A Response to the WHS Setting SPD

A Response to the Setting of the Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage Site Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)

Regarding the Recognition of Historical Agricultural Heritage, Specifically the Silage Tower

Date: June 10, 2025

Dear Wiltshire Council,

I appreciate the opportunity to submit my personal response to the draft Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) for the Setting of the Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage Site (WHS). I commend the SPD’s robust framework for protecting the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of this globally significant landscape, recognised by UNESCO since 1986. However, I believe the SPD could do more to acknowledge the historical agricultural heritage of the WHS, particularly the silage tower near the Stonehenge Visitor Centre. While the SPD currently identifies this structure as a visual detractor, it overlooks its potential significance as a rare example of 20th-century agricultural heritage, which I believe deserves recognition and thoughtful consideration.

Background on Silage Towers

Silage towers have played an important role in agricultural history, as highlighted in Historic England’s guidance on farm buildings (Historic England, 2014). First introduced from the United States in 1901, these airtight structures were designed to store freshly cut grass for conversion into silage, a key innovation that provided farmers with a reliable supply of fodder. Their use became widespread after World War II, marking a significant shift in farming practices. However, intact pre-1940 examples are now rare, especially those constructed in concrete. The silage tower at grid reference SU 10207 43450, appearing on the 1939 Ordnance Survey map, located on the Lesser Cursus ridgeline near the Stonehenge Visitor Centre, is one such rare survivor, adding an important layer to the WHS’s historical narrative.

Context within the WHS

The Stonehenge and Avebury WHS is rightly celebrated for its prehistoric monuments, but the landscape also reflects centuries of agricultural activity. The silage tower, though modern in comparison to Neolithic and Bronze Age features, embodies the agricultural heritage that has shaped the WHS’s rural character. Its presence illustrates how farming practices have coexisted with archaeological significance, offering a broader understanding of the site’s evolution. Recognising such features supports the WHS Management Plan’s aim to enhance the site’s historical context.

Concerns with the SPD

The SPD describes the silage tower as a “prominent abandoned modern feature” that negatively impacts the WHS’s setting due to its visibility from several viewpoints, including Robin Hood’s Ball (Page 126, S-VP14; Page 147, Section 5.9). However, the SPD does not offer specific recommendations for addressing this structure, nor does it acknowledge its potential historical value. I am concerned that this omission could result in the prehistoric OUV being prioritised at the expense of more recent heritage, potentially leading to decisions that undervalue or remove significant agricultural features without proper assessment.

Recommendations

To ensure the silage tower’s historical significance is properly integrated into the WHS’s management, I propose the following amendments to the SPD:

• Acknowledge Agricultural Heritage: Add a subsection to Section 2.0 (Page 20) recognising the historical importance of agricultural structures like the silage tower. This would reflect the WHS Management Plan’s goal to “maintain and enhance the WHS by including significant archaeological features” (Page 18), extending this consideration to post-prehistoric heritage.
• Assess Historical Significance: Amend Section 3.0 (Page 41) to require Heritage Impact Assessments (HIAs) that evaluate the historical and architectural significance of agricultural structures, particularly the silage tower. Given its rarity, as noted by Historic England, research involving agricultural historians could determine its age and context, potentially justifying its inclusion in the WHS’s historical inventory.
• Enhance Visitor Interpretation: Update Section 2.6 (Page 35) to incorporate the silage tower into interpretive materials, such as signage or digital resources, to highlight the WHS’s agricultural history. This would enrich visitors’ understanding of the site’s evolution from prehistory to modern times, aligning with the Management Plan’s focus on education (Page 17).
• Explore Preservation Options: Revise Section 5.9 (Page 147) to consider preservation or adaptive reuse of the silage tower, balancing its historical value with the WHS’s visual integrity. For example, stabilising the structure as an educational exhibit could maintain its heritage significance without compromising OUV, subject to HIA evaluation (Page 44, Section 3.2).

Conclusion

The Stonehenge and Avebury WHS is a dynamic landscape shaped by millennia of human activity, including agriculture. The silage tower, though currently seen as a detractor, is a rare and significant feature of the site’s 20th-century agricultural heritage. By acknowledging and preserving such elements, the SPD can present a more holistic narrative of the WHS’s history. I urge Wiltshire Council to adopt these recommendations, ensuring that the silage tower is celebrated as part of the site’s rich tapestry. I look forward to further collaboration during the consultation process.

