Wednesday, 30 April 2025

Sexual Selection and Neolithic Monument Building

Sexual Selection and Neolithic Monument Building

Sexual Selection and Neolithic Monument Building

Also available for download at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/391279201_Sexual_Selection_and_Neolithic_Monument_Building/references

Tim Daw - Cannings Cross, SN10 3NP
Open Access - 29th April 2025

Abstract

This paper proposes that Neolithic monuments in Britain, such as Stonehenge, Avebury, and Maeshowe, may have functioned as displays driven by sexual selection, akin to a peacock's tail or a bowerbird's bower. Extending a framework developed for Acheulean handaxes, we argue that these monuments signalled cognitive ability, health management, resource access, and social status through an instinctive mate-driven selection process. Their scale, engineering complexity, visibility, and permanence served as enduring symbols of group fitness, potentially influencing mate choice and social alliances. The Red Queen hypothesis is invoked to suggest an evolutionary arms race, where groups escalated monument building to outcompete rivals in reproductive and social status, rather than for purely utilitarian purposes. Whilst acknowledging ritual, cosmological, and social functions, we propose that the display value may have been a significant evolutionary driver, offering a novel perspective on Neolithic social dynamics.

Introduction

The Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age in Britain (circa 3000-2500 BCE) marked a period of extraordinary monument building, producing iconic structures such as Stonehenge, Silbury Hill, Avebury, Durrington Walls, the Ring of Brodgar, Flagstones Enclosure, and Maeshowe. Traditionally, these monuments have been interpreted as ritualistic, cosmological, or communal in purpose, serving as ceremonial sites, astronomical observatories, or gathering places for dispersed populations (Darvill, 2006; Parker Pearson, 2012). However, a provocative hypothesis inspired by evolutionary biology suggests that sexual selection may have played a pivotal role in their construction, drawing parallels with the Acheulean handaxe tradition, where tools may have served as mate-attracting displays (Kohn & Mithen, 1998). This paper integrates this framework with recent insights on hygiene management (Whitehead et al., 2024), conspicuous consumption (Veblen, 1899), and the Red Queen hypothesis (Van Valen, 1973) to argue that Neolithic monuments functioned as multifaceted displays of skill, health, wealth, and status, influencing mate choice and social dynamics through an instinctive mate-driven selection process. Whilst speculative, this perspective complements traditional interpretations, offering a richer understanding of Neolithic social behaviour.

Theoretical Framework

Sexual Selection and Evolutionary Displays

Sexual selection, as conceptualised by Darwin (1871), operates distinctly from natural selection, driving traits that enhance reproductive success through mate attraction or competition (Darwin, 1871). A classic example is the peacock's tail, which, despite its survival costs—being heavy and attracting predators—persists because peahens prefer males with the most elaborate displays (Zahavi, 1975). Runaway selection, formalised by Fisher (1930), describes how such traits escalate when mate preferences and the trait co-evolve, creating an evolutionary feedback loop where displays become increasingly exaggerated (Fisher, 1930). The Red Queen hypothesis further contextualises this as an evolutionary arms race, where individuals or groups must continually adapt to maintain relative fitness in a competitive environment (Van Valen, 1973). In human societies, sexual selection can manifest through cultural displays, such as art, architecture, or technology, which signal traits like creativity, leadership, or resource access (Miller, 2000).

Instinctive Mate-Driven Selection

The sexual selection process discussed here is not a conscious strategy but an instinctive mate-driven selection, where behaviours are shaped by subconscious evolutionary pressures. Humans, like other animals, are driven by innate preferences for traits indicating fitness—such as cognitive ability, health, or wealth—without deliberate intent (Ridley, 2025). Over generations, these preferences favoured individuals or groups who exhibited such traits, embedding these behaviours into cultural practices. This clarification ensures that readers do not misinterpret monument building as a deliberate attempt to attract mates, but rather as an emergent outcome of evolutionary dynamics.

Acheulean Handaxes as a Precursor

The Acheulean period (circa 1.76 million to 100,000 years ago) provides a foundational analogy for this hypothesis. Handaxes, often crafted with symmetry beyond functional necessity, may have served as displays of skill and fitness, akin to a bowerbird's bower (Kohn & Mithen, 1998). Experimental studies have shown that symmetrical handaxes required significant skill to produce, suggesting a cognitive and motor prowess that could signal genetic quality (Lycett et al., 2010). Additionally, Whitehead et al. (2024) argue that discarding handaxes after use mitigated pathogen transmission, indicating health awareness—a trait beneficial for survival and offspring care (Whitehead et al., 2024). The resource intensity of crafting and discarding handaxes aligns with conspicuous consumption, where wasteful displays signal wealth and status (Veblen, 1899). These handaxes, often found in large numbers at sites like Boxgrove, may have been prehistoric "status symbols," enhancing the maker's reproductive success through mate choice (Nowell & Chang, 2009).

Neolithic Monuments: A Societal-Scale Display

The Monument-Building Context

The Late Neolithic in Britain was a time of social transformation, marked by the shift to agriculture, population growth, and emerging social hierarchies (Thomas, 2013). Monuments like Stonehenge, constructed in phases from 3000 to 2000 BCE, involved transporting massive sarsen stones from Marlborough Downs, 20 miles away, and bluestones from the Preseli Hills in Wales, over 150 miles (Darvill, 2006). Silbury Hill, built around 2400 BCE, is the largest prehistoric man-made mound in Europe, requiring an estimated 4 million labour hours (Whittle, 1997). Avebury, dating to around 2600 BCE, features the largest stone circle in Europe, enclosing two smaller circles. Durrington Walls, a henge near Stonehenge from 2500 BCE, housed temporary settlements for builders. The Ring of Brodgar in Orkney, also around 2500 BCE, is part of a broader ritual landscape. The Flagstones Enclosure, a Neolithic ditched enclosure in Dorchester from around 3200 BCE, and Maeshowe, a passage grave in Orkney dated to 2800 BCE, further exemplify this monumental tradition (Henshall, 1972). These projects coincided with increased trade networks, as evidenced by the distribution of jadeite axes from the Alps, and social stratification, seen in elite burials like the Amesbury Archer near Stonehenge (Fitzpatrick, 2011).

Skill and Cognitive Ability

The construction of Stonehenge required advanced engineering, planning, and coordination, comparable to the skill needed for handaxe crafting. The precise alignment of Stonehenge's stones with the solstices demonstrates astronomical knowledge, whilst the structural stability of Maeshowe's corbelled chamber reflects sophisticated masonry (Darvill, 2006; Henshall, 1972). These feats signal cognitive ability and leadership, traits valued in mate choice across species (Miller, 2000). The complexity of Avebury's concentric circles and the Ring of Brodgar's geometric precision further underscore this, suggesting that groups capable of such achievements were perceived as fit and capable partners or allies (Burl, 2000).

Health Management and Communal Gatherings

Neolithic monuments often served as gathering places, as evidenced by feasting debris at Durrington Walls, where thousands of animal bones and pottery fragments indicate large-scale events (Parker Pearson, 2012). Managing such gatherings without health crises—such as starvation or food poisoning—required significant organisational skills, akin to modern public health measures. This ability to ensure group health parallels the hygiene benefits of discarding handaxes, as proposed by Whitehead et al. (2024), and could enhance a group's or leader's attractiveness by demonstrating care and reliability (Whitehead et al., 2024).

