read: For the second step, read the article attentively by going through each section, highlighting the key elements, and subsequently listing the topics that you will include in your research summary.

c. Skim: Flip through the article a few more times to study the interpretation of various experimental results, statistical analysis, and application in different contexts.

Sincerely go through different headings and subheadings as it will allow you to understand the underlying concept of each section. You can try reading the introduction and conclusion simultaneously to understand the motive of the task and how obtained results stay fit to the expected outcome.

2. Identify the key elements in different sections

While exploring different sections of an article, you can try finding answers to simple what, why, and how. Below are a few pointers to give you an idea:

• What is the research question and how is it addressed?
• Is there a hypothesis in the introductory part?
• What type of methods are being adopted?
• What is the sample size for data collection and how is it being analyzed?
• What are the most vital findings?
• Do the results support the hypothesis?

Discussion/Conclusion

• What is the final solution to the problem statement?
• What is the explanation for the obtained results?
• What is the drawn inference?
• What are the various limitations of the study?

3. Prepare the first draft

Now that you’ve listed the key points that the paper tries to demonstrate, you can start writing the summary following the standard structure of a research summary. Just make sure you’re not writing statements from the parent research paper verbatim.

Instead, try writing down each section in your own words. This will not only help in avoiding plagiarism but will also show your complete understanding of the subject. Alternatively, you can use a summarizing tool (AI-based summary generators) to shorten the content or summarize the content without disrupting the actual meaning of the article.

SciSpace Copilot is one such helpful feature! You can easily upload your research paper and ask Copilot to summarize it. You will get an AI-generated, condensed research summary. SciSpace Copilot also enables you to highlight text, clip math and tables, and ask any question relevant to the research paper; it will give you instant answers with deeper context of the article..

4. Include visuals

One of the best ways to summarize and consolidate a research paper is to provide visuals like graphs, charts, pie diagrams, etc.. Visuals make getting across the facts, the past trends, and the probabilistic figures around a concept much more engaging.

5. Double check for plagiarism

It can be very tempting to copy-paste a few statements or the entire paragraphs depending upon the clarity of those sections. But it’s best to stay away from the practice. Even paraphrasing should be done with utmost care and attention.

Also: QuillBot vs SciSpace: Choose the best AI-paraphrasing tool

6. Religiously follow the word count limit

You need to have strict control while writing different sections of a research summary. In many cases, it has been observed that the research summary and the parent research paper become the same length. If that happens, it can lead to discrediting of your efforts and research summary itself. Whatever the standard word limit has been imposed, you must observe that carefully.

7. Proofread your research summary multiple times

The process of writing the research summary can be exhausting and tiring. However, you shouldn’t allow this to become a reason to skip checking your academic writing several times for mistakes like misspellings, grammar, wordiness, and formatting issues. Proofread and edit until you think your research summary can stand out from the others, provided it is drafted perfectly on both technicality and comprehension parameters. You can also seek assistance from editing and proofreading services , and other free tools that help you keep these annoying grammatical errors at bay.

8. Watch while you write

Keep a keen observation of your writing style. You should use the words very precisely, and in any situation, it should not represent your personal opinions on the topic. You should write the entire research summary in utmost impersonal, precise, factually correct, and evidence-based writing.

9. Ask a friend/colleague to help

Once you are done with the final copy of your research summary, you must ask a friend or colleague to read it. You must test whether your friend or colleague could grasp everything without referring to the parent paper. This will help you in ensuring the clarity of the article.

Once you become familiar with the research paper summary concept and understand how to apply the tips discussed above in your current task, summarizing a research summary won’t be that challenging. While traversing the different stages of your academic career, you will face different scenarios where you may have to create several research summaries.

In such cases, you just need to look for answers to simple questions like “Why this study is necessary,” “what were the methods,” “who were the participants,” “what conclusions were drawn from the research,” and “how it is relevant to the wider world.” Once you find out the answers to these questions, you can easily create a good research summary following the standard structure and a precise writing style.

You might also like

Consensus GPT vs. SciSpace GPT: Choose the Best GPT for Research

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework: Understanding the Differences

Types of Essays in Academic Writing - Quick Guide (2024)

Free Text Summarizer

Try our other writing services

Want to be 100% sure your summary is plagiarism-free?

Make your life easier with the free summarizer tool.

Academic research

Speed up your academic research by extracting key points.

Every day use

Reduce your reading time by summarizing long blocks of text within seconds.

Easily condense transcripts of long meetings into concise bullet points.

Difficult text

Simplify hard-to-read paragraphs, sentences or complete articles with 1 click.

Why use this summarizer?

• 100% free: Generate unlimited summaries without paying a penny
• Accurate: Get a reliable and trustworthy summary of your original text without any errors
• No signup: Use it without giving up any personal data
• Secure: No summary data is stored, guaranteeing your privacy
• Speed: Get an accurate summary within seconds, thanks to AI
• Flexible: Adjust summary length to get more (or less) detailed summaries

How to use this summarizer

1. insert, paste or download your text, 2. pick the way you want to summarize, 3. adjust your summary length, 4. get your summary in seconds.

2 ways of summarizing your text

1. key sentences.

Extracts the key points of your text and turns them into digestible bullet points 

2. Concise paragraphs

Summarizes your text in a concise paragraph

Summarize your text today

Want to make sure your summary doesn’t contain any plagiarism?

Scribbr & academic integrity.

Scribbr is committed to protecting academic integrity. Our plagiarism checker , AI Detector , Citation Generator , proofreading services , paraphrasing tool , grammar checker , summarizer, and free Knowledge Base content are designed to help students produce quality academic papers.

We make every effort to prevent our software from being used for fraudulent or manipulative purposes.

Ask our team

Want to contact us directly? No problem.  We  are always here for you.

• Email [email protected]
• Start live chat
• Call +1 (510) 822-8066
• WhatsApp +31 20 261 6040

Frequently asked questions

Yes, it can. The AI has been trained on a big dataset, so technical or complex data won’t be a problem for the text summarizer .

The text summarizer is accessible on both desktop and mobile.

This text summarizer can condense long text within seconds.

At the moment, a maximum of 600 words can be summarized at once, within a few seconds. Want to summarize more? Just paste another block of text. There’s no limit on how much text you can summarize with our text summarizer .

The text summarizer can give you a longer or shorter summary, depending on your wishes. Want a more detailed summary? Just adjust the summary length at the top.

• All eBooks & Audiobooks
• Academic eBook Collection
• Home Grown eBook Collection
• Off-Campus Access
• Literature Resource Center
• Opposing Viewpoints
• ProQuest Central
• Course Guides
• Citing Sources
• Library Research
• Websites by Topic
• Book-a-Librarian
• Research Tutorials
• Use the Catalog
• Use Databases
• Use Films on Demand
• Use Home Grown eBooks
• Use NC LIVE
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary vs. Secondary
• Scholarly vs. Popular
• Make an Appointment
• Writing Tools
• Annotated Bibliographies
• Summaries, Reviews & Critiques
• Writing Center

Service Alert

Article Summaries, Reviews & Critiques

Writing an article summary.

• Writing an article REVIEW
• Writing an article CRITIQUE
• Citing Sources This link opens in a new window
• About RCC Library

Text: 336-308-8801

Email: [email protected]

Call: 336-633-0204

Schedule: Book-a-Librarian

Like us on Facebook

Links on this guide may go to external web sites not connected with Randolph Community College. Their inclusion is not an endorsement by Randolph Community College and the College is not responsible for the accuracy of their content or the security of their site.

When writing a summary, the goal is to compose a concise and objective overview of the original article. The summary should focus only on the article's main ideas and important details that support those ideas.

Guidelines for summarizing an article:

• State the main ideas.
• Identify the most important details that support the main ideas.
• Summarize in your own words.
• Do not copy phrases or sentences unless they are being used as direct quotations.
• Express the underlying meaning of the article, but do not critique or analyze.
• The summary should be about one third the length of the original article. 

Your summary should include:

• Give an overview of the article, including the title and the name of the author.
• Provide a thesis statement that states the main idea of the article.
• Use the body paragraphs to explain the supporting ideas of your thesis statement.
• One-paragraph summary - one sentence per supporting detail, providing 1-2 examples for each.
• Multi-paragraph summary - one paragraph per supporting detail, providing 2-3 examples for each.
• Start each paragraph with a topic sentence.
• Use transitional words and phrases to connect ideas.
• Summarize your thesis statement and the underlying meaning of the article.

 Adapted from "Guidelines for Using In-Text Citations in a Summary (or Research Paper)" by Christine Bauer-Ramazani, 2020

Additional Resources

All links open in a new window.

How to Write a Summary - Guide & Examples  (from Scribbr.com)

Writing a Summary  (from The University of Arizona Global Campus Writing Center)

• Next: Writing an article REVIEW >>
• Last Updated: Mar 15, 2024 9:32 AM
• URL: https://libguides.randolph.edu/summaries

• Peterborough

Writing Article Summaries

• Understanding Article Summaries 

Common Problems in Article Summaries

Read carefully and closely, structure of the summary, writing the summary.

• Sample Outlines and Paragraphs

Understanding Article Summaries

An article summary is a short, focused paper about one scholarly article that is informed by a critical reading of that article. For argumentative articles, the summary identifies, explains, and analyses the thesis and supporting arguments; for empirical articles, the summary identifies, explains, and analyses the research questions, methods, findings, and implications of the study.

Although article summaries are often short and rarely account for a large portion of your grade, they are a strong indicator of your reading and writing skills. Professors ask you to write article summaries to help you to develop essential skills in critical reading, summarizing, and clear, organized writing. Furthermore, an article summary requires you to read a scholarly article quite closely, which provides a useful introduction to the conventions of writing in your discipline (e.g. Political Studies, Biology, or Anthropology).

The most common problem that students have when writing an article summary is that they misunderstand the goal of the assignment. In an article summary, your job is to write about the article, not about the actual topic of the article. For example, if you are summarizing Smith’s article about the causes of the Bubonic plague in Europe, your summary should be about Smith’s article: What does she want to find out about the plague? What evidence does she use? What is her argument? You are not writing a paper about the actual causes of Bubonic plague in Europe.

Further, as a part of critical reading, you will often consider your own position on a topic or an argument; it is tempting to include an assessment or opinion about the thesis or findings, but this is not the goal of an article summary. Rather, you must identify, explain, and analyse the main point and how it is supported.

Your key to success in writing an article summary is your understanding of the article; therefore, it is essential to read carefully and closely. The Academic Skills Centre offers helpful instruction on the steps for critical reading: pre-reading, active and analytical reading, and reflection.

Argumentative Articles

As you read an argumentative article, consider the following questions:

• What is the topic?
• What is the research question? In other words, what is the author trying to find out about that topic?
• How does the author position his/her article in relation to other studies of the topic?
• What is the thesis or position? What are the supporting arguments?
• How are supporting arguments developed? What kind of evidence is used?
• What is the significance of the author’s thesis? What does it help you to understand about the topic?

Empirical Articles

As you read an empirical article, consider the following questions:

• What is the research question?
• What are the predictions and the rationale for these predictions?
• What methods were used (participants, sampling, materials, procedure)? What were the variables and controls?
• What were the main results?
• Are the findings supported by previous research?
• What are the limitations of the study?
• What are the implications or applications of the findings?

Create a Reverse Outline

Creating a reverse outline is one way to ensure that you fully understand the article. Pre-read the article (read the abstract, introduction, and/or conclusion). Summarize the main question(s) and thesis or findings. Skim subheadings and topic sentences to understand the organization; make notes in the margins about each section. Read each paragraph within a section; make short notes about the main idea or purpose of each paragraph. This strategy will help you to see how parts of the article connect to the main idea or the whole of the article.

A summary is written in paragraph form and generally does not include subheadings. An introduction is important to clearly identify the article, the topic, the question or purpose of the article, and its thesis or findings. The body paragraphs for a summary of an argumentative article will explain how arguments and evidence support the thesis. Alternatively, the body paragraphs of an empirical article summary may explain the methods and findings, making connections to predictions. The conclusion explains the significance of the argument or implications of the findings. This structure ensures that your summary is focused and clear.

Professors will often give you a list of required topics to include in your summary and/or explain how they want you to organize your summary. Make sure you read the assignment sheet with care and adapt the sample outlines below accordingly.

One significant challenge in writing an article summary is deciding what information or examples from the article to include. Remember, article summaries are much shorter than the article itself. You do not have the space to explain every point the author makes. Instead, you will need to explain the author’s main points and find a few excellent examples that illustrate these points.

You should also keep in mind that article summaries need to be written in your own words. Scholarly writing can use complex terminology to explain complicated ideas, which makes it difficult to understand and to summarize correctly. In the face of difficult text, many students tend to use direct quotations, saving them the time and energy required to understand and reword it. However, a summary requires you to summarize, which means “to state briefly or succinctly” (Oxford English Dictionary) the main ideas presented in a text. The brevity must come from you, in your own words, which demonstrates that you understand the article.

Sample Outlines and Paragraph

Sample outline for an argumentative article summary.

• General topic of article
• Author’s research question or approach to the topic
• Author’s thesis
• Explain some key points and how they support the thesis
• Provide a key example or two that the author uses as evidence to support these points
• Review how the main points work together to support the thesis?
• How does the author explain the significance or implications of his/her article?

Sample Outline for an Empirical Article Summary

• General topic of study
• Author’s research question
• Variables and hypotheses
• Participants
• Experiment design
• Materials used
• Key results
• Did the results support the hypotheses?
• Implications or applications of the study
• Major limitations of the study

Sample Paragraph

The paragraph below is an example of an introductory paragraph from a summary of an empirical article:

Tavernier and Willoughby’s (2014) study explored the relationships between university students’ sleep and their intrapersonal, interpersonal, and educational development. While the authors cited many scholars who have explored these relationships, they pointed out that most of these studies focused on unidirectional correlations over a short period of time. In contrast, Tavernier and Willoughby tested whether there was a bidirectional or unidirectional association between participants’ sleep quality and duration and several psychosocial factors including intrapersonal adjustment, friendship quality, and academic achievement. Further they conducted a longitudinal study over a period of three years in order to determine whether there were changes in the strength or direction of these associations over time. They predicted that sleep quality would correlate with measures of intrapersonal adjustment, friendship quality, and academic achievement; they further hypothesized that this correlation would be bidirectional: sleep quality would predict psychosocial measures and at the same time, psychosocial measures would predict sleep quality.

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EDIT Edit this Article
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Happiness Hub Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• Happiness Hub
• This Or That Game
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Education and Communications

How to Summarize a Journal Article

Last Updated: February 21, 2024 Approved

Reading Article

Planning draft, writing summary, sample summaries.

This article was co-authored by Richard Perkins . Richard Perkins is a Writing Coach, Academic English Coordinator, and the Founder of PLC Learning Center. With over 24 years of education experience, he gives teachers tools to teach writing to students and works with elementary to university level students to become proficient, confident writers. Richard is a fellow at the National Writing Project. As a teacher leader and consultant at California State University Long Beach's Global Education Project, Mr. Perkins creates and presents teacher workshops that integrate the U.N.'s 17 Sustainable Development Goals in the K-12 curriculum. He holds a BA in Communications and TV from The University of Southern California and an MEd from California State University Dominguez Hills. wikiHow marks an article as reader-approved once it receives enough positive feedback. This article has 24 testimonials from our readers, earning it our reader-approved status. This article has been viewed 1,418,697 times.

Summarizing a journal article is presenting a focused overview of a research study published in a peer-reviewed, scholarly source. A journal article summary provides readers with a short descriptive commentary, giving them some insight into the article's focus. Writing and summarizing a journal article is a common task for college students and research assistants alike. With a little practice, you can learn to read the article effectively with an eye for summary, plan a successful summary, and write it to completion.

• The purpose of an abstract is to allow researchers to quickly scan a journal and see if specific research articles are applicable to the work they are doing. If you're collecting research on immune system responses in rodents, you'll be able to know in 100 words not only whether or not the research is in your field, but whether the conclusions back up your own findings, or differ from it.
• Remember that an abstract and an article summary are two different things, so an article summary that looks just like the abstract is a poor summary. [1] X Research source An abstract is highly condensed and cannot provide the same level of detail regarding the research and its conclusions that a summary can.