Yours sincerely,

Tim Daw
All Cannings, Wiltshire
June 10, 2025

References

• Historic England: National Farm Building Types, 2014
• Setting of the Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage Site (Draft for Public Consultation), Wiltshire Council, 2025

Stonehenge - the original NIMBY

Objection to Planning Application Ref: SH/001/2500BC – Proposed Construction of Stonehenge

Dear Planning Committee,

I am writing to formally object to the planning application for the construction of Stonehenge, a proposed megalithic structure on Salisbury Plain, as outlined in application reference SH/001/2500BC. While I recognize the cultural and spiritual aspirations of this project, I have significant concerns regarding its compliance with sustainability principles, environmental policies, and resource management standards as set out in the Wessex Regional Planning Framework (WRPF) and the Tribal Environmental Stewardship Code (TESC).

Firstly, the proposed extraction and transportation of Sarsen stones from West Woods on the Marlborough Downs raises serious environmental concerns. The applicant’s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) fails to adequately assess the cumulative impact of removing these non-renewable geological assets, particularly following the near-depletion of Sarsen stocks by the Avebury Circle Development (ref: AV/002/2600BC). The WRPF, Section 4.2, mandates that development proposals must “demonstrate minimal disruption to finite natural resources and protect the geodiversity of the region.” Extracting Sarsens from West Woods risks contravening this policy, potentially leading to irreversible damage to the landscape character of the Marlborough Downs and its associated ecosystems, including the habitats of local flora and fauna.

Furthermore, the application lacks a robust Sustainability Appraisal (SA) to evaluate the long-term ecological consequences of the project. The TESC, Clause 3.1, requires developers to provide a “clear strategy for mitigating environmental harm and ensuring resource sustainability.” The proposed method of dragging Sarsen stones from West Woods using timber sledges is not only logistically inefficient but also likely to cause soil compaction and erosion along transportation routes, contravening the Landscape Protection Guidelines (LPG), which emphasize the preservation of soil integrity for future agricultural use. No evidence has been provided to demonstrate compliance with these guidelines or to justify the absence of alternative, less invasive construction techniques, such as utilizing smaller, locally sourced materials from the Salisbury Plain area.

Additionally, the application does not adequately address the Community Cohesion and Heritage Impact Assessment (CCHIA) requirements under WRPF Policy 7.3. The construction of Stonehenge risks overshadowing existing local landmarks, such as the Durrington Timber Circle, potentially undermining the cultural heritage balance of the region. The lack of public consultation records, as required by TESC Clause 5.2, further suggests that the proposal has not sufficiently engaged with affected stakeholders, including tribal groups in the Marlborough Downs and Salisbury Plain areas who rely on these landscapes for seasonal grazing and ceremonial activities.

In conclusion, I urge the Planning Committee to refuse this application in its current form due to its non-compliance with the WRPF and TESC policies, inadequate environmental safeguards, and failure to demonstrate sustainable resource use. I recommend that the applicant revise the proposal to include a comprehensive Sustainability Appraisal, explore alternative construction methods, and engage in meaningful consultation with the communities of the Marlborough Downs and Salisbury Plain to ensure that Stonehenge, if approved, aligns with our collective commitment to environmental stewardship and cultural harmony.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I would be grateful for the opportunity to discuss these concerns further at the upcoming planning hearing.

Yours sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Your Contact Information]
Resident, Wessex Community

A link rich Introduction to Neolithic Megalith Transport from Cáceres Puro et al. (2025)

 A link rich Introduction to Neolithic Megalith Transport from Cáceres Puro et al. (2025):

"Most of the stones used in prehistoric megalithic constructions were transported by land through a diversity of technical procedures (see discussion in Garfitt, 1979; Hoskin, 1986; Van Tilburg, 1995; Kalb, 1996; Adams, 2007; Harris, 2018; etc.). For a long time, however, there have been suggestions that, in some specific cases, stones were transported by water ways, either along rivers or marine coasts.