Wealth and Conspicuous Consumption

The resource intensity of these monuments reflects conspicuous consumption on a societal scale. As examples Silbury Hill's construction involved moving vast quantities of chalk, whilst Stonehenge's bluestones required long-distance transport, both demanding significant labour and materials (Whittle, 1997). These displays of wealth and power, as Veblen (1899) describes, could attract mates or allies by signalling resource access and group cohesion, enhancing reproductive success through social alliances (Veblen, 1899).

Visibility and Permanence as Status Symbols

Unlike portable handaxes, Neolithic monuments were permanent and highly visible. Stonehenge, standing on Salisbury Plain, can be seen from miles away, whilst Avebury's massive circle dominates its landscape (Darvill, 2006). The Ring of Brodgar, set within Orkney's dramatic scenery, and Maeshowe's prominent mound served as enduring symbols of group status (Burl, 2000). This permanence acted as a "prestige billboard," broadcasting fitness traits across generations, much like a peacock's tail or a modern landmark (Zahavi, 1975).

Sexual Selection Dynamics

Instinctive Mate-Driven Selection

The sexual selection process here is an instinctive mate-driven selection, where mate choice operates subconsciously, driven by innate preferences for fitness traits. Neolithic individuals did not deliberately build monuments to attract mates; rather, their behaviours were shaped by evolutionary pressures favouring groups that displayed skill, health, wealth, and status (Ridley, 2025). This mirrors how female bowerbirds instinctively prefer males with the most elaborate bowers, a behaviour that enhances reproductive success without conscious intent (Diamond, 1986).

Mate Choice and Social Alliances

In Neolithic societies, where survival and reproduction were paramount, traits like cognitive ability, health management, and resource access were likely valued in mates. Leaders or groups orchestrating monumental projects would have been perceived as desirable partners, enhancing their reproductive success (Kohn & Mithen, 1998). Evidence of inter-group interactions, such as the Amesbury Archer's isotopic signature indicating origins in the Alps, suggests mate exchange between communities, where monument-building groups may have gained a reproductive edge (Fitzpatrick, 2011). Additionally, monuments could attract allies, strengthening social networks and indirectly boosting mating opportunities (Parker Pearson, 2012).

Runaway Selection and the Red Queen

The competition to build larger or more impressive monuments reflects a runaway selection process, where groups escalated displays to outdo rivals, driven by social and reproductive pressures (Fisher, 1930). The Red Queen hypothesis frames this as an evolutionary arms race, where groups had to continually innovate to maintain relative fitness (Van Valen, 1973). The clustering of monuments in regions like Wiltshire (Stonehenge, Avebury, Silbury Hill) and Orkney (Ring of Brodgar, Maeshowe) suggests such a race, with groups vying to assert dominance through ever-grander displays (Burl, 2000).

Supporting Evidence and Counterarguments

Supporting Evidence

  • Archaeological Findings: Feasting at Durrington Walls, with thousands of animal bones and pottery fragments, indicates large gatherings, likely venues for social interaction and mate choice (Parker Pearson, 2012). Similar evidence at Maeshowe, where communal rituals involved feasting, supports this (Henshall, 1972).
  • Monument Complexity: The scale of Stonehenge, the geometric precision of the Ring of Brodgar, and the labour-intensive construction of Silbury Hill indicate significant resource investment, consistent with conspicuous consumption (Whittle, 1997).
  • Symbolic Artefacts: Elaborate pottery, such as Grooved Ware at Durrington Walls, and jadeite axes from the Alps found across Britain, further suggest the importance of status displays in Neolithic societies (Thomas, 2013).
  • Evolutionary Parallels: In other species, such as bowerbirds, elaborate displays are driven by sexual selection, supporting the analogy with human monuments (Diamond, 1986). The peacock's tail, a product of runaway selection, provides a direct parallel to Stonehenge's grandeur (Zahavi, 1975).

Counterarguments

  • Ritual and Cosmological Functions: Stonehenge's solstice alignments and Maeshowe's winter solstice orientation suggest primary roles as ritual or astronomical sites (Darvill, 2006; Henshall, 1972). These functions may overshadow social displays.
  • Egalitarian Societies: Some scholars argue that Neolithic societies were egalitarian, reducing the role of status competition (Whittle, 1997). However, the scale of monuments and elite burials, like the Amesbury Archer, imply hierarchy (Fitzpatrick, 2011).
  • Lack of Direct Evidence: The sexual selection hypothesis lacks direct evidence, relying on analogies and inference. No isotopic or genetic data confirm mate choice at these sites, and communal health practices are inferred.

Addressing Counterarguments

The sexual selection hypothesis complements rather than negates traditional interpretations. Monuments likely served multiple purposes—ritual, cosmological, and social—with display value enhancing their significance in an evolutionary context. The scale of construction and evidence of hierarchy challenge egalitarian views, whilst the bowerbird analogy provides a robust theoretical framework, even without direct evidence. Future genetic studies could test this hypothesis by examining mating patterns at monument sites.

Application to Other Monuments

This theory extends to other Neolithic monuments across Britain. Avebury's massive stone circle, Silbury Hill's towering mound, and the Ring of Brodgar's remote yet precise construction all reflect significant skill, resources, and labour, potentially serving as displays of group fitness (Burl, 2000). Maeshowe, with its communal burials, and, with its sophisticated passage grave, further illustrate this trend, suggesting that monument building was a widespread strategy for social and reproductive competition in Neolithic Britain (Henshall, 1972). Beyond Britain, structures like Göbekti Tepe in Turkey (circa 9600 BCE), with its intricately carved pillars, may reflect similar dynamics, indicating a broader pattern of display-driven monumentalism in early societies (Schmidt, 2010).

Conclusion

The integration of sexual selection, health management, and conspicuous consumption offers a novel perspective on Neolithic monuments like Stonehenge, Avebury, and Maeshowe. These structures likely functioned as multifaceted displays of cognitive ability, health management, resource access, and social status, influencing mate choice and social alliances through an instinctive mate-driven selection process. The Red Queen hypothesis frames their construction as part of an evolutionary arms race, where groups escalated displays to outcompete rivals, embedding these behaviours in cultural practices. Whilst speculative, this hypothesis enriches our understanding of Neolithic social dynamics, highlighting the interplay of biology, culture, and evolution in shaping human history.

References

Posted by at No comments:

Monday, 28 April 2025

Monument Building in Prehistory: A Revised Sexual Selection Lens on Stonehenge

Monument Building in Prehistory: A Revised Sexual Selection Lens on Stonehenge, Silbury Hill, and Avebury

Introduction

The Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age in Britain (circa 3000–2500 BCE) saw an intense period of monument building, resulting in iconic structures like Stonehenge, Silbury Hill, Avebury, Durrington Walls, and Mount Pleasant . Traditionally viewed as ritualistic, communal, or astronomical, these projects demanded significant labour and resources. Building on a sexual selection framework previously applied to Acheulean handaxes—where production signaled skill, wealth, and status—this post proposes that monument building also served as a display of mate-attracting traits. The sexual selection process described here operates as an instinctive mate-driven selection, where mate choice is driven by innate preferences rather than conscious deliberation, similar to how animals instinctively respond to displays of fitness in potential partners, leading to increased reproductive success.

