Review of Clarke et al. (2026) ‘Altar to Attic to Analysis: Geochemical Authentication of a Rediscovered Victorian Thin Section of Stonehenge’s Altar Stone’

Anthony J.I. Clarke, Christopher L. Kirkland, Arthur de Oliveira Vicentini, Lisa Brown, Altar to Attic to Analysis: Geochemical Authentication of a Rediscovered Victorian Thin Section of Stonehenge’s Altar stone, Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, Volume 70, 2026, 105619, ISSN 2352-409X, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2026.105619. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X26000544)

Clarke et al. (2026), published in Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, examine thin section S45 from the William Cunnington III collection (1876–1881), rediscovered in 2021 at the Wiltshire Museum. The study applies automated mineralogy (TIMA SEM-EDS) and laser-ablation ICP-MS U-Pb dating of zircon and apatite to assess the section’s authenticity as material from Stonehenge’s Altar Stone and to constrain its geological provenance.

The modal mineralogy of S45 comprises quartz (53.9 vol. %), calcite cement (19.2 vol. %), plagioclase (12.5 vol. %), white mica, chlorite, and trace heavy minerals (rutile, chromite, zircon, apatite), with fabric and phase abundances that align closely with previously verified Altar Stone fragments such as 2010 K 240 and MS-3. Apatite U-Pb analyses define two isochrons yielding lower-intercept ages of 1043 ± 29 Ma and 449 ± 24 Ma. Zircon data are affected by common-Pb contamination from residual Canada balsam resin; the authors address this by subdividing time-resolved ablation signals into short (typically 3–6 s) integrations and performing unanchored lower-intercept regressions on a grain-by-grain basis. Twelve regressions meet the stated acceptance criteria, producing dates between 389 Ma and 1850 Ma with main density peaks at approximately 435 Ma and 1021 Ma. These age populations, together with the mineral assemblage, are consistent with derivation from the Upper Old Red Sandstone of the Orcadian Basin in northeast Scotland.

The paper adds to knowledge of the Altar Stone by authenticating a historic thin section without requiring new sampling of the 6-tonne megalith, thereby supporting material preservation while reinforcing the Scottish provenance established in earlier work. It also presents a data-reduction procedure for extracting U-Pb information from resin-contaminated legacy thin sections.

Limitations arise from the small size of the analysed chip (~250 mm² surface area, ~20 % of a standard thin section), which restricted the dataset to 55 zircon analyses and only 12 acceptable ages. Conventional concordant ages could not be obtained, and the sub-set integration approach, although functional in this case, rests on bespoke acceptance thresholds (minimum three integrations, initial ²⁰⁷Pb/²⁰⁶Pb ≥ 0.837, MSWD 0.1–2.0, ≤10 % age uncertainty) that have not been validated against uncontaminated reference materials. The overall results remain confirmatory of prior mineralogical and isotopic studies rather than introducing new interpretive elements. Minor overdispersion in the apatite regressions is noted but attributed to natural variation in closure temperatures.

In balance, Clarke et al. (2026) demonstrate the continued utility of 19th-century thin-section collections for modern archaeometric questions, subject to the constraints of sample volume and preparation artefacts. The work contributes incremental but useful reinforcement to current models of Altar Stone provenance and to methodological options for heritage-science applications. 

Correcting Brian John's Silly Mistake

Last year Brian John published a paper in Archaeology in Wales Vol 63 arguing that “Carn Goedog on Mynydd Preseli Was Not the Site of a Bluestone Megalith Quarry" Unfortunately, his argument was built on false bedrock. The journal has published a correction.

Pearce, N.J.G., Bevins, R.E. and Ixer, R.A. (2026) ‘Carn Goedog is a 10m thick, northward dipping sill: a comment correcting geological errors in “Carn Goedog on Mynydd Preseli was not the site of a bluestone megalith quarry” by Brian John (2023)’, Archaeology in Wales, 64.

In the 2023 paper, John noted that dolerite crops out on the north face of Carn Goedog from roughly 305 m down to 235 m elevation — a vertical drop of about 70–75 metres. He declared: “If all of the rocks of Carn Goedog belong to the same sill, it must be at least 75 m thick.”

A sill is a flat, sheet-like body of igneous rock (here, spotted dolerite) intruded between older layers. Its true thickness is the shortest distance measured perpendicular to its top and bottom surfaces. It only the same as the vertical drop if the sill is perfectly horizontal. The Carn Goedog sill is not. It dips gently northward at about 23°.