Transport of megaliths by water is well attested among the prehistoric societies of Micronesia (Hazell and Fitzpatrick, 2006) and, of course, in ancient Egypt (Landström, 1970). Although little is known about navigation and sailing technology in Neolithic Europe (Morgado et al., 2018; Gibaja et al., 2024; Morgado-Rodríguez et al., 2025), water transport was probably restricted to stones of a limited size. It is unlikely that massive stones weighting several tens of tons were transported by boat. At any rate, there are very few cases for which water transportation of megaliths has been postulated. Probably, the best-known case is that of Stonehenge (Wiltshire, UK), where the ‘bluestones’ have been interpreted to have been carried over a distance of 210 km from their geological place of origin in the Preseli mountains (Wales) to the building site (Parker Pearson, 2012; Parker Pearson et al., 2015) and the “Altar Stone”, whose provenance could be in Scotland, some 700 km north of the monument (Clarke et al., 2024; Bevins et al., 2024). Both coastal and river routes have been hypothesised for the ‘bluestones’ (Parker Pearson, 2012; Clarke et al., 2024), which are relatively small, weighting between two and five tons each, and therefore would not have posed an unsurmountable challenge for boat transportation to Late Neolithic communities. A water route has also been postulated for the kerbstones of Newgrange (Ireland), which, weighting around three tons each, were quarried at Cloger Head and transported strapped underneath boats along the coast and up the River Boyne (Stout and Stout, 2008). Seafaring transportation of megalithic stones over distances of up to 40 km have also been suggested for some of the Neolithic monuments of the Locmariaquer region, in French Brittany (Cassen et al., 2019)."

Site	Stone Type	Weight (tons)	Distance (km)	Proposed Transport Route	Source
Stonehenge, UK	Bluestones	2–5	210	Coastal and river routes (e.g., River Avon)	Parker Pearson (2012)
Stonehenge, UK	Altar Stone	~6	700	Coastal and river routes	Bevins et al. (2024)
Newgrange, Ireland	Kerbstones	~3	Unknown	Coastal and River Boyne	Stout and Stout (2008)
Locmariaquer, France	Various	Unknown	Up to 40	Seafaring along Brittany coast	Cassen et al. (2019)
Valencina, Spain	Matarrubilla Basin	Unknown	8.5 - 15	Potential river/coastal routes	Cáceres Puro et al. (2025)

Reference:

Luis M. Cáceres Puro, Teodosio Donaire Romero, José Antonio Lozano Rodríguez, Marta Díaz-Guardamino, Francisco Martínez-Sevilla, Alicia Medialdea, Miren del Val, Jonàs Alcaina-Mateos, Joaquín Rodríguez-Vidal, Fernando Muñiz Guinea, Juan Manuel Vargas Jiménez, Miguel Ángel Rogerio-Candelera, Leonardo García Sanjuán,
Seafaring megaliths: A geoarchaeological approach to the Matarrubilla giant stone basin at Valencina (Spain),
Journal of Archaeological Science, Volume 180, 2025, 106263,
ISSN 0305-4403, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2025.106263.
(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440325001128)

Seafaring megaliths: robust evidence for Neolithic monolith transport

Seafaring megaliths: A geoarchaeological approach to the Matarrubilla giant stone basin at Valencina (Spain)

 Luis M. Cáceres Puro, Teodosio Donaire Romero, José Antonio Lozano Rodríguez, Marta Díaz-Guardamino, Francisco Martínez-Sevilla, Alicia Medialdea, Miren del Val, Jonàs Alcaina-Mateos, Joaquín Rodríguez-Vidal, Fernando Muñiz Guinea, Juan Manuel Vargas Jiménez, Miguel Ángel Rogerio-Candelera, Leonardo García Sanjuán,

Journal of Archaeological Science, Volume 180, 2025, 106263,

ISSN 0305-4403,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2025.106263.

(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440325001128)

Abstract: A broad multidisciplinary approach is deployed to study an exceptional megalithic feature: the stone basin that presides over the chamber of the Matarrubilla tholos, part of the Valencina Copper Age mega-site (Sevilla, Spain). The study, including geoarchaeological characterisation and sourcing of the stone, traceological analysis of its surfaces based on photogrammetry and morphometrics, digital image analysis as well as OSL dating, leads to a number of substantial findings of great relevance to understand the significance of this stone basin, the only of its kind documented to this date in the Iberian Peninsula, with parallels only in Ireland and Malta. Among the most relevant conclusions, it is worth noting the fact that the gypsiferous cataclasite block the basin was made of was brought from the other side of the marine bay that five thousand years ago extended across the south-east of Valencina, this is the first evidence of waterborne transport of a megalithic stone in the Iberian Peninsula. In addition, the basin appears to have been put where it stands today sometime in the first half of the 4th millennium BC, long before any tholoi were built at Valencina, which suggest a prior history of still poorly documented monumentality at this mega-site.

