Cattle Traction and Neolithic Monument Building at Newgrange

An excellent new paper on Newgrange, one of Ireland’s most iconic Neolithic passage tombs, offers fresh perspectives on its social and technological context. Published in Antiquity, the study critically examines claims of a dynastic elite.

Reference:
Smyth, J., Carlin, N., Hofmann, D., Frieman, C. J., Bickle, P., Cleary, K., Greaney, S., & Pope, R. (2025). The ‘king’ of Newgrange? A critical analysis of a Neolithic petrous fragment from the passage tomb chamber. Antiquity, 99(405), 672 doi:10.15184/aqy.2025.63.

Cattle Traction: A Game-Changer for Neolithic Construction

Among the paper’s insights on incest, elites, and mortuary practices, a note about cattle traction stood out to me. The use of domesticated cattle to pull heavy loads, evidenced by mid-fourth millennium BC zooarchaeological data, challenges traditional views of Neolithic monument building. This technology suggests that the construction of massive passage tombs like Newgrange did not necessarily require a stratified society, offering a new lens on social organisation in prehistoric Ireland.

By enabling the efficient transport of massive stones and materials, cattle traction reduced the human labour required which suggests that smaller, community-based groups could have undertaken construction through cooperative, episodic efforts, aligning with heterarchical social models where power was distributed rather than centralised.

The ability to harness cattle traction highlights how technological innovation, rather than social stratification, could account for the scale and complexity of these monuments. This emphasises how collective action and decentralised resource management in Neolithic societies may be more important than elite control. But critics of the community-based model suggest that some archaeologists may be influenced by modern preferences for egalitarianism, potentially leading to "wishful thinking" that underestimates the possibility of social hierarchies in the Neolithic.

For a detailed exploration of cattle traction’s role in Neolithic Ireland, including zooarchaeological evidence and its implications for resource exploitation, see:

Pigière, F. & Smyth, J.. 2023. First evidence for cattle traction in Middle Neolithic Ireland: a pivotal element for resource exploitation. PLoS ONE 18. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279556

The Ox That Moved a Mountain: A Tooth’s Tale from Stonehenge

Imagine the scene: a line of Neolithic people and cattle, inching their way across the British landscape, the air thick with the effort of a communal task that would echo through millennia. At the centre of this spectacle is not just a stone—a bluestone, weighing as much as four tons—but also the animals that helped move it. Among them, perhaps, was one remarkable cow, whose story is written not in legend, but in the enamel of her tooth.

A Tooth as a Time Capsule

In 2025, archaeologists published a study of a Neolithic cattle tooth found in the ditch at Stonehenge. This was no ordinary tooth: it was the animal’s third molar (M3), which forms when a cow is about two years old—her physical prime. By slicing the tooth into nine thin layers and analyzing the isotopes within, researchers could reconstruct a six-month window of her life, tracking where she traveled, what she ate, and even moments of acute physical stress.

This tooth, though excavated from the jaw of an “elderly” animal, is a time capsule from her youth. The enamel grew as she reached maturity, capturing the chemical signals of her diet, her environment, and her body’s response to extraordinary events.

The Isotopic Roadmap

The tooth’s enamel is a chemical diary.
Strontium isotopes (⁸⁷Sr/⁸⁶Sr) revealed a journey from the radiogenic soils of Wales (with high strontium values) to the chalky downs of Wessex (lower strontium), echoing the very route the bluestones themselves are thought to have traveled.
Oxygen and carbon isotopes showed seasonal shifts, indicating movement between woodland and grassland, and reflecting changes in water sources and diet as the animal moved across varied landscapes.

These isotopic signatures are not just numbers—they are a record of movement and change, a chemical map of a journey that may have spanned hundreds of kilometers.

The Lead Spike: A Moment of Strain

But the most intriguing clue was a sharp, short-lived spike in lead (Pb) within the tooth. Scientists know that lead stored in bones can be released into the bloodstream during periods of intense stress—traditionally, this is linked to pregnancy and lactation in female animals. Yet, the spike in this cow’s tooth lasted only about a month, much shorter than a typical pregnancy or nursing period.

Here’s where our thought experiment takes a leap: What if this lead surge was the physiological fingerprint of a different kind of stress? Imagine this young cow, harnessed and straining alongside her herd, pulling a multi-ton bluestone across the countryside. The effort could have triggered acute skeletal stress—enough to release a pulse of lead from her bones into her bloodstream, and into her growing tooth enamel. The duration of the spike matches the kind of short, intense episode it might have taken to haul a stone over a particularly challenging stretch.