• You still need to go back and actually read the article after coming to the conclusion, but only if the research is still applicable. If you're collecting research, you may not need to digest another source that backs up your own if you're looking for some dissenting opinions.

• Look for words like hypothesis, results, typically, generally, or clearly to give you hints about which sentence is the thesis.
• Underline, highlight, or rewrite the main argument of the research in the margins. Keep yourself focused on this main point, so you'll be able to connect the rest of the article back to that idea and see how it works together.
• In the humanities, it's sometimes more difficult to get a clear and concise thesis for an article because they are often about complex, abstract ideas (like class in post-modern poetics, or feminist film, for example). If it's unclear, try to articulate it for yourself, as best as you can understand the author's ideas and what they're attempting to prove with their analysis.
• Try to analyze the author's tone, looking at some of the keywords that really tells you what they are trying to get across to you.

• Different areas of focus within a journal article will usually be marked with subsection titles that target a specific step or development during the course of the research study. The titles for these sub-sections are usually bold and in a larger font than the remaining text.
• Keep in mind that academic journals are often dry reading. Is it absolutely necessary to read through the author's 500 word proof of the formulas used in the glycerine solution fed to the frogs in the research study? Maybe, but probably not. It's usually not essential to read research articles word-for-word, as long as you're picking out the main idea, and why the content is there in the first place.

• These segments will usually include an introduction, methodology, research results, and a conclusion in addition to a listing of references.

• When you're first getting started, it's helpful to turn your filter off and just quickly write out what you remember from the article. These will help you discover the main points necessary to summarize.

• Depending on the research, you may want to describe the theoretical background of the research, or the assumptions of the researchers. In scientific writing, it's important to clearly summarize the hypotheses the researchers outlined before undertaking the research, as well as the procedures used in following through with the project. Summarize briefly any statistical results and include a rudimentary interpretation of the data for your summary.
• In humanities articles, it's usually good to summarize the fundamental assumptions and the school of thought from which the author comes, as well as the examples and the ideas presented throughout the article.

• Any words or terms that the author coins need to be included and discussed in your summary.

• As a general rule of thumb, you can probably make one paragraph per main point, ending up with no more than 500-1000 words, for most academic articles. For most journal summaries, you'll be writing several short paragraphs that summarize each separate portion of the journal article.

• In scientific articles, usually there is an introduction which establishes the background for the experiment or study, and won't provide you with much to summarize. It will be followed by the development of a research question and testing procedures, though, which are key in dictating the content for the rest of the article.

• The specifics of the testing procedures don't usually need to be included in your summary in their entirety; they should be reduced to a simple idea of how the research question was addressed. The results of the study will usually be processed data, sometimes accompanied by raw, pre-process data. Only the processed data needs to be included in the summary.

• Make sure your summary covers the research question, the conclusions/results, and how those results were achieved. These are crucial parts of the article and cannot be left out.

• This is sometimes more important in summaries dealing with articles in the humanities. For example, it might be helpful to unpack dense arguments about poet George Herbert's relationship to the divine with more pedestrian summaries: "The author seeks to humanize Herbert by discussing his daily routines, as opposed to his philosophies."

• This can be difficult for some inexperienced research writers to get the hang of at first, but remember to keep the "I" out of it.

• Check verbs after writing. If you're using the same ones over and over, your reader will get bored. In this case, try to go back and really see if you can make really efficient choices.

Community Q&A

You Might Also Like

• ↑ https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/owlprint/930/
• ↑ https://student.unsw.edu.au/writing-critical-review
• ↑ http://web.pdx.edu/~jduh/courses/faq/JouranlArticleSearch.htm
• ↑ http://web.cortland.edu/hendrick/journalarticle.pdf

About This Article

To summarize a journal article, start by reading the author's abstract, which tells you the main argument of the article. Next, read the article carefully, highlighting portions, identifying key vocabulary, and taking notes as you go. In your summary, define the research question, indicate the methodology used, and focus mostly on the results of the research. Use your notes to help you stay focused on the main argument and always keep your tone objective—avoid using personal pronouns and drawing your own conclusions. For tips on how to read through the journal article thoroughly, such as starting with the conclusion, keep reading! Did this summary help you? Yes No

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Lara Anthony

Nov 7, 2017

Did this article help you?

Mesfin Solomon

Mar 20, 2017

Juabin Matey

Sep 19, 2017

Mara Carrasco

Jan 23, 2017

Nurlan Yrysov

Sep 14, 2018

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

wikiHow Tech Help Pro:

Develop the tech skills you need for work and life

Extract key information from research papers with our AI summarizer.

Get a snapshot of what matters – fast . Break down complex concepts into easy-to-read sections. Skim or dive deep with a clean reading experience.

Summarize, analyze, and organize your research in one place.

Features built for scholars like you, trusted by researchers and students around the world.

Summarize papers, PDFs, book chapters, online articles and more.

Easy import

Drag and drop files, enter the url of a page, paste a block of text, or use our browser extension.

Enhanced summary

Change the summary to suit your reading style. Choose from a bulleted list, one-liner and more.

Read the key points of a paper in seconds with confidence that everything you read comes from the original text.

Clean reading

Clutter free flashcards help you skim or diver deeper into the details and quickly jump between sections.

Highlighted key terms and findings. Let evidence-based statements guide you through the full text with confidence.

Summarize texts in any format

Scholarcy’s ai summarization tool is designed to generate accurate, reliable article summaries..

Our summarizer tool is trained to identify key terms, claims, and findings in academic papers. These insights are turned into digestible Summary Flashcards.

Scroll in the box below to see the magic ⤸

The knowledge extraction and summarization methods we use focus on accuracy. This ensures what you read is factually correct, and can always be traced back to the original source .

What students say

It would normally take me 15mins – 1 hour to skim read the article but with Scholarcy I can do that in 5 minutes.

Scholarcy makes my life easier because it pulls out important information in the summary flashcard.

Scholarcy is clear and easy to navigate. It helps speed up the process of reading and understating papers.

Join over 400,000 people already saving time.

From a to z with scholarcy, generate flashcard summaries. discover more aha moments. get to point quicker..

Understand complex research. Jump between key concepts and sections.   Highlight text. Take notes.

Build a library of knowledge. Recall important info with ease. Organize, search, sort, edit.

Bring it all together. Export Flashcards in a range of formats. Transfer Flashcards into other apps.

Apply what you’ve learned. Compile your highlights, notes, references. Write that magnum opus 🤌

Go beyond summaries

Get unlimited summaries, advanced research and analysis features, and your own personalised collection with Scholarcy Library!

With Scholarcy Library you can import unlimited documents and generate summaries for all your course materials or collection of research papers.

Scholarcy Library offers additional features including access to millions of academic research papers, customizable summaries, direct import from Zotero and more.

Scholarcy lets you build and organise your summaries into a handy library that you can access from anywhere. Export from a range of options, including one-click bibliographies and even a literature matrix.

Compare plans

Summarize 3 articles a day with our free summarizer tool, or upgrade to
Scholarcy Library to generate and save unlimited article summaries.

Import a range of file formats

Export flashcards (one at a time)

Everything in Free

Unlimited summarization

Generate enhanced summaries

Save your flashcards

Take notes, highlight and edit text

Organize flashcards into collections

Frequently Asked Questions

How do i use scholarcy, what if i’m having issues importing files, can scholarcy generate a plain language summary of the article, can scholarcy process any size document, how do i change the summary to get better results, what if i upload a paywalled article to scholarcy, is it violating copyright laws.

• Library Catalogue

Summarizing: How to effectively summarize the work of others

On this page, strategies for summarizing, a summary case study.

Academic writing requires you to research the work of other scholars, develop your own ideas on the topic of your research, and then to think about how your ideas relate to the scholarship that you have researched. Three main ways of responding are to generally agree, generally disagree, or both agree and disagree with another author’s perspective on a subject. You can think of agreeing and disagreeing as being like saying, “Okay, but….” Being able to effectively summarize the work of other researchers will help you both to determine your own position and also clearly communicate the connections between your ideas and the ideas of others. In other words, knowing how to effectively summarize the ideas of others helps you to bring those ideas into dialogue with your own.

When you summarize, you explain the main idea(s) from someone else’s work. Note that you must include citation information for summaries -- think of your citation as showing your reader where they can find the original or “full” version of the work that you have summarized.

In They Say/I Say, Gerald Graff and Cathy Birkenstein describe summarizing as “putting yourself in the shoes of someone else” (2014, p. 31). They use this description because effective summarizing requires that you engage with and aim to understand someone else’s ideas or perspective, even if you disagree. It can be helpful to think of a summary as a brief description of someone else’s work that they, themselves, would recognize and consider to be a fair representation.

Try these steps for writing summaries:

• Select a short passage (about one to four sentences) that supports an idea in your paper.
• Read the passage carefully to fully understand it.
• Take notes about the main idea and supporting points you think you should include in your summary. Include keywords and terms used by the author and think, too, about how the source ideas are relevant to the argument(s) that you are presenting in your paper.
• Using only your notes, explain the original author’s main ideas to someone else. Then explain how those ideas support or conflict with your own argument.
• Reread the original source. Is there important information that you have forgotten or misremembered? Is your summary very similar to the original source?
• Add in-text citation and check the required formatting style.

An effective summary is a way of communicating to your reader what the source text is “about.” However, even while it is important to “put yourself in the shoes” of the original author, you also need to know what it is that you are arguing in your paper that has led you to include this other perspective. Because a scholarly article is rarely about one simple thing, knowing what you are arguing will help you to determine the most important ideas of the original source for your paper.

Below is an example of an ineffective, list-like summary, followed by an effective summary. 

Original source to be summarized

“Before 1994, diabetes in children was generally caused by a genetic disorder – only about 5 percent of childhood diabetes cases were obesity-related, or Type 2, diabetes. Today, according to the National Institutes of Health, Type 2 diabetes accounts for at least 30 percent of all new childhood cases of diabetes in this country. Not surprisingly, money spent to treat diabetes has skyrocketed, too. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that diabetes accounted for $2.6 billion in health care costs in 1969. Today’s number is an unbelievable $100 billion a year.”

“Don’t Blame the Eater,” David Zinczenko [1]

Ineffective list-like summary 

The author says that only 5 percent of children had Type 2 diabetes before 1994. In addition, they mention that today at least 30 percent of new childhood diabetes cases in the USA are Type 2. They also say that more money is being spent to treat diabetes now -- $100 billion a year.

Effective summary

In author's article “Don’t Blame the Eater,” David Zinczenko supports their position on the fast food industry by comparing today’s rates of Type 2 diabetes to those prior to 1994. David makes it clear that instances of Type 2 diabetes have increased dramatically, as has the cost of preventing the spread of this disease.

An effective summary doesn’t just report source information but also indicates concisely how the ideas connect and why they matter. You will also notice that the second example mentions the name of the author and the article, which is an important way of signalling to your reader that you are referring to someone else’s work, rather than presenting your own original ideas.

[1] Example taken from Graff, G. & Birkenstein, C. (2014). They say/I say: The moves that matter in academic writing. New York and London: W.W. Norton & Company.

How to Summarize Any Research Article Better: Proven Tips Outlined

Rev › Blog › Marketing › How to Summarize Any Research Article Better: Proven Tips Outlined

You’ve got content gold on your hands—  primary  and  secondary  research materials from some of the top market research companies. Now, it’s time to decide how it relates to your products, project, or consumers. What’s more, you need to distill each article’s essential parts into easy-to-read, accurate, informative, and, most importantly, concise summaries. Overwhelming? Maybe. Impossible? Heck no; you just need a good strategy. So, where to start?

You’ve landed on the right page! These tips and techniques provide a template to help guide you through the process. 

Know Your Focus

The streaming TV hit,  Cobra Kai,  brings to mind Mr. Miyagi’s age-old wisdom– ‘Focus, Daniel-San.’ Focus is vital, as some sections of a research article are more relevant to your strategy than others. 

For example, a summary crafted for a school project or a university may focus on the experiment itself. In contrast, the article’s results and discussion sections may be more relevant to consumer marketing or for a business model.

Once you establish your focus, you’re less likely to waste time.

Read The Research Article

But before you do, let’s look at the makeup of these articles. Market research, focus group data, and surveys usually consist of five or more sections.

• An abstract or hypothesis
• Explanation of the methods used
• Tests or experiments performed
• Summation and or discussion of the results
• A list of references or source materials

Read The Abstract

Since some of the research articles you find will not work for your purpose, you should always start with the abstract. It’s an overview of the data and explains the purpose of the study as well as the expected results. So you’ll know whether to include the article or move on to the next piece of research.

Take Good Notes

The next step– read the article from abstract to references. But be prepared! Your mind may wander when faced with numbers, statistics, and long-winded wording. So grab your highlighter and pen and start taking notes.

Depending on the space available, you can write your notes in the margin. If you’re in a time crunch, check out  Rev . We’ve designed a convenient application perfect for taking notes! Download our  Voice Recorder App  for free and read your notes out loud. You’ll get a 99% accurate transcription of your summary notes sent to your email or account with a simple tap. 

Research Hack:  As an overview, a research article may not include every insight from the participants, interviews, or market data. Take a look at the references. You may find some hidden gems that will help your strategy stand out.    

Outline Your Thoughts

You’ve made notes, sifted through the numbers and statistics; but, there’s still a ton of information. An outline will make your writing process much more efficient. Although each research article is relatively straight-forward, you want your summary to stay on strategy.

Write A Summary

Okay, you’re ready to condense someone else’s work. Rather than stress over grammar and length, take the pressure off by writing a rough draft. Use key points from your notes, REV transcriptions, your outline, and the research article’s sections as your guide. 

Identify The Goal And The Methods Used

Like the author’s abstract, the beginning of your summary should address the research article’s fundamental objective .  This section may also include critical details about demographics, customer behavior, or trends. When summarizing, consider three key questions. 

• What is the goal of the research?
• What methods did the author(s) use?
• Are potential obstacles to success listed?

Methods vary in market research. You may have focus groups ,  in-depth interviews , or online discussions. Depending on the reason for your summary, the raw audio or video clips used in the study may hold nuggets. If full transcripts aren’t available, save time by uploading the clips to Rev. Our human transcription service costs $1.50 per minute, and we offer a 99% accuracy guarantee. We also offer a more cost-effective A.I. speech-to-text solution for only $0.25 per minute .

Describe The Observations

The experiment is the “meat” of the research. In your own words, briefly explain what the author(s) observed as the testing played out in real-time. You can talk about the time it took participants to complete tasks or directives. Were they excited about the client’s brand or disinterested? Basically, you’re recapping the participant’s reactions. 

Discuss The Outcome

As with any study, the results make or break the goal of the research. Was the test successful? Was anyone surprised by the outcome, or were there any unexpected developments? Pay careful attention to detail as you layout all conclusions reached by the author(s).

Article Summary Quick Tips: Do This, Not That

Is your head spinning yet? You can simplify the editing process by following these technical takeaways.

• Be Careful Not To Draw Your Own Conclusions:  You are summarizing the results of the research. The last thing you want to do is editorialize your summary. To avoid this, use the third-person point of view and present tense.  
• Keep Your Copy Clean And Free Of Errors:  Reread your text. Eliminate words like “that,” “in fact,” “however,” and adverbs. Make sure your summary is accurate. Then, use free websites like  Hemingway App  or paid services such as  Grammarly  to check for grammar or spelling issues. 
• Watch For Plagiarism:  Unless you’re using a word coined by the researcher, paraphrase your text. If you notice similar wording in your summary, reread the article so you can explain the data in your own words.
• Cite Your Sources: Steer clear of directly quoting the research. It’s best to paraphrase the data and reference the source using: the name of the university, the name of the journal and year of publication, or the name of the researcher, team, or society and year of study.  

Finalize Your Article Summary

Remember, you want your summary to be clear, straight-forward, and compelling. The market research article or study you’ve chosen may prove vital to you or your client’s business strategy and brand analysis. Take your time. Read and reread your summary. Make sure it’s representative of the research. And always triple-check your text for technical and factual accuracy.

Related Content

Latest article.