Keywords: Valencina cooper age mega-site; Matarrubilla tholos; Stone basin; Megalithic art; Gypsum rock; Transportation of megaliths; Floating transport

 
Key Scientific Methods Used

Geoarchaeological Characterisation and Provenance Analysis

•  The study conducted a full geological analysis to determine the stone's origin. By comparing the mineralogical and petrographic properties of the basin with regional geological formations, researchers established that the gypsiferous cataclasite block originated from the opposite (eastern) side of a prehistoric marine bay, across from the Valencina site.
•  This sourcing was crucial in demonstrating that the stone could not have been obtained locally and must have been transported over water.

Traceological Analysis Using Photogrammetry and Morphometrics

•  High-resolution photogrammetry and morphometric analysis were employed to model the basin’s surfaces, documenting tool marks and manufacturing techniques. This allowed for detailed assessment of the basin's carving and dressing, providing insights into Neolithic stone-working skills and the logistics of moving such a large object.

Digital Image Analysis

•  Digital imaging was used to enhance the identification of tool marks and surface modifications, supporting interpretations of both manufacture and transport processes.

Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) Dating

•  OSL dating of sediments beneath the basin provided a chronological framework, establishing that the basin was placed in its current location in the first half of the 4th millennium BC—predating the construction of the tholos itself. This temporal evidence supports the hypothesis of an earlier phase of monumentality at the site.

Interpretation and Broader Context

The multidisciplinary approach not only traced the stone’s geological origin but also reconstructed the likely transport route: the basin was moved across a marine bay (now vanished) and then hauled uphill to its final position. This scenario is supported by:

•  The lack of similar gypsum outcrops near the site, necessitating cross-water transport.
•  Comparative references to similar waterborne megalith transport in other prehistoric contexts, such as Stonehenge’s bluestones and the kerbstones of Newgrange, where geological sourcing and hypothesised river/coastal routes have been similarly established.

Conclusion

 This study exemplifies how integrating geological, archaeological, and advanced imaging methods can provide robust evidence for Neolithic monolith transport mechanisms. The combination of provenance analysis, morphometric documentation, and precise dating offers a model for future research into prehistoric monument construction and the capabilities of early societies in moving massive stones over challenging landscapes.

A Review of the Stonehenge Cremated Remains and Their Provenancing

An integrated review of the cremated remains found at Stonehenge and their scientific provenancing.

   https://www.researchgate.net/publication/392230660_A_Review_of_the_Stonehenge_Cremated_Remains_and_Their_Provenancing

Analysis of the Canopy Effect and Its Application to Stonehenge Cremations

(It's not often I get to use my MA (Oxon) in "Agricultural and Forest Sciences" for Stonehenge research so I am please to be able to share this.)

Corroboration of Snoeck et al.’s References by Recent Research

The landmark study by Snoeck et al. (2018) in Scientific Reports used strontium and carbon isotope analysis to interpret the origins of individuals and the wood used in their cremation pyres at Stonehenge. Their interpretations relied on foundational research into the “canopy effect”—the phenomenon by which plants in dense forests exhibit depleted δ¹³C values compared to those in open environments. Seminal studies such as van der Merwe & Medina (1991) and Drucker et al. (2008) established that this effect is due to a combination of reduced light intensity and the recycling of ^13C-depleted CO₂ from soil respiration, with these depleted signatures transferring up the food chain, Vogel (1978).

Recent research has directly measured the canopy effect in woody tissues, addressing earlier limitations where extrapolations were made primarily from grasses. For example:

·         van der Sleen et al. (2014) analyzed tree rings of Peltogyne cf. heterophylla in a Bolivian moist forest, finding that Δ¹³C values decreased by 1.5–2.5‰ after gap formation due to increased light, confirming the predominant role of light in the canopy effect.

·         Brienen et al. (2022) studied Cedrela trees across three tropical forests, observing Δ¹³C reductions of 4–6‰ from understory (24–25‰) to canopy (17–18‰), with tree height as the main driver (–0.15 to –0.41‰ per meter).