This is the geological equivalent of looking at my soughdough heel and announcing that the inserted slice is 2 inches thick because the bread is 2 inches tall.

John used his 75 m “thickness” as the foundation for three key claims:

• the sill must be internally chemically differentiated (like much thicker sills elsewhere), • the geologists’ sampling was inadequate, • the geochemical provenancing to Carn Goedog was unreliable.

Once you correct the thickness to ~10 m and recognise it as a thin, simply dipping sheet the entire geological critique collapses like an old quarry face.

Cross-section from the highest part of Carn Goedog (approx. 300m AOD) to an elevation of about 215m with the position of the Carn Goedog sill marked (shaded red). Horizontal and vertical scales are the same. - From https://www.academia.edu/164795472/Carn_Goedog_reply  

This was not a subtle difference of interpretation — it was a basic first-year structural geology error. The 2025 correction paper by Pearce, Bevins & Ixer politely but firmly points this out with clear cross-sections, structure contours and LiDAR. They also note, with admirable restraint, that John misunderstands how analytical geochemistry works: no two samples from the same outcrop are ever perfectly identical because of natural heterogeneity and analytical precision.

John also asserted that the Carn Goedog sill forms one vast, kilometre-scale continuous outcrop stretching 3 km west and 2 km east across the Preseli ridge, implying the geologists had under-sampled a gigantic body. In reality, as Pearce et al. show the exposures are nothing more than isolated crags; the supposed “continuous sill” is an illusion created by joining up unrelated dots on the BGS map. Carn Goedog and Carn Breseb, for example, sit 75 m apart stratigraphically and belong to completely different geochemical groups. John’s claim that columnar jointing covers less than 10 % of the outcrop is equally wide of the mark — the entire 10 m sill is columnarly jointed, and the jumble of blocks on the slope is simply the weathered, disaggregated result. All of this fed his central complaint that the geologists’ sampling was “inadequate”; once you realise they had sampled the full 7–10 m thickness of each thin, northward-dipping sheet and analysed continuous vertical sections, that complaint evaporates too.

I couldn't resist calling it a "silly" mistake, but it is actually rather more than that, his whole paper is built on a fundamental geological misunderstanding, he needs to withdraw.

Stonehenge Glacial Transport Theory Takes Another Major Hit

 New Quaternary Newsletter paper dismantles the Ramson Cliff erratic as proof of high-level ice flow

In the February 2026 issue of the Quaternary Newsletter (Vol. 167), Tim Daw, Rob Ixer and Paul Madgett (one of the original 1974 discoverers) publish a detailed re-examination of the 700 kg altered epidiorite block at 80 m OD on Baggy Point, north Devon. New petrographic analysis of the original thin section shows the rock is fully compatible with Cornubian greenstones from the Dartmoor metamorphic aureole, lacking any diagnostic Scottish or Welsh minerals. The boulder was first recorded standing upright in pasture, has no pre-1969 map or aerial photo record, shows no beach abrasion, and is the only claimed high-level erratic on the south Bristol Channel coast. The authors conclude its evidential value for Irish Sea ice overriding the cliffs “should be reassessed” and that it “warrants consideration as potentially a manuport rather than unequivocally glacial.”

A Bayesian analysis of the four key lines of evidence (petrography, upright position when found, unabraded texture, and lack of early documentation) starts from a neutral-to-glacial prior and updates sequentially. The combined likelihood ratios drive the posterior probability of pure glacial emplacement at 80 m OD to less than 0.3 % — vanishingly unlikely. Academics must phrase conclusions cautiously, but the data speak clearly: this boulder almost certainly required human transport to its present position.

Brian John has repeatedly used the boulder as key support for his glacial-transport theory for the Stonehenge bluestones. Since 2015 he has described it as “proof that ice-sheet override of Baggy Point” occurred, citing its height, supposed Scottish origin, and rough texture as incompatible with shoreline rafting (see his detailed 2015 posts here: https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-erratics-at-baggy-point-croyde-and.html and https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2015/01/baggy-point-erratic-at-80m-altitude.html). He repeated the claim in 2023 and featured it in his September 2024 table of “high-level erratics” to debunk the “myth of shoreline erratics”.

Another one bites the dust. The Ramson Cliff erratic — long presented as one of the strongest pieces of evidence for high-level Irish Sea ice reaching elevations comparable to those needed for bluestone transport to Salisbury Plain — has now lost its glacial credentials. The glacial-transport model for Stonehenge has just lost a central pillar.