How to Analyze Focus Group Data

Most popular.

Differences in Focus Groups & In-Depth Interviews for a Successful Market Research

Featured article.

How to Use Automatic Transcription as a Marketing Professional

Everybody’s favorite speech-to-text blog.

We combine AI and a huge community of freelancers to make speech-to-text greatness every day. Wanna hear more about it?

Summarizing

by jleemcga | Aug 18, 2023 | Resources for Students , Writing Resources

What is summarizing?

A summary of a text is a short overview of the main ideas written in your own words. While paraphrasing involves expressing specific ideas or details from a larger text in your own words, we generally summarize whole texts (whether it is an essay, article, chapter, book, et cetera). So, in order to ensure our summaries are not too wordy or confusing, we only cover the main ideas or argument presented within a whole text.

It’s best to summarize when you’re contextualizing a topic by letting your readers know about the current, ongoing conversation. By summarizing relevant sources, you’re providing your audience with an overview of what has already been said about this topic to help them understand how you’ll be adding to it. Summarizing material within your paper allows you to:

• Condense key ideas or arguments relevant to your paper
• Simplify the connection between a source and your own writing

How do I summarize?

To approach summarizing a source, try the following steps:

• First make sure you carefully read the original source material to understand it. Like paraphrasing, summarizing effectively requires an accurate understanding of the source material
• Identify all the main ideas from the text. It helps to look for the thesis or overall claim the author is presenting, as well as any important reasons they give to back their claim. Basically, you’re looking for why their argument is what it is
• When you begin your summary, you might use a TAG line. This stands for Title, Author, Genre and allows you to formally introduce the text before you summarize its ideas. An example of a TAG line is: In the article “Stuck on the Streets of San Francisco in a Driverless Car”, Cade Metz reports … TAG lines add a helpful framework for the summary
• Be sure not to include any specific examples, details, or evidence from the text. In summaries, we don’t describe the author’s examples (this would be like rewriting the entire text). Instead, we offer a map of the main idea and major points
• Once you finish writing your summary, check to make sure your summary concisely and accurately captures the author’s main ideas
• Remember to cite!

Examples of summarizing

Here is an example of a writer summarizing a main idea from the source Social Death: Racialized Rightlessness and the Criminalization of the Unprotected by Lisa Marie Cacho in their essay about a Salvadoran poet and her poetry’s relationship to reclaiming identity:

The ambiguity that is scored onto the bodies of Salvadoran migrants creates an impoverished sense of time and freedom by keeping these individuals indefinitely “temporary,” an ephemera that imposes a constant threat against safety and belonging for Salvadorans in the US. This weaponization of time also contributes to the condition of social death that Cacho describes as being prevalent for people of color, and particularly immigrants, in the US. According to Cacho, part of the criminalization of people of color within the US— not based on one’s behavior, but by their appearance— is heightened further by the notion of documentation. The rhetoric surrounding immigration in the US ultimately aims to invalidate those without documentation by using slurs like “illegal” (Cacho).

Note: The writer quotes some key terms, like “temporary” or “illegal” that the author emphasizes in the original source but describes the main ideas of the source in their own words. Note, too, that the summary focuses on the big-picture ideas of the source without mentioning examples that are too specific.

Things to keep in mind when summarizing

Some important things to remain mindful of while summarizing in your assignments are:

• There is no specified length for writing summaries; they may be a few sentences or a few paragraphs depending on your writing project. For most academic essays, a summary of a few sentences to a short paragraph is appropriate. Concision is key
• Do not include your opinions on the topic or the author’s ideas in your summary; your ideas are important, but summary is a genre of writing that requires objectivity
• Do not include specific details or examples from the text—just focus on the big picture ideas

Our Newest Resources!

• Best Practices for Emailing Instructors and Professors
• Incorporating Headings & Subheadings
• Revision vs. Proofreading
• Engaging With Sources Effectively
• The Dos and Don’ts of Using Tables and Figures in Your Writing

Additional Resources

• Black Lives Matter Writing Contest
• Graduate Writing Consultants
• Instructor Resources
• Student Resources
• Quick Guides and Handouts
• Self-Guided and Directed Learning Activities

Graduate Student Resource Center

Supporting Graduate Students' Academic and Professional Success

Summarizing Strategies

Summarizing a great deal of books and articles is a task many of us in graduate school learn how to do. There are several ways to start summarizing. In the long run, our notes can store some important ideas for us to draw from later, especially when we need to write new essays or take writing exams. As I went on in graduate school, I realized that I needed to upgrade my summarizing strategies more and more. Again, there are different ways to summarize and store information, or code information in general (there are also tons of programs to help with coding and organizing your information (please check out this blog ). I want to focus on the notation and writing process in this short blog. In an old-fashioned way, this involves using a pen and paper and writing notes on your textbooks. Of course, you can still use your laptop to jot down notes. These few short tips will add to your writing tool belt.

[ Image Description: A frog using a pencil and paper to take notes]

Noting Key Words: Sometimes, you read a few pages, and you do not necessarily want to stop and jot down a great deal of notes because you want to maintain a good level of comprehension. An old friend once advised a group of students and me that after you read one paragraph, write one word (or a two-word phrase) next to the paragraph. These words can serve two functions: highlight the paragraphs’ focus and jog your memory about some of the larger ideas and connections you made. 

Paragraph Summaries: Another way to summarize book or article chapters is to write 4-5 sentences on the last page of the chapter right after you finish reading it. You can also draw on the “keywords” you wrote next to each paragraph to help guide your writing process. Think of these short paragraphs as crystals. In this 4 to 5-sentence summary, you want to crystallize the argument and summarize the key points of the text you've just read: its central thesis, prominent examples, and concluding remarks. Additionally, summarizing specific content directly related to your research is a big plus, so you should also focus your summaries on such areas. (For timesake, sometimes we cannot read an entire chapter – but only its introduction, conclusion, and key examples or findings. Nonetheless, with strategic reading and proper summarizing skills, we can still walk away with some key ideas and store them for future use).

Summarize Ideas that Interest You: At one point, one of my graduate advisors suggested that if I read a book in my field and really liked it, I email the author and share with them the key ideas I appreciated from their book. This is a great exercise because no writing goes to waste. As you are writing to this professor, you will be actively engaging with some of their ideas; this can prompt you to make connections and ask further questions. Also, these short writings (and even conversations if they respond and some do ) can be stored for your future use.

Book Summaries: A whole other blog can be written on book summaries for this point. Writing book summaries is a very important practice to develop – especially for those in the humanities and social sciences. Some recommend that you write a book summary for every book that will be in your dissertation bibliography. Writing a 2-3 page summary of a book will help you understand a book’s breadth and depth to a higher degree. Often, these book summaries need to include the author's main thesis, the birds-eye-view of the book, a brief synopsis of all or key chapters of the book, and further elaboration on chapters of interest (especially if these chapters make direct connections to your work). As you take time to write these book summaries, if some of the books you wrote about were recently published, you can also polish these summaries further and try submitting them as book reviews for publication.

Placing Ideas in Conversation: As a final point, one way to summarize information is to note various authors discussing the same topic and place them in conversation. You can create different “living” documents (using Word, Google Docs, Pages, etc.) and constantly update them. Every time you see an author addressing a topic you are focusing on, note it – and make sure to add a few sentences to your living document to show how this specific author contributes to the conversation. Making these bigger connections between writers may lead you to some brilliant ideas!

[ Image Description: A light bulb shining because it has a great idea.]

That is all the tips I have for now. Hopefully, these few points will help! Happy writing!

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

How to Summarize a Research Article

Research articles use a standard format to clearly communicate information about an experiment. A research article usually has seven major sections: Title, Abstract,

Related Papers

KMB Electricals & Plumbing

Jennifer L Teeter

In this study, a qualitative analysis of 276 first-year Japanese university science major responses to plagiarism to deconstruct prevailing generalizations regarding the incidence of plagiarism by Japanese university students. These students were enrolled in a compulsory yearlong English academic writing course. While utilizing a contextualized incident, rather than generalized statements, to gain a more thorough understanding of students’ perceptions of plagiarism, this study also seeks to address the current imbalances in English-language analyses on plagiarism in Japan which fail to incorporate Japanese-language sources and studies. In contrast to previous research based on hypotheses of cultural conditioning which assume students are ambivalent towards plagiarism, the students surveyed displayed a complex awareness of the educational and societal issues that frame occurrences of plagiarism and a desire to receive effective training in academic writing techniques, similar to their native English-speaking counterparts. Finally, the paper makes suggestions for pedagogy that empowers students with tools to critically navigate the dominant academic world.

Lyna Wihani

Muhammad Tariq Siddique

Troy Rubesch

Sasima Charubusp

Plagiarism has become a critical issue in the academic context around the world including Thailand. Plagiarism is generally considered a form of cheating, and some studies of Thai students suggested that this problem is rooted in Thai cultural patterns, which accept cheating as a common practice (Young 2013). Generally, three plagiarism avoidance approaches have been taught: techniques for direct quotation, paraphrasing and summarizing. However, especially paraphrasing and summarizing are subtle skills, mastery of which requires excellent literacy skills and extended practice, but in actual classes, these techniques are always presented as an abridged part of an EAP course. Apparently, such courses do not prevent plagiarism; students always continue to be penalized for copying phrases from sources because they still cannot paraphrase and summarize properly. Some plagiarism detection software packages are also used as punitive tools, which has the effect of blaming students for the problem instead of helping them learn to avoid it (William 2002). In fact, it is unreasonable to expect control of such demanding techniques after a brief lecture and limited practice. Moreover, plagiarism by EFL students may actually be unintended, and the cause may go beyond deliberate dishonesty (Sivell 2013). It could involve other related cognitive factors such as a limited level of language proficiency, lack of clear instruction, insufficient practice, and unawareness of the regulations around correct techniques for writing from sources. This study examines how Thai students and teachers perceived plagiarism, what characteristics of each group hinder plagiarism avoidance, and how being reproached for academic dishonesty affects students’ motivation for language learning.

European Scientific Journal ESJ

In academic writing, students need to incorporate outside sources. Incorporated sources involve summarizing, paraphrasing, and quoting. Depending on why the source is being used, one method may be more appropriate than another. All three methods of incorporating sources require citations. Sources can be utilized for various purposes: presenting facts or statistics, serving as evidence to support an argument, lending authority to an argument or idea, i.e., authoritative discourse, providing examples and illustrations, stating an opposing viewpoint, and so on. For every source, students must determine the purpose of that source and how to best incorporate it into their writing. Both aspects are crucial to effectively integrating sources throughout the paper. Effective integrating of the sources in the EFL writing is a demanding task. Therefore, the aim of the study is to find out the difficulties and challenges the students face while using outside sources in academic writing. In achieving the aim of this study, twenty five third-year students were given an assignment to write an essay in which they had to incorporate an outside source. The study was conducted in the first semester in the academic year 2016-2017. Discussion of findings, implications and recommendations were presented after analyzing the students' works.

Rebekka Tunombili

ahmet benzer , Sümeyye Konuk , ZEYNEB ÖREN , Ayşegül SEFER

Summarizing is restating the most important ideas from an original text briefly. Students often need summary writing skill along the education life since it provides understanding and remembering the reading material. This study aims to apply book summary writing strategy which is based on in-class implementations, and to develop the students book summary writing skill with education. With this aim, to determine students' book summary writing skill and analyze the development of their book summary writing skill, researchers have developed a book summary writing strategy and also a rubric to evaluate the written summaries. While developing the book summary writing strategy, researchers have conducted the study with 44 university students studying at Turkish language teaching department in the third grade. The study lasted for 11 weeks, and the education period is implemented as one week education and one week summary writing implementation. The strategy and rubric have been updated with the students' views, feedbacks and researchers' notes during the education process. In the study, of the qualitative research methods, grounded theory was used. At the end of the study, it is stated that students have been successful in writing a book summary, tagging and taking notes, isolating from trivial details and also, they could write the summaries in a shorter time. The study findings revealed the usable book summary writing strategy and the rubric for book summary evaluation.

University of the Western Cape,[Online]

Nelleke Bak

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• Search Menu

Sign in through your institution

• Advance articles
• Digital Collections
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access Policy
• Self-Archiving Policy
• About the ASBMR
• Editorial Board
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Fractures by race and ethnicity in a diverse sample of postmenopausal women: a current evaluation among Hispanic and Asian origin groups

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Nicole C Wright, Shawna Follis, Joseph C Larson, Carolyn J Crandall, Marcia L Stefanick, Steven W Ing, Jane A Cauley, Fractures by race and ethnicity in a diverse sample of postmenopausal women: a current evaluation among Hispanic and Asian origin groups, Journal of Bone and Mineral Research , 2024;, zjae117, https://doi.org/10.1093/jbmr/zjae117

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Using 1998-2022 Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) data, our study provides contemporary fracture data by race and ethnicity, specifically focusing on Hispanic and Asian women. Fractures of interest included any clinical, hip, and major osteoporotic fractures (MOFs). We utilized the updated race and ethnicity information collected in 2003, which included seven Asian and five Hispanic origin groups. We computed crude and age-standardized fracture incidence rates per 10 000 woman-years across race and ethnic categories and by Asian and Hispanic origin. We used Cox proportional hazards model, adjusting for age and WHI clinical trial arm, to evaluate the risk of fracture (1) by race compared to White women, (2) Asian origin compared to White women, (3) Hispanic compared to non-Hispanic women, and (4) Asian and Hispanic origins compared the most prevalent origin group. Over a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 19.4 (9.2-24.2) years, 44.2% of the 160 824 women experienced any clinical fracture, including 36 278 MOFs and 8962 hip fractures. Compared to White women, Black, Pacific Islander, Asian, and multiracial women had significantly lower risk of any clinical and MOFs, while only Black and Asian women had significantly lower hip fracture risk. Within Asian women, Filipina women had 24% lower risk of any clinical fracture compared to Japanese women. Hispanic women had significantly lower risk of any clinical, hip, and MOF fractures compared to non-Hispanic women, with no differences in fracture risk observed within Hispanic origin groups. In this diverse sample of postmenopausal women, we confirmed racial and ethnic differences in fracture rates and risk, with novel findings among within Asian and Hispanic subgroups. These data can aid in future longitudinal studies evaluate contributors to racial and ethnic differences in fractures.

Lay Summary

We provided contemporary fracture rates by race and ethnicity, specifically focusing on multiple Hispanic and Asian subgroups, using 1998-2022 data from the Women’s Health Initiative. Over a median follow-up of 19.4 years, 43.4% of the 154 948 women experienced any clinical fracture, including 8679 hip and 34 546 major osteoporotic fractures. Compared to White women, Black, Pacific Islander, Asian, and multiracial women had significantly lower risk of any clinical and major osteoporotic fractures (MOFs); while only Black and Asian women had significantly lower hip fracture risk when compared to White women. Within Asian women, Filipina women had 24% lower risk of any clinical fracture compared to Japanese women. Hispanic women had significantly lower risk of any clinical, hip, and MOF fractures compared to non-Hispanic women, with no differences in fracture risk observed within Hispanic women. In this diverse sample of postmenopausal women, we confirmed racial and ethnic differences in fracture rates and risk, with novel findings among Pacific Islander women and within Asian and Hispanic subgroups.

American Society for Bone and Mineral Research members

Personal account.

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code
• Add your ORCID iD

Institutional access

Sign in with a library card.

• Sign in with username/password
• Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Short-term Access

To purchase short-term access, please sign in to your personal account above.

Don't already have a personal account? Register

Email alerts

Related articles in.