·         Starkovich et al. (2024) demonstrated that hazelnut shells from denser canopies had δ¹³C values up to 5‰ lower than those from open settings.

These studies provide direct, quantitative evidence of the canopy effect in woody tissues, validating the isotopic principles applied by Snoeck et al. (2018) to infer the origins of pyre wood at Stonehenge.

In-Depth Explanation of the Canopy Effect

The canopy effect in isotope ecology refers to the systematic depletion of δ¹³C values in plants growing under dense woodland canopies. This is primarily due to:

Reduced light intensity: Limits photosynthesis, increasing the ratio of intercellular to ambient CO₂ (C_i/C_a), and thus enhancing discrimination against ¹³C.

Recycling of ¹³C-depleted CO₂: Soil respiration under forest cover releases CO₂ with δ¹³C around –27‰, further depleting plant isotopic signatures.

The δ¹³C value, expressed in per mil (‰) relative to the Vienna Pee Dee Belemnite (VPDB) standard, is governed by carbon isotope discrimination (Δ¹³C) during photosynthesis in C3 plants (which dominate UK woodlands). The standard model, after Farquhar et al. (1982), is:

Δ¹³C = a + (b - a) ⋅ C_i/C_a

where:

• a ≈ 4.4‰ (fractionation during diffusion),
• b ≈ 27‰ (fractionation during carboxylation),
• C_i/C_a is the ratio of intercellular to ambient CO₂ concentration.

In dense canopies, low light raises C_i/C_a (e.g., 0.7–0.9), leading to greater discrimination and lower δ¹³C values (–30‰ to –32‰). In open landscapes, higher light reduces C_i/C_a (e.g., 0.5–0.7), resulting in higher δ¹³C values (–25‰ to –27‰).

Bonafini et al. (2013) quantified this in Wytham Wood, UK, finding up to 5‰ δ¹³C depletion in grasses under closed canopies, primarily due to shading. Recent timber studies, such as Brienen et al. (2022), confirm similar depletions in tree rings, with Δ¹³C shifts reflecting canopy density. However, water stress can also influence δ¹³C in drier sites, potentially confounding purely light-driven effects.

Archaeological Application

In cremation contexts, the canopy effect is preserved in bone apatite, as carbon from pyre wood is incorporated during high-temperature burning. Lower δ¹³C values in cremated remains suggest wood from dense woodlands; higher values indicate more open landscapes. This isotopic signature, combined with strontium isotope analysis, enables reconstruction of both human mobility and the environmental context of cremation practices.

Link to Snoeck et al.’s Stonehenge Work

Snoeck et al. (2018) analyzed strontium (^87Sr/86Sr) and carbon (δ¹³C) isotopes in 25 cremated human remains from Stonehenge. Strontium isotopes in tooth enamel indicated that 10 individuals had ratios consistent with west Wales (e.g., Preseli Hills, the source of Stonehenge’s bluestones), while others matched the local chalk geology of Salisbury Plain. δ¹³C analysis of cremated bone apatite revealed that individuals from Wales had lower δ¹³C values, suggesting cremation with wood from denser woodlands, while those from Wessex had higher values, indicating wood from open downlands.

Recent studies directly corroborate this interpretation. Starkovich et al. (2024) showed that woody tissues from dense canopies have δ¹³C values up to 5‰ lower, matching the lower δ¹³C in some Stonehenge remains. Brienen et al. (2022) confirmed that tree rings in shaded understories exhibit significant δ¹³C depletion, supporting the idea that Welsh woodlands produced the wood for some pyres. In contrast, the open Wessex downlands, with higher δ¹³C values, align with the isotopic signatures of local cremations.

Archaeological Context: Transport of Cremated Remains

The physical context of the burials reinforces this interpretation. Excavations by Hawley and later researchers found that many cremation deposits at Stonehenge were clustered in the Aubrey Holes and were often contained within circular margins, suggesting they had been placed in organic containers—most likely leather bags—before burial. These organic containers have long since decayed, but their impressions remain, supporting the hypothesis that the cremated remains were transported as discrete packages.