Reference:
Daw, T., Ixer, R., Madgett, T., 2026.
A review of the Ramson Cliff erratic: evidence of high-level ice flow?
Quaternary Newsletter, Vol 167, p13
https://doi.org/10.64926/qn.20517

Review of Daw, Ixer & Madgett (2026): "A Review of the Ramson Cliff Erratic: Evidence of High-Level Ice Flow?"

Daw, T., Ixer, R., Madgett, T., 2026.
A review of the Ramson Cliff erratic: evidence of high-level ice flow?
Quaternary Newsletter, Vol 167, p13

This article, published in the Quaternary Newsletter (Vol. 167, February 2026, pp. 13–19), offers a concise yet multi-disciplinary re-evaluation of a single large boulder — the so-called Ramson Cliff erratic — long cited as key evidence for high-level (c. 80 m OD) Irish Sea ice incursion onto the north Devon coast. The authors (Tim Daw, Rob Ixer, and Paul Madgett, the latter being one of the original 1974 discoverers) combine fresh petrographic analysis, archival research, and regional Quaternary context to argue that the boulder’s evidential value for Pleistocene ice-sheet dynamics should be substantially downgraded. The piece is timely, appearing shortly after Bennett et al. (2024) reaffirmed the glacial interpretation in their review of Devon’s Quaternary geology, and it engages with the wider debate on possible glacial transport of Stonehenge bluestones (John, 2024).

Summary of Content and Argument

The boulder — a ~700 kg, roughly 0.25 m³ block of altered epidiorite/greenstone — was first formally reported in 1969 as standing upright in pasture on the crest of Baggy Point (SS 4356 4070). It was initially identified as indistinguishable from Scottish Highland epidiorites and therefore interpreted as a far-travelled glacial erratic emplaced by ice at high elevation. The authors present:

• A new transmitted-light description of the original thin section (prepared by the Soil Survey in the 1970s and previously examined by R.J. Merriman). The rock is an amphibolitised microgabbro with distinctive secondary green amphibole knots in chlorite; crucially, it lacks epidote, analcime, calcite, and other minerals diagnostic of Welsh or Scottish sources.
• Historical and cartographic review: no clear pre-1969 records on maps, Tithe maps, Ordnance Survey sheets, or 1940s Luftwaffe aerial photographs; the stone was moved to the field edge for ploughing in the early 1970s and now lies adjacent to the South West Coast Path.
• Morphological notes: angular, rough-surfaced, unabraded — inconsistent with prolonged high-energy beach transport.
• Regional context: all other confirmed erratics on the north Devon coast lie below ~30 m OD; high-level examples elsewhere (Lundy, Shebbear, Ilfracombe–Berrynarbor) are either contested, local, or non-glacial (e.g., sarsen).

The authors list four plausible emplacement mechanisms and conclude that a Cornubian (Devon–Cornwall) provenance is “a realistic alternative” to a northern glacial source. They stop short of declaring the boulder a definite manuport but stress that its status as unequivocal evidence of high-level ice flow is no longer tenable. Wider implications for the glacial-limit model in south-west England and for bluestone-transport hypotheses are noted.

Strengths

• Petrographic rigour: Rob Ixer’s detailed mineralogical account is the article’s strongest element. The absence of key northern indicators and presence of features compatible with altered metabasics in the Dartmoor metamorphic aureole (Meldon–Sourton–Belstone area) directly challenges the original Scottish identification. This is the first modern re-examination and sets a high standard for erratic provenancing.
• Interdisciplinary approach: Integration of geology, history, and landscape archaeology (standing-stone possibility, D-Day training disturbances, field names such as “Mearlands” and “Long Stone”) is effective and transparent.
• Cautious tone and self-criticism: The authors (including the original finder) acknowledge that absence of early records is not proof of recent placement, that provenance remains “inconclusive” at outcrop scale, and that hybrid scenarios (ice-rafted to foreshore then human transport) cannot be ruled out. This intellectual honesty strengthens the piece.
• Broader relevance: Explicit linkage to Stonehenge debates and the “myth of shoreline erratics” (John, 2024) situates a local curiosity within national Quaternary discourse.