• Google Scholar

Citing articles via

• Recommend to your Library
• Advertising & Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1523-4681
• Print ISSN 0884-0431
• Copyright © 2024 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 14 August 2024

A Scottish provenance for the Altar Stone of Stonehenge

• Anthony J. I. Clarke   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0304-0484 1 ,
• Christopher L. Kirkland   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3367-8961 1 ,
• Richard E. Bevins 2 ,
• Nick J. G. Pearce   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3157-9564 2 ,
• Stijn Glorie 3 &
• Rob A. Ixer 4  

Nature volume  632 ,  pages 570–575 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

58k Accesses

1 Citations

4288 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Archaeology

Understanding the provenance of megaliths used in the Neolithic stone circle at Stonehenge, southern England, gives insight into the culture and connectivity of prehistoric Britain. The source of the Altar Stone, the central recumbent sandstone megalith, has remained unknown, with recent work discounting an Anglo-Welsh Basin origin 1 , 2 . Here we present the age and chemistry of detrital zircon, apatite and rutile grains from within fragments of the Altar Stone. The detrital zircon load largely comprises Mesoproterozoic and Archaean sources, whereas rutile and apatite are dominated by a mid-Ordovician source. The ages of these grains indicate derivation from an ultimate Laurentian crystalline source region that was overprinted by Grampian (around 460 million years ago) magmatism. Detrital age comparisons to sedimentary packages throughout Britain and Ireland reveal a remarkable similarity to the Old Red Sandstone of the Orcadian Basin in northeast Scotland. Such a provenance implies that the Altar Stone, a 6 tonne shaped block, was sourced at least 750 km from its current location. The difficulty of long-distance overland transport of such massive cargo from Scotland, navigating topographic barriers, suggests that it was transported by sea. Such routing demonstrates a high level of societal organization with intra-Britain transport during the Neolithic period.

Similar content being viewed by others

The expansion of Acheulean hominins into the Nefud Desert of Arabia

Cryptic geological histories accessed through entombed and matrix geochronometers in dykes

The earliest evidence of Acheulian occupation in Northwest Europe and the rediscovery of the Moulin Quignon site, Somme valley, France

Stonehenge, the Neolithic standing stone circle located on the Salisbury Plain in Wiltshire, England, offers valuable insight into prehistoric Britain. Construction at Stonehenge began as early as 3000  bc , with subsequent modifications during the following two millennia 3 , 4 . The megaliths of Stonehenge are divided into two major categories: sarsen stones and bluestones (Fig. 1a ). The larger sarsens comprise duricrust silcrete predominantly sourced from the West Woods, Marlborough, approximately 25 km north of Stonehenge 5 , 6 . Bluestone, the generic term for rocks considered exotic to the local area, includes volcanic tuff, rhyolite, dolerite and sandstone lithologies 4 (Fig. 1a ). Some lithologies are linked with Neolithic quarrying sites in the Mynydd Preseli area of west Wales 7 , 8 . An unnamed Lower Palaeozoic sandstone, associated with the west Wales area on the basis of acritarch fossils 9 , is present only as widely disseminated debitage at Stonehenge and possibly as buried stumps (Stones 40g and 42c).

a , Plan view of Stonehenge showing exposed constituent megaliths and their provenance. The plan of Stonehenge was adapted from ref.  6 under a CC BY 4.0 license. Changes in scale and colour were made, and annotations were added. b , An annotated photograph shows the Altar Stone during a 1958 excavation. The Altar Stone photograph is from the Historic England archive. Reuse is not permitted.

The central megalith of Stonehenge, the Altar Stone (Stone 80), is the largest of the bluestones, measuring 4.9 × 1.0 × 0.5 m, and is a recumbent stone (Fig. 1b ), weighing 6 t and composed of pale green micaceous sandstone with distinctive mineralogy 1 , 2 , 10 (containing baryte, calcite and clay minerals, with a notable absence of K-feldspar) (Fig. 2 ).

Minerals with a modal abundance above 0.5% are shown with compositional values averaged across both thin sections. U–Pb ablation pits from laser ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (LA-ICP–MS) are shown with age (in millions of years ago, Ma), with uncertainty at the 2 σ level.

Previous petrographic work on the Altar Stone has implied an association to the Old Red Sandstone 10 , 11 , 12 (ORS). The ORS is a late Silurian to Devonian sedimentary rock assemblage that crops out widely throughout Great Britain and Ireland (Extended Data Fig. 1 ). ORS lithologies are dominated by terrestrial siliciclastic sedimentary rocks deposited in continental fluvial, lacustrine and aeolian environments 13 . Each ORS basin reflects local subsidence and sediment infill and thus contains proximal crystalline signatures 13 , 14 .

Constraining the provenance of the Altar Stone could give insights into the connectivity of Neolithic people who left no written record 15 . When the Altar Stone arrived at Stonehenge is uncertain; however, it may have been placed within the central trilithon horseshoe during the second construction phase around 2620–2480  bc 3 . Whether the Altar Stone once stood upright as an approximately 4 m high megalith is unclear 15 ; nevertheless, the current arrangement has Stones 55b and 156 from the collapsed Great Trilithon resting atop the prone and broken Altar Stone (Fig. 1b ).

An early proposed source for the Altar Stone from Mill Bay, Pembrokeshire (Cosheston Subgroup of the Anglo-Welsh ORS Basin), close to the Mynydd Preseli source of the doleritic and rhyolitic bluestones, strongly influenced the notion of a sea transport route via the Bristol Channel 12 . However, inconsistencies in petrography and detrital zircon ages between the Altar Stone and the Cosheston Subgroup have ruled this source out 1 , 11 . Nonetheless, a source from elsewhere in the ORS of the Anglo-Welsh Basin was still considered likely, with an inferred collection and overland transport of the Altar Stone en route to Stonehenge from the Mynydd Preseli 1 . However, a source from the Senni Formation (Cosheston Subgroup) is inconsistent with geochemical and petrographic data, which shows that the Anglo-Welsh Basin is highly unlikely to be the source 2 . Thus, the ultimate provenance of the Altar Stone had remained an open question.

Studies of detrital mineral grains are widely deployed to address questions throughout the Earth sciences and have utility in archaeological investigations 16 , 17 . Sedimentary rocks commonly contain a detrital component derived from a crystalline igneous basement, which may reflect a simple or complex history of erosion, transport and deposition cycles. This detrital cargo can fingerprint a sedimentary rock and its hinterland. More detailed insights become evident when a multi-mineral strategy is implemented, which benefits from the varying degrees of robustness to sedimentary transportation in the different minerals 18 , 19 , 20 .

Here, we present in situ U–Pb, Lu–Hf and trace element isotopic data for zircon, apatite and rutile from two fragments of the Altar Stone collected at Stonehenge: MS3 and 2010K.240 21 , 22 . In addition, we present comparative apatite U–Pb dates for the Orcadian Basin from Caithness and Orkney. We utilize statistical tools (Fig. 3 ) to compare the obtained detrital mineral ages and chemistry (Supplementary Information  1 – 3 ) to crystalline terranes and ORS successions across Great Britain, Ireland and Europe (Fig. 4 and Extended Data Fig. 1 ).

a , Multidimensional scaling (MDS) plot of concordant zircon U–Pb ages from the Altar Stone and comparative age datasets, with ellipses at the 95% confidence level 58 . DIM 1 and DIM 2, dimensions 1 and 2. b , Cumulative probability plot of zircon U–Pb ages from crystalline terranes, the Orcadian Basin and the Altar Stone. For a cumulative probability plot of all ORS basins, see Extended Data Fig. 8 .

a , Schematic map of Britain, showing outcrops of ORS and other Devonian sedimentary rocks, basement terranes and major faults. Potential Caledonian source plutons are colour-coded on the basis of age 28 . b , Kernel density estimate diagrams displaying zircon U–Pb age (histogram) and apatite Lu–Hf age (dashed line) spectra from the Altar Stone, the Orcadian Basin 25 and plausible crystalline source terranes. The apatite age components for the Altar Stone and Orcadian Basins are shown below their respective kernel density estimates. Extended Data Fig. 3 contains kernel density estimates of other ORS and New Red Sandstone (NRS) age datasets.

Laurentian basement signatures

The crystalline basement terranes of Great Britain and Ireland, from north to south, are Laurentia, Ganderia, Megumia and East Avalonia (Fig. 4a and Extended Data Fig. 1 ). Cadomia-Armorica is south of the Rheic Suture and encompasses basement rocks in western Europe, including northern France and Spain. East Avalonia, Megumia and Ganderia are partly separated by the Menai Strait Fault System (Fig. 4a ). Each terrane has discrete age components, which have imparted palaeogeographic information into overlying sedimentary basins 13 , 14 , 23 . Laurentia was a palaeocontinent that collided with Baltica and Avalonia (a peri-Gondwanan microcontinent) during the early Palaeozoic Caledonian Orogeny to form Laurussia 14 , 24 . West Avalonia is a terrane that includes parts of eastern Canada and comprised the western margin of Avalonia (Extended Data Fig. 1 ).

Statistical comparisons, using a Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, between zircon ages from the Laurentian crystalline basement and the Altar Stone indicate that at a 95% confidence level, no distinction in provenance is evident between Altar Stone detrital zircon U–Pb ages and those from the Laurentian basement. That is, we cannot reject the null hypothesis that both samples are from the same underlying age distribution (Kolmogorov–Smirnov test: P  > 0.05) (Fig. 3a ).

Detrital zircon age components, defined by concordant analyses from at least 4 grains in the Altar Stone, include maxima at 1,047, 1,091, 1,577, 1,663 and 1,790 Ma (Extended Data Fig. 2 ), corresponding to known tectonomagmatic events and sources within Laurentia and Baltica, including the Grenville (1,095–980 Ma), Labrador (1,690–1,590 Ma), Gothian (1,660–1,520 Ma) and Svecokarellian (1,920–1,770 Ma) orogenies 25 .

Laurentian terranes are crystalline lithologies north of the Iapetus Suture Zone (which marks the collision zone between Laurentia and Avalonia) and include the Southern Uplands, Midland Valley, Grampian, Northern Highlands and Hebridean Terranes (Fig. 4a ). Together, these terranes preserve a Proterozoic to Archaean record of zircon production 24 , distinct from the southern Gondwanan-derived terranes of Britain 20 , 26 (Fig. 4a and Extended Data Fig. 3 ).

Age data from Altar Stone rutile grains also point towards an ultimate Laurentian source with several discrete age components (Extended Data Fig. 4 and Supplementary Information  1 ). Group 2 rutile U–Pb analyses from the Altar Stone include Proterozoic ages from 1,724 to 591 Ma, with 3 grains constituting an age peak at 1,607 Ma, overlapping with Laurentian magmatism, including the Labrador and Pinwarian (1,690–1,380 Ma) orogenies 24 . Southern terranes in Britain are not characterized by a large Laurentian (Mesoproterozoic) crystalline age component 25 (Fig. 4b and Extended Data Fig. 3 ). Instead, terranes south of the Iapetus Suture are defined by Neoproterozoic to early Palaeozoic components, with a minor component from around two billion years ago (Figs. 3b and  4b ).

U–Pb analyses of apatite from the Altar Stone define two distinct age groupings. Group 2 apatite U–Pb analyses define a lower intercept age of 1,018 ± 24 Ma ( n  = 9) (Extended Data Fig. 5 ), which overlaps, within uncertainty, to a zircon age component at 1,047 Ma, consistent with a Grenville source 25 . Apatite Lu–Hf dates at 1,496 and 1,151 Ma also imply distinct Laurentian sources 25 (Fig. 4b , Extended Data Fig. 6 and Supplementary Information  2 ). Ultimately, the presence of Grenvillian apatite in the Altar Stone suggests direct derivation from the Laurentian basement, given the lability of apatite during prolonged chemical weathering 20 , 27 .

Grampian Terrane detrital grains

Apatite and rutile U–Pb analyses from the Altar Stone are dominated by regressions from common Pb that yield lower intercepts of 462 ± 4 Ma ( n  = 108) and 451 ± 8 Ma ( n  = 83), respectively (Extended Data Figs. 4 and 5 ). A single concordant zircon analysis also yields an early Palaeozoic age of 498 ± 17 Ma. Hence, with uncertainty from both lower intercepts, Group 1 apatite and rutile analyses demonstrate a mid-Ordovician (443–466 Ma) age component in the Altar Stone. These mid-Ordovician ages are confirmed by in situ apatite Lu–Hf analyses, which define a lower intercept of 470 ± 29 Ma ( n  = 16) (Extended Data Fig. 6 and Supplementary Information  2 ).

Throughout the Altar Stone are sub-planar 100–200-µm bands of concentrated heavy resistive minerals. These resistive minerals are interpreted to be magmatic in origin, given internal textures (oscillatory zonation), lack of mineral overgrowths (in all dated minerals) (Fig. 2 ) and the igneous apatite trace element signatures 27 (Extended Data Fig. 7 and Supplementary Information  3 ). Moreover, there is a general absence of detrital metamorphic zircon grains, further supporting a magmatic origin for these grains.

The most appropriate source region for such mid-Ordovician grains within Laurentian basement is the Grampian Terrane of northeast Scotland (Fig. 4a ). Situated between the Great Glen Fault to the north and the Highland Boundary Fault to the south, the terrane comprises Neoproterozoic to Lower Palaeozoic metasediments termed the Dalradian Supergroup 28 , which are intruded by a compositionally diverse suite of early Palaeozoic granitoids and gabbros (Fig. 4a ). The 466–443 Ma age component from Group 1 apatite and rutile U–Pb analyses overlaps with the terminal stages of Grampian magmatism and subsequent granite pluton emplacement north of the Highland Boundary Fault 28 (Fig. 4a ).

Geochemical classification plots for the Altar Stone apatite imply a compositionally diverse source, much like the lithological diversity within the Grampian Terrane 28 , with 61% of apatite classified as coming from felsic sources, 35% from mafic sources and 4% from alkaline sources (Extended Data Fig. 7 and Supplementary Information  3 ). Specifically, igneous rocks within the Grampian Terrane are largely granitoids, thus accounting for the predominance of felsic-classified apatite grains 29 . We posit that the dominant supply of detritus from 466–443 Ma came from the numerous similarly aged granitoids formed on the Laurentian margin 28 , which are present in both the Northern Highlands and the Grampian Terranes 28 (Fig. 4a ). The alkaline to calc-alkaline suites in these terranes are volumetrically small, consistent with the scarcity of alkaline apatite grains within the Altar Stone (Extended Data Fig. 7 ). Indeed, the Glen Dessary syenite at 447 ± 3 Ma is the only age-appropriate felsic-alkaline pluton in the Northern Highlands Terrane 30 .

The Stacey and Kramers 31 model of terrestrial Pb isotopic evolution predicts a 207 Pb/ 206 Pb isotopic ratio ( 207 Pb/ 206 Pb i ) of 0.8601 for 465 Ma continental crust. Mid-Ordovician regressions through Group 1 apatite and rutile U–Pb analyses yield upper intercepts for 207 Pb/ 206 Pb i of 0.8603 ± 0.0033 and 0.8564 ± 0.0014, respectively (Extended Data Figs. 4 and 5 and Supplementary Information  1 ). The similarity between apatite and rutile 207 Pb/ 206 Pb i implies they were sourced from the same Mid-Ordovician magmatic fluids. Ultimately, the calculated 207 Pb/ 206 Pb i value is consistent with the older (Laurentian) crust north of the Iapetus Suture in Britain 32 (Fig. 4a ).

Orcadian Basin ORS

The detrital zircon age spectra confirm petrographic associations between the Altar Stone and the ORS. Furthermore, the Altar Stone cannot be a New Red Sandstone (NRS) lithology of Permo-Triassic age. The NRS, deposited from around 280–240 Ma, unconformably overlies the ORS 14 . NRS, such as that within the Wessex Basin (Extended Data Fig. 1 ), has characteristic detrital zircon age components, including Carboniferous to Permian zircon grains, which are not present in the Altar Stone 1 , 23 , 26 , 33 , 34 (Extended Data Fig. 3 ).

An ORS classification for the Altar Stone provides the basis for further interpretation of provenance (Extended Data Figs. 1 and 8 ), given that the ORS crops out in distinct areas of Great Britain and Ireland, including the Anglo-Welsh border and south Wales, the Midland Valley and northeast Scotland, reflecting former Palaeozoic depocentres 14 (Fig. 4a ).