As summarized by recent overviews and the Stonehenge Riverside Project, Willis, C. et al. (2016), this practice fits with the idea that Stonehenge was a ceremonial centre where people from distant regions—including west Wales—brought their dead for burial. The movement of both the bluestones and people from the Preseli region underscores the monument’s role as a focal point for inter-regional connections during the Neolithic.

Synthesis: Cremation in Wales, Burial at Stonehenge

Given the combined strontium and carbon isotope evidence, and the archaeological context of the cremation deposits, the most parsimonious explanation is that the individuals with Welsh isotopic signatures were cremated in west Wales using local woodland fuel. Their remains were then carefully collected—likely in leather bags or similar containers—and transported to Stonehenge for burial. This scenario is supported by the absence of local pyre debris at Stonehenge, the preservation of distinct isotopic signatures, and the physical evidence for organic containers.

This interpretation is now widely favoured over the alternative hypothesis that non-local wood was transported to Stonehenge for use in cremations. It also fits with the broader pattern of Neolithic mobility and ritual, where both people and materials—including the bluestones—were moved over considerable distances.

References

·         Bonafini, M., Pellegrini, M., Ditchfield, P., & Pollard, A. M. (2013). Investigation of the ‘canopy effect’ in the isotope ecology of temperate woodlands. Journal of Archaeological Science, 40, 3926–3935.

·         Brienen, R. J. W., Schöngart, J., Zuidema, P. A., et al. (2022). Paired analysis of tree ring width and carbon isotopes indicates when controls on tropical tree growth change from light to water limitations. Tree Physiology, 42(6), 1137–1150.

·         Drucker, D. G., Bridault, A., Hobson, K. A., et al. (2008). Can carbon-13 in large herbivores provide an insight into palaeoenvironmental conditions? Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 266(3–4), 183–191.

·         Snoeck, C., Pouncett, J., Claeys, P., et al. (2018). Strontium isotope analysis on cremated human remains from Stonehenge support links with west Wales. Scientific Reports, 8, 10790.

·         Starkovich, B. M., Krauß, R., & Britton, K. (2024). Carbon isotope values of hazelnut shells: a new proxy for canopy density. Frontiers in Environmental Archaeology, 3, 1351411.

·         van der Merwe, N. J., & Medina, E. (1991). The canopy effect, carbon isotope ratios and foodwebs in Amazonia. Journal of Archaeological Science, 18(3), 249–259.

·         van der Sleen, P., Groenendijk, P., Vlam, M., et al. (2014). Understanding causes of tree growth response to gap formation: Δ¹³C-values in tree rings reveal a predominant effect of light. Trees, 29, 439–448.

·         Vogel, J. C. (1978). Recycling of carbon dioxide in a forest environment. Oecologia Plantarum, 13, 89–94.

·         Willis, C. et al. (2016) ‘The dead of Stonehenge’, Antiquity, 90(350), pp. 337–356. doi:10.15184/aqy.2016.26.

⁂

From Stones to Bones: Isotopic Analysis Confirms Neolithic Mobility at Stonehenge

Introduction

Stonehenge's bluestones, sourced from the Preseli Hills in west Wales, over 200 miles away, have long suggested significant inter-regional connectivity. A seminal 2018 study by Snoeck et al., published in Scientific Reports (Strontium isotope analysis on cremated human remains from Stonehenge support links with west Wales), used strontium and carbon isotope analysis to propose that not only stones but also cremated human remains were transported to Stonehenge, indicating complex social and ritual practices. A recent 2024 study by the same lead researcher, Dr. Christophe Snoeck, published in PLOS ONE (Understanding intra-individual isotopic variability in modern cremated human remains for forensic and archaeological studies), investigates isotopic variability in modern cremated remains, offering insights that validate the methodologies used in the Stonehenge research. This article uses the 2024 study as a foundation to assess the reliability of the 2018 findings, integrating comparisons with other studies to contextualize Neolithic mobility patterns.