The Archaeological Backdrop

The timing fits. The tooth dates to between 3350 and 2920 BC, overlapping with the earliest construction phases of Stonehenge and the likely period of bluestone transport. Archaeologists have long debated how these massive stones were moved. While some suggest teams of people alone could have managed the feat, others point to the advantages of animal traction. Cattle, after all, were already being used for ploughing in parts of Neolithic Europe, and experimental reconstructions show that even relatively young animals can pull heavy loads when harnessed together.

The animal’s advanced age at death suggests she lived a long and possibly eventful life. But it is her youth—the six months captured in her M3 tooth—that may have witnessed her greatest challenge.

The Ritual Afterlife

The jawbone containing this tooth was not simply discarded. It was found at the bottom of Stonehenge’s ditch, possibly curated for decades before burial. This hints at ritual or social significance—perhaps the animal was remembered as a participant in a legendary communal effort, her remains kept as a token of memory or gratitude.

The Science and Its Limits

Of course, this is a hypothesis—a story built on a blend of hard science and imagination. The lead spike could still be from reproductive stress, and female cows aren’t the classic draught animals (those are usually oxen—castrated males). Yet in a world where every hand, hoof, and horn counted, perhaps even a young cow could be called upon to help move mountains.

And while the isotopic evidence fits the story, it is not definitive. The strontium and oxygen signatures could also be explained by seasonal migration or foddering practices. The lead spike could be from an injury, an illness, or a metabolic event unrelated to work. With only a single tooth, we cannot see harness marks or bone injuries that might clinch the case for draught use.

Moreover, the science of lead mobilization is complex. Bone lead is released during any period of high bone turnover—be it from calving, injury, or exertion. The duration and intensity of the spike in this tooth is consistent with an acute episode, but we cannot say for certain what caused it.

The Broader Picture

Still, the scenario is plausible. The monumental task of moving bluestones would have benefited from animal traction, and the chemical signals in this tooth are consistent with a journey from Wales to Stonehenge and a period of intense physical stress. The animal’s life, as recorded in her tooth, mirrors the epic journey of the stones themselves.

A Tooth’s Legacy

This single tooth, then, is more than a fossil. It’s a time capsule, a witness to the sweat and struggle behind one of humanity’s greatest monuments. Whether or not this cow truly pulled a bluestone, her story—written in the language of isotopes—reminds us that the past is full of possibilities, waiting to be read in the smallest of details.

The Final Word: Science, Story, and Speculation

Ultimately, this narrative is a thought experiment—a way to bring the science to life and to honour the animals whose silent labour shaped the world we inherited. The true story of this cow may never be fully known, but her tooth gives us a tantalizing glimpse into the lives that shaped prehistory, and invites us to imagine the drama, the effort, and the ingenuity that built Stonehenge, one stone—and perhaps one ox—at a time.

Author’s Note:
This narrative is inspired by the findings of Evans et al. (2025) and current archaeological debates. While the scenario described here is plausible, it remains speculative. The real power of this story is in how science and imagination together can illuminate the hidden lives of the past.

Neolithic Cattle Mobility at Stonehenge: A Matrix of Possibilities

A recent study (Evans et al., 2025) analyses a Neolithic cattle molar (M3, 3350–2920 BC) from Stonehenge, revealing insights into husbandry through sequential multi-isotope sampling. The research maps diet, mobility, and reproductive stress over six months, presenting a matrix of possibilities for the cow’s seasonal movements and foddering practises, highlighting Neolithic agricultural complexity and regional connectivity.

Methods

The study divided the tooth into nine enamel slices (winter, slice 1, to summer, slice 9), analysing strontium (⁸⁷Sr/⁸⁶Sr) and lead (²⁰⁶Pb/²⁰⁴Pb, ²⁰⁷Pb/²⁰⁶Pb, ²⁰⁸Pb/²⁰⁶Pb) isotopes for geographical origins, carbon (δ¹³C) and oxygen (δ¹⁸O) for diet and seasonality, and peptides (AMELX/AMELY) for sex (result: female). Clean-room techniques ensured data reliability. Lead isotopes, novel in Neolithic fauna, detected metabolic stress, possibly calving, advancing isotopic archaeology.