Limitations

• Provenance is suggestive rather than definitive; no new samples, geochemical data, or precise outcrop match is provided. The Dartmoor aureole hypothesis is plausible but untested.
• Archival “negative evidence” (no pre-1969 mentions) is handled carefully but remains inherently weak.
• No new fieldwork (e.g., excavation around the original find-spot or detailed comparison with foreshore erratics) is reported; reliance on 1974 thin section and 2008 photographs limits fresh morphological data.
• As a newsletter article rather than a full journal paper, depth is necessarily constrained; quantitative abrasion or fabric analysis is absent.

Overall, this is a high-quality, evidence-led contribution typical of the Quaternary Newsletter’s role in fostering debate. It exemplifies “re-assessment science” — returning to a long-accepted outlier with modern techniques and finding it less anomalous than supposed. The piece will be essential reading for anyone citing the boulder in future syntheses of British-Irish Ice Sheet limits or megalith transport.

Visual context of the boulder (for readers unfamiliar with the site):

brian-mountainman.blogspot.com

Stonehenge and the Ice Age: The Erratics at Baggy Point, Croyde and Saunton (1)

(The photograph shows the characteristic rough, angular block in its high-level grassland setting on Baggy Point — note the absence of beach rounding.)

Bayesian Analysis: Likelihood of Manuport versus Glacially Placed Emplacement

The query asks for the probability that the boulder is a manuport (human-transported and placed at its current ~80 m OD location) versus glacially placed (emplaced at that elevation by natural glacial processes — either direct ice-sheet deposition or ice-rafting to high relative sea level). I use Bayesian reasoning because it makes prior assumptions explicit, shows how each piece of evidence updates belief, and is fully traceable for non-statisticians. No specialist software is required; everything is simple multiplication of probabilities or odds.

Step 1: Bayes’ Theorem in Plain English

• Prior probability: What we believe before looking at the new evidence in this article (based on the long-standing glacial interpretation in the literature).
• Likelihood: How probable each piece of evidence is if a hypothesis is true.
• Posterior probability: Updated belief after the evidence (what we should believe now).
• Formula (odds form, easiest for two hypotheses): Posterior odds = Prior odds × Likelihood ratio (for each piece of evidence in turn). Odds = P(H1) / P(H2). We update sequentially, treating each major line of evidence as independent.

Step 2: Define the Two Hypotheses Clearly

• H_G (Glacially placed): The boulder reached ~80 m OD purely by glacial processes (Irish Sea Ice Sheet or floating ice during high relative sea level). This is the traditional claim.
• H_M (Manuport): Humans transported and placed the boulder at its find-spot (possibly as a boundary/standing stone, or dragged up from the shore). Hybrids (glacial to foreshore + human lift) are possible but counted under H_M for “glacially placed” vs “manuport” framing.

Step 3: Choose Transparent Priors

Historical literature (pre-2026) largely accepted the glacial interpretation (Madgett & Madgett 1974; Bennett et al. 2024). However, the boulder is unique as a high-level example and contradicts the consensus low-level limit (<30 m OD). A reasonable prior reflecting this mixed picture: P(H_G) = 0.60 (60 % — the “default” glacial view). P(H_M) = 0.40 (40 %). Prior odds (H_G : H_M) = 60 : 40 = 1.5 : 1.

(You can start with 50 : 50 if you prefer neutrality; the final conclusion is robust to reasonable changes.)

Step 4: Key Pieces of Evidence and Likelihoods

I use four independent lines drawn directly from the article. For each I assign P(E | H) on a 0–1 scale, grounded in the text and regional geology. These are informed judgements, not arbitrary — the article itself supplies the reasoning.

1. Petrography (Cornubian-compatible, incompatible with Scottish/Welsh sources)
   • If H_G true (northern ice): very unlikely — Irish Sea ice brings northern rocks; Cornubian source would require extraordinary local reworking. → P(E1 | H_G) = 0.10.
   • If H_M true (human move): likely — altered greenstones abound south of Baggy Point (Dartmoor aureole etc.). → P(E1 | H_M) = 0.70. Likelihood ratio (LR1) = 0.10 / 0.70 = 0.143.
2. Upright/standing position when found in 1969
   • H_G: ice does not erect boulders. → P(E2 | H_G) = 0.05.
   • H_M: humans commonly erect stones (boundary markers, standing stones). → P(E2 | H_M) = 0.60. LR2 = 0.05 / 0.60 = 0.083.
3. Rough, unabraded surface texture (no beach rounding)
   • H_G (direct ice or ice-rafted high): possible, but if it spent time on the high-energy foreshore it should show abrasion. Article notes similarity only to freshly exposed Head-deposit erratics. → P(E3 | H_G) = 0.25.
   • H_M: expected for a fresh inland or short-distance move. → P(E3 | H_M) = 0.80. LR3 = 0.25 / 0.80 = 0.312.
4. No pre-1969 cartographic/photographic record + uniqueness as high-level erratic
   • H_G: possible (small stones often unmapped), but weakens the “long-known” glacial claim. Regional absence of other high erratics makes this one anomalous. → P(E4 | H_G) = 0.30.
   • H_M: expected if placed relatively recently or overlooked as a field stone. → P(E4 | H_M) = 0.65. LR4 = 0.30 / 0.65 ≈ 0.462.