The 2018 Stonehenge Study: A Foundation for Understanding Mobility

The 2018 study analyzed 25 cremated individuals from Stonehenge, focusing on strontium (⁸⁷Sr/⁸⁶Sr) and carbon (δ¹³C) isotope ratios in calcined bone. Strontium isotopes, which reflect the geological environment of an individual’s food sources, indicated that at least 10 individuals (40%) had ratios (0.7091–0.7118) inconsistent with the Wessex chalk (0.7074–0.7090), aligning instead with west Wales as one possibility, the source of Stonehenge’s bluestones. Carbon isotope analysis provided further evidence: non-local individuals exhibited lower δ¹³C values, suggesting cremation in denser woodlands typical of Wales, while locals had higher δ¹³C values, consistent with open landscapes like the Wessex chalk downlands. Given that 40–95% of carbon in cremated bone derives from pyre wood, these differences likely reflect environmental conditions of cremation rather than diet, which was relatively homogeneous in Neolithic Britain (C₃ terrestrial system).

Isotope Signature Matrix for Stonehenge Cremated Remains

	High δ¹³C (Open landscapes, e.g., chalk downland wood)	Low δ¹³C (Dense woodlands, e.g., Welsh woodland wood)
Low Sr (Local Wessex chalk) 0.7074–0.7090	Local remains cremated locally ~15 individuals	Very rare/none (No evidence for local remains cremated with woodland fuel)
High Sr (Non-local, West Wales) 0.7091–0.7118	Very rare/none (No evidence for non-locals cremated with local fuel)	Non-local remains cremated in west Wales and brought to Stonehenge ~10 individuals

---

The study concluded that these non-local individuals were likely cremated in west Wales before their remains were transported to Stonehenge, paralleling the movement of the bluestones. This finding, supported by archaeological evidence, underscored Stonehenge’s role as a hub of inter-regional connectivity, where both materials and human remains were deliberately brought together, possibly for ritual or communal purposes.

The 2024 Study: Refining the Methodology

The 2024 study by Snoeck et al. investigates isotopic variability in 14 modern cremated individuals from the UTK Donated Skeletal Collection, analyzing carbon (δ¹³C), oxygen (δ¹⁸O), and strontium (⁸⁷Sr/⁸⁶Sr) isotopes, along with strontium concentrations and infrared indices, across different skeletal elements (petrous part of the temporal bone, femur, and rib). Key findings include:

• Carbon and Oxygen Isotopes: Variability in δ¹³C and δ¹⁸O reflects differences in cremation conditions, such as fuel type (natural gas in modern crematoria vs. wood in archaeological contexts) and temperature (800–1100°C). Modern cremations showed higher δ¹³C values due to the organic carbon pool and natural gas, contrasting with lower values in archaeological remains using wood.
• Strontium Isotopes: The petrous bone, which does not remodel after childhood, preserves a reliable childhood strontium signal, making it ideal for determining birthplace, especially in older individuals. However, ribs and femurs in recent individuals showed a narrow strontium range (0.7088–0.7100) due to globalized food systems, limiting their use for modern forensic provenance studies.
• Intra-Individual Variability: Different skeletal elements exhibit varying isotope signatures due to bone turnover rates, with ribs reflecting recent diet, femurs a longer period, and the petrous bone a childhood signal.
• Archaeological Relevance: The study confirms that calcined bone’s high crystallinity prevents post-burial strontium exchange, validating its use in archaeological studies like Stonehenge, where regional dietary differences were more pronounced.

By demonstrating the reliability of strontium isotope analysis in calcined bone, particularly the petrous bone, the 2024 study reinforces the methodological foundation of the 2018 Stonehenge research. The contrast between ancient and modern isotopic signals—clear regional differences in the Neolithic versus homogenized signals today—further supports the 2018 findings, where distinct strontium ratios linked non-local individuals to west Wales.

Comparisons with Other Neolithic Studies

To assess the broader reliability of the 2018 Stonehenge findings, comparisons with other studies using isotopic analysis on cremated remains are essential:

• Ireland (Parknabinnia, 2020): A study on the Parknabinnia court tomb in Co. Clare, published in Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports (Isotopic evidence for changing mobility and landscape use patterns), analyzed four cremated individuals, all identified as non-local based on strontium isotopes. Carbon isotope (δ¹³C) analysis was used to explore cremation rituals, not mobility, due to thermal alteration affecting dietary signals. The study suggests mobility and tomb re-use in the Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age, paralleling Stonehenge’s evidence of transported remains, though δ¹³C was not used for geographic origins.
• Northern Ireland (2016): Research published in Journal of Archaeological Science (Mobility during the Neolithic and Bronze Age) used strontium isotopes on cremated remains from five sites, indicating non-local food consumption at sites like Ballynahatty. δ¹³C was not emphasized for mobility, focusing instead on ritual practices, similar to the Irish study.
• Germany (2020): A pilot study on cremated teeth from Vollmarshausen, published in Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports (A strontium isotope pilot study), found most individuals were local based on strontium isotopes, with no δ¹³C analysis for movement, highlighting the dominance of strontium in mobility studies.