Comparison with Other Studies

Previous isotopic studies, e.g., Madgwick et al. (2019), linked Durrington Walls cattle to Wales or South-West England using strontium and oxygen isotopes, lacking temporal detail. Snoeck et al. (2018) tied Stonehenge’s human remains to Wales, suggesting regional networks. Evans et al. (2025) enhance this with sequential multi-isotope analysis, offering finer resolution, and introduce lead isotopes for physiological insights, building on human studies (Gulson et al., 1998) and multi-proxy approaches (Bentley, 2006).

Matrix of Possibilities

Isotopic patterns—high strontium (~0.7144) and lower δ¹³C (woodland diet) in winter, low strontium (<0.7110) and higher δ¹³C (grassland grazing) in summer—yield two main models: migration or static foddering, with a bone transport third possibility. Lead spikes (e.g., ²⁰⁸Pb/²⁰⁶Pb = 2.104, slice 4) suggest metabolic stress, possibly calving. The table outlines the matrix.

Model	Winter (High Sr, Lower δ13C)	Summer (Low Sr, Higher δ13C)	Origin	Likelihood
1A. Migration	Wales Woodland	Wessex Grassland	Wales	High
1B. Migration	South-West England Woodland	Wessex Grassland	South-West	Medium
2A. Static	Welsh Woodland Hay (in Wessex)	Wessex Grassland	Wales	Medium
2B. Static	South-West Woodland Hay (in Wessex)	Wessex Grassland	South-West	Medium
2C. Static	Non-Local Hay (Wales/South-West)	Wessex Grassland	Wessex	Low-Medium
3A. Bone Transport	Wales Woodland	Wales Grassland (Low Sr Area)	Wales	Low

Discussion of Results and Likelihoods

The matrix reveals sophisticated Neolithic husbandry. Model 1A (migration: Welsh woodlands to Wessex grasslands) and 2A (static: Welsh-born, Wessex-fed with Welsh hay) are most likely, supported by lead isotopes consistent with Welsh ores, though not definitive due to skeletal remobilization (Müller et al., 2019). These align with Stonehenge’s Welsh links, e.g., Preseli bluestones (Parker Pearson et al., 2022). 1B and 2B (South-West England) are less probable, as lead favours Wales. 2C (Wessex-born, non-local hay) requires extensive fodder transport, less supported archaeologically (Halstead, 1998). 3A (bone transport: Wales grazing, bones to Wessex) is unlikely, as summer low strontium (<0.7110) and dietary lead (more likely from English ores rather than Welsh ones, unlike the Skeletal Pb) suggest Wessex residence, not a Welsh low-strontium area (Evans et al., 2022). Curation (55–270 years pre-deposition) allows bone transport, but isotopic data favour live cattle in Wessex (Serjeantson, 1995). Lead spikes indicate metabolic stress, possibly calving, suggesting managed breeding.

Limitations

The study’s reliance on a single tooth limits generalisability. Lead isotope interpretations, influenced by skeletal remobilization, are not definitive for origin or pregnancy, which is inferred from stress rather than direct evidence. Further samples are needed to refine the matrix.