The Monument-Building Context

This period marked a transition to agricultural societies with increased social complexity. Stonehenge, built in phases from 3000 to 2000 BCE, involved transporting massive stones, showcasing engineering prowess. Silbury Hill, constructed around 2400 BCE, is Europe’s largest man-made mound, requiring an estimated 4 million labour hours. Avebury, also from around 2600 BCE, features the largest stone circle in Europe, enclosing two smaller circles. Durrington Walls, a large henge near Stonehenge, dates to around 2500 BCE and housed temporary settlements for builders. The Ring of Brodgar in Orkney, built around 2500 BCE, is a Neolithic henge and stone circle, part of a larger ritual landscape. These projects coincided with population growth, trade, and stratification, creating a competitive social environment.

Revised Sexual Selection Framework

Skill as a Fitness Signal: Monument building required advanced engineering and coordination, akin to the craftsmanship of Acheulean handaxes. Leaders who orchestrated projects like Stonehenge’s solstice alignments or the Ring of Brodgar’s precise circle demonstrated cognitive and organizational skills, signaling genetic fitness to potential mates.

Hygiene as Management of Communal Health: The original hygiene argument focused on discarding handaxes to avoid pathogens. Reframed here, hygiene is the ability to manage large communal gatherings without starvation or poisoning. Sites like Durrington Walls hosted feasts, evidenced by animal bones and pottery. Leaders who ensured food safety—avoiding spoilage or contamination—and prevented famine during these events signaled health management skills, enhancing their appeal as mates by demonstrating traits linked to group survival.

Conspicuous Consumption and Wealth: Monuments required immense resources, similar to handaxe discard. Silbury Hill’s chalk mound, Avebury’s massive stones, and the labour for Durrington Walls’ henge reflect surplus wealth. Leaders who could mobilize such resources demonstrated provisioning ability, a key factor in mate choice.

Status as a Social Signal: P.J. O’Rourke’s analogy of a Mercedes-Benz 380SL convertible as a modern status symbol applies: monuments were prehistoric “luxury cars.” Stonehenge, Avebury, and the Ring of Brodgar, visible across landscapes, were public displays of power, enhancing the status of their builders and making them more attractive mates.

Clarifying the Instinctive Nature of Sexual Selection

For casual readers, it’s crucial to clarify that the sexual selection described here does not imply that Neolithic individuals deliberately built monuments to “be sexy” or consciously attract mates. Instead, this process is an instinctive mate-driven selection, shaped by subconscious evolutionary pressures. Just as birds instinctively respond to displays like a peacock’s tail, humans are driven by innate preferences for traits signaling fitness—such as skill, health management, and wealth—without deliberate intent. Over generations, these instinctive preferences favoured monument builders who exhibited such traits, embedding these behaviours in the cultural practices of the time.

Reexamining the Period Through This Lens

Social Competition: Monument building may reflect competition among groups to attract mates and allies, explaining the frenzy of construction. Sites like Avebury, Stonehenge, Durrington Walls, Silbury Hill, and the Mount Pleasant henge, often in close proximity, suggest a regional “arms race” in display, mirroring the runaway selection seen in Acheulean handaxes.

Communal Gatherings as Mate Choice Venues: Feasting at Durrington Walls and ceremonies at Stonehenge and the Ring of Brodgar provided opportunities for mate choice. Leaders who managed these events successfully — ensuring food safety, disease contol and abundance — demonstrated mate quality, akin to bowerbird displays.

Gender Roles: This framework assumes females chose mates, influenced by these displays, with males or male-led groups competing. The fuller argument includes female invlovement in the creation of these displays, simply put mothers who help sons to reproductive success get more descendants, and so on.

Stonehenge as a Product of Red Queen Runaway Selection

Stonehenge and similar monuments may be as “useless” as a peacock’s tail in a functional sense, serving primarily as products of “Red Queen” runaway evolutionary pressure through sexual selection. The “Red Queen” hypothesis, inspired by Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking-Glass, describes an evolutionary arms race where individuals must continuously escalate traits to maintain relative fitness in a competitive environment (Van Valen, 1973). In sexual selection, runaway processes occur when a trait—like the peacock’s elaborate tail—becomes increasingly exaggerated because it confers a reproductive advantage, despite offering little survival benefit (Fisher, 1930). Stonehenge, with its labour-intensive construction and astronomical alignments, may reflect such a process: its builders, driven by instinctive mate-driven selection, created ever-grander monuments to outcompete rivals in attracting mates, embedding this escalation in cultural practices without a direct survival purpose.

Supporting Evidence

Archaeological Patterns: The scale of monuments like Avebury and the Ring of Brodgar suggests display purposes beyond utility. Feasting evidence at Durrington Walls indicates large gatherings where health management was crucial. The labour-intensive nature of Silbury Hill aligns with conspicuous consumption.

Evolutionary Parallels: Large-scale displays in other species, like bowerbird structures, serve mate attraction, supporting the idea that human monuments combined skill, health management, wealth, and status.

Social Stratification: The period saw increasing hierarchy, with elite burials near Stonehenge. Leaders who controlled monument projects likely gained prestige, enhancing their mate attractiveness.

Counterarguments and Challenges

Ritual Functions: Monuments are often seen as ritualistic or astronomical, with Stonehenge’s solstice alignments and the Ring of Brodgar’s ceremonial role suggesting spiritual purposes over mate attraction.

Lack of Direct Evidence: There’s no direct evidence of mate choice at these sites or that health management influenced mating decisions. Communal health practices are inferred, not proven.

Egalitarian Dynamics: Some argue Neolithic societies were more egalitarian, with communal labour rather than elite-driven projects, challenging individual mate attraction motives.

Implications and Future Research

This perspective frames monuments as stages for mate competition, emphasizing social and reproductive pressures. Future research could explore isotopic analysis of remains to trace mobility and mating patterns, or comparative studies of monument scale and social complexity to test mate competition hypotheses.

Disclaimer

This theory assumes a cultural context in the Neolithic period where females predominantly chose mates and males competed through displays like monument building. While this hypothesis is reasonable given evolutionary parallels and archaeological patterns, it acknowledges potential objections, exceptions, and assumptions—such as the possibility of more egalitarian or varied mating dynamics. The focus on female choice and male competition is a simplifying framework for understanding prehistoric behaviours and makes no claim to reflect or morally justify present-day cultural norms or gender roles.

Conclusion

The monument-building frenzy, including Stonehenge, Silbury Hill, Avebury, Durrington Walls, and the Ring of Brodgar, may reflect an sexual selection displays of skill, health management, wealth, and status. 

References

Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(1), 1–49. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00023992
Darvill, T. (2006). Stonehenge: The biography of a landscape. Tempus Publishing. https://www.thehistorypress.co.uk/publication/stonehenge/9780752433424/
Fisher, R. A. (1930). The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford University Press. https://archive.org/details/geneticaltheoryo00fish
Kohn, M., & Mithen, S. (1998). Handaxes: Products of sexual selection? Antiquity, 72(276), 518–526. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/abs/handaxes-products-of-sexual-selection/4A546341A997CA7F1E9F1053B7A18482
O’Rourke, P. J. (1983). Modern Manners: An Etiquette Book for Rude People. Atlantic Monthly Press. https://groveatlantic.com/book/modern-manners/
Parker Pearson, M. (2012). Stonehenge: Exploring the greatest Stone Age mystery. Simon & Schuster. https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Stonehenge/Mike-Parker-Pearson/9780857207333
Ridley, M. (2025). Birds, Sex and Beauty. HarperCollins. https://books.google.com/books/about/Birds_Sex_and_Beauty.html?id=ZHW00AEACAAJ
Van Valen, L. (1973). A new evolutionary law. Evolutionary Theory, 1, 1–30. https://www.mn.uio.no/cees/english/services/van-valen/evolutionary-theory/volume-1/vol-1-no-1-pages-1-30-l-van-valen-a-new-evolutionary-law.pdf
Whittle, A. (1997). Sacred mound, holy rings: Silbury Hill and the West Kennet palisade enclosures. Oxbow Books. https://www.oxbowbooks.com/oxbow/sacred-mound-holy-rings.html
Whitehead, A., Sinclair, A., & Scott, C. (2024). Cross-contamination via stone tool use: A pilot study of bifacial butchery tools. EXARC Journal, 2024(2). Retrieved April 26, 2025, from https://exarc.net/issue-2024-2/ea/cross-contamination-stone-tool
Zahavi, A. (1975). Mate selection—A selection for a handicap. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 53(1), 205–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5193(75)90111-3