These studies confirm that strontium isotopes are the primary tool for tracing mobility in cremated remains, with δ¹³C typically used for cremation practices rather than geographic origins, except in the Stonehenge case. The unique application of δ¹³C in the 2018 study to infer cremation environments (woodland vs. open landscapes) sets it apart, but the consistency of non-local individuals across regions supports the broader concept of Neolithic mobility.

Reliability and Limitations

The 2024 study strengthens the reliability of the 2018 Stonehenge findings by validating the use of strontium isotopes in calcined bone, particularly the petrous bone, for archaeological provenance studies. The high crystallinity of calcined bone, as confirmed in both studies, ensures minimal post-burial contamination, making it a robust medium for isotopic analysis. The 2024 paper’s findings on δ¹³C variability due to cremation conditions align with the 2018 study’s use of δ¹³C to distinguish cremation environments, further supporting the interpretation that non-local remains were cremated in Wales.

However, limitations exist:

• Modern vs. Ancient Contexts: The 2024 study highlights that globalized food systems reduce the effectiveness of strontium isotopes for modern forensic studies, but this does not apply to Neolithic contexts, where regional differences were clear, as seen in Stonehenge.
• δ¹³C Interpretation: The use of δ¹³C for mobility, as in Stonehenge, is less common elsewhere, where it is primarily used for ritual analysis. This suggests that the Stonehenge study’s approach is innovative but requires further validation across other sites.
• Sample Size and Scope: The 2018 study’s sample of 25 individuals is robust but limited to Stonehenge, and broader application to other Neolithic sites could strengthen the findings.

No significant controversies challenge the 2018 study’s conclusions, and the 2024 paper’s methodological advancements enhance confidence in its results. The absence of contradictory studies in recent literature (up to May 28, 2025) further supports its reliability.

Broader Implications

The combined evidence from the 2018 and 2024 studies, alongside comparisons with other Neolithic research, underscores Stonehenge’s role as a cultural and ritual hub in Neolithic Britain. The movement of both bluestones and cremated remains from west Wales suggests strong social ties, possibly reflecting shared identities or pilgrimage practices. The 2019 study on animal remains at nearby sites, published in Science Advances (Multi-isotope analysis reveals that feasts), identified pigs with strontium values consistent with west Wales, further supporting inter-regional connectivity.

The 2024 study’s insights into isotopic variability highlight the interdisciplinary nature of archaeological science, combining chemistry, anthropology, and archaeology to reconstruct past societies. Future research could explore additional isotopic proxies (e.g., oxygen isotopes) or expand δ¹³C analysis to other Neolithic sites to confirm its utility for mobility studies.

Conclusion

The 2024 study by Snoeck et al. serves as a critical validation of the methodologies used in the 2018 Stonehenge study, confirming the reliability of strontium isotope analysis for tracing ancient mobility. By demonstrating the robustness of calcined bone analysis and the distinct isotopic signals in archaeological contexts, the 2024 paper strengthens the evidence that Stonehenge was a focal point for distant communities, where both stones and cremated remains were transported from west Wales. Comparisons with studies in Ireland and elsewhere reveal a broader pattern of Neolithic mobility, though the innovative use of δ¹³C in the Stonehenge study remains unique. Together, these findings illuminate the complex social networks of Neolithic Britain, with Stonehenge as a testament to the enduring connections between people, places, and materials.

Key Citations

• Strontium isotope analysis on cremated human remains from Stonehenge support links with west Wales
• Understanding intra-individual isotopic variability in modern cremated human remains for forensic and archaeological studies
• Isotopic evidence for changing mobility and landscape use patterns between the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age in western Ireland
• Mobility during the Neolithic and Bronze Age in Northern Ireland
• A strontium isotope pilot study using cremated teeth from the Vollmarshausen cemetery, Hesse, Germany
• Multi-isotope analysis reveals that feasts in the Stonehenge environs and across Wessex drew people and animals from throughout Britain