References

• Balasse, M., Boury, L., Ughetto-Monfrin, J. and Tresset, A., 2012. Stable isotope evidence for seasonal consumption of plants by herbivores: a case study in north-western Europe. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences, 4(4), pp.299–311. doi:10.1179/1461410312Z.0000000003.
• Bentley, R.A., 2006. Strontium isotopes from the earth to the archaeological skeleton: a review. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 13(3), pp.135–187. doi:10.1007/s10816-006-9009-x.
• Cerling, T.E. and Harris, J.M., 1999. Carbon isotope fractionation between diet and bioapatite in ungulate mammals and implications for ecological and paleoecological studies. Oecologia, 120(3), pp.347–363. doi:10.1007/s004420050868.
• Evans, J.A., Mee, K., Chenery, C.A. and Marchant, A.P., 2022. Biosphere isotope domains GB (V2): interactive website. British Geological Survey. Available at: https://www.bgs.ac.uk/datasets/biosphere-isotope-domains-gb/ [Accessed 22 June 2025].
• Evans, J., Madgwick, R., Pashley, V., Wagner, D., Savickaite, K., Buckley, M. and Parker Pearson, M., 2025. Sequential multi-isotope sampling through a Bos taurus tooth from Stonehenge, to assess comparative sources and incorporation times of strontium and lead. Journal of Archaeological Science, 180, p.106269. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2025.106269.
• Gulson, B.L., Jameson, C.W. and Gillings, B.R., 1998. Lead isotopes in teeth as indicators of lead exposure. Environmental Health Perspectives, 106(2), pp.75–80.https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9304823/.
• Halstead, P., 1998. Ask the fellows who lop the hay: leaf-fodder in the mountains of northwest Greece. Rural History, 9(2), pp.211–234. doi:10.1017/S0956793300001588.
• Kohn, M.J., 2010. Carbon isotope compositions of terrestrial C3 plants as indicators of (paleo)ecology and (paleo)climate. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(46), pp.19691–19695. doi:10.1073/pnas.1004933107.
• Liesegang, A., Risteli, J. and Wanner, M., 2006. Bone metabolism in dairy cows: a longitudinal study. Journal of Dairy Science, 89(8), pp.3036–3044. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2005.11.006.
• Madgwick, R., Lamb, A.L., Sloane, H., Nederbragt, A.J., Albarella, U., Parker Pearson, M. and Evans, J.A., 2019. Strontium and oxygen isotope evidence for the origins of cattle at Durrington Walls. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences, 11(8), pp.4311–4324. doi:10.1007/s12520-019-00849-w.
• Montgomery, J., 2002. Lead and strontium isotope compositions of human dental tissues as an indicator of ancient exposure and population dynamics. Doctoral dissertation, University of Bradford.
• Montgomery, J., Evans, J.A. and Horstwood, M.S.A., 2010. Lead isotopes in archaeology: a review. Archaeometry, 52(4), pp.653–676. doi:10.1179/146141010X12640787648694.
• Müller, W., Fricke, H., Halliday, A.N., McCulloch, M.T. and Wartho, J.A., 2019. Enamel mineralization and lead incorporation. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 252, pp.104–123. doi:10.1016/j.gca.2019.03.005.
• O’Leary, M.H., 1988. Carbon isotopes in photosynthesis. BioScience, 38(5), pp.328–336. doi:10.2307/1310735.
• Parker Pearson, M, Pollard, J, Richards, C, Thomas, J, Tilley, C & Welham, K 2022, Stonehenge for the ancestors Part 2: Synthesis. vol. 2, Sidestone Press, Leiden , Leiden. https://www.sidestone.com/books/stonehenge-for-the-ancestors-part-2.
• Snoeck, C., Pouncett, J., Claeys, P., Goderis, S., Mattielli, N., Parker Pearson, M., Willis, C., Zazzo, A., Lee-Thorp, J.A. and Schulting, R.J., 2018. Strontium isotope analysis on cremated human remains from Stonehenge. Scientific Reports, 8, p.10790. doi:10.1038/s41598-018-28969-8.
• Spencer, H., 1979. Lead in bone and teeth. Journal of Environmental Pathology and Toxicology, 2(5), pp.987–1000.
• van der Merwe, N.J. and Medina, E., 1991. The canopy effect, carbon isotope ratios and foodwebs in Amazonia. Journal of Archaeological Science, 18(3), pp.249–259. doi:10.1016/0305-4403(91)90064-V.

BBC fact checking the solstice alignment

 BBC Bitesize on "summer solstice myths and the truth behind them"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/zyd3wsg

That Stonehenge was built to align to the Solstices is one of the very few certainties about it.

To downgrade this to a being just a claim by English Heritage and on par with myths about Merlin and Aliens is insulting. That was also a "burial ground" is an additional fact not an alternative one. 

Every Age Gets the Archaeology It Deserves

I haven't read a copy of this yet to be published book but I'm pleased to share this review.

Book Review: The Archaeology of Britain: An Introduction from Earliest Times to the Twenty-First Century (3rd ed.)

Edited by Vicki Cummings and Stephen T. Driscoll
Routledge, 2025. DOI: 10.4324/9780429445521

Introduction

Jacquetta Hawkes once remarked, "Every age gets the Stonehenge it deserves," suggesting that our interpretations of the past are inevitably coloured by the present.