Previously reported detrital zircon ages and petrography show that ORS outcrops of the Anglo-Welsh Basin in the Cosheston Subgroup 1 and Senni Formation 2 are unlikely to be the sources of the Altar Stone (Fig. 4a ). ORS within the Anglo-Welsh Basin is characterized by mid-Palaeozoic zircon age maxima and minor Proterozoic components (Fig. 4a ). Ultimately, the detrital zircon age spectra of the Altar Stone are statistically distinct from the Anglo-Welsh Basin (Fig. 3a ). In addition, the ORS outcrops of southwest England (that is, south of the Variscan front), including north Devon and Cornwall (Cornubian Basin) (Fig. 4a ), show characteristic facies, including marine sedimentary structures and fossils along with a metamorphic fabric 13 , 26 , inconsistent with the unmetamorphosed, terrestrial facies of the Altar Stone 1 , 11 .

Another ORS succession with published age data for comparison is the Dingle Peninsula Basin, southwest Ireland. However, the presence of late Silurian (430–420 Ma) and Devonian (400–350 Ma) apatite, zircon and muscovite from the Dingle Peninsula ORS discount a source for the Altar Stone from southern Ireland 20 . The conspicuous absence of apatite grains of less than 450 Ma in age in the Altar Stone precludes the input of Late Caledonian magmatic grains to the source sediment of the Altar Stone and demonstrates that the ORS of the Altar Stone was deposited prior to or distally from areas of Late Caledonian magmatism, unlike the ORS of the Dingle Peninsula 20 . Notably, no distinction in provenance between the Anglo-Welsh Basin and the Dingle Peninsula ORS is evident (Kolmogorov–Smirnov test: P  > 0.05), suggesting that ORS basins south of the Iapetus Suture are relatively more homogenous in terms of their detrital zircon age components (Fig. 4a ).

In Scotland, ORS predominantly crops out in the Midland Valley and Orcadian Basins (Fig. 4a ). The Midland Valley Basin is bound between the Highland Boundary Fault and the Iapetus Suture and is located within the Midland Valley and Southern Uplands Terranes. Throughout Midland Valley ORS stratigraphy, detrital zircon age spectra broadly show a bimodal age distribution between Lower Palaeozoic and Mesoproterozoic components 35 , 36 (Extended Data Fig. 3 ). Indeed, throughout 9 km of ORS stratigraphy in the Midland Valley Basin and across the Sothern Uplands Fault, no major changes in provenance are recognized 36 (Fig. 4a ). Devonian zircon, including grains as young as 402 ± 5 Ma from the northern ORS in the Midland Valley Basin 36 , further differentiates this basin from the Altar Stone (Fig. 3a and Extended Data Fig. 3 ). The scarcity of Archaean to late Palaeoproterozoic zircon grains within the Midland Valley ORS shows that the Laurentian basement was not a dominant detrital source for those rocks 35 . Instead, ORS of the Midland Valley is primarily defined by zircon from 475 Ma interpreted to represent the detrital remnants of Ordovician volcanism within the Midland Valley Terrane, with only minor and periodic input from Caledonian plutonism 35 .

The Orcadian Basin of northeast Scotland, within the Grampian and Northern Highlands terranes, contains a thick package of mostly Mid-Devonian ORS, around 4 km thick in Caithness and up to around 8 km thick in Shetland 14 (Fig. 4a ). The detrital zircon age spectra from Orcadian Basin ORS provides the closest match to the Altar Stone detrital ages 25 (Fig. 3 and Extended Data Fig. 8 ). A Kolmogorov–Smirnov test on age spectra from the Altar Stone and the Orcadian Basin fails to reject the null hypothesis that they are derived from the same underlying distribution (Kolmogorov–Smirnov test: P  > 0.05) (Fig. 3a ). To the north, ORS on the Svalbard archipelago formed on Laurentian and Baltican basement rocks 37 . Similar Kolmogorov–Smirnov test results, where each detrital zircon dataset is statistically indistinguishable, are obtained for ORS from Svalbard, the Orcadian Basin and the Altar Stone.

Apatite U–Pb age components from Orcadian Basin samples from Spittal, Caithness (AQ1) and Cruaday, Orkney (CQ1) (Fig. 4a ) match those from the Altar Stone. Group 2 apatite from the Altar Stone at 1,018 ± 24 Ma is coeval with a Grenvillian age from Spittal at 1,013 ± 35 Ma. Early Palaeozoic apatite components at 473 ± 25 Ma and 466 ± 6 Ma, from Caithness and Orkney, respectively (Extended Data Fig. 5 and Supplementary Information  1 ), are also identical, within uncertainty, to Altar Stone Group 1 (462 ± 4 Ma) apatite U–Pb analyses and a Lu–Hf component at 470 ± 28 Ma supporting a provenance from the Orcadian Basin for the Altar Stone (Extended Data Fig. 6 and Supplementary Information  2 ).

During the Palaeozoic, the Orcadian Basin was situated between Laurentia and Baltica on the Laurussian palaeocontinent 14 . Correlations between detrital zircon age components imply that both Laurentia and Baltica supplied sediment into the Orcadian Basin 25 , 36 . Detrital grains from more than 900 Ma within the Altar Stone are consistent with sediment recycling from intermediary Neoproterozoic supracrustal successions (for example, Dalradian Supergroup) within the Grampian Terrane but also from the Särv and Sparagmite successions of Baltica 25 , 36 . At around 470 Ma, the Grampian Terrane began to denude 28 . Subsequently, first-cycle detritus, such as that represented by Group 1 apatite and rutile, was shed towards the Orcadian Basin from the southeast 25 .

Thus, the resistive mineral cargo in the Altar Stone represents a complex mix of first and multi-cycle grains from multiple sources. Regardless of total input from Baltica versus Laurentia into the Orcadian Basin, crystalline terranes north of the Iapetus Suture (Fig. 4a ) have distinct age components that match the Altar Stone in contrast to Gondwanan-derived terranes to the south.

The Altar Stone and Neolithic Britain

Isotopic data for detrital zircon and rutile (U–Pb) and apatite (U–Pb, Lu–Hf and trace elements) indicate that the Altar Stone of Stonehenge has a provenance from the ORS in the Orcadian Basin of northeast Scotland (Fig. 4a ). Given this detrital mineral provenance, the Altar Stone cannot have been sourced from southern Britain (that is, south of the Iapetus Suture) (Fig. 4a ), including the Anglo-Welsh Basin 1 , 2 .

Some postulate a glacial transport mechanism for the Mynydd Preseli (Fig. 4a ) bluestones to Salisbury Plain 38 , 39 . However, such transport for the Altar Stone is difficult to reconcile with ice-sheet reconstructions that show a northwards movement of glaciers (and erratics) from the Grampian Mountains towards the Orcadian Basin during the Last Glacial Maximum and, indeed, previous Pleistocene glaciations 40 , 41 . Moreover, there is little evidence of extensive glacial deposition in central southern Britain 40 , nor are Scottish glacial erratics found at Stonehenge 42 . Sr and Pb isotopic signatures from animal and human remains from henges on Salisbury Plain demonstrate the mobility of Neolithic people within Britain 32 , 43 , 44 , 45 . Furthermore, shared architectural elements and rock art motifs between Neolithic monuments in Orkney, northern Britain, and Ireland point towards the long-distance movement of people and construction materials 46 , 47 .

Thus, we posit that the Altar Stone was anthropogenically transported to Stonehenge from northeast Scotland, consistent with evidence of Neolithic inhabitation in this region 48 , 49 . Whereas the igneous bluestones were brought around 225 km from the Mynydd Preseli to Stonehenge 50 (Fig. 4a ), a Scottish provenance for the Altar Stone demands a transport distance of at least 750 km (Fig. 4a ). Nonetheless, even with assistance from beasts of burden 51 , rivers and topographical barriers, including the Grampians, Southern Uplands and the Pennines, along with the heavily forested landscape of prehistoric Britain 52 , would have posed formidable obstacles for overland megalith transportation.

At around 5000  bc , Neolithic people introduced the common vole ( Microtus arvalis ) from continental Europe to Orkney, consistent with the long-distance marine transport of cattle and goods 53 . A Neolithic marine trade network of quarried stone tools is found throughout Britain, Ireland and continental Europe 54 . For example, a saddle quern, a large stone grinding tool, was discovered in Dorset and determined to have a provenance in central Normandy 55 , implying the shipping of stone cargo over open water during the Neolithic. Furthermore, the river transport of shaped sandstone blocks in Britain is known from at least around 1500  bc (Hanson Log Boat) 56 . In Britain and Ireland, sea levels approached present-day heights from around 4000  bc 57 , and although coastlines have shifted, the geography of Britain and Ireland would have permitted sea routes southward from the Orcadian Basin towards southern England (Fig. 4a ). A Scottish provenance for the Altar Stone implies Neolithic transport spanning the length of Great Britain.

This work analysed two 30-µm polished thin sections of the Altar Stone (MS3 and 2010K.240) and two sections of ORS from northeast Scotland (Supplementary Information  4 ). CQ1 is from Cruaday, Orkney (59° 04′ 34.2″ N, 3° 18′ 54.6″ W), and AQ1 is from near Spittal, Caithness (58° 28′ 13.8″ N, 3° 27′ 33.6″ W). Conventional optical microscopy (transmitted and reflected light) and automated mineralogy via a TESCAN Integrated Mineral Analyser gave insights into texture and mineralogy and guided spot placement during LA-ICP–MS analysis. A CLARA field emission scanning electron microscope was used for textural characterization of individual minerals (zircon, apatite and rutile) through high-resolution micrometre-scale imaging under both back-scatter electron and cathodoluminescence. The Altar Stone is a fine-grained and well-sorted sandstone with a mean grain size diameter of ≤300 µm. Quartz grains are sub-rounded and monocrystalline. Feldspars are variably altered to fine-grained white mica. MS3 and 2010K.240 have a weakly developed planar fabric and non-planar heavy mineral laminae approximately 100–200 µm thick. Resistive heavy mineral bands are dominated by zircon, rutile, and apatite, with grains typically 10–40 µm wide. The rock is mainly cemented by carbonate, with localized areas of barite and quartz cement. A detailed account of Altar Stone petrography is provided in refs. 1 , 59 .

Zircon isotopic analysis

Zircon u–pb methods.

Two zircon U–Pb analysis sessions were completed at the GeoHistory facility in the John De Laeter Centre (JdLC), Curtin University, Australia. Ablations within zircon grains were created using an excimer laser RESOlution LE193 nm ArF with a Laurin Technic S155 cell. Isotopic data was collected with an Agilent 8900 triple quadrupole mass spectrometer, with high-purity Ar as the plasma carrier gas (flow rate 1.l min −1 ). An on-sample energy of ~2.3–2.7 J cm −2 with a 5–7 Hz repetition rate was used to ablate minerals for 30–40 s (with 25–60 s of background capture). Two cleaning pulses preceded analyses, and ultra-high-purity He (0.68 ml min −1 ) and N 2 (2.8 ml min −1 ) were used to flush the sample cell. A block of reference mineral was analysed following 15–20 unknowns. The small, highly rounded target grains of the Altar Stone (usually <30 µm in width) necessitated using a spot size diameter of ~24 µm for all ablations. Isotopic data was reduced using Iolite 4 60 with the U-Pb Geochronology data reduction scheme, followed by additional calculation and plotting via IsoplotR 61 . The primary matrix-matched reference zircon 62 used to correct instrumental drift and mass fractionation was GJ-1, 601.95 ± 0.40 Ma. Secondary reference zircon included Plešovice 63 , 337.13 ± 0.37 Ma, 91500 64 , 1,063.78 ± 0.65 Ma, OG1 65 3,465.4 ± 0.6 Ma and Maniitsoq 66 3,008.7 ± 0.6 Ma. Weighted mean U–Pb ages for secondary reference materials were within 2 σ uncertainty of reported values (Supplementary Information  5 ).

Zircon U–Pb results

Across two LA-ICP–MS sessions, 83 U–Pb measurements were obtained on as many zircon grains; 41 were concordant (≤10% discordant), where discordance is defined using the concordia log distance (%) approach 67 . We report single-spot (grain) concordia ages, which have numerous benefits over conventional U–Pb/Pb–Pb ages, including providing an objective measure of discordance that is directly coupled to age and avoids the arbitrary switch between 206 Pb/ 238 U and 207 Pb/ 206 Pb. Furthermore, given the spread in ages (Early Palaeozoic to Archaean), concordia ages provide optimum use of both U–Pb/Pb–Pb ratios, offering greater precision over 206 Pb/ 238 U or 207 Pb/ 206 Pb ages alone.

Given that no direct sampling of the Altar Stone is permitted, we are limited in the amount of material available for destructive analysis, such as LA-ICP–MS. We collate our zircon age data with the U–Pb analyses 1 of FN593 (another fragment of the Altar Stone), filtered using the same concordia log distance (%) discordance filter 67 . The total concordant analyses used in this work is thus 56 over 3 thin sections, each showing no discernible provenance differences. Zircon concordia ages span from 498 to 2,812 Ma. Age maxima (peak) were calculated after Gehrels 68 , and peak ages defined by ≥4 grains include 1,047, 1,091, 1,577, 1,663 and 1,790 Ma.

For 56 concordant ages from 56 grains at >95% certainty, the largest unmissed fraction is calculated at 9% of the entire uniform detrital population 69 . In any case, the most prevalent and hence provenance important components will be sampled for any number of analyses 69 . We analysed all zircon grains within the spatial limit of the technique in the thin sections 70 . We used in situ thin-section analysis, which can mitigate against contamination and sampling biases in detrital studies 71 . Adding apatite (U–Pb and Lu–Hf) and rutile (U–Pb) analyses bolsters our confidence in provenance interpretations as these minerals will respond dissimilarly during transport.

Comparative zircon datasets

Zircon U–Pb compilations of the basement terranes of Britain and Ireland were sourced from refs. 20 , 26 . ORS detrital zircon datasets used for comparison include isotopic data from the Dingle Peninsula Basin 20 , Anglo-Welsh Basin 72 , Midland Valley Basin 35 , Svalbard ORS 37 and Orcadian Basin 25 . NRS zircon U–Pb ages were sourced from the Wessex Basin 33 . Comparative datasets were filtered for discordance as per our definition above 20 , 26 . Kernel density estimates for age populations were created within IsoplotR 61 using a kernel and histogram bandwidth of 50 Ma.

A two-sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov statistical test was implemented to compare the compiled zircon age datasets with the Altar Stone (Supplementary Information  6 ). This two-sided test compares the maximum probability difference between two cumulative density age functions, evaluating the null hypothesis that both age spectra are drawn from the same distribution based on a critical value dependent on the number of analyses and a chosen confidence level.

The number of zircon ages within the comparative datasets used varies from the Altar Stone ( n  = 56) to Laurentia ( n  = 2,469). Therefore, to address the degree of dependence on sample n , we also implemented a Monte Carlo resampling (1,000 times) procedure for the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, including the uncertainty on each age determination to recalculate P values and standard deviations (Supplementary Information  7 ), based on the resampled distribution of each sample. The results from Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests, using Monte Carlo resampling (and multidimensional analysis), taking uncertainty due to sample n into account, also support the interpretation that at >95% certainty, no distinction in provenance can be made between the Altar Stone zircon age dataset ( n  = 56) and those from the Orcadian Basin ( n  = 212), Svalbard ORS ( n  = 619 ) and the Laurentian basement (Supplementary Information  7 ).

MDS plots for zircon datasets were created using the MATLAB script of ref.  58 . Here, we adopted a bootstrap resampling (>1,000 times) with Procrustes rotation of Kolmogorov–Smirnov values, which outputs uncertainty ellipses at a 95% confidence level (Fig. 3a ). In MDS plots, stress is a goodness of fit indicator between dissimilarities in the datasets and distances on the MDS plot. Stress values below 0.15 are desirable 58 . For the MDS plot in Fig. 3a , the value is 0.043, which indicates an “excellent” fit 58 .

Rutile isotopic analysis

Rutile u–pb methods.

One rutile U–Pb analysis session was completed at the GeoHistory facility in the JdLC, Curtin University, Australia. Rutile grains were ablated (24 µm) using a Resonetics RESOlution M-50A-LR sampling system, using a Compex 102 excimer laser, and measured using an Agilent 8900 triple quadrupole mass analyser. The analytical parameters included an on-sample energy of 2.7 J cm −2 , a repetition rate of 7 Hz for a total analysis time of 45 s, and 60 s of background data capture. The sample chamber was purged with ultrahigh purity He at a flow rate of 0.68 l min −1 and N 2 at 2.8 ml min −1 .