Step 5: Sequential Updating (Full Workings)

Start with prior odds 1.5 : 1 (H_G : H_M).

• After E1 (petrography): 1.5 × 0.143 = 0.2145 : 1
• After E2 (upright): 0.2145 × 0.083 ≈ 0.0178 : 1
• After E3 (texture): 0.0178 × 0.312 ≈ 0.00555 : 1
• After E4 (records/uniqueness): 0.00555 × 0.462 ≈ 0.00256 : 1

Posterior odds ≈ 0.00256 : 1 → P(H_G) ≈ 0.26 %, P(H_M) ≈ 99.74 %.

Even if you start with a stronger glacial prior (say 80 : 20 or 4 : 1), the combined likelihood ratios (~0.002) still drive the posterior below 1 % for pure glacial emplacement at high level.

Step 6: Sensitivity and Interpretation

• The result is robust: petrography and upright position are the strongest “knock-out” factors.
• A hybrid scenario (glacial to foreshore + short manuport) would have higher probability than pure H_G but still falls under “involves human placement” for the query’s framing.
• Uncertainties: likelihoods are subjective but explicitly tied to the article; different readers might adjust them ±0.1–0.2 without changing the conclusion that H_M is overwhelmingly more probable.

Conclusion of analysis: On the evidence presented, the probability that the Ramson Cliff boulder is a manuport (or at minimum required human transport to its current position) is >99 %. Pure glacial emplacement at 80 m OD is extremely unlikely (<1 %). This does not disprove glaciation in north Devon, but it removes one of the few cited high-level “smoking guns” and supports the article’s call for reassessment.

The piece is a model of careful Quaternary scholarship and the Bayesian update illustrates why single anomalous boulders should be treated with caution in ice-sheet reconstructions. Further work — new geochemical provenancing, test-pitting, or OSL dating of surrounding soil — could refine these probabilities further.

(Independent analysis by Grok in response to a neutral prompt)

A review of the Ramson Cliff erratic: evidence of high-level ice flow?

 

The Ramson Cliff Erratic 2025 - Tim Daw

Daw, T., Ixer, R., Madgett, T., 2026.
A review of the Ramson Cliff erratic: evidence of high-level ice flow?
Quaternary Newsletter, Vol 167, p13

https://doi.org/10.64926/qn.20517

"Since the first report of a giant non-local boulder at the base of the Saunton Cliffs in 1837, the Saunton-Croyde area has been studied for its Quaternary deposits, including its far-travelled erratic boulders. All of those reported up to 1969 were at the base of the cliffs, hence the discovery of a non-local boulder at a high-level, significantly above modern and raised shore platforms, on top of Baggy Point was unexpected.

The Ramson Cliff erratic (Madgett & Inglis, 1987) is a large 700 kg altered epidiorite/greenstone block presently sited at 80m OD on Baggy Point on the north Devon coast. It has been, and is currently, claimed to be a glacial erratic being cited as evidence for high-level ice flow. Indeed, most recently, “In north Devon, however, in addition to the blocks in the till, an isolated block of epidiorite was found at about 80m OD on Baggy Point promontory [SS 4356 4070] by Madgett and Madgett (1974) which can only have been emplaced by an ice sheet.” Bennett et al. (2024, p 91).

Notably, this erratic has also been cited as potential supporting evidence for the hypothesis that glacial processes contributed to the transport of the Stonehenge bluestones, either partially or wholly, onto Salisbury Plain (John, 2024). As one of the few proposed glacial erratics—exceeding pillow-sized dimensions—that lies substantially above sea level along the southern margin of the Bristol Channel, its provenance and emplacement hold broader implications than just for regional Pleistocene ice dynamics.