The Archaeology of Britain: An Introduction from Earliest Times to the Twenty-First Century (3rd ed.), edited by Vicki Cummings and Stephen T. Driscoll, embodies this idea, presenting an archaeology shaped by twenty-first-century tools, values, and challenges. From the DNA analysis of Cheddar Man to the decolonisation of archaeological narratives, this volume reflects an era where science, inclusivity, and global concerns like climate change frame our understanding of Britain’s history. Published in 2025 by Routledge, this third edition—curated by Vicki Cummings, Professor of Neolithic Archaeology at Cardiff University, and Stephen T. Driscoll, Professor of Historical Archaeology at the University of Glasgow—spans the Palaeolithic to the present, revealing how today’s preoccupations breathe new life into ancient stories. It is a testament to how "every age gets the archaeology it deserves," offering a distinctly modern lens on Britain’s past.

---

Prestigious Authors: Credentials That Inspire Confidence

The book’s credibility rests on the shoulders of its editors and contributors, a veritable who’s who of British archaeology. Vicki Cummings brings her expertise in Neolithic studies, honed through years of research at Cardiff University, while Stephen T. Driscoll offers a deep understanding of historical archaeology from his tenure at the University of Glasgow. Together, they have curated a team of specialists whose credentials ensure each chapter is both authoritative and current.

• Paul Pettitt and Mark White (Chapter 2): Professors at Durham University, Pettitt specialises in Palaeolithic human behaviour, while White focuses on the Lower and Middle Palaeolithic, making them ideal guides for Britain’s earliest human occupations.
• Steven Mithen and Nicky Milner (Chapter 3): Mithen, Professor of Early Prehistory at the University of Reading, and Milner, Professor of Archaeology at the University of York, are renowned for their work on Mesolithic hunter-gatherers.
• Alasdair Whittle (Chapters 4 and 5): A distinguished archaeologist, Whittle collaborates with Cummings and Susan Greaney to explore the Neolithic, drawing on his extensive research into early farming societies.
• Mike Parker Pearson (Chapter 6): A leading figure in Bronze Age studies, Parker Pearson’s work on Stonehenge and the Beaker people enriches the Early Bronze Age chapter.
• Joanna Brück (Chapter 7): An expert in Bronze Age social dynamics, Brück’s research at University College Dublin informs her analysis of the Middle and Late Bronze Age.
• Colin Haselgrove and Meredith Laing (Chapter 8): Haselgrove, Professor at the University of Leicester, and Laing bring their Iron Age expertise to bear on this transitional period.
• W.S. (Bill) Hanson and Michael Fulford (Chapters 9 and 10): Hanson, a Roman military specialist, and Fulford, Professor at the University of Reading, provide complementary perspectives on Roman Britain.
• Catherine Hills (Chapter 11): A Cambridge scholar, Hills is a key authority on Early Historic Britain.
• Julian D. Richards (Chapter 13): Professor at the University of York, Richards is a leading voice in Viking archaeology.

This pattern of excellence continues across all 20 chapters, with contributors like Ben Jervis, Jonathan Finch, John Schofield, and Timothy Darvill—each a luminary in their field—ensuring the book’s scholarly heft. Their collective expertise guarantees a synthesis of the latest research, making this an indispensable resource.

---

Chapter Contents: A Chronological Odyssey

The book’s 20 chapters offer a chronological sweep of British archaeology, enriched with thematic depth and vivid case studies. Below is a detailed overview:

Chapter 1: British Archaeology in the 21st Century

By Vicki Cummings and Stephen T. Driscoll

The editors introduce the volume with the story of Cheddar Man, a Mesolithic skeleton whose DNA analysis revealed dark skin and blue eyes, upending assumptions about ancient Britons. This chapter showcases how modern archaeology leverages technology to rewrite history.

Chapter 2: The Palaeolithic Occupation of Britain 850,000 to 11,500 Years Ago

By Paul Pettitt and Mark White

This chapter traces the first human arrivals in Britain, small hunter-gatherer groups navigating a shifting Pleistocene landscape alongside mammoths and bison. It highlights their ecological interdependence.

Chapter 3: Hunter-Gatherers of the Mesolithic

By Steven Mithen and Nicky Milner

Spanning 9650 to 4000 BC, this chapter explores the Mesolithic’s climatic upheavals and the agency of hunter-gatherers, who shaped their environment and spiritual lives with microlithic tools.

Chapter 4: The Early Neolithic

By Vicki Cummings and Alasdair Whittle

Using the Hazleton North long cairn as a focal point, this chapter examines settlement, social ties, and mortuary practices in the early farming era, offering a window into Neolithic life.