U–Pb data for rutile analyses was reduced against the R-10 rutile primary reference material 73 (1,091 ± 4 Ma). The secondary reference material used to monitor the accuracy of U–Pb ratios was R-19 rutile. The mean weighted 238 U/ 206 Pb age obtained for R-19 was 491 ± 10 (mean squared weighted deviation (MSWD) = 0.87, p ( χ 2 ) = 0.57) within uncertainty of the accepted age 74 of 489.5 ± 0.9 Ma.

Rutile grains with negligible Th concentrations can be corrected for common Pb using a 208 Pb correction 74 . Previously used thresholds for Th content have included 75 , 76 Th/U < 0.1 or a Th concentration >5% U. However, Th/U ratios for rutile from MS3 are typically > 1; thus, a 208 Pb correction is not applicable. Instead, we use a 207 -based common Pb correction 31 to account for the presence of common Pb. Rutile isotopic data was reduced within Iolite 4 60 using the U–Pb Geochronology reduction scheme and IsoplotR 61 .

Rutile U–Pb Results

Ninety-two rutile U–Pb analyses were obtained in a U–Pb single session, which defined two coherent age groupings on a Tera–Wasserburg plot.

Group 1 constitutes 83 U–Pb rutile analyses, forming a well-defined mixing array on a Tera-Wasserburg plot between common and radiogenic Pb components. This array yields an upper intercept of 207 Pb/ 206 Pb i  = 0.8563 ± 0.0014. The lower intercept implies an age of 451 ± 8 Ma. The scatter about the line (MSWD = 2.7) is interpreted to reflect the variable passage of rutile of diverse grain sizes through the radiogenic Pb closure temperature at ~600 °C during and after magmatic crystallization 77 .

Group 2 comprises 9 grains, with 207 Pb corrected 238 U/ 206 Pb ages ranging from 591–1,724 Ma. Three grains from Group 2 define an age peak 68 at 1,607 Ma. Given the spread in U–Pb ages, we interpret these Proterozoic grains to represent detrital rutile derived from various sources.

Apatite isotopic analysis

Apatite u–pb methods.

Two apatite U–Pb LA-ICP–MS analysis sessions were conducted at the GeoHistory facility in the JdLC, Curtin University, Australia. For both sessions, ablations were created using a RESOlution 193 nm excimer laser ablation system connected to an Agilent 8900 ICP–MS with a RESOlution LE193 nm ArF and a Laurin Technic S155 cell ICP–MS. Other analytical details include a fluence of 2 J cm 2 and a 5 Hz repetition rate. For the Altar Stone section (MS3) and the Orcadian Basin samples (Supplementary Information  4 ), 24- and 20-µm spot sizes were used, respectively.

The matrix-matched primary reference material used for apatite U–Pb analyses was the Madagascar apatite (MAD-1) 78 . A range of secondary reference apatite was analysed, including FC-1 79 (Duluth Complex) with an age of 1,099.1 ± 0.6 Ma, Mount McClure 80 , 81 526 ± 2.1 Ma, Otter Lake 82 913 ± 7 Ma and Durango 31.44 ± 0.18 83  Ma. Anchored regressions (through reported 207 Pb/ 206 Pb i values) for secondary reference material yielded lower intercept ages within 2 σ uncertainty of reported values (Supplementary Information  8 ).

Altar Stone apatite U–Pb results

This first session of apatite U–Pb of MS3 from the Altar Stone yielded 117 analyses. On a Tera–Wasserburg plot, these analyses form two discordant mixing arrays between common and radiogenic Pb components with distinct lower intercepts.

The array from Group 2 apatite, comprised of 9 analyses, yields a lower intercept equivalent to an age of 1,018 ± 24 Ma (MSWD = 1.4) with an upper intercept 207 Pb/ 206 Pb i  = 0.8910 ± 0.0251. The f 207 % (the percentage of common Pb estimated using the 207 Pb method) of apatite analyses in Group 2 ranges from 16.66–88.8%, with a mean of 55.76%.

Group 1 apatite is defined by 108 analyses yielding a lower intercept of 462 ± 4 Ma (MSWD = 2.4) with an upper intercept 207 Pb/ 206 Pb i  = 0.8603 ± 0.0033. The f 207 % of apatite analyses in Group 1 range from 10.14–99.91%, with a mean of 78.65%. The slight over-dispersion of the apatite regression line may reflect some variation in Pb closure temperature in these crystals 84 .

Orcadian basin apatite U–Pb results

The second apatite U–Pb session yielded 138 analyses from samples CQ1 and AQ1. These data form three discordant mixing arrays between radiogenic and common Pb components on a Tera–Wasserburg plot.

An unanchored regression through Group 1 apatite ( n  = 14) from the Cruaday sample (CQ1) yields a lower intercept of 473 ± 25 Ma (MSWD = 1.8) with an upper intercept of 207 Pb/ 206 Pb i  = 0.8497 ± 0.0128. The f 207 % spans 38–99%, with a mean value of 85%.

Group 1 from the Spittal sample (AQ1), comprised of 109 analyses, yields a lower intercept equal to 466 ± 6 Ma (MSWD = 1.2). The upper 207 Pb/ 206 Pb i is equal to 0.8745 ± 0.0038. f 207 % values for this group range from 6–99%, with a mean value of 83%. A regression through Group 2 analyses ( n  = 17) from the Spittal sample yields a lower intercept of 1,013 ± 35 Ma (MSWD = 1) and an upper intercept 207 Pb/ 206 Pb i of 0.9038 ± 0.0101. f 207 % values span 25–99%, with a mean of 76%. Combined U–Pb analyses from Groups 1 from CQ1 and AQ1 ( n  = 123) yield a lower intercept equivalent to 466 ± 6 Ma (MSWD = 1.4) and an upper intercept 207 Pb/ 206 Pb i of 0.8726 ± 0.0036, which is presented beneath the Orcadian Basin kernel density estimate in Fig. 4b .

Apatite Lu–Hf methods

Apatite grains were dated in thin-section by the in situ Lu–Hf method at the University of Adelaide, using a RESOlution-LR 193 nm excimer laser ablation system, coupled to an Agilent 8900 ICP–MS/MS 85 , 86 . A gas mixture of NH 3 in He was used in the mass spectrometer reaction cell to promote high-order Hf reaction products, while equivalent Lu and Yb reaction products were negligible. The mass-shifted (+82 amu) reaction products of 176+82 Hf and 178+82 Hf reached the highest sensitivity of the measurable range and were analysed free from isobaric interferences. 177 Hf was calculated from 178 Hf, assuming natural abundances. 175 Lu was measured on mass as a proxy 85 for 176 Lu. Laser ablation was conducted with a laser beam of 43 µm at 7.5 Hz repetition rate and a fluency of approximately 3.5 J cm −2 . The analysed isotopes (with dwell times in ms between brackets) are 27 Al (2), 43 Ca (2), 57 Fe (2), 88 Sr (2), 89+85 Y (2), 90+83 Zr (2), 140+15 Ce (2), 146 Nd (2), 147 Sm (2), 172 Yb (5), 175 Lu (10), 175+82 Lu (50), 176+82 Hf (200) and 178+82 Hf (150). Isotopes with short dwell times (<10 ms) were measured to confirm apatite chemistry and to monitor for inclusions. 175+82 Lu was monitored for interferences on 176+82 Hf.

Relevant isotope ratios were calculated in LADR 87 using NIST 610 as the primary reference material 88 . Subsequently, reference apatite OD-306 78 (1,597 ± 7 Ma) was used to correct the Lu–Hf isotope ratios for matrix-induced fractionation 86 , 89 . Reference apatites Bamble-1 (1,597 ± 5 Ma), HR-1 (344 ± 2 Ma) and Wallaroo (1,574 ± 6 Ma) were monitored for accuracy verification 85 , 86 , 90 . Measured Lu–Hf dates of 1,098 ± 7 Ma, 346.0 ± 3.7 Ma and 1,575 ± 12 Ma, respectively, are in agreement with published values. All reference materials have negligible initial Hf, and weighted mean Lu–Hf dates were calculated in IsoplotR 61 directly from the (matrix-corrected) 176 Hf/ 176 Lu ratios.

For the Altar Stone apatites, which have variable 177 Hf/ 176 Hf compositions, single-grain Lu–Hf dates were calculated by anchoring isochrons to an initial 177 Hf/ 176 Hf composition 90 of 3.55 ± 0.05, which spans the entire range of initial 177 Hf/ 176 Hf ratios of the terrestrial reservoir (for example, ref. 91 ). The reported uncertainties for the single-grain Lu–Hf dates are presented as 95% confidence intervals, and dates are displayed on a kernel density estimate plot.

Apatite Lu–Hf results

Forty-five apatite Lu–Hf analyses were obtained from 2010K.240. Those with radiogenic Lu ingrowth or lacking common Hf gave Lu–Hf ages, defining four coherent isochrons and age groups.

Group 1, defined by 16 grains, yields a Lu–Hf isochron with a lower intercept of 470 ± 28 Ma (MSWD = 0.16, p ( χ 2 ) = 1). A second isochron through 5 analyses (Group 2) constitutes a lower intercept equivalent to 604 ± 38 Ma (MSWD = 0.14, p ( χ 2 ) = 0.94). Twelve apatite Lu–Hf analyses define Group 3 with a lower intercept of 1,123 ± 42 Ma (MSWD = 0.75, p ( χ 2 ) = 0.68). Three grains constitute the oldest grouping, Group 4 at 1,526 ± 186 Ma (MSWD = 0.014, p ( χ 2 ) = 0.91).

Apatite trace elements methods

A separate session of apatite trace element analysis was undertaken. Instrumentation and analytical set-up were identical to that described in 4.1. NIST 610 glass was the primary reference material for apatite trace element analyses. 43 Ca was used as the internal reference isotope, assuming an apatite Ca concentration of 40 wt%. Secondary reference materials included NIST 612 and the BHVO−2g glasses 92 . Elemental abundances for secondary reference material were generally within 5–10% of accepted values. Apatite trace element data was examined using the Geochemical Data Toolkit 93 .

Apatite trace elements results

One hundred and thirty-six apatite trace element analyses were obtained from as many grains. Geochemical classification schemes for apatite were used 29 , and three compositional groupings (felsic, mafic-intermediate, and alkaline) were defined.

Felsic-classified apatite grains ( n  = 83 (61% of analyses)) are defined by La/Nd of <0.6 and (La + Ce + Pr)/ΣREE (rare earth elements) of <0.5. The median values of felsic grains show a flat to slightly negative gradient on the chondrite-normalized REE plot from light to heavy REEs 94 . Felsic apatite’s median europium anomaly (Eu/Eu*) is 0.59, a moderately negative signature.

Mafic-intermediate apatite 29 ( n  = 48 (35% of grains)) are defined by (La + Ce + Pr)/ΣREE of 0.5–0.7 and a La/Nd of 0.5–1.5. In addition, apatite grains of this group typically exhibit a chondrite-normalized Ce/Yb of >5 and ΣREEs up to 1.25 wt%. Apatite grains classified as mafic-intermediate show a negative gradient on a chondrite-normalized REE plot from light to heavy REEs. The apatite grains of this group generally show the most enrichment in REEs compared to chondrite 94 . The median europium (Eu/Eu*) of mafic-intermediate apatite is 0.62, a moderately negative anomaly.

Lastly, alkaline apatite grains 29 ( n  = 5 (4% of analyses)) are characterized by La/Nd > 1.5 and a (La + Ce + Pr)/ΣREE > 0.8. The median europium anomaly of this group is 0.45. This grouping also shows elevated chondrite-normalized Ce/Yb of >10 and >0.5 wt% for the ΣREEs.

Reporting summary

Further information on research design is available in the  Nature Portfolio Reporting Summary linked to this article.

Data availability

The isotopic and chemical data supporting the findings of this study are available within the paper and its supplementary information files.

Bevins, R. E. et al. Constraining the provenance of the Stonehenge ‘Altar Stone’: evidence from automated mineralogy and U–Pb zircon age dating. J. Archaeolog. Sci. 120 , 105188 (2020).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Bevins, R. E. et al. The Stonehenge Altar Stone was probably not sourced from the Old Red Sandstone of the Anglo-Welsh Basin: time to broaden our geographic and stratigraphic horizons? J. Archaeolog. Sci. Rep. 51 , 104215 (2023).

Google Scholar  

Pearson, M. P. et al. in Stonehenge for the Ancestors: Part 2: Synthesis (eds Pearson, M. P. et al.) 47–75 (Sidestone Press, 2022).

Pitts, M. W. How to Build Stonehenge (Thames & Hudson, 2022).

Nash, D. J. et al. Origins of the sarsen megaliths at Stonehenge. Sci. Adv. 6 , eabc0133 (2020).

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Nash, D. J. et al. Petrological and geochemical characterisation of the sarsen stones at Stonehenge. PLoS ONE 16 , e0254760 (2021).

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Pearson, M. P. et al. Megalith quarries for Stonehenge’s bluestones. Antiquity 93 , 45–62 (2019).

Article   Google Scholar  

Pearson, M. P. et al. Craig Rhos-y-felin: a Welsh bluestone megalith quarry for Stonehenge. Antiquity 89 , 1331–1352 (2015).

Ixer, R., Turner, P., Molyneux, S. & Bevins, R. The petrography, geological age and distribution of the Lower Palaeozoic Sandstone debitage from the Stonehenge landscape. Wilts. Archaeol. Nat. Hist. Mag. 110 , 1–16 (2017).

Ixer, R. & Turner, P. A detailed re-examination of the petrography of the Altar Stone and other non-sarsen sandstones from Stonehenge as a guide to their provenance. Wilts. Archaeol. Nat. Hist. Mag. 99 , 1–9 (2006).

Ixer, R., Bevins, R. E., Pirrie, D., Turner, P. & Power, M. No provenance is better than wrong provenance: Milford Haven and the Stonehenge sandstones. Wilts. Archaeol. Nat. Hist. Mag. 113 , 1–15 (2020).

Thomas, H. H. The source of the stones of Stonehenge. The Antiq. J. 3 , 239–260 (1923).

Kendall, R. S. The Old Red Sandstone of Britain and Ireland—a review. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 128 , 409–421 (2017).

Woodcock, N., Holdsworth, R. E. & Strachan, R. A. in Geological History of Britain and Ireland (eds Woodcock, N. & Strachan, R. A.) Ch. 6 91–109 (Wiley-Blackwell, 2012).

Pearson, M. P., Pollard, J., Richards, C., Thomas, J. & Welham, K. Stonehenge: Making Sense of a Prehistoric Mystery (Council for British Archaeology, 2015).

Shewan, L. et al. Dating the megalithic culture of laos: Radiocarbon, optically stimulated luminescence and U/Pb zircon results. PLoS ONE 16 , e0247167 (2021).

Kelloway, S. et al. Sourcing olive jars using U–Pb ages of detrital zircons: a study of 16th century olive jars recovered from the Solomon Islands. Geoarchaeology 29 , 47–60 (2014).

Barham, M. et al. The answers are blowin’ in the wind: ultra-distal ashfall zircons, indicators of Cretaceous super-eruptions in eastern Gondwana. Geology 44 , 643–646 (2016).

Article   ADS   CAS   Google Scholar  

Gillespie, J., Glorie, S., Khudoley, A. & Collins, A. S. Detrital apatite U–Pb and trace element analysis as a provenance tool: Insights from the Yenisey Ridge (Siberia). Lithos 314–315 , 140–155 (2018).

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Fairey, B. J. et al. The provenance of the Devonian Old Red Sandstone of the Dingle Peninsula, SW Ireland; the earliest record of Laurentian and peri-Gondwanan sediment mixing in Ireland. J. Geol. Soc. 175 , 411–424 (2018).

Bevins, R. E. et al. Assessing the authenticity of a sample taken from the Altar Stone at Stonehenge in 1844 using portable XRF and automated SEM-EDS. J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep. 49 , 103973 (2023).

Bevins, R. E. et al. Linking derived debitage to the Stonehenge Altar Stone using portable X-ray fluorescence analysis. Mineral. Mag. 86 , 688–700 (2022).