Posted by at No comments:

Acheulean Handaxes: A Prehistoric Status Symbol in Sexual Selection

Acheulean Handaxes: A Prehistoric Status Symbol in Sexual Selection

Introduction

The Acheulean period, spanning over 1.5 million years, is characterized by the prolific production and discard of handaxes, often with symmetry and craftsmanship beyond functional needs. Matt Ridley, in Birds, Sex and Beauty (2025), argues this reflects Darwin’s sexual selection, where handaxe-making skill signaled male fitness to attract mates, akin to bowerbird displays. Whitehead et al. (2024) add a “pathogenic hypothesis,” suggesting handaxe discard mitigated health risks, reflecting hygiene awareness. This post extends the theory by incorporating conspicuous consumption—where resource-intensive behaviours signal wealth—and draws a cultural parallel with P.J. O’Rourke’s humorous observation on modern mate attraction, proposing that handaxes were the prehistoric equivalent of status symbols like a luxury car, enhancing reproductive success through sexual selection.

Theoretical Framework

Skill as a Fitness Signal (Ridley, 2025): Ridley, building on Kohn and Mithen (1998), suggests that the symmetry of Acheulean handaxes was a deliberate display of male skill to attract mates, similar to bowerbirds where females select mates based on bower symmetry. Symmetry, linked to genetic health (Perrett et al., 1999), would signal a male’s fitness, driving an evolutionary “arms race” in handaxe production.

Hygiene Awareness (Whitehead et al., 2024): Whitehead et al.’s study on bifacial butchery tools at Boxgrove shows that biological residues on flint tools could harbor pathogens, suggesting hominins discarded handaxes after use to avoid illness. This behavior could signal a male’s health consciousness, enhancing his appeal as a mate by demonstrating traits linked to survival and offspring care.

Conspicuous Consumption and Wealth: Conspicuous consumption, where resource-intensive behaviours signal wealth, applies to handaxe production (Veblen, 1899; Zahavi, 1975). Crafting and discarding handaxes required time, energy, and materials like flint, which were sometimes scarce. A male who could produce and discard multiple handaxes demonstrated resource surplus, signaling provisioning ability—a key factor in mate choice (Buss, 1989).

Handaxes as Status Symbols (O’Rourke’s Analogy): P.J. O’Rourke humorously noted, “There are a number of mechanical devices which increase sexual arousal, particularly in women. Chief among these is the Mercedes-Benz 380SL convertible” (O’Rourke, 1983). This quote highlights how modern status symbols, like luxury cars, enhance mate attraction by signaling wealth and success. In the Acheulean era, a well-crafted handaxe may have served a similar role: a “device” that, through its craftsmanship and the act of discard, signaled skill, health awareness, and wealth, making the maker more attractive to potential mates. Just as a convertible might impress today, a symmetrical handaxe could have been a prehistoric status symbol, amplifying its role in sexual selection.

Clarifying the Instinctive Nature of Sexual Selection

It’s important to clarify that the sexual selection described here operates as an instinctive mate-driven selection, not a deliberate choice to craft handaxes in order to “be sexy.” Early hominins were not consciously deciding to impress mates with their tools; rather, their behaviours were shaped by subconscious evolutionary pressures. Over generations, females instinctively preferred mates who displayed traits like skill, health awareness, and resource abundance—traits that handaxe production and discard inadvertently signaled—leading to a natural selection process that favored these behaviours without deliberate intent.

Integrated Theory: A Multifaceted Signal

The theory posits that Acheulean handaxe production was a multifaceted signal in sexual selection, combining skill, hygiene, wealth, and status:

  • Skill: Symmetrical handaxes showcased cognitive and motor skills, signaling genetic quality (Kohn & Mithen, 1998).
  • Hygiene: Discarding used handaxes reflected health risk awareness, a trait beneficial for survival (Whitehead et al., 2024).
  • Wealth: The resource-intensive act of crafting and discarding handaxes demonstrated provisioning potential (Zahavi, 1975).
  • Status: Like O’Rourke’s Mercedes-Benz, a handaxe was a prehistoric “device” that signaled mate quality, enhancing attractiveness through its display of combined traits.

A male who could craft a symmetrical handaxe, discard it to avoid contamination, produce another without resource scarcity, and present it as a status symbol demonstrated intelligence, health consciousness, wealth, and social standing—qualities likely to boost reproductive success through female mate choice.

Supporting Evidence

Archaeological Patterns: Large numbers of discarded handaxes at sites like Boxgrove, often after minimal use, support the hygiene and conspicuous consumption aspects (Whitehead et al., 2024). Their symmetry suggests a display purpose (Kohn & Mithen, 1998), while the resource investment aligns with wealth signaling (Zahavi, 1975).

Evolutionary Parallels: Multifaceted signals are common in mate choice across species. Peacock tails signal genetic health, parasite resistance, and resource investment (Møller, 1994). Handaxes could similarly combine skill, hygiene, wealth, and status, amplifying their role in sexual selection.

Human Mate Choice Studies: Modern studies show females prefer mates with traits indicating intelligence, health, and resources (Buss, 1989). Luxury items like cars enhance attractiveness by signaling status (O’Rourke, 1983), suggesting handaxes may have played a parallel role in prehistory.

Counterarguments and Challenges

Lack of Direct Evidence: Critics like Nowell and Chang (2009) note there’s no direct evidence that females judged males on handaxe quality, discard behaviour, or status symbolism. The hygiene and status aspects remain speculative without fossil or behavioral data.

Alternative Explanations: Functional (e.g., cutting efficiency) and cultural (learned techniques) explanations for handaxe production are more parsimonious (Machin et al., 2007; Wynn, 2002). Discard might reflect practical concerns like tool dulling rather than hygiene or display.

Resource Variability: Conspicuous consumption assumes resource surplus, but flint scarcity in some regions might have limited discard behaviours, weakening the wealth and status signaling (Machin, 2008).

Implications and Future Research

This theory positions handaxes as prehistoric status symbols, akin to modern luxury goods, integrating skill, hygiene, wealth, and social standing into sexual selection. It suggests early hominins were influenced by complex social pressures, enriching our understanding of their behaviour. Future research could include:

  • Experimental studies on whether handaxe symmetry and discard correlate with perceived attractiveness in modern humans.
  • Residue analysis to confirm pathogen presence on reused handaxes, supporting the hygiene hypothesis.
  • Comparative studies across Acheulean sites to assess discard patterns and resource abundance, testing the conspicuous consumption and status angle.