Chapter 5: The Middle and Late Neolithic

By Susan Greaney and Alasdair Whittle

From 3300 to 2400 BC, this period of diversity and monumental construction is dissected, with a call for a unified narrative to connect regional variations.

Chapter 6: The Early Bronze Age

By Mike Parker Pearson

The arrival of the Beaker people and metallurgy (2450–1550 BC) is detailed, with insights into burials, settlements, and Stonehenge’s redesign.

Chapter 7: The Middle and Late Bronze Age

By Joanna Brück

Covering 1550–800 BC, this chapter charts a shift from ceremonial to domestic landscapes, with new settlement patterns and ritual practices emerging.

Chapter 8: The Iron Age

By Colin Haselgrove and Meredith Laing

From 800 BC to the Roman era, this chapter explores Iron Age diversity, from hill forts to subtle Roman influences in the north.

Chapters 9 and 10: Roman Britain (Military and Civil)

By W.S. (Bill) Hanson and Michael Fulford

Hanson details the military conquest (AD 43–410), while Fulford examines civil developments—towns, roads, and trade—before Rome’s withdrawal.

Chapter 11: Early Historic Britain

By Catherine Hills

This chapter traces the post-Roman emergence of England, Scotland, and Wales, focusing on kingdom formation amidst Viking incursions.

Chapter 12: Early Medieval Celtic Britain

By Stephen T. Driscoll and Adrián Maldonado

The north and west’s transformation post-Rome is explored, with new kingdoms rising from a vortex of migration and memory.

Chapter 13: Viking Britain

By Julian D. Richards

From AD 800, Viking raids and settlements are illuminated with new evidence from metal-detecting and science, culminating in the Norman Conquest.

Chapter 14: Landscapes of the Middle Ages: Towns 1050–1500

By Ben Jervis

This chapter defines medieval towns by their economic and social roles, beyond mere agriculture, within an urban hierarchy.

Chapter 15: Landscapes of the Middle Ages: Castles, Churches, and Monasteries

By Stephen T. Driscoll and C. Pamela Graves

The architecture of power—secular and sacred—is examined, with stone buildings as enduring symbols of medieval authority.

Chapter 16: Landscapes of the Middle Ages: Rural Settlement and Manors

By Paul Stamper

From 1066 to the 1540s, this chapter details the evolution of rural life, marked by manors and the Dissolution’s land shifts.

Chapter 17: Britain from AD 1500 to 1830

By Jonathan Finch

This post-medieval period spans Reformation to railways, with colonialism’s global impact reframing Britain’s archaeology.

Chapter 18: The Spoils of Industry

By Kate Clark and Michael Nevell

The eighteenth and nineteenth centuries’ industrial boom is dissected, linking British innovation to global inequality and climate change.

Chapter 19: The Plastic Age

By John Schofield

Dubbed the “Plastic Age,” the modern era (post-1945) is defined by plastic’s ubiquity, a material boon and environmental bane.

Chapter 20: Britain’s Historic Environment

By Timothy Darvill

Darvill concludes with a meditation on the historic environment as a living, contested space shaping Britain’s identity.

---

Style, Knowledge, and Audience

The book’s style is both scholarly and approachable, with each chapter blending rigorous analysis with engaging narratives making complex ideas digestible. It assumes an introductory level of knowledge, ideal for undergraduates in archaeology or history, yet its depth and currency appeal to postgraduates and professionals. General readers with a curiosity about Britain’s past will also find it rewarding, thanks to its clear prose and vivid examples.

---

Conclusion: An Essential Tome

The Archaeology of Britain is an essential book for anyone invested in the field. Its stellar authorship, comprehensive scope, and reflection of modern archaeological trends make it a cornerstone text. As “every age gets the Archaeology it deserves,” this volume captures our era’s spirit—technologically advanced, inclusive, and vital—ensuring its place on every archaeologist’s shelf.

Seven Summer Solstitial Sunrise Sites

1. Stonehenge, Wiltshire, England

Description: Stonehenge, one of the world’s most iconic prehistoric monuments, is renowned for its precise alignment with celestial events.

Alignment: On the summer solstice, the sun rises behind the Heel Stone, casting rays into the centre of the circle. This alignment is a focal point for modern solstice celebrations, drawing thousands annually.

Evidence: The alignment is well-documented. English Heritage provides an overview.