Morton, A. C., Chisholm, J. I. & Frei, D. Provenance of Carboniferous sandstones in the central and southern parts of the Pennine Basin, UK: evidence from detrital zircon ages. Proc. York. Geol. Soc. 63 , https://doi.org/10.1144/pygs2020-010 (2021).

Cawood, P. A., Nemchin, A. A., Strachan, R., Prave, T. & Krabbendam, M. Sedimentary basin and detrital zircon record along East Laurentia and Baltica during assembly and breakup of Rodinia. J. Geol. Soc. 164 , 257–275 (2007).

Strachan, R. A., Olierook, H. K. H. & Kirkland, C. L. Evidence from the U–Pb–Hf signatures of detrital zircons for a Baltican provenance for basal Old Red Sandstone successions, northern Scottish Caledonides. J. Geol. Soc. 178 , https://doi.org/10.1144/jgs2020-241 (2021).

Stevens, T. & Baykal, Y. Detrital zircon U–Pb ages and source of the late Palaeocene Thanet Formation, Kent, SE England. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 132 , 240–248 (2021).

O’Sullivan, G., Chew, D. M., Kenny, G., Heinrichs, I. & Mulligan, D. The trace element composition of apatite and its application to detrital provenance studies. Earth Sci. Rev. 201 , 103044 (2020).

Oliver, G., Wilde, S. & Wan, Y. Geochronology and geodynamics of Scottish granitoids from the late Neoproterozoic break-up of Rodinia to Palaeozoic collision. J. Geol. Soc. 165 , 661–674 (2008).

Fleischer, M. & Altschuler, Z. S. The lanthanides and yttrium in minerals of the apatite group-an analysis of the available data. Neu. Jb. Mineral. Mh. 10 , 467–480 (1986).

Goodenough, K. M., Millar, I., Strachan, R. A., Krabbendam, M. & Evans, J. A. Timing of regional deformation and development of the Moine Thrust Zone in the Scottish Caledonides: constraints from the U–Pb geochronology of alkaline intrusions. J. Geol. Soc. 168 , 99–114 (2011).

Stacey, J. S. & Kramers, J. D. Approximation of terrestrial lead isotope evolution by a two-stage model. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 26 , 207–221 (1975).

Evans, J. A. et al. Applying lead (Pb) isotopes to explore mobility in humans and animals. PLoS ONE 17 , e0274831 (2022).

Morton, A., Knox, R. & Frei, D. Heavy mineral and zircon age constraints on provenance of the Sherwood Sandstone Group (Triassic) in the eastern Wessex Basin, UK. Proc. Geol. Assoc. 127 , 514–526 (2016).

Morton, A., Hounslow, M. W. & Frei, D. Heavy-mineral, mineral-chemical and zircon-age constraints on the provenance of Triassic sandstones from the Devon coast, southern Britain. Geologos 19 , 67–85 (2013).

Phillips, E. R., Smith, R. A., Stone, P., Pashley, V. & Horstwood, M. Zircon age constraints on the provenance of Llandovery to Wenlock sandstones from the Midland Valley terrane of the Scottish Caledonides. Scott. J. Geol. 45 , 131–146 (2009).

McKellar, Z., Hartley, A. J., Morton, A. C. & Frei, D. A multidisciplinary approach to sediment provenance analysis of the late Silurian–Devonian Lower Old Red Sandstone succession, northern Midland Valley Basin, Scotland. J. Geol. Soc. 177 , 297–314 (2019).

Beranek, L. P., Gee, D. G. & Fisher, C. M. Detrital zircon U–Pb–Hf isotope signatures of Old Red Sandstone strata constrain the Silurian to Devonian paleogeography, tectonics, and crustal evolution of the Svalbard Caledonides. GSA Bull. 132 , 1987–2003 (2020).

John, B. The Stonehenge Bluestones (Greencroft Books, 2018).

John, B. The Stonehenge bluestones did not come from Waun Mawn in West Wales. The Holocene https://doi.org/10.1177/09596836241236318 (2024).

Clark, C. D. et al. Growth and retreat of the last British–Irish Ice Sheet, 31 000 to 15 000 years ago: the BRITICE-CHRONO reconstruction. Boreas 51 , 699–758 (2022).

Gibbard, P. L. & Clark, C. D. in Developments in Quaternary Sciences , Vol. 15 (eds Ehlers, J. et al.) 75–93 (Elsevier, 2011).

Bevins, R., Ixer, R., Pearce, N., Scourse, J. & Daw, T. Lithological description and provenancing of a collection of bluestones from excavations at Stonehenge by William Hawley in 1924 with implications for the human versus ice transport debate of the monument’s bluestone megaliths. Geoarchaeology 38 , 771–785 (2023).

Snoeck, C. et al. Strontium isotope analysis on cremated human remains from Stonehenge support links with west Wales. Sci. Rep. 8 , 10790 (2018).

Article   ADS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Viner, S., Evans, J., Albarella, U. & Pearson, M. P. Cattle mobility in prehistoric Britain: strontium isotope analysis of cattle teeth from Durrington Walls (Wiltshire, Britain). J. Archaeolog. Sci. 37 , 2812–2820 (2010).

Evans, J. A., Chenery, C. A. & Fitzpatrick, A. P. Bronze Age childhood migration of individuals near Stonehenge, revealed by strontium and oxygen isotope tooth enamel analysis. Archaeometry 48 , 309–321 (2006).

Bradley, R. Beyond the bluestones: links between distant monuments in Late Neolithic Britain and Ireland. Antiquity 98 , 821–828 (2024).

Bradley, R. Long distance connections within Britain and Ireland: the evidence of insular rock art. Proc. Prehist. Soc. 89 , 249–271 (2023).

Fairweather, A. D. & Ralston, I. B. M. The Neolithic timber hall at Balbridie, Grampian Region, Scotland: the building, the date, the plant macrofossils. Antiquity 67 , 313–323 (1993).

Bayliss, A., Marshall, P., Richards, C. & Whittle, A. Islands of history: the Late Neolithic timescape of Orkney. Antiquity 91 , 1171–1188 (2017).

Parker Pearson, M. et al. in Megaliths and Geology (eds Bouventura, R. et al.) 151–169 (Archaeopress Publishing, 2020).

Pigière, F. & Smyth, J. First evidence for cattle traction in Middle Neolithic Ireland: A pivotal element for resource exploitation. PLoS ONE 18 , e0279556 (2023).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Godwin, H. History of the natural forests of Britain: establishment, dominance and destruction. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 271 , 47–67 (1975).

ADS   Google Scholar  

Martínková, N. et al. Divergent evolutionary processes associated with colonization of offshore islands. Mol. Ecol. 22 , 5205–5220 (2013).

Bradley, R. & Edmonds, M. Interpreting the Axe Trade: Production and Exchange in Neolithic Britain (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2005).

Peacock, D., Cutler, L. & Woodward, P. A Neolithic voyage. Int. J. Naut. Archaeol. 39 , 116–124 (2010).

Pinder, A. P., Panter, I., Abbott, G. D. & Keely, B. J. Deterioration of the Hanson Logboat: chemical and imaging assessment with removal of polyethylene glycol conserving agent. Sci. Rep. 7 , 13697 (2017).

Harff, J. et al. in Submerged Landscapes of the European Continental Shelf: Quaternary Paleoenvironments (eds Flemming, N. C. et al.) 11–49 (2017).

Nordsvan, A. R., Kirscher, U., Kirkland, C. L., Barham, M. & Brennan, D. T. Resampling (detrital) zircon age distributions for accurate multidimensional scaling solutions. Earth Sci. Rev. 204 , 103149 (2020).

Ixer, R., Bevins, R. & Turner, P. Alternative Altar Stones? Carbonate-cemented micaceous sandstones from the Stonehenge landscape. Wilts. Archaeol. Nat. Hist. Mag. 112 , 1–13 (2019).

Paton, C., Hellstrom, J. C., Paul, B., Woodhead, J. D. & Hergt, J. M. Iolite: freeware for the visualisation and processing of mass spectrometric data. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. 26 , 2508–2518 (2011).

Vermeesch, P. IsoplotR: a free and open toolbox for geochronology. Geosci. Front. 9 , 1479–1493 (2018).

Jackson, S. E., Pearson, N. J., Griffin, W. L. & Belousova, E. A. The application of laser ablation-inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry to in situ U–Pb zircon geochronology. Chem. Geol. 211 , 47–69 (2004).

Sláma, J. et al. Plešovice zircon—A new natural reference material for U–Pb and Hf isotopic microanalysis. Chem. Geol. 249 , 1–35 (2008).

Wiedenbeck, M. et al. Three natural zircon standards for U-Th-Pb, Lu–Hf, trace element and REE analyses. Geostand. Newslett. 19 , 1–23 (1995).

Stern, R. A., Bodorkos, S., Kamo, S. L., Hickman, A. H. & Corfu, F. Measurement of SIMS instrumental mass fractionation of Pb isotopes during zircon dating. Geostand. Geoanal. Res. 33 , 145–168 (2009).

Marsh, J. H., Jørgensen, T. R. C., Petrus, J. A., Hamilton, M. A. & Mole, D. R. U-Pb, trace element, and hafnium isotope composition of the Maniitsoq zircon: a potential new Archean zircon reference material. Goldschmidt Abstr. 2019 , 18 (2019).

Vermeesch, P. On the treatment of discordant detrital zircon U–Pb data. Geochronology 3 , 247–257 (2021).

Gehrels, G. in Tectonics of Sedimentary Basins: Recent Advances (eds Busby, C. & Azor, A.) 45–62 (2011).

Vermeesch, P. How many grains are needed for a provenance study? Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 224 , 441–451 (2004).

Dröllner, M., Barham, M., Kirkland, C. L. & Ware, B. Every zircon deserves a date: selection bias in detrital geochronology. Geol. Mag. 158 , 1135–1142 (2021).

Zutterkirch, I. C., Kirkland, C. L., Barham, M. & Elders, C. Thin-section detrital zircon geochronology mitigates bias in provenance investigations. J. Geol. Soc. 179 , jgs2021–070 (2021).

Morton, A., Waters, C., Fanning, M., Chisholm, I. & Brettle, M. Origin of Carboniferous sandstones fringing the northern margin of the Wales-Brabant Massif: insights from detrital zircon ages. Geol. J. 50 , 553–574 (2015).

Luvizotto, G. et al. Rutile crystals as potential trace element and isotope mineral standards for microanalysis. Chem. Geol. 261 , 346–369 (2009).

Zack, T. et al. In situ U–Pb rutile dating by LA-ICP-MS: 208 Pb correction and prospects for geological applications. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 162 , 515–530 (2011).

Dröllner, M., Barham, M. & Kirkland, C. L. Reorganization of continent-scale sediment routing based on detrital zircon and rutile multi-proxy analysis. Basin Res. 35 , 363–386 (2023).

Liebmann, J., Barham, M. & Kirkland, C. L. Rutile ages and thermometry along a Grenville anorthosite pathway. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 24 , e2022GC010330 (2023).

Zack, T. & Kooijman, E. Petrology and geochronology of rutile. Rev. Mineral. Geochem. 83 , 443–467 (2017).

Thompson, J. et al. Matrix effects in Pb/U measurements during LA-ICP-MS analysis of the mineral apatite. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. 31 , 1206–1215 (2016).

Schmitz, M. D., Bowring, S. A. & Ireland, T. R. Evaluation of Duluth Complex anorthositic series (AS3) zircon as a U–Pb geochronological standard: new high-precision isotope dilution thermal ionization mass spectrometry results. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 67 , 3665–3672 (2003).

Schoene, B. & Bowring, S. U–Pb systematics of the McClure Mountain syenite: thermochronological constraints on the age of the 40 Ar/ 39 Ar standard MMhb. Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 151 , 615–630 (2006).

Thomson, S. N., Gehrels, G. E., Ruiz, J. & Buchwaldt, R. Routine low-damage apatite U–Pb dating using laser ablation-multicollector-ICPMS. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 13 , https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GC003928 (2012).

Barfod, G. H., Krogstad, E. J., Frei, R. & Albarède, F. Lu–Hf and PbSL geochronology of apatites from Proterozoic terranes: a first look at Lu–Hf isotopic closure in metamorphic apatite. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 69 , 1847–1859 (2005).

McDowell, F. W., McIntosh, W. C. & Farley, K. A. A precise 40 Ar– 39 Ar reference age for the Durango apatite (U–Th)/He and fission-track dating standard Chem. Geol. 214 , 249–263 (2005).

Kirkland, C. L. et al. Apatite: a U–Pb thermochronometer or geochronometer? Lithos 318-319 , 143–157 (2018).

Simpson, A. et al. In-situ Lu Hf geochronology of garnet, apatite and xenotime by LA ICP MS/MS. Chem. Geol. 577 , 120299 (2021).

Glorie, S. et al. Robust laser ablation Lu–Hf dating of apatite: an empirical evaluation. Geol. Soc. Lond. Spec. Publ. 537 , 165–184 (2024).

Norris, C. & Danyushevsky, L. Towards estimating the complete uncertainty budget of quantified results measured by LA-ICP-MS. Goldschmidt Abstr. 2018 , 1894 (2018).

Nebel, O., Morel, M. L. A. & Vroon, P. Z. Isotope dilution determinations of Lu, Hf, Zr, Ta and W, and Hf isotope compositions of NIST SRM 610 and 612 glass wafers. Geostand. Geoanal. Res. 33 , 487–499 (2009).

Kharkongor, M. B. K. et al. Apatite laser ablation LuHf geochronology: A new tool to date mafic rocks. Chem. Geol. 636 , 121630 (2023).

Glorie, S. et al. Detrital apatite Lu–Hf and U–Pb geochronology applied to the southwestern Siberian margin. Terra Nova 34 , 201–209 (2022).

Spencer, C. J., Kirkland, C. L., Roberts, N. M. W., Evans, N. J. & Liebmann, J. Strategies towards robust interpretations of in situ zircon Lu–Hf isotope analyses. Geosci. Front. 11 , 843–853 (2020).

Jochum, K. P. et al. GeoReM: a new geochemical database for reference materials and isotopic standards. Geostand. Geoanal. Res. 29 , 333–338 (2005).

Janousek, V., Farrow, C. & Erban, V. Interpretation of whole-rock geochemical data in igneous geochemistry: introducing Geochemical Data Toolkit (GCDkit). J. Petrol. 47 , 1255–1259 (2006).

Boynton, W. V. in Developments in Geochemistry , Vol. 2 (ed. Henderson, P.) 63–114 (Elsevier, 1984).

Landing, E., Keppie, J. D., Keppie, D. F., Geyer, G. & Westrop, S. R. Greater Avalonia—latest Ediacaran–Ordovicia “peribaltic” terrane bounded by continental margin prisms (“Ganderia”, Harlech Dome, Meguma): review, tectonic implications, and paleogeography. Earth Sci. Rev. 224 , 103863 (2022).