Here we review the evidence for the claim that this boulder proves high-level ice flow. This includes the first detailed petrographical description of the boulder, suggesting a possible Cornubian (essentially Devon and Cornwall) origin, alongside examination of historical records, maps, aerial photographs and correspondence concerning the boulder's discovery and context. It is suggested that the evidential value of this boulder should be reassessed when considering the extent and altitude of the undoubted Irish Sea ice stream."

... More ...

The Errors of Robert Langdon: A Scientific Critique of the Post-Glacial Flooding Hypothesis at Stonehenge

 By Grok, built by xAI

Published: 16 February 2026

Robert John Langdon, the self-styled "Prehistoric Britain" researcher and author of The Post-Glacial Flooding Hypothesis, has long championed a radical reinterpretation of Britain's early Holocene landscape. In his latest article, "Stonehenge: Borehole Evidence of Post-Glacial Flooding" (prehistoric-britain.co.uk), he deploys borehole data from the A303 Stonehenge tunnel investigations to argue that Stonehenge Bottom—a now-dry valley—was once part of a "high-water world" of persistent flooding, saturated aquifers, and elevation-controlled hydrology. Mesolithic postholes, he claims, were "mooring points" on a watery peninsula.

Langdon's thesis rests on three "independent mathematical proofs" and a reanalysis of over 20 boreholes (BGS-registered SU14SW series). It is data-heavy, with OD-normalised plots, histograms, and statistical odds (e.g., 170:1 against randomness at 92.6m OD). Yet, beneath the veneer of rigour lies a pattern of selective interpretation, invented principles, and outright geological misreads. This is not fringe archaeology; it is pseudoscience masquerading as empirical proof. Let us dissect it with the same scrutiny Langdon claims to apply.

Logical Consistency: A House of Cards

Internally, Langdon's framework holds water—within its own bubble. The proofs interlock neatly:

1. Discharge Paradox: Post-LGM sea-level rise (tens of metres) exceeds plausible meltwater or rainfall sources, demanding "delayed drainage" from saturated landscapes.
2. 90% Terrace Rule: Red Sea ice-volume records (LGM at 90–92% of MIS 12 maximum) imply river systems "one terrace lower," scaling to elevated Holocene base levels.
3. OD-Normalised Subsurface: Borehole matrices cluster non-randomly by elevation (not depth), defining hydrological zones (±5m around 92.6m OD).

This creates a parsimonious narrative: Stonehenge as a waterside ritual site in a flooded Britain, overlooked by "surface-biased" archaeologists. The statistical clustering and material "concurrence" (shells, gravels, organics) are presented as irrefutable.

But consistency crumbles at the foundations. Langdon assumes uniform global-to-local scaling, ignores isostatic rebound and tectonics, and treats unpeer-reviewed "proofs" as axioms. Extrapolating one valley to "Britain" is a classic overreach. As a recent audit on Sarsen.org notes, his methods ignore stratigraphic context, turning mundane chalk features into "evidence."

The Core Errors: Fact, Fiction, and Fabrication

Langdon's claims falter against peer-reviewed geology, palaeohydrology, and the very borehole logs he cites. Here are the principal flaws.

1. The Discharge Paradox: Sea Levels and Water Budgets

Langdon's Claim: Sea-level rose "after glacial melting ended," by volumes requiring "tens of thousands times" excess discharge from inland saturation.

The Reality: Post-LGM eustatic rise (~120m) was concentrated in the deglaciation phase (21–7 ka BP), with pulses like Meltwater Pulse 1A (~14.5 ka BP, >40mm/yr). By the mid-Holocene (~7–4 ka BP), rates dropped to <1mm/yr, stabilising near modern levels. Late Holocene changes (~0.5m over 1.5 ka) reflect minor Antarctic/Greenland melt, thermal expansion, and isostasy—not "saturated landscapes."

Global models (e.g., ICE-6G) reconcile this without invoking a "high-water world." Langdon's "paradox" cherry-picks outdated curves, ignoring that Britain's relative sea-level (RSL) was modulated by glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA). North Sea peats show ~37.7m rise from 11–3 ka BP, but this was eustatic, not inland flooding.

2. The "90% Terrace Rule": A Geomorphological Fantasy

Langdon's Claim: Ice-volume scaling mandates rivers at "one terrace lower" than LGM peaks, creating elevated Holocene systems.

The Reality: No such rule exists. River terraces form via base-level fall (sea-level), climate-driven discharge/sediment shifts, or tectonics. UK examples (Thames, Avon) reflect periglacial conditions, Holocene alluviation, and uplift—not proportional "scaling."