Disclaimer

This theory assumes a cultural context in the Acheulean period where females predominantly chose mates and males competed through displays like handaxe production. While this hypothesis is reasonable given evolutionary parallels and archaeological patterns, it acknowledges potential objections, exceptions, and assumptions—such as the possibility of more egalitarian or varied mating dynamics. The focus on female choice and male competition is a simplifying framework for understanding prehistoric behaviours and makes no claim to reflect or morally justify present-day cultural norms or gender roles. Modern societies have diverse and complex social structures that differ significantly from those inferred for early hominins.

Conclusion

Acheulean handaxe production likely served as a multifaceted signal in sexual selection, combining skill, hygiene awareness, wealth, and status to attract mates. Drawing on Ridley’s skill hypothesis, Whitehead et al.’s hygiene argument, conspicuous consumption, and O’Rourke’s analogy to modern status symbols like the Mercedes-Benz 380SL convertible, this theory suggests handaxes were the “luxury cars” of prehistory. This framework bridges evolutionary biology, archaeology, and cultural commentary, highlighting the complexity of early human mate choice.

References

Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(1), 1–49. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00023992
Kohn, M., & Mithen, S. (1998). Handaxes: Products of sexual selection? Antiquity, 72(276), 518–526. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/abs/handaxes-products-of-sexual-selection/4A546341A997CA7F1E9F1053B7A18482
Machin, A. J., Hosfield, R. T., & Mithen, S. J. (2007). Why were some handaxes symmetrical? Testing the functional hypothesis. Journal of Archaeological Science, 34(6), 883–893. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2006.09.008
Møller, A. P. (1994). Sexual selection and the barn swallow. Oxford University Press. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/sexual-selection-and-the-barn-swallow-9780198540281
Nowell, A., & Chang, M. L. (2009). The case against sexual selection as an explanation of handaxe morphology. World Archaeology, 41(1), 18–32. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284414074_The_case_against_sexual_selection_as_an_explanation_of_handaxe_morphology
O’Rourke, P. J. (1983). Modern Manners: An Etiquette Book for Rude People. Atlantic Monthly Press. https://groveatlantic.com/book/modern-manners/
Perrett, D. I., Burt, D. M., Penton-Voak, I. S., Lee, K. J., Rowland, D. A., & Edwards, R. (1999). Symmetry and human facial attractiveness. Evolution and Human Behaviour, 20(5), 295–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(99)00014-8
Ridley, M. (2025). Birds, Sex and Beauty. HarperCollins. https://books.google.com/books/about/Birds_Sex_and_Beauty.html?id=ZHW00AEACAAJ
Veblen, T. (1899). The theory of the leisure class. Macmillan. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/833
Whitehead, A., Sinclair, A., & Scott, C. (2024). Cross-contamination via stone tool use: A pilot study of bifacial butchery tools. EXARC Journal, 2024(2). Retrieved April 26, 2025, from https://exarc.net/issue-2024-2/ea/cross-contamination-stone-tool
Wynn, T. (2002). Archaeology and cognitive evolution. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25(3), 389–402. doi:10.1017/S0140525X02000079
Zahavi, A. (1975). Mate selection—A selection for a handicap. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 53(1), 205–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5193(75)90111-3

Posted by at No comments:

Saturday, 26 April 2025

AI Citation Creators

 A cautionary tale:

There is a fascinating study about how flint tools, how hard it would have been to clean them which might have lead to cross contamination and disease and hypothetically links this to the practice of discarding still workable tools.

Whitehead, A., Sinclair, A., & Scott, C. (2024). Cross-contamination via stone tool use: A pilot study of bifacial butchery tools. EXARC Journal, 2024(2). https://exarc.net/issue-2024-2/ea/cross-contamination-stone-tool

The article doesn't have a ready to use citation, creating citations is very formulaic and the sort of job I would imagine AI should be good at, whereas it is a pain to do manually, so I gave Perplexity the link and asked it to write me one. It came up with:

Underdown, S., & Scott, C. (2024). Cross-contamination via stone tool use: A pilot study of bifacial butchery tools. EXARC Journal, 2024(2). https://exarc.net/issue-2024-2/ea/cross-contamination-stone-tool

The wrong authors, I thought that was strange so I asked Grok the same question. It answered.

Winton, V., & Pope, M. (2024). Cross-Contamination via Stone Tool Use: A Pilot Study of Bifacial Butchery Tools. EXARC Journal, 2024(2)

Different wrong authors. 

A couple of other AI citation creators also failed. I have been caught out in the past, I hope not to be in the future by double checking everytime. 

Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, 24 April 2025

Template for Reviewing Claimed Archaeoastronomical Alignments

Critical Review: [Insert Claimed Archaeoastronomical Alignment]

Critical Review: [Insert Claimed Archaeoastronomical Alignment]

[Insert Image Description]

[Insert Image Caption, e.g., 'The monument at sunrise, central to the alignment claim.']

Introduction

[Insert brief introduction to the monument and the claimed alignment, e.g., 'Stonehenge, a Neolithic masterpiece, is often linked to celestial events. In [Source/Author, Year], a claim suggests that [describe specific alignment, e.g., a stone aligns with the winter solstice sunrise].'] This post critically evaluates the claim using a rigorous rule to determine if the alignment was intentional, shedding light on the monument’s purpose.

The Rule for Judging Archaeoastronomical Alignments

A claimed archaeoastronomical alignment is only worth considering intentional if it is statistically significant, calculated using all possible sightlines and relevant astronomical events, precisely matches a celestial event, is replicated across contemporaneous sites, and is supported by cultural context.

This rule ensures claims are not coincidental. Statistical significance requires a low probability (p < 0.05) of random alignment, considering all possible sightlines or geometric alignments and relevant celestial events (e.g., solstices, lunar standstills). Precision demands alignment within 1–2° of the event’s position. Replication seeks parallels in other sites from the same period, and cultural context requires evidence of astronomical practices.

The Claim

[Summarize the specific alignment claim, e.g., 'In [Source/Author, Year], it is proposed that [monument feature, e.g., Stone X] aligns with [celestial event, e.g., summer solstice sunrise] at an angle of [specify angle, if given].'] The claim is supported by [list evidence, e.g., excavation data, observations, geometric models], published in [journal/preprint, with DOI or URL if available].

Critical Evaluation

The claim is evaluated against the rule’s four criteria, with guidance on calculating possible alignments to assess statistical significance.

1. Statistical Significance

Requirement: The alignment must have a low probability (p < 0.05) of occurring by chance, calculated using all possible sightlines or geometric alignments and relevant astronomical events (e.g., 4 solstices, 4 lunar standstills).

How to Calculate Alignments:

  • Identify Features: Count the number of stones or features (n) that could form alignments (e.g., 30 stones for Stonehenge’s sarsen circle).
  • Sightlines: For stone-to-stone alignments, calculate unique sightlines as \( C(n, 2) = \frac{n(n-1)}{2} \). E.g., for 30 stones, \( \frac{30 \times 29}{2} = 435 \) sightlines. For center-to-stone, use n lines.
  • Geometric Alignments: If the claim uses a geometric model (e.g., chords on a circle), count possible lines. E.g., for a 60-point circle, chords are \( C(60, 2) = \frac{60 \times 59}{2} = 1770 \).
  • Celestial Events: List relevant events (e.g., 2 solstices, 2 equinoxes, 4 lunar standstills, ~10 bright stars). Exclude irrelevant events based on cultural context.
  • Precision Window: Use a 1–2° window (e.g., 2/360 = 0.00556 of the horizon per event, as the sun’s disc is ~0.5°).
  • Probability: Calculate expected random alignments: \( \text{Number of alignments} \times \text{Number of events} \times \text{Window fraction} \). E.g., for 435 sightlines, 4 solstices, 2° window, \( 435 \times 4 \times 0.00556 \approx 9.67 \). Use a binomial test or Monte Carlo simulation to find p-value, adjusting for multiple testing (e.g., Bonferroni correction).

Evaluation: [Assess the claim’s statistical analysis. E.g., ‘The claim provides [no/a binomial/Monte Carlo] analysis, calculating [X sightlines/chords] and [Y events], yielding p = [value].’ If none, note: ‘No statistical test is provided, failing to rule out chance among [X] possible alignments.’ Compare to benchmarks like Higginbottom & Clay (2016), who achieved p < 0.05.]

Verdict: [Met/Partially Met/Unmet. Explain why, e.g., ‘Unmet due to lack of statistical test, leaving [X] alignments untested.’]

2. Precision

Requirement: The alignment must match the celestial event’s position within 1–2° (Ruggles, 1997), accounting for precession and horizon elevation in the monument’s era (e.g., 2500 BCE).

Evaluation: [Describe evidence, e.g., ‘Observations on [date] show the [event] aligning with [feature] at [angle].’ Note use of tools like Stellarium or 3D modeling, and viewing context (e.g., observable or symbolic). If no data, state: ‘No measurements provided, only qualitative claims.’]

Verdict: [Met/Partially Met/Unmet. Explain, e.g., ‘Met, as [angle] matches [event] within 1°.’ Or ‘Partially met due to lack of azimuthal data.’]

3. Replication Across Contemporaneous Sites

Requirement: The alignment must be replicated in other Neolithic sites (e.g., stone circles like Avebury, Callanish) from the same period to reduce the likelihood of coincidence.

Evaluation: [List parallels, e.g., ‘[Site, e.g., Callanish] shows [similar alignment] in [Source].’ If none, note: ‘No contemporaneous stone circles cited, only [non-stone site, e.g., Durrington Walls].’ Address non-contemporaneous evidence, e.g., ‘[Artifact, e.g., Bronze Age item] is later, limiting relevance.’]

Verdict: [Met/Partially Met/Weakly Met/Unmet. Explain, e.g., ‘Weakly met, as only non-stone sites cited.’]

4. Cultural Context

Requirement: Evidence must show the culture valued astronomy or used celestial events for practical (e.g., agricultural) or ritual purposes.

Evaluation: [Describe evidence, e.g., ‘Artifacts, burials, or [site features] suggest astronomical focus (Source).’ If speculative, note: ‘Claims symbolic intent without direct evidence.’ Compare to known contexts, e.g., Stonehenge’s solstitial rituals (Parker-Pearson, 2012).]

Verdict: [Met/Partially Met/Unmet. Explain, e.g., ‘Met, as [evidence] confirms astronomical practices.’]

Conclusion

[Summarize findings, e.g., ‘The claim that [alignment] is intentional is [plausible/speculative/unconvincing]. It meets [criteria, e.g., precision, cultural context] but fails [e.g., statistical significance] due to [reason].’ Suggest improvements, e.g., ‘Statistical tests, surveys of other sites, or modern modeling could strengthen the claim.’ Conclude with broader implications, e.g., ‘This highlights the need for rigor in decoding Neolithic astronomy.’]

References

  • [Insert Source 1, e.g., Author, Year. Title. Journal, Volume, Pages.]
  • [Insert Source 2, e.g., Author, Year. Title. DOI or URL.]
  • Higginbottom, G., & Clay, R. (2016). Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports. Adelaide University News.
  • Parker-Pearson, M. (2012). Stonehenge: Exploring the Greatest Stone Age Mystery. Simon & Schuster.
  • Ruggles, C. (1997). “Astronomy and Stonehenge.” In Science and Stonehenge, edited by Cunliffe & Renfrew, 203–229.
  • [Add additional sources as needed.]

Posted on [Insert Date, e.g., April 24, 2025] | By [Your Name]

Posted by at No comments:

Monday, 21 April 2025

Bluestone Lithologies

An updated table of the bluestone lithologies, with thanks to Simon Banton's Stones of Stonehenge. Checked against Table 1 in Bevins, R., Ixer, R., Pearce, N., Scourse, J., & Daw, T. (2023). 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/gea.21971

 
Stone Number Classification Reference Link
31 Spotted dolerite (ungrouped) Bevins et al. (2014) Stone 31
32 Spotted dolerite (ungrouped) Bevins et al. (2014) Stone 32
32c Andesite Group A Ixer et al. (2023) Stone 32*
32d Rhyolite Group C Ixer and Bevins (2011a) Stone 32*
32e Spotted dolerite (ungrouped) Bevins et al. (2014) Stone 32*
33 Spotted dolerite Group 1 Bevins et al. (2014) Stone 33
33e Andesite Group A Ixer et al. (2023) Stone 33*
33f Andesite Group A Ixer et al. (2023) Stone 33*
34 Spotted dolerite Group 3 Bevins et al. (2014) Stone 34
35a Spotted dolerite (ungrouped) Bevins et al. (2014) Stone 35
35b Spotted dolerite (ungrouped) Bevins et al. (2014) Stone 35
36 Spotted dolerite (ungrouped) Bevins et al. (2014) Stone 36
37 Spotted dolerite Group 1 Bevins et al. (2014) Stone 37
38 Dacite Group B Ixer et al. (2015) Stone 38
39 Spotted dolerite (ungrouped) Bevins et al. (2014) Stone 39
40 Dacite Group C Ixer and Bevins (2011b) Stone 40
40c Andesite Group A Ixer et al. (2023) Stone 40*
40g Lower Palaeozoic sandstone Ixer et al. (2017) Stone 40*
41 Spotted dolerite (ungrouped) Bevins et al. (2014) Stone 41
41d Andesite Group A Ixer et al. (2023) Stone 41*
42 Spotted dolerite Group 2 Bevins et al. (2014) Stone 42
42c Lower Palaeozoic sandstone Ixer et al. (2017) Stone 42*
43 Spotted dolerite Group 2 Bevins et al. (2014) Stone 43
44 Spotted dolerite (ungrouped) Bevins et al. (2014) Stone 44
45 Nonspotted dolerite Group 2 dolerite Bevins et al. (2014) Stone 45
46 Rhyolite Group F Ixer and Bevins (2011b) Stone 46
47 Spotted dolerite (ungrouped) Bevins et al. (2014) Stone 47
48 Rhyolite Group E Ixer and Bevins (2011a) Stone 48
49 Spotted dolerite Group 1 Bevins et al. (2014) Stone 49
61 Spotted dolerite Group 3 Bevins et al. (2014) Stone 61
62 Nonspotted dolerite Group 2 dolerite Bevins et al. (2014) Stone 62
63 Spotted dolerite (ungrouped) Bevins et al. (2014) Stone 63
64 Spotted dolerite (ungrouped) Bevins et al. (2014) Stone 64
65 Spotted dolerite Group 1 Bevins et al. (2014) Stone 65
66 Spotted dolerite (ungrouped) Bevins et al. (2014) Stone 66
67 Spotted dolerite Group 1 Bevins et al. (2014) Stone 67
68 Spotted dolerite (ungrouped) Bevins et al. (2014) Stone 68
69 Spotted dolerite (ungrouped) Bevins et al. (2014) Stone 69
70a Spotted dolerite (ungrouped) Bevins et al. (2014) Stone 70
70b Spotted dolerite (ungrouped) Bevins et al. (2014) Stone 70*
71 Spotted dolerite (ungrouped) Bevins et al. (2014) Stone 71
72 Spotted dolerite (ungrouped) Bevins et al. (2014) Stone 72
80 Orcadian Basin Old Red SandstoneClarke et al. (2024) Stone 80
150 Spotted dolerite (ungrouped) Bevins et al. (2014) Stone 150

*Note: Sub-stones (e.g., 32c, 32d, 33e) are fragments or debitage associated with the main stone (sometimes they are different material so the association is merely historical) and may not have individual pages, further information about them will be found on the Stumps Page. Links point to the main stone’s page for context. Stone 80 (Altar Stone) is classified as sandstone from the Orcadian Basin, northeast Scotland, per recent research.