Reference: English Heritage - Stonehenge Summer Solstice

2. Avebury (Cove), Wiltshire, England

Description: Avebury, the largest stone circle in Britain, dates to the Neolithic period and includes a complex of monuments, with the Cove in the northern inner circle being a key feature.

Alignment: The Cove is suggested to align with the summer solstice sunrise, with the sun rising in line with its northeastern orientation. While there is some debate, the evidence leans toward confirmation.

Evidence: Research from archaeoastronomical studies supports this alignment, though there is some controversy.

Reference: Darvill, T. (2023). Figures in the Rock? Experiencing the Avebury Cove at the Midsummer Sunrise.

3. Calanais Standing Stones, Isle of Lewis, Scotland

Description: Older than Stonehenge, the Calanais Standing Stones (also known as Callanish) form a cruciform pattern on the Isle of Lewis, dating to around 3000 BCE.

Alignment: The site aligns with the summer solstice sunrise and significant lunar events, reflecting its role as a ceremonial and astronomical hub.

Evidence: Historic Environment Scotland confirms the site’s astronomical significance, with solstice celebrations still held today.

Reference: Historic Environment Scotland - Calanais Standing Stones

4. Bryn Celli Ddu, Anglesey, Wales

Description: Bryn Celli Ddu is a Neolithic passage tomb on Anglesey, constructed around 3000 BCE, known for its well-preserved chamber.

Alignment: The summer solstice sunrise illuminates the inner chamber, a deliberate design highlighting its spiritual importance.

Evidence: Cadw, the Welsh heritage organization, and archaeological reports verify this alignment.

Reference: Cadw - Bryn Celli Ddu

5. Boscawen-ûn Stone Circle, Cornwall, England

Description: Located in West Penwith, Boscawen-ûn is a late Neolithic to early Bronze Age stone circle with a central monolith featuring rock art.

Alignment: The summer solstice sunrise illuminates the rock art on the central monolith, with additional alignment to the winter solstice sunrise.

Evidence: The Cornish Ancient Sites Protection Network and archaeoastronomical studies confirm these alignments.

Reference: Cornish Ancient Sites Protection Network

6. Midsummer Boulevard, Milton Keynes, England

Description: Milton Keynes, a planned city built in the 1960s, incorporates a nod to ancient solstice traditions in its urban design. Midsummer Boulevard is the city’s main street, running southwest to northeast.

Alignment: The boulevard is deliberately aligned with the summer solstice sunrise, with the sun rising at its northeastern end on June 20–22. City planners consulted the Greenwich Observatory to adjust the urban grid for this precise alignment.

Significance: This modern “temple to the sun” transforms an urban thoroughfare into a celestial marker, celebrated in the 1970s with bonfires and music. It remains a unique example of solstice-inspired urban planning.

Reference: BBC Radio 4 - How Ancient Civilisations Helped Build Our Modern Cities

[](https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/30Jxg80pHnf4KrPfxBFXsCG/how-ancient-civilisations-helped-build-our-modern-cities)

7. Soulton Long Barrow, Shropshire, England

Description: Opened in 2017 near Wem, this modern long barrow, designed by Sacred Stones Ltd., is a columbarium and ceremonial space inspired by Neolithic architecture.

Alignment: The barrow is aligned with the summer solstice sunrise, with its entrance and chambers oriented to capture the first rays of the solstice sun, similar to Bryn Celli Ddu.

Significance: It offers a contemporary space for memorials and solstice celebrations, blending ancient design with modern spiritual needs, and is part of a growing trend of new long barrows.

Reference: Sacred Stones - Soulton Long Barrow

A Response to the WHS Setting SPD

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

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

Date: June 10, 2025

Dear Wiltshire Council,

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

Background on Silage Towers

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

Context within the WHS

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

Concerns with the SPD

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

Recommendations

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

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

Conclusion

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

Yours sincerely,

Tim Daw
All Cannings, Wiltshire
June 10, 2025

References

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

Stonehenge - the original NIMBY

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

Dear Planning Committee,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reference:

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

Seafaring megaliths: robust evidence for Neolithic monolith transport

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

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

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

ISSN 0305-4403,

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

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

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

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

 
Key Scientific Methods Used

Geoarchaeological Characterisation and Provenance Analysis

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

Traceological Analysis Using Photogrammetry and Morphometrics

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

Digital Image Analysis

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

Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) Dating

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

Interpretation and Broader Context

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

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

Conclusion

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