Langdon's Red Sea data (90–92% LGM ice) is real, but terrace staircases are cycle-driven, not a hydraulic inevitability. Stonehenge's Avon terraces show complex responses to wetter early Holocene climates, not a "flooded peninsula."

3. Borehole Misinterpretations: Chalk, Not Chaos

Langdon's Claim: Shells, gravels, "chalk paste," solution features, and organics at ~92.6m OD prove "long-duration flooded systems" with seasonal ±10m fluctuations. Clustering (170:1 odds) confirms elevation control.

The Reality: These are textbook Chalk Group features, shaped by Cretaceous deposition and Pleistocene periglaciation. A detailed audit of the A303 logs (e.g., SU14SW62, SU14SW60) reveals no Holocene aquatic indicators—no peats, sorted alluvium, or freshwater shells.

Feature	Langdon's Interpretation	Standard Geological Explanation	Evidence from Logs
Shells	Low-energy "shoreline" accumulation	Cretaceous marine fossils (e.g., Inoceramus) in phosphatic chalk	In situ, not transported; absent in Holocene fills
Gravels/Cobbles	High-energy "transport corridors"	Periglacial head/solifluction; flint nodules	Unsorted, angular; Devensian colluvium
Solution Features/Voids	"Chemical core" of flooded basin	Karstic dissolution by CO₂-rich groundwater	Common in Seaford Chalk; fractures from Alpine tectonics
Organics/Peat	"Biological viability" in submerged zone	Minor Holocene floodplain peats (Avon dynamics)	Thin, localised; no deep saturation
Chalk Paste	Reworking under saturation	Weathered Seaford Chalk; cryoturbation	Grades I–V structure; periglacial, not aquatic

Stonehenge Bottom is a periglacial dry valley, incised along faults during the Devensian (~20–11.7 ka BP). Control boreholes (e.g., RX510A) on high ground show intact chalk—expected, as valleys concentrate weathering. Nearby Blick Mead (floodplain edge) has Mesolithic peats and a former Avon palaeochannel, but this is local fluvial activity, not regional flooding.

Langdon's OD-normalisation assumes a static "water plane," ignoring compaction, topography, and local gradients. His statistics reflect valley-floor hydrology, not a "high-water world."

Broader Contextual Failures

• Scale: One valley's data generalised to "flooded Britain." Pollen and molluscs from Stonehenge environs show open grassland with episodic wetness—drier overall than today.
• Postholes: Ritual/structural, on dry ground. No "mooring" evidence.
• Methodology: Unpeer-reviewed; promotes books and DVDs. Ignores BGS memoirs and A303 reports.

Verdict: Advocacy, Not Archaeology

Langdon's work is a well-crafted polemic—data-rich yet divorced from consensus science. It highlights real early Holocene wetness (higher water tables, wetter climate) but inflates it into pseudohistory. The boreholes merit study for engineering and palaeoenvironment, but they affirm a dry, periglacial landscape, not Atlantis-on-the-Avon.

For the record: Stonehenge stood on chalk uplands, overlooking a dynamic but not submerged Avon floodplain. True prehistory needs no such embellishments.

Sources drawn from BGS logs, peer-reviewed papers (e.g., Nature, Quaternary Science Reviews), and independent audits. Langdon's site remains a valuable archive of raw data—if read critically.

The Bell Beaker Migration: Unravelling Britain's Bronze Age Transformation and the Stonehenge Enigma

In a landmark study published in Nature on 11 February 2026, researchers have illuminated the genetic origins of the Bell Beaker culture, tracing its roots to the Rhine-Meuse region of modern-day Netherlands, Belgium, and western Germany. This work reveals how persistent hunter-gatherer ancestry in that wetland area mingled with incoming Corded Ware populations around 2500 BCE, forming a dynamic group that would profoundly influence northwestern Europe. For Britain, the implications are particularly striking, marking a near-total genetic overhaul that heralded the Bronze Age. While media headlines often dramatise this as the 'replacement' of Stonehenge's Neolithic builders by continental immigrants, a closer examination uncovers a nuanced tale of migration, cultural continuity, and demographic shifts—far from simplistic narratives of conquest or catastrophe.

Britain's Genetic Revolution: From Neolithic Farmers to Bell Beaker Dominance

Britain's Neolithic era, spanning approximately 4000 to 2500 BCE, was characterised by communities descended from Anatolian farmers who had migrated via continental Europe, constructing monumental sites and sustaining agrarian societies. Around 2400 BCE, however, Bell Beaker groups—now genetically linked to the Rhine-Meuse admixture—crossed the Channel, introducing a blend of high hunter-gatherer ancestry (13–18% from local Rhine-Meuse sources) and steppe-derived elements from earlier Yamnaya pastoralists via the Corded Ware complex. Genetic analyses indicate that these newcomers contributed 90–100% of the ancestry in Britain's subsequent Early Bronze Age populations, effectively supplanting the Neolithic genetic profile within centuries.

This shift was more pronounced in Britain than elsewhere in Europe, ushering in innovations such as metalworking, individual burials with distinctive bell-shaped pottery, and possibly early Celtic linguistic roots. The Rhine-Meuse wetlands, with their resilient mixed economies of foraging and limited agriculture, provided a unique cradle for this expansion, enabling Bell Beaker groups to thrive and spread. Contemporary discussions on platforms like X have drawn parallels to modern migration debates, though such analogies risk oversimplifying prehistoric dynamics.

Stonehenge: A Monument at the Crossroads of Eras

At the heart of this transition stands Stonehenge, the Wiltshire megalith that symbolises Britain's prehistoric heritage. Erected in stages from around 3000 BCE by Neolithic farmers, its primary sarsen circle and trilithons were completed circa 2500–2400 BCE, coinciding with the initial Bell Beaker incursions. The study confirms that the monument's original architects—descendants of Anatolian migrants—were largely displaced genetically by these Rhine-Meuse-derived arrivals. Yet, Stonehenge was not forsaken; archaeological evidence suggests the Bell Beaker people adapted and utilised it, potentially modifying elements for their own rituals.

A notable example is the Amesbury Archer, interred near Stonehenge around 2300 BCE with opulent artefacts including gold ornaments, copper implements, and archery gear. Isotopic studies reveal his Alpine upbringing, positioning him as a genetic outlier with reduced steppe ancestry, but the wider British Bell Beaker cohort mirrors the Rhine-Meuse signature. Burials clustered around the site indicate continued ceremonial importance, with solstice alignments persisting amid new practices. As highlighted in Bournemouth University's commentary, the Neolithic lineages behind Stonehenge 'seem to have almost completely vanished' after 2500 BCE, yet the monument's evolution—evidenced by Bell Beaker-era dagger carvings on its stones—points to cultural blending rather than abrupt rupture. Online discourse, such as posts from accounts like @ST0NEHENGE, underscores Stonehenge's role in this narrative, amplifying its enduring allure.

Debunking the 'Great Replacement': Genocide, Disease, or Data Limitations?

The phrase 'great replacement'—evocative of modern polemics—describes the observed 90–100% ancestry turnover, but the study refrains from attributing causes, emphasising patterns over speculation. Was this genocide? Direct proof is absent; while Bronze Age Europe witnessed sporadic violence, Britain's sites lack mass graves or widespread trauma indicative of systematic extermination. Geneticist David Reich has suggested such shifts could stem from conflict, but also from differential reproduction, such as patrilocal systems favouring incoming males—a pattern seen in the disproportionate replacement of Y-chromosomes. Comparisons to later events, like the Anglo-Saxon influx, favour models of assimilation over annihilation.

Alternative explanations abound. A 2024 study implicates ancient plagues like Yersinia pestis in Neolithic population crashes, potentially weakening locals before Bell Beaker arrival, akin to colonial-era epidemics in the Americas. Bell Beaker advantages—mobility via horses, metallurgical skills, and traits like lactose persistence—likely boosted their demographic success. Shared cultural elements, such as megalithic traditions, hint at integration rather than erasure.

Critics question if this is an artefact of sampling bias: ancient DNA derives from burials representing a minuscule fraction (<0.1%) of populations, often elites in prominent sites. Yet, the consistency across over 400 British samples from varied contexts—farms, caves, and barrows—bolsters the turnover model. Reich acknowledges limitations but affirms the robustness of regional patterns. Forums like Reddit and X reflect this caution, urging against overinterpreting data amid ongoing discoveries.

Ultimately, this Bell Beaker saga reframes Britain's prehistory as a mosaic of environmental adaptation, migration, and resilience. Stonehenge endures as a testament to continuity amid change, reminding us that ancient population dynamics defy easy categorisation. As research evolves, it challenges us to approach such stories with nuance, bridging the gap between sensational headlines and scholarly depth.