References

Posted by at No comments:

Analysis of Claims Regarding High-Level Glacial Erratics in the Bristol Channel

An important paper in the Stonehenge Bluestone Transport Debate:

Critical Analysis of Claims Regarding High-Level Glacial Erratics in the Bristol Channel and the Implication for the Glacial Transport Theory of Stonehenge Bluestones 

April 2025 
License: CC BY-SA 4.0 


- For convenience I reproduce it here-

Abstract

This paper critically examines the claim that many glacial erratics at altitudes exceeding 100 meters along the Bristol Channel coast indicate significant glacial activity capable of transporting bluestone boulders to Salisbury Plain, supporting a glacial transport theory for Stonehenge’s bluestones. The analysis evaluates erratics cited in the primary source, An Igneous Erratic at Limeslade, Gower & the Glaciation of the Bristol Channel (Quaternary Newsletter, 2024), its referenced studies, and additional geological reports. The investigation reveals that no robustly documented high-level erratics (>100 m) are substantiated, undermining the proposed glacial transport model. A discrepancy between the abstract posted on ResearchGate and the published paper highlights unsupported claims regarding the prevalence of high-level erratics.

Introduction

The hypothesis that glacial erratics along the Bristol Channel, found at elevations above 100 meters, indicate a thick and dynamic Irish Sea Ice Stream capable of reaching Salisbury Plain has been proposed to explain the origin of Stonehenge’s bluestones [1]. Glacial erratics are boulders transported and deposited by glaciers, distinct from local bedrock. The Irish Sea Ice Stream refers to a major glacial flow during the Quaternary period, proposed to have influenced the Bristol Channel region. This claim, articulated in the abstract of An Igneous Erratic at Limeslade, Gower & the Glaciation of the Bristol Channel [1], suggests that glacial ice transported bluestones from diverse geological origins to the Stonehenge site. This paper systematically reviews the evidence for high-level erratics cited in the original claim, including a table of erratics and referenced studies, to assess the validity of the glacial transport theory. It also evaluates the geographical focus on the south and east coasts of the Bristol Channel, critical for the proposed glacial pathway.

Map of the proposed Irish Sea Ice Stream pathway towards Salisbury Plain, showing south and east coast erratic locations A map of the world

Figure 1: Map of the proposed Irish Sea Ice Stream pathway towards Salisbury Plain, showing south and east coast erratic locations

 

Methodology

The analysis focuses on the primary source [1], its cited references (e.g., Harmer, 1928 [Figure 4] [2]; Madgett and Ingliss, 1987 [3]), and additional geological reports [5–12]. A related blog post [4] by the primary source author, cited for its list of claimed erratic locations, was cross-checked against peer-reviewed sources. Each erratic was assessed based on documented altitude, geological composition, evidence of glacial transport, and relevance to the proposed glacial pathway towards Salisbury Plain. Supporting documents, such as geological reports [5–10], were cross-referenced to verify claims. The Fremington Clay Pits erratics [11] and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) report [12] provided regional context. The discrepancy between the ResearchGate abstract and the published paper was examined to highlight inconsistencies. A map (Figure 1) illustrating the proposed Irish Sea Ice Stream pathway towards Salisbury Plain, highlighting key erratic locations, was used to clarify the geographical focus.

Discrepancy in the Primary Source

A critical issue with the primary source [1] is the mismatch between the abstract posted on ResearchGate and the content of the published paper in Quaternary Newsletter (2024). The ResearchGate abstract claims, “Many glacial erratics are found at altitudes exceeding 100 meters,” implying widespread high-level glacial activity sufficient to support bluestone transport to Salisbury Plain. However, the published paper provides no specific examples of erratics above 100 meters, relying instead on vague references to historical sources [2, 3]. This discrepancy suggests an overstatement of evidence in the abstract, potentially affecting interpretations of the glacial transport hypothesis.

 

Figure 2; Screenshot taken in December 2024 of ResearchGate article abstract.

Figure 2: Screenshot taken in December 2024 of ResearchGate article abstract.

 

 

Figure 3: Extract from the published paper in *Quaternary Newsletter* (2024).

Figure 3: Extract from the published paper in *Quaternary Newsletter* (2024).

 

Geographical Relevance of Erratics

The glacial transport theory for Stonehenge’s bluestones relies on ice movement from the Irish Sea Ice Stream pressing inland across the south and east coasts of the Bristol Channel towards Salisbury Plain, as illustrated in Figure 1. This map shows the ice flow direction, highlighting south and east coast locations like Baggy Point and Ilfracombe as critical to the transport theory. While proponents may cite north coast erratics (e.g., Gower) as evidence of regional glaciation, their misalignment with the proposed pathway to Salisbury Plain limits their relevance. Thus, the focus on south and east coast erratics is critical for evaluating the theory.

Analysis of Cited Erratics

The following sections evaluate each cited erratic location for altitude, geological context, and relevance to the glacial transport claim.

1. Lundy (138 m)

  • Altitude: 138 m
  • Citation: [4]
  • Evidence: Rolfe et al. (2014) [5] indicate these are local rocks with minimal transport distance and no glacial imprint. Carr (2019) [6] argues for a residual boulder origin due to two-stage weathering.
  • Relevance: These erratics are not relevant to the high-level glacial claim due to their non-glacial origin.

2. Shebbear (150 m)

  • Altitude: 150 m
  • Citation: [4]
  • Evidence: The Shebbear erratic is a sarsen stone [7], a sedimentary rock not typically transported by the Irish Sea Ice Stream.
  • Relevance: As a non-glacial erratic, this site is irrelevant to the claim.

3. Westonzoyland (10 m)

  • Altitude: 10 m
  • Citation: [4]
  • Evidence: At 10 meters, within tidal range, this erratic does not qualify as high-level.
  • Relevance: Irrelevant due to low altitude.

4. Baggy Point (45 m, 60 m, 80 m)

  • Altitude: 45, 60, and 80 m
  • Citation: [4, 8]
  • Evidence: The highest, the Ramson Cliff erratic, was originally a standing stone in a pasture field, later moved by a farmer [9, 10]. Its angular, rough surface distinguishes it from foreshore erratics, and its movement raises questions about its glacial origin. Other Baggy Point erratics are small and lack reliable glacial context.
  • Relevance: Below 100 meters and with potential anthropogenic influence, these erratics are insignificant for the high-level claim.

5. Ilfracombe-Berrynarbour (150–175 m)

  • Altitude: 150–175 m
  • Citation: [4, 13]
  • Evidence: The JNCC report P.202 [13] mentions “erratic material” at 150–175 m but provides no descriptions of specific boulders, their composition, or primary data, rendering the claim uncorroborated by geological evidence.
  • Relevance: The vague and uncorroborated evidence weakens its support for the high-level claim.

6. Kenn (7 m)

  • Altitude: 7 m
  • Citation: [4, 14]
  • Evidence: At 7 meters, this erratic is not high-level. Contextual analysis [15] confirms its irrelevance.
  • Relevance: Irrelevant due to low altitude.

7. Court Hill (68 m)

  • Altitude: 68 m
  • Citation: [4, 16]
  • Evidence: Lacks documented erratic boulders relevant to glacial transport.
  • Relevance: Irrelevant due to lack of evidence.

8. Nightingale Valley / Portishead Down (85 m)

  • Altitude: 85 m
  • Citation: [4, 17]
  • Evidence: No recorded erratic boulders.
  • Relevance: Irrelevant due to lack of evidence.

9. Fremington Clay Pits (20–30 m)

  • Altitude: 20–30 m
  • Citation: [11]
  • Evidence: Erratics are embedded in clay below ground level, disqualifying them as high-level.
  • Relevance: Irrelevant due to low altitude.

Discussion

The claim that many glacial erratics exceed 100 meters in altitude [1] is unsupported by evidence. No robust evidence supports high-level erratics. This undermines the hypothesis that the Irish Sea Ice Stream was thick and dynamic enough to reach Salisbury Plain. Only Ilfracombe-Berrynarbour suggests elevations above 100 meters, but the evidence is vague and uncorroborated [13]. Other sites either fall below 100 meters, lack glacial context, or are not erratics (e.g., Shebbear sarsen). The Baggy Point erratics, while notable, are below 100 meters and include a potentially anthropogenic standing stone.

The bluestones’ diverse origins, spanning over 30 geological sources, suggest multiple quarries, which is inconsistent with a single glacial pathway capable of transporting such varied material to Salisbury Plain. Reviewed historical references, including Harmer’s 1928 erratic map [Figure 4] [2] and Madgett and Ingliss (1987) [3], do not document specific high-level erratics above 100 meters. The JNCC report [12] finds no evidence for extensive high-level glacial deposits, stating that glacial limits are poorly constrained in the Bristol Channel.

 

Figure 4: Extract from Harmer’s 1928 map of erratics.

Figure 4: Extract from Harmer’s 1928 map of erratics.

The geographical focus on south and east coast erratics limits the relevance of north coast erratics. The glacial transport theory persists due to historical arguments and the appeal of natural explanations, but the lack of high-level erratic evidence shifts focus to human transport. Human transport is supported by archaeological evidence of quarrying at sites like Preseli Hills and the feasibility of moving bluestones via sledges or water routes, as demonstrated in experimental archaeology.

Conclusion

The claim that high-level glacial erratics (>100 m) along the Bristol Channel support a glacial transport model for Stonehenge’s bluestones is not substantiated. The cited sources and erratic locations fail to provide reliable evidence of erratics above 100 meters, and many are irrelevant due to non-glacial origins, low altitudes, or geographical misalignment with the proposed glacial pathway. The lack of evidence for high-level erratics challenges the glacial transport theory, supporting further investigation into human transport mechanisms

Figures

  • Figure 1: Map of the proposed Irish Sea Ice Stream pathway towards Salisbury Plain, showing south and east coast erratic locations (e.g., Baggy Point, Ilfracombe) and high ground.
  • Figure 2: Screenshot taken in December 2024 of ResearchGate article abstract.
  • Figure 3: Extract from the published paper in Quaternary Newsletter (2024).
  • Figure 4: Extract from Harmer’s 1928 map of erratics.

References

1. John, B. (2024). An Igneous Erratic at Limeslade, Gower and the Glaciation of the Bristol Channel. *Quaternary Newsletter*. Available: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381775577.

2. Harmer, F. W. (1928). England and Wales: Distribution of Glacial Erratics and Drift. Available: https://www.antiquemapsandprints.com.

3. Madgett, P. A., & Ingliss, J. D. (1987). A Reappraisal of the Glacial Deposits in North Devon. *Transactions of the Devonshire Association*, 119, 1–20. Available: https://devonassoc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/A-Reappraisal-MadgettTDA-1987.pdf.

4. John, B. (2024). The Myth of Shoreline Erratics. Available: https://brianmountainman.blogspot.com/2024/09/the-myth-of-shoreline-erratics.html.

5. Rolfe, C. J., et al. (2014). Lundy Island Geological Report. *Lundy Field Society Journal*. Available: https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/380559/1/LFS_Journal_2014-Rolfe_et_al.pdf.

6. Carr, S. J. (2019). Landscape Evolution and Glacial Geomorphology. *Cumbria Research Repository*. Available: https://insight.cumbria.ac.uk/id/eprint/4557/1/Carr_LandscapeEvolution.pdf.

7. Daw, T. (2025). The Shebbear Erratic Sarsen. *Sarsen Substack*. Available: https://sarsen.substack.com/p/theshebbear-erratic-sarsenhtml.

8. Green, C. P. (1992). The Geomorphology of Baggy Point, North Devon. *Geological Survey Report

9. Ordnance Survey Explorer (1:25,000): No. 139 Bideford, Ilfracombe and Barnstaple.

10.  John, B. (2015) The Erratics at Baggy Point, Croyde and Saunton (1) Available:  https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-erratics-at-baggy-point-croyde-and.html

11. Arber, M.A. (1964) ‘Erratic Boulders within the Fremington Clay of North Devon’, Geological Magazine, 101(3), pp. 282–283. doi:10.1017/S0016756800049517.

12. Campbell, S., Scourse, J.D., Hunt, C.O., Keen, D.H. & Stephens, N. 1998. Quaternary of South-West England. Geological Conservation Review Series No. 14, JNCC, Peterborough, ISBN 0 412 78930 2.  Available: https://hub.jncc.gov.uk/assets/965f9190-c00b-4a6b-aa9f-8e3855492404

13. Campbell, S., Scourse, J.D., Hunt, C.O., Keen, D.H. & Stephens, N. 1998. Quaternary of South-West England. Geological Conservation Review Series No. 14, JNCC, Peterborough, ISBN 0 412 78930 2  Available: https://data.jncc.gov.uk/data/965f9190-c00b-4a6b-aa9f-8e3855492404/gcr-v14-quaternary-of-south-west-england-c7.pdf

14. Campbell, S., Scourse, J.D., Hunt, C.O., Keen, D.H. & Stephens, N. 1998. Quaternary of South-West England. Geological Conservation Review Series No. 14, JNCC, Peterborough, ISBN 0 412 78930 2.  Available: https://geoguide.scottishgeologytrust.org/p/gcr/gcr14/gcr14_kennchurch.pdf

15. Scourse, J.D. Proceedings of the British Academy, 92, 271—314 Transport of the Stonehenge Bluestones: Testing the Glacial Hypothesis  Available: https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/documents/3923/92p271.pdf

16. Campbell, S., Scourse, J.D., Hunt, C.O., Keen, D.H. & Stephens, N. 1998. Quaternary of South-West England. Geological Conservation Review Series No. 14, JNCC, Peterborough, ISBN 0 412 78930 2.  Available: https://geoguide.scottishgeologytrust.org/p/gcr/gcr14/gcr14_courthill

17. Campbell, S., Scourse, J.D., Hunt, C.O., Keen, D.H. & Stephens, N. 1998. Quaternary of South-West England. Geological Conservation Review Series No. 14, JNCC, Peterborough, ISBN 0 412 78930 2.  Available: https://geoguide.scottishgeologytrust.org/p/gcr/gcr14/gcr14_nightingalevalley

 

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)