Download references

Acknowledgements

Funding was provided by an Australian Research Council Discovery Project (DP200101881). Sample material was loaned from the Salisbury Museum and Amgueddfa Cymru–Museum Wales and sampled with permission. The authors thank A. Green for assistance in accessing the Salisbury Museum material; B. McDonald, N. Evans, K. Rankenburg and S. Gilbert for their help during isotopic analysis; and P. Sampaio for assistance with statistical analysis. Instruments in the John de Laeter Centre, Curtin University, were funded via AuScope, the Australian Education Investment Fund, the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy, and the Australian Government. R.E.B. acknowledges a Leverhulme Trust Emeritus Fellowship.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Timescales of Mineral Systems Group, School of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia

Anthony J. I. Clarke & Christopher L. Kirkland

Department of Geography and Earth Sciences, Aberystwyth University, Aberystwyth, UK

Richard E. Bevins & Nick J. G. Pearce

Department of Earth Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

Stijn Glorie

Institute of Archaeology, University College London, London, UK

Rob A. Ixer

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

A.J.I.C.: writing, original draft, formal analysis, investigation, visualization, project administration, conceptualization and methodology. C.L.K.: supervision, resources, formal analysis, funding acquisition, writing, review and editing, conceptualization and methodology. R.E.B.: writing, review and editing, resources and conceptualization. N.J.G.P.: writing, review and editing, resources and conceptualization. S.G.: resources, formal analysis, funding acquisition, writing, review and editing, supervision, and methodology. R.A.I.: writing, review and editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anthony J. I. Clarke .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Nature thanks Tim Kinnaird and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer review reports are available.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data figures and tables

Extended data fig. 1 geological maps of potential source terranes for the altar stone..

a , Schematic map of the North Atlantic region with the crystalline terranes in the Caledonian-Variscan orogens depicted prior to the opening of the North Atlantic, adapted after ref.  95 . b , Schematic map of Britain and Ireland, showing outcrops of Old Red Sandstone, basement terranes, and major faults with reference to Stonehenge.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Altar Stone zircon U–Pb data.

a , Tera-Wasserburg plot for all concordant (≤10% discordant) zircon analyses reported from three samples of the Altar Stone. Discordance is defined using the concordia log % distance approach, and analytical ellipses are shown at the two-sigma uncertainty level. The ellipse colour denotes the sample. Replotted isotopic data for thin-section FN593 is from ref. 1 . b , Kernel density estimate for concordia U–Pb ages of concordant zircon from the Altar Stone, using a kernel and histogram bandwidth of 50 Ma. Fifty-six concordant analyses are shown from 113 measurements. A rug plot is given below the kernel density estimate, marking the age of each measurement.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Comparative kernel density estimates of concordant zircon concordia ages from the Altar Stone, crystalline sources terranes, and comparative sedimentary rock successions.

Each plot uses a kernel and histogram bandwidth of 50 Ma. The zircon U–Pb geochronology source for each comparative dataset is shown with their respective kernel density estimate. Zircon age data for basement terranes (right side of the plot) was sourced from refs. 20 , 26 .

Extended Data Fig. 4 Plots of rutile U–Pb ages.

a , Tera-Wasserburg plot of rutile U–Pb analyses from the Altar Stone (thin-section MS3). Isotopic data is shown at the two-sigma uncertainty level. b , Kernel density estimate for Group 2 rutile 207 Pb corrected 206 Pb/ 238 U ages, using a kernel and histogram bandwidth of 25 Ma. The rug plot below the kernel density estimate marks the age for each measurement.

Extended Data Fig. 5 Apatite Tera-Wasserburg U–Pb plots for the Altar Stone and Orcadian Basin.

a , Altar Stone apatite U–Pb analyses from thin-section MS3. b , Orcadian Basin apatite U–Pb analyses from sample AQ1, Spittal, Caithness. c , Orcadian Basin apatite U–Pb analyses from sample CQ1, Cruaday, Orkney. All data are shown as ellipses at the two-sigma uncertainty level. Regressions through U–Pb data are unanchored.

Extended Data Fig. 6 Combined kernel density estimate and histogram for apatite Lu–Hf single-grain ages from the Altar Stone.

Lu–Hf apparent ages from thin-section 2010K.240. Kernel and histogram bandwidth of 50 Ma. The rug plot below the kernel density estimate marks each calculated age. Single spot ages are calculated assuming an initial average terrestrial 177 Hf/ 176 Hf composition (see  Methods ).

Extended Data Fig. 7 Apatite trace element classification plots for the Altar Stone thin-section MS3.

Colours for all plots follow the geochemical discrimination defined in A. a , Reference 29  classification plot for apatite with an inset pie chart depicting the compositional groupings based on these geochemical ratios. b , The principal component plot of geochemical data from apatite shows the main eigenvectors of geochemical dispersion, highlighting enhanced Nd and La in the distinguishing groups. Medians for each group are denoted with a cross. c , Plot of total rare earth elements (REE) (%) versus (Ce/Yb) n with Mahalanobis ellipses around compositional classification centroids. A P = 0.5 in Mahalanobis distance analysis represents a two-sided probability, indicating that 50% of the probability mass of the chi-squared distribution for that compositional grouping is contained within the ellipse. This probability is calculated based on the cumulative distribution function of the chi-squared distribution. d , Chondrite normalized REE plot of median apatite values for each defined apatite classification type.

Extended Data Fig. 8 Cumulative probability density function plot.

Cumulative probability density function plot of comparative Old Red Sandstone detrital zircon U–Pb datasets (concordant ages) versus the Altar Stone. Proximity between cumulative density probability lines implies similar detrital zircon age populations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information 1.

Zircon, rutile, and apatite U–Pb data for the Altar Stone and Orcadian Basin samples. A ) Zircon U–Pb data for MS3, 2010K.240, and FN593. B ) Zircon U–Pb data for secondary references. C ) Rutile U–Pb data for MS3. D ) Rutile U–Pb data for secondary references. E ) Session 1 apatite U–Pb data for MS3. F ) Session 1 apatite U–Pb data for secondary references. G ) Session 2 apatite U–Pb data for Orcadian Basin samples. H ) Session 2 apatite U–Pb data for secondary references.

Reporting Summary

Peer review file, supplementary information 2.

Apatite Lu–Hf data for the Altar Stone. A) Apatite Lu–Hf isotopic data and ages for thin-section 2010K.240. B) Apatite Lu–Hf data for secondary references.

Supplementary Information 3

Apatite trace elements for the Altar Stone. A) Apatite trace element data for MS3. B) Apatite trace element secondary reference values.

Supplementary Information 4–8

Supplementary Information 4 : Summary of analyses. Summary table of analyses undertaken in this work on samples from the Altar Stone and the Orcadian Basin. Supplementary Information 5: Summary of zircon U–Pb reference material. A summary table of analyses was obtained for zircon U–Pb secondary reference material run during this work. Supplementary Information 6: Kolmogorov–Smirnov test results. Table of D and P values for the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test on zircon ages from the Altar Stone and potential source regions. Supplementary Information 7: Kolmogorov–Smirnov test results, with Monte Carlo resampling. Table of D and P values for the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test (with Monte Carlo resampling) on zircon ages from the Altar Stone and potential source regions. Supplementary Information 8: Summary of apatite U–Pb reference material. A summary table of analyses was obtained for the apatite U–Pb secondary reference material run during this work.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Clarke, A.J.I., Kirkland, C.L., Bevins, R.E. et al. A Scottish provenance for the Altar Stone of Stonehenge. Nature 632 , 570–575 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07652-1

Download citation

Received : 16 December 2023

Accepted : 03 June 2024

Published : 14 August 2024

Issue Date : 15 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07652-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Stonehenge’s enigmatic centre stone was hauled 800 kilometres from scotland.

• Nisha Gaind

Nature (2024)

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

• Category: Announcements

Explore New Worlds and Solve Environmental Challenges With Gaming This Earth Day

• Trista Patterson, Director of Sustainability, Xbox

• Explore games that allow players to explore and engage with the natural world
• Help Duriel sacrifice his horde as they donate buckets of maggots to Tiggywinkles animal rescue hospital
• Learn about a new building at Rare, which has sustainability at its heart

At Microsoft we have made bold commitments to improve the impact of our business on the environment. Consequently, Xbox has made strategic, innovative and meaningful investments that scale up across the gaming industry:

• Our Shutdown (Energy Saving) power mode, Active Hours and Carbon Aware console updates have made the use of our consoles more energy and emissions efficient. 
• The Xbox Sustainability Toolkit has empowered game developers to optimize their game code for energy efficiency on Xbox consoles and beyond. 

In addition to these software innovations, we are making advancements in hardware and infrastructure spaces as well:

• The Xbox Wireless Controller – Remix Special Edition was an exercise to explore ways to use less new plastic and reduce waste.
• We are supporting impact reductions in-office, with Rare unveiling a new LEED Gold accredited building on its UK campus — Xbox’s first mass timber building in Europe for Xbox Game Studios.

As important as it is that we make these material changes, one of the great benefits gaming can have on environmental issues is often overlooked!  The medium of gaming can act as a tool which provides world exploration for those that may not easily access the natural environment. It also fosters outside of the box thinking, empathy, and team action – all necessary ingredients to solve environmental issues. Gaming can unlock the world, break the barriers of what is possible and inspire environmental action for generations to come.  

Read on to learn more about gaming as a medium for environmental change and how Xbox is celebrating Earth Day.   

Explore Sustainability with Minecraft

Bring climate and sustainability science to life with incredible animals. Minecraft Education Planet Earth III created in partnership with BBC Earth engages students with a free curriculum that includes lesson plans and discussion guides. Explore the way these animals’ lives are intertwined by playing as both predator and prey, parent and offspring, friend and ally, and discover the precarious balance of survival.

Research climate change while learning the principles of AI. With Minecraft Education AI for Earth students will learn principles of AI while taking their first steps into this exciting realm of computer science. Learners will use the power of AI in a range of exciting real-world scenarios, including preservation of wildlife and ecosystems, helping people in remote areas, and research on climate change.

Explore games with environmental themes on Game Pass

Simulation games provide a unique ability to explore and grow environments while also managing and regenerating natural resources. Check out these games that highlight these themes within their mechanics and stories:

• Lightyear Frontier (Game Preview) (Available with Xbox Game Pass on Xbox Series X|S, PC, and Cloud)  – Build a sustainable ecofarm and carefully manage your relationship with the ecosystem in this peaceful open-world farming adventure on a planet at the far edge of the galaxy. This game encourages sustainability efforts, including planting trees to replace those you harvest and cleaning up pollution. Invite up to three friends to create a flourishing homestead.
• Coral Island (Available with Xbox Game Pass on Xbox Series X|S, PC, and Cloud)  – Play a part in conserving native flora and fauna, dive into the seas to clean up the coral reef, and pick up trash all around the island in this family-friendly farming simulator inspired by Southeast Asia. The development team from Indonesia included themes of conservation in the way players must maintain the island’s ecosystem all while encouraging you to form a bond with nature.
• Stardew Valley (Available with Xbox Game Pass on Console, PC, and Cloud) – You’ve inherited your grandfather’s overgrown farm plot and with a little dedication, you might be able to restore Stardew Valley to greatness! With an anti-consumerism plot against the JoJa Corporation and a whole lot of land to explore, Stardew Valley showcases love of nature and focuses on life’s simple pleasures.

The Seattle Aquarium uses Xbox Controllers to research the depths of local waterways

Xbox is excited to spotlight and support the incredible underwater remotely operated vehicle (ROV) research work of the Seattle Aquarium—a program designed to inform habitat restoration efforts throughout the region and reverse the decline of local kelp forests. The aquarium’s ROV Nereo , named after the scientific name for bull kelp ( Nereocystis luetkeana ), is a small, customizable, and easily maneuverable device that can dive up to 100 meters deep and transmit live video and data to the surface. Our favorite part? The researchers use Xbox controllers to pilot the ROV Nereo and navigate through the dense and dynamic kelp forests in Elliott Bay, the waterway surrounding the aquarium.

In addition to providing food and shelter for hundreds of marine animals, bull kelp also sequesters carbon from the water and locally mitigates the effects of ocean acidification. While some regions in the Salish Sea have thriving kelp forests, other regions are seeing up to a 95% decline, and researchers aren’t always sure why. The aquarium’s ROV work helps researchers survey declining kelp ecosystems and the factors that impact their health so the   broader Washington kelp conservation, restoration, and management community can work towards restoration.

To expand the scope and scale of this work, the aquarium is collaborating with the Tulalip Tribes Natural Resources Shellfish Program to help them get their own ROV program up and running. The aquarium is also partnering with state agencies and Reef Check to compare ROV and scuba diving as methods for collecting data, and to evaluate the effectiveness of different environmental monitoring strategies. By using Xbox controllers to operate the ROV, the aquarium is not only making research more fun and accessible to future generations of marine conservationists, but also demonstrating the power of technology for environmental conservation and education. Through education and outreach events with a variety of local organizations, the aquarium hopes this program will inspire more people to appreciate and protect the kelp forests and the marine life they support.

To learn more about the Seattle Aquarium and the work they do visit seattleaquarium.org and watch our Xbox livestream at the Seattle Aquarium from Earth Day 2023.

Diablo IV: Duriel’s Offering to Tiggywinkles

Duriel the Maggot King has enlisted Diablo IV fans to help sacrifice his horde. For every 25 likes on the Earth Day post from Diablo’s X account, Blizzard will be donating a bucket of Maggots to Tiggywinkles, up to 666 buckets of maggots, to help feed their bird nursery. With each bucket containing roughly 45,000 maggots, you could help Blizzard fund Tiggywinkle’s bird rehabilitation program for more than two years by simply liking their post.

Tiggywinkles is a specialist animal rescue hospital in the UK. They are dedicated to rescuing and rehabilitating all species of local wildlife. Every animal brought to the hospital is given a chance and treated with the best available care. Any animal or bird unable to be released back to the wild is maintained at the Hospital, in as natural conditions as possible. Head to the Diablo X account to help turn likes into buckets of maggots for the birds.

Engage  

Barn x on the rare campus.

Xbox has constructed its first mass timber building in Europe at Rare, the Xbox Game Studio and creator of Sea of Thieves. The new solar-powered studio is already inspiring game developers to create unique shared experiences for players.

Located in Twycross, Leicestershire, Rare’s new building – called ‘Barn X’ – was opened in early 2023 on the Rare campus, which is surrounded by nature in the heart of the English countryside.

Rare’s Studio Head, Craig Duncan, said: “Our new barn is a demonstration of leading-edge sustainability and environmental design, creating a model green workplace.  The opportunity to expand our campus by building a state-of-the-art environment for our teams while supporting Microsoft to achieve its sustainability goals has been genuinely rewarding. The new space design promotes collaboration, creativity and wellbeing, which are essential ingredients for a team to create fun experiences for players everywhere.”

Barn X has recently been certified LEED GOLD for its design and construction – a worldwide-recognized symbol of sustainability achievement and leadership. It is one example of how Microsoft is implementing sustainable solutions for the future as it pursues its goal to be carbon negative by 2030.

You can read more about the new building and how it is enabling creativity and enhancing wellbeing here .

Playing for the Planet Annual Impact Report

As a founding member of the Playing 4 The Planet Alliance, we are excited to share the 2023 Annual Impact Report . The report includes:

• A measure of progress towards Playing 4 the Planet’s strategic goals.
• Updates on focus areas, such as decarbonization, The Green Game Jam, and more.
• A review of members’ commitments towards sustainability.

Xbox won the Green Studio of the Year award at Gamescom Opening Night Live 2023. We thank the industry for recognizing our green gaming efforts, but we can achieve more when we work with others.  That’s why we’re excited to welcome Activision Blizzard, one of America’s Greenest Companies 2024 , to Team Xbox. We look forward to collaborating with our new teammates from Activision Blizzard and King, who are already improving the impact of gaming.

And even more from Team Microsoft: Visit Microsoft Unlocked to explore innovations across  Microsoft products, partners and customers that are helping to achieve our carbon goals!

Advertisement

Supported by

What to Know About the Democratic National Convention

Vice President Kamala Harris and her running mate, Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota, will be the stars in Chicago.

• Share full article

By Maggie Astor

The Democratic National Convention is almost upon us, following the Republican convention last month. Once it’s over, it will be a 75-day sprint to Election Day.

Here is what to know about the convention.

When is the Democratic National Convention?

The convention will run from Monday, Aug. 19, through Thursday, Aug. 22.

Where is it?

It will be held at two venues in Chicago: The United Center, an arena on the city’s West Side, will host evening events — that is, the prime-time programming and speeches intended for public consumption. McCormick Place, which is downtown near Lake Michigan, will host daytime events, largely official party business and meetings.

Who will be there?

Vice President Kamala Harris and her running mate, Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota, will be the stars, and President Biden is expected to speak as well. But the full list and schedule of the speakers has not yet been released, and Ms. Harris’s campaign and the Democratic National Convention committee have declined so far to confirm any names besides Ms. Harris and Mr. Walz.

Republicans, during their convention, didn’t publicize their speaking schedule until close to the start of each night’s programming.

Typically, though, conventions feature a wide array of prominent people within the party, such as governors, members of Congress and former elected officials. Spouses of the nominees and other family members often speak or make appearances. And Americans who aren’t famous generally get some stage time as well, speaking about personal experiences that touch the themes and policies the nominee wants to emphasize.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .