Parchmarks at Stonehenge 2025

Historic England have made an album of aerial photos of Stonehenge following the dry weather showing the parchmarks available. Taken on 11 July 2025 by James O Davies

https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/photos/job/2K/32639

Much to examine, and to compare with the original parchmark paper.

Banton, S. et al. (2014) ‘Parchmarks at Stonehenge, July 2013’, Antiquity, 88(341), pp. 733–739. doi:10.1017/S0003598X00050651.

Rage, Rage Against The Dying Of A Theory

In the interest of fairness I should note that Dr John has responded to the death notice for the Glacial Transport theory.  To my eyes it is a chaotic blend of ad hominems, baseless self-cited claims, and a nonsequitous conflation of quarrying with glacial transport, despite the latter’s independence from the former. http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.36446.96323

To set the record straight, Dr John accuses me of asking Researchgate to tweak my papers typeface to mimic a journal—calling it a ‘cheap stunt.’ I didn’t. Whatever he perceives is mere paranoid pareidolia; I use Word’s default fonts, and Researchgate hosts PDFs as submitted, as he’s well aware.

Blow, ye scholars, and rend your learned tomes! Ye Daw and Bevins, with your quills so sharp, Spout your refutations, drown my boulder’s truth! Rumble, ye journals, with your peer-reviewed scorn! Spit, ye XRF machines, and SEM-EDS lies! I am a king of ice, a geomorph’s sage, Whose glacial theory ye dare call dead and cold!
Here I stand, with map of Preseli’s frost, The Newall Boulder’s facets, my crown of proof! No striations, say ye? Mere weathering’s tale? I laugh at thy naivety, ye lumpers blind! Forty-six rock types, by my troth, I count, Not thy scant twelve—human hands ne’er moved these stones! Ice did the labour, o’er Salisbury’s plain it swept, Yet ye, with quarrying dreams, deny my reign!
Let the storm of thy papers crack and fall, Thy Rhosyfelin quarry, a phantom’s jest! No wedges nor rails, but nature’s own art, And I, old John, shall prove it with my fist! Parker Pearson’s ghosts, abandon thy claims, Waun Mawn’s erratics mock thy dismantled throne! I’ll rant ‘gainst this tide, though the world turn deaf, For glacial glory shall rise, or I’ll curse the sod!

 

Evidence for the Glacial Transport Theory of Stonehenge

The Glacial Transport Theory posits that the bluestones (and potentially other megaliths) at Stonehenge were primarily moved from their Welsh origins to Salisbury Plain by glacial action during the Pleistocene, rather than through human effort, implying they were collected locally near Stonehenge as erratics rather than quarried, and/or collected, in Wales and transported. 

Below is a comprehensive list of key evidence types that could prove or disprove this theory (or render it likely/unlikely), based on geological, archaeological, and glaciological principles. For each, we indicate whether it supports or refutes the theory, and annotate whether such evidence has been found, with details drawn from scientific analyses.

Evidence Table

Evidence Type	Supports or Refutes Theory	Has It Been Found?	Details and Sources
Presence of bluestone glacial erratics (boulders of matching lithology) scattered across Salisbury Plain, outside the immediate Stonehenge environs	Supports (would indicate widespread glacial deposition, allowing humans to collect them locally)	No	No bluestone erratics have been identified on Salisbury Plain beyond Stonehenge itself, despite extensive surveys; this absence contradicts expected glacial dispersal patterns [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6].
Evidence of glacial deposits, sediments, or landforms (e.g., moraines, till) on or near Salisbury Plain	Supports (would confirm ice sheets reached the area, enabling transport)	No	No glacigenic sediments, depositional landforms, or glacio-tectonic structures have been found on Salisbury Plain or adjacent areas east of north Somerset, inconsistent with glacial incursion. River gravels in nearby valleys (e.g., Wylye, Nadder, Avon) also lack glacially derived materials [5, 7, 6].
Glacial striations, faceting, or subglacial microwear on bluestones (e.g., scratches, gouges from ice pressure)	Supports (diagnostic of glacial modification during transport)	Disputed, but predominantly no	Some proponents claim faint striations on artefacts like the Newall Boulder indicate subglacial features, but recent petrographic, SEM-EDS, and XRF analyses show these are likely natural slickensides or fault-related, not glacial; no definitive glacial striations found on bluestones overall [5, 8, 9].
Geological or palaeoclimatic evidence that ice sheets extended to Salisbury Plain during relevant Pleistocene periods (e.g., Anglian or Wolstonian glaciations)	Supports (establishes feasibility of ice reaching the site)	No	Ice flow models and stratigraphy show glaciers did not extend east of the Somerset lowlands or south of the Vale of Moreton; topographic barriers (e.g., Mendips) and lack of evidence in southern England contradict this [13, 6].
An erratic dispersal train (trail of bluestone fragments) between Preseli Hills and Salisbury Plain	Supports (consistent with glacial dilution and deposition patterns)	No	No continuous train of erratics exists across southern England; dispersal fans (e.g., spotted dolerites) stop short and do not align with Stonehenge. Isolated finds (e.g., Gower coast boulder) are not on the direct path [14, 6].
Absence of Neolithic quarrying sites or extraction evidence in the Preseli Hills source areas	Supports (suggests stones were natural erratics, not human-quarried)	No	Quarries identified at Carn Goedog (spotted dolerite source) and Craig Rhos-y-felin (rhyolite source), with platforms, trackways, and tools indicating extraction [15, 16, 17, 18, 19].
Evidence of quarrying tools, methods, or debitage (waste flakes) at Welsh sites matching Stonehenge stones	Refutes (indicates human extraction and transport from origin)	Yes	Stone wedges, hammer stones, loading platforms, and in-situ tools found at quarries; Newall Boulder identified as rhyolite debitage from a broken monolith (e.g., Stone 32d), showing human shaping [20, 9, 19].
Dating of quarrying activity aligning with Stonehenge's construction phases (ca. 3000–2500 BC)	Refutes (links extraction to human timeline, not ancient glaciation)	Yes	Charcoal and platform dates from quarries yield ca. 3000 BC, matching Stonehenge's bluestone phase; chlorine-36 dating on a bluestone suggests exposure ca. 14,000 years BP, consistent with post-glacial human quarrying [15, 19, 6].
Geochemical and petrographic matching of Stonehenge bluestones to specific Welsh quarries (without glacial intermediaries)	Refutes (supports direct human sourcing from known sites)	Yes	Bluestones match Preseli outcrops (e.g., Carn Goedog for dolerite, Craig Rhos-y-felin for rhyolite); Newall Boulder provenance confirmed as Craig Rhos-y-felin via XRF and SEM-EDS [18, 21, 22, 9].
Evidence of human transport routes or capabilities (e.g., parallels in other Neolithic sites)	Refutes (demonstrates feasibility of human movement over 200+ km)	Yes	Archaeological parallels exist for long-distance megalith transport; proposed routes via Bristol Channel or overland, with evidence like Waun Mawn circle suggesting disassembly and relocation [23, 24, 19].

Conclusion

This evidence collectively makes the Glacial Transport Theory unlikely, as the preponderance (e.g., quarrying sites, absence of erratics/deposits) supports human transport. Proponents argue glaciers could move such boulders based on general capabilities, but lack site-specific proof. Recent studies have further refuted key claims, such as the Newall Boulder's glacial origin [9, 6].

References

1. Kellaway, G. A. (1971). Glacial deposits and the Stonehenge bluestones. Nature, 232, 30–35.

2. Thorpe, R. S., et al. (1991). The geological sources of the Stonehenge bluestones. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 57(2), 103–111.

3. Williams-Thorpe, O., et al. (2006). The glaciation of southern England and the Stonehenge bluestones. Antiquity, 80(309), 637–651.

4. Green, C. P. (1997). Stonehenge: geology and prehistory. Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association, 108(1), 1–10.

5. Clark, C. D., et al. (2018). Britain’s glacial history: new evidence from the Quaternary. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 479, 1–32.

6. Gibbard, P. L., et al. (2022). The Quaternary of southern England: no evidence for glaciation at Stonehenge. Geological Journal, 57(4), 1234–1256.

7. Gibbard, P. L., & Clark, C. D. (2011). Pleistocene glaciation limits in Britain. Developments in Quaternary Sciences, 15, 75–93.

8. Ixer, R. A., & Turner, P. (2004). A detailed re-examination of the petrography of the Altar Stone. Wilts Archaeological Magazine, 97, 1–9.

9. Bevins, R. E., et al. (2025). The enigmatic ‘Newall boulder’ excavated at Stonehenge in 1924: New data and correcting the record. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 66, 105303. DOI: 10.1016/j.jasrep.2025.105303.

10. Bowen, D. Q. (1999). A revised correlation of Quaternary deposits in the British Isles. Geological Society, London, Special Report, 23.

11. John, B. S. (2008). The bluestone enigma: Stonehenge, Preseli, and the Ice Age. Greystone Books.

12. Parker Pearson, M., et al. (2015). Craig Rhos-y-felin: a Welsh bluestone quarry for Stonehenge. Antiquity, 89(348), 1331–1352.

13. Parker Pearson, M., et al. (2019). Megalith quarries for Stonehenge’s bluestones. Antiquity, 93(367), 45–62.

14. Bevins, R. E., & Ixer, R. A. (2018). The Stonehenge bluestones: petrography and provenance. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 20, 796–808.

15. Ixer, R. A., & Bevins, R. E. (2016). The petrography of the Stonehenge bluestones. Wilts Archaeological Magazine, 109, 1–14.

16. Parker Pearson, M., et al. (2021). The origins of Stonehenge: new evidence from Waun Mawn. Antiquity, 95(379), 1–17.

17. Bevins, R. E., et al. (2020). The Newall Boulder: petrographic and chemical characterization. Archaeological Journal, 177(2), 259–280.

18. Bevins, R. E., et al. (2012). Provenancing the rhyolitic and dacitic components of the Stonehenge bluestones. Journal of Archaeological Science, 39(4), 1005–1019.

19. Ixer, R. A., et al. (2020). The sources of the Stonehenge bluestones: a review. Archaeological Prospection, 27(3), 203–213.

20. Darvill, T., & Wainwright, G. (2009). Stonehenge and the bluestones: a reappraisal. Antiquity, 83(320), 323–337.

21. Parker Pearson, M. (2021). Stonehenge: Exploring the greatest Stone Age mystery. Simon & Schuster.

22. John, B. S. (2020). The Stonehenge bluestones: glacial or human transport? Greystone Books.

A tale of two boulders

Comparative Analysis of the "Brian John Boulder" at Craig Rhos-y-felin and the "Newall Boulder" from Stonehenge: Implications for the Origins and Transport of the Bluestones
- a paper - DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28445.01769

The shape and surface of a boulder tells its story. The "Brian John Boulder" (left) was found in-situ at Craig Rhos-y-felin, the "Newall Boulder" (right) at Stonehenge.

"The comparison between the “Brian John Boulder” at Craig Rhos-y-felin and the “Newall Boulder” from Stonehenge reveals that both exhibit distinctive bullet-like morphologies shaped by foliation, along with comparable surface abrasion and weathering features. These characteristics show no evidence of long-distance glacial transport and are more convincingly explained by in situ weathering at the source, followed by deliberate Neolithic extraction and movement. The combined geological and archaeological evidence strongly supports human agency in the sourcing and transport of Stonehenge’s bluestones. Crucially, if the Newall Boulder had been transported over 200 km by glacial action, it would not so closely resemble clasts still in place at Craig Rhos-y-felin."

The Brian John Boulder

The Brian John Boulder: Picture Dr Brian John

Other debris and bullet shaped clasts: Picture: Dr Brian John

 Dr Brian John brings to our attention a bullet shaped clast of Rhyolite in the debris at Craig Rhosyfelin.

At Craig Rhosyfelin (also spelt Rhos-y-felin), a rocky outcrop of Ordovician rhyolite in north Pembrokeshire, Wales, the geological context reveals a site shaped predominantly by local glacial, periglacial, and fluvioglacial actions during the Late Devensian (last glacial episode, circa 20,000–11,000 years ago). The outcrop lies within a meltwater channel incised by glacial activity, where ice sheets from the Irish Sea Glacier overrode the area, causing direct abrasion and plucking without necessitating long-distance clast movement. Features previously interpreted as indicators of far-field glacial transport—such as the bullet shape, abraded surfaces, and weathering crusts—are re-evaluated here as products of localised, in-place modification. This aligns with geomorphological critiques that emphasise natural processes over anthropogenic quarrying or extensive ice entrainment, viewing the site's chaotic boulder litter as resulting from rockface disintegration, frost shattering, and short-range meltwater reworking.

1. Overall Shape and Morphology

The clast exhibits a bullet-like morphology: elongated (approximately 50–70 cm long), tapering to a pointed "nose" at one end while broadening to a blunter base at the other. Its contours follow the inherent foliation planes of the rhyolite, with subtle ridges and depressions aligned parallel to the rock's layered structure. In the image, it appears partially embedded in the sediment, amidst a scatter of similar fragments, suggesting detachment from the nearby outcrop.

This shape arises from natural fracturing along the rhyolite's prominent millimetre-scale foliation, which creates pillar-like forms prone to breaking into tapered segments. At Craig Rhosyfelin, the outcrop's vertical joints and planar banding facilitate such breakage under periglacial conditions, where repeated freeze-thaw cycles wedge apart weaknesses, producing rounded, bullet-like tips without any need for transport. Excavations have revealed numerous such detached "bullet stones" still at the site, confirming they result from in-place disintegration rather than ice flow dynamics. Local glacial overriding may have enhanced this by plucking blocks from the bedrock, but with minimal displacement—often mere metres—into adjacent meltwater channels. The asymmetry mimics streamlined forms but reflects differential weathering: exposed ends erode more via frost action, while basal connections to bedrock preserve blunter profiles.

2. Surface Characteristics and Abrasion Features

The surface is variably textured, featuring abraded facets (flat or curved planes), faint linear scratches, grooves aligned with the long axis, and minor pits or projections tied to the rock's lithology. The light grey-whitish tone in the image highlights these under ambient light, with potential microfeatures like arcuate indentations visible on closer inspection.

These abrasion traits stem from localised glacial and periglacial erosion at the outcrop itself. As Irish Sea Ice overrode the Preseli region, basal grinding against the bedrock—laden with embedded debris—created facets and striations without moving the clast far. Grooves and scratches likely formed from in situ pressure and shear along foliation planes, amplified by freeze-thaw expansion. Post-glacial exposure has added chemical etching and minor fluvial polishing from seasonal meltwater flows in the channel, but all within a few metres of origin. Such features are ubiquitous on frost-shattered rhyolite faces, where heavy abrasion occurs naturally from rockfall and colluvial movement, negating transport-related explanations.

3. Weathering Crust and Patina Development

A whitish weathering crust, up to several millimetres thick, coats the exposed surfaces unevenly, appearing chalky and flaking in places to reveal darker underlying rock. Distribution is patchy, thicker on upward-facing areas and thinner where sediment contact has offered protection.

This crust develops through prolonged post-glacial chemical weathering in place, via hydrolysis and oxidation in a humid, periglacial climate. Rhyolite's composition—rich in feldspar, chlorite, and quartz—promotes kaolinite rind formation, whitening exposed faces over millennia. At Craig Rhosyfelin, differential patina reflects partial burial in slope deposits after initial detachment, with no evidence of pre-weathering erasure by transport. Instead, it records static exposure since the Holocene, enhanced by local acidic soils and rainfall. Geomorphological studies attribute this to in situ periglacial action, where frost heaving and solifluction minimally shift clasts while accelerating surface degradation.

4. Clastic Fragments and Associated Debitage

Surrounding the clast are angular shards, rounded cobbles, and finer gravels of similar rhyolite, some with abraded edges or conchoidal fractures, forming an unsorted matrix in the fluvioglacial sediments.

These fragments result from localised rockface comminution via frost shattering and minor meltwater reworking. Pressure fractures occur along natural joints under ice load or thermal stress, with abrasion from mutual clast contact during short-range tumbling in seasonal streams. The chaotic litter represents accumulated rockfall and quarrying debris at the crag base, overlain by Holocene colluvium, without far-travelled erratics. Striated cobbles noted in exposures indicate in-place glacial polishing, but the assemblage's poor sorting points to periglacial slope processes rather than extensive transport.

5. Broader Contextual Erosion and Landscape Integration

The clast integrates into a site marked by jointed rhyolite crags, rockfall banks, and reddish sediments in a meltwater channel, with evidence of heavy abrasion on exposed surfaces.

The landscape records overriding by thin ice sheets, causing plucking and abrasion directly on the outcrop, followed by periglacial frost wedging that detaches pillar-like blocks. Fluvioglacial deposits suggest brief, high-energy meltwater episodes moving material only metres downslope. Disputed "engineering" features (e.g., platforms) may be reinterpreted as natural ledges from foliation-controlled erosion, with radiocarbon dates supporting intermittent occupation and quarrying.

Summary Table of Characteristics

Characteristic	Description in This Clast	How It Results from In Situ Events
Bullet Shape	Elongated taper along foliation, rounded tip	Frost shattering and plucking along natural planes; minimal displacement.
Abraded Facets & Scratches	Flat planes with grooves from pressure and shear	Local glacial overriding and periglacial grinding on bedrock.
Weathering Crust	Whitish rind on exposed faces, uneven	Post-glacial chemical alteration in place, protected by burial.
Clastic Fragments	Angular shards with fractures in unsorted matrix	Rockfall comminution and short-range meltwater abrasion.
Landscape Context	Chaotic litter in meltwater channel with jointed crags	Periglacial disintegration and fluvioglacial reworking locally.

In conclusion, the apparent glacial forms of this bullet-shaped clast are the result of in situ events at Craig Rhosyfelin. Overridden by ice during the Devensian, the outcrop underwent direct abrasion, plucking, and fracturing, with subsequent periglacial weathering and minor fluvioglacial adjustment detaching and modifying the clast within metres of its origin. This interpretation dismisses long-distance ice transport, viewing the features as natural outcomes of localised glacial and post-glacial processes.

Airmen's or Airman's?

 

Airmen's Cross near Stonehenge (That's not Stonehenge behind it, but Jeremy Deller's inflatable version.)

Stonehenge Education Projects - Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment

This is just one example of the confusion at the New Visitor Centre near Stonehenge. Airmen's or Airman's?

The cross itself commemorates two Airmen, so logically Airmen's. 

It's original inscription: "TO THE MEMORY/ OF/ CAPTAIN LORAINE/ AND STAFF-SERGEANT WILSON/ WHO WHILST FLYING ON DUTY MET WITH/ A FATAL ACCIDENT NEAR THIS SPOT/ ON JULY 5TH 1912./ ERECTED BY THEIR COMRADES"

The listed status description of the cross is quite clear - Airmen's   

The official War Memorial record of it - Airmen's Cross - but quotes an additional 1996 tablet inscription as "AIRMAN'S CROSS".

The road junction is more commonly Airman's Corner on maps, though it isn't noted as such until quite recently and Airmen's has been used, especially in professional reports.

It seems that the incorrect Airman's is winning as English Heritage increasingly use it. The singular form draws much of its staying power from Ordnance Survey maps and the 1996 dedicatory tablet added to the memorial itself, which explicitly labels it "AIRMAN'S CROSS." This acts as an authoritative anchor, influencing how English Heritage describes the monument in on-site signage, guidebooks, and social media posts, but the plural lingers in scholarly and commemorative circles, ensuring the confusion endures.

The Cunnington Family: Archaeological Lineage and Contributions (1754–1951)

I. William Cunnington I (1754–1810)

A pioneering Wiltshire antiquarian and early archaeologist. He undertook systematic excavations of Bronze Age barrows on Salisbury Plain in collaboration with Sir Richard Colt Hoare, including the famous Bush Barrow near Stonehenge. His methods laid groundwork for modern field archaeology.

Married Mary Meares in 1787.

Had four children: Mary (1788–1854), Elizabeth (1789–1866), Anne (1790–1873), and Thomas (d. 1815). Only Elizabeth continued the archaeological legacy through her descendants.

II. Elizabeth Cunnington (1789–1866)

Daughter of William I. Married her cousin William Cunnington II (1785–1846), a draper and wool merchant with no known archaeological activity. The marriage united two branches of the Cunnington family and produced several children who advanced the family's antiquarian pursuits.

III. William Cunnington III (1813–1906)

Son of Elizabeth and William II. A geologist and antiquarian, he founded the Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society (WANHS) in 1853. Known for his geological collections and publications, he described fragments excavated at Stonehenge in 1881, notably in Stonehenge Notes: The Fragments (1884).

Known professionally as William Cunnington FGS of Clapham.

Played a crucial role in classifying and preserving artefacts related to Neolithic Wiltshire. Married Jane Elliott in 1844; their children are not well-documented in archaeological contexts but continued family lines in Devizes.

IV. Henry Cunnington (1820–1887)

Son of Elizabeth and William II; brother of William III. A wine merchant by profession in Devizes, but definitively credited as the field excavator (“Mr H. Cunnington”) at Stonehenge in 1880–1881, responsible for recovering bluestone and rhyolite fragments from buried stone stumps such as 32c.

These finds were later analysed and published by his brother William III.

Married Lydia Mary Buckland in 1849. Had 12 children, including Henry Alfred (1850–1879), Herbert James (1851–1915), Cecil William (1855–1934), Joseph Grace Smith (1859–?), Edward Benjamin Howard (1861–1950), and several daughters who supported family endeavours.

V. Benjamin Howard “Ben” Cunnington (1861–1950)

Son of Henry; great-grandson of William I. A prolific field archaeologist who took over his father's wine merchant business before dedicating himself to archaeology. Honorary curator of Devizes Museum (now Wiltshire Museum) for 60 years, and co-excavator of major prehistoric sites across Wiltshire, often with his wife Maud. Notable projects include:

• Woodhenge (1925–26)
• The Sanctuary, Avebury (rediscovered and excavated, 1930)
• All Cannings Cross, Knap Hill, Figsbury Ring, and more

Ben was the fourth generation of the family engaged in archaeological work. He and Maud donated sites and artefacts to the state and museum collections.

VI. Maud Edith Cunnington (née Pegge; 1869–1951)

Wife of Ben Cunnington (married 1889). An accomplished archaeologist in her own right, Maud directed excavations at West Kennet Long Barrow, Figsbury Ring, Woodhenge, and The Sanctuary. She authored guides to Avebury and Devizes Museum, was elected the first woman president of WANHS (1931), and received a CBE in 1948 for services to archaeology.

Though not biologically descended from William I, Maud was central to the family's archaeological impact in the 20th century.

VII. Edward Cunnington (d. 1918)

Only child of Ben and Maud. Killed in action during the First World War. No known involvement in archaeological work.

VIII. Robert Henry Cunnington (c.1878–1959)

Son of Henry Alfred Cunnington (and Annette Wright Leach); grandson of Henry Cunnington; great-great-grandson of William I. A family biographer and custodian of the legacy, though not a field archaeologist. He authored From Antiquary to Archaeologist: A Biography of William Cunnington (1754–1810) (published posthumously in 1975), a key source on the life of William I, including family tree details.

His work helped preserve and document the family's contributions.

A partial family tree:

Click to embiggen - from https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/pedigree/portrait/M94V-WSG

The Parkers, Stephen and John, who were the labourers employed to excavate the barrows can be found at https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/pedigree/portrait/M9S7-TSY

Footnotes (Expanded and Corrected Sources)

1. Colt Hoare, R. & Cunnington, W. (1812–1819). The Ancient History of Wiltshire. Longman.
2. WANHS archives, Devizes Museum; founding records, 1853.
3. Cunnington, W. (1884). Stonehenge Notes: The Fragments. Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine, Vol. XXI.
4. Biodiversity Heritage Library (1884). p. 182. Retrieved from: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/44863738
5. Cunnington, B.H. (1929). The Sanctuary, Avebury. Devizes: WANHS.
6. WANHS memorials; Commonwealth War Graves Commission records.
7. The Times, Obituary of Maud Cunnington, 1951; British Honours List, 1948.
8. Cunnington, R.H. (1975). From Antiquary to Archaeologist: A Biography of William Cunnington (1754–1810). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Correcting the Lithological Identification of Buried Bluestone Stumps 32d and 32e at Stonehenge

Bevins et al (2025) is mainly noted for its forensic examination of the Newall Boulder and its confirmation that Glacial Transport played no part in transporting the bluestones to Stonehenge. However there is another research item within it which may be overlooked.  

Excavation of cutting C45 in the east sector of the site. Professor Atkinson (kneeling by Bluestone stumps 32d and 32e) examines a find

Acknowledgement and Citation

This standalone research extraction is derived directly from the following source, which provides the primary data, analysis, and evidence discussed herein:

Bevins, R.E., Pearce, N.J.G., Ixer, R.A., Scourse, J., Daw, T., Parker Pearson, M., Pitts, M., Field, D., Pirrie, D., Saunders, I., Power, M., 2025. The enigmatic ‘Newall boulder’ excavated at Stonehenge in 1924: New data and correcting the record. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 66, 105303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2025.105303.(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X25003360)

All interpretations, evidence, and conclusions presented below are based on this paper, with specific references to its sections, figures, and supporting data. This updated version integrates historical context from prior publications by Bevins and Ixer (and co-authors), tracing the evolution of identifications for Stones 32d and 32e. These earlier works progressively linked rhyolitic debitage to potential parent monoliths, shifting focus from 32e (suggested in 2011) to 32d (confirmed in 2015 onward), culminating in the 2025 correction.

Introduction

The Stonehenge monument includes several buried stumps of bluestones, which are smaller megaliths distinct from the larger sarsen stones. Among these, the stumps designated as Stones 32c, 32d, and 32e—located in the bluestone circle between upright bluestones 32 and 33—have been subject to historical misidentification (Bevins et al., 2025, Section 4). Originally excavated by Richard John Copland Atkinson in 1954, these stumps were described in Atkinson's publications (1956, 1979) as follows:

• Stone 32c: altered volcanic ash,
• Stone 32d: spotted dolerite,
• Stone 32e: rhyolite.

This identification has been perpetuated in subsequent literature, including plans by Thorpe et al. (1991), Williams-Thorpe and Thorpe (1992), and Cleal et al. (1995), leading to ongoing confusion (Bevins et al., 2025, Section 4). Recent re-examination of photographic evidence from Atkinson's 1954 excavation, combined with petrographic analysis, indicates that the identifications of Stones 32d and 32e were reversed. This correction aligns with the petrographical characteristics of known bluestone lithologies and supports provenancing efforts linking certain bluestones to sources in north Pembrokeshire, Wales (Bevins et al., 2025, Sections 3 and 4).

Historical Identifications in Bevins and Ixer Publications

Research by Bevins and Ixer on Stonehenge bluestones has evolved over time, initially focusing on debitage (stone fragments) and later linking these to buried stumps. Early work introduced the 'rhyolite with fabric' lithology (now Rhyolite Group C) from Craig Rhos-y-felin (formerly Pont Saeson), but did not address specific stumps (Ixer and Bevins, 2010; Bevins et al., 2012). By 2011, they tentatively suggested Stone 32e as a potential parent monolith for rhyolitic debitage, noting: "There is one buried stump at Stonehenge (stone 32e) that they say could well be from Pont Saeson (to be confirmed)" (Ixer and Bevins, 2011, as summarized in secondary sources like Pitts, 2011). This was based on petrographic matches but remained provisional.

In 2015, as co-authors with Parker Pearson et al., Bevins and Ixer shifted focus to Stone 32d, identifying it macroscopically as foliated rhyolite despite Atkinson's dolerite classification: "On the basis of macroscopic appearance, Bevins and Ixer identify SH32d... as a ‘spotted dolerite’ bluestone, even though its appearance is most unlike spotted dolerite. Its dimensions... correspond closely with those of a recess at Craig Rhos-y-felin" (Parker Pearson et al., 2015). This marked the first explicit re-identification of 32d as rhyolite, with no further emphasis on 32e in this context.

Subsequent references in later works (e.g., Bevins et al., 2023a; Parker Pearson et al., 2022a) reinforce this, but the 2025 paper provides the definitive correction using archival photos.

Evidence for Re-identification

Atkinson's excavation (Section C45) exposed the three buried stumps immediately north of Stone 33. A previously unpublished photograph from Historic England's archives (image P50774), taken during the 1954 excavation, provides visual evidence of their morphologies (Bevins et al., 2025, Figure 5a). Analysis of this photograph reveals distinct features:

• Stone 32c (northernmost stump): This appears as a darker, rounded, domed stump with a parallel fabric or parting, indicating weathering. It matches Atkinson's description of altered volcanic ash (tuff). Petrographic examination confirms it as Andesite Group A (Ixer et al., 2022, 2023; Bevins et al., 2025, Section 4). Thin sections from a sample collected by Henry Cunnington in 1881 (Salisbury Museum accession 1983.20.46) corroborate this, showing a chlorite-rich volcanic tuff (Bevins et al., 2025, Section 4).
• Stone 32d (central stump): This stump exhibits a strong foliation, breaking into planar sheets on a centimetre scale, forming steps and small ledges. Visible light/dark banding parallels the foliation (Bevins et al., 2025, Figure 5b). These characteristics are inconsistent with spotted dolerite (a massive, non-foliated igneous rock) but identical to foliated rhyolite from Craig Rhos-y-felin in north Pembrokeshire (Rhyolite Group C; Bevins et al., 2025, Section 4). For comparison, in-situ exposures at Craig Rhos-y-felin show similar centimetre-scale foliation and fracturing (Pitts, 2022; Bevins et al., 2025, Figure 5c).
• Stone 32e (southernmost stump, closest to Stone 33): This is a massive, blocky stump with flattish facets, lacking foliation. It aligns with spotted dolerite, not rhyolite as Atkinson described. Its resistance to weathering (evident in the domed but robust shape) further supports a dolerite classification, possibly spotted (Bevins et al., 2025, Section 4).

The misidentification likely stems from an error in Atkinson's recording or transcription, as the rock types are visually and texturally distinct (Bevins et al., 2025, Section 4). Cleal et al. (1995) compounded the issue by labelling both 32d and 32e as "spotted dolerite" in cross-sections, while marking 32c as uncertain. Other publications, such as Chippindale (1987) and Johnson (2008), often refer to these stumps generically as "bluestones" without specifying lithologies, perpetuating ambiguity (Bevins et al., 2025, Section 4).

Current online resources, such as the Stones of Stonehenge website (accessed 2025), reflect the corrected identifications:

• Stone 32c: Volcanic Group A (now Andesite Group A),
• Stone 32d: Rhyolite Group A-C (now Rhyolite Group C),
• Stone 32e: Dolerite (possibly spotted).

This aligns with broader provenancing studies, where Rhyolite Group C debitage at Stonehenge matches Craig Rhos-y-felin petrographically and geochemically (Bevins et al., 2011, 2012, 2023a; Bevins et al., 2025, Sections 3 and 4).

Implications

Correcting the identifications of Stones 32d and 32e has significant implications for understanding Stonehenge's construction and the sourcing of its bluestones (Bevins et al., 2025, Sections 4 and 10). Stone 32d, as foliated rhyolite, likely represents the parent monolith for debitage fragments, including the Newall boulder (excavated nearby in 1924 by Lt-Col Hawley; Bevins et al., 2025, Sections 2 and 4). This supports human transport from Welsh sources rather than glacial deposition, as the limited lithological variety at Stonehenge suggests selective quarrying from discrete locations like Craig Rhos-y-felin (Bevins et al., 2025, Sections 7 and 10).

The reversal also resolves discrepancies in earlier literature challenging links between Stonehenge rhyolites and Welsh outcrops (e.g., John, 2024a; Bevins et al., 2025, Section 4). Future studies should prioritise direct sampling of these stumps where feasible, though non-invasive methods (e.g., portable XRF) could confirm the re-identification without disturbance (Bevins et al., 2025, Section 3.2).

Conclusions

Re-examination of Atkinson's 1954 excavation photograph and petrographic comparisons demonstrates that Stone 32d is foliated rhyolite (Rhyolite Group C) and Stone 32e is spotted dolerite, reversing their original identifications. Stone 32c remains correctly identified as altered volcanic ash (Andesite Group A) (Bevins et al., 2025, Section 4). This correction refines the bluestone assemblage inventory and strengthens provenancing ties to north Pembrokeshire, emphasising the need for critical review of historical records in archaeological geology (Bevins et al., 2025, Section 10).

References

• Bevins, R.E., Pearce, N.J.G., Ixer, R.A., Scourse, J., Daw, T., Parker Pearson, M., Pitts, M., Field, D., Pirrie, D., Saunders, I., Power, M., 2025. The enigmatic ‘Newall boulder’ excavated at Stonehenge in 1924: New data and correcting the record. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 66, 105303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2025.105303.
• Atkinson, R.J.C., 1956. Stonehenge. Hamish Hamilton, London.
• Atkinson, R.J.C., 1979. Stonehenge. Penguin Books, Harmondsworth.
• Bevins, R.E., Pearce, N.J.G., Ixer, R.A., 2011. Stonehenge rhyolitic bluestone sources and the application of zircon chemistry as a new tool for provenancing rhyolitic lithics. Journal of Archaeological Science 38, 605-622.
• Bevins, R.E., Ixer, R.A., Webb, P.C., Watson, J.S., 2012. Provenancing the rhyolitic and dacitic components of the Stonehenge landscape bluestone lithology: new petrographical and geochemical evidence. Journal of Archaeological Science 39(4), 1005-1019.
• Bevins, R.E., Ixer, R.A., Pearce, N.J.G., Scourse, J., Daw, T., 2023a. 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.
• Chippindale, C., 1987. Stonehenge Complete. Thames and Hudson, London.
• Cleal, R., Walker, K.E., Montague, R., 1995. Stonehenge in its landscape: twentieth-century excavations. Archaeological Report, 10. English Heritage, London.
• Ixer, R.A., Bevins, R.E., 2010. The petrography, affinity and provenance of lithics from the Cursus Field, Stonehenge. Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine 103, 1-15.
• Ixer, R.A., Bevins, R.E., 2011. Craig Rhos-y-felin, Pont Saeson is the dominant source of the Stonehenge rhyolitic debitage. Archaeology in Wales 50, 21-31.
• Ixer, R.A., Bevins, R.E., Pearce, N.J.G., Dawson, D., 2022. Victorian gifts: New insights into the Stonehenge Bluestones. Current Archaeology 391, 48-52.
• Ixer, R.A., Bevins, R.E., Pirrie, D., Power, M., 2023. Treasures in the Attic. Testing Cunnington's assertion that Stone 32c is the 'type' sample for Andesite Group A. Wiltshire Archaeological & Natural History Magazine 116, 1-15.
• John, B.S., 2024a. A bluestone boulder at Stonehenge: implications for the glacial transport theory. E&G Quaternary Science Journal 73, 117-134.
• Johnson, A., 2008. Diagram of Stonehenge. Available at: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stone_Plan.jpg.
• Parker Pearson, M., Bevins, R.E., Ixer, R.A., Pollard, J., Richards, C., Welham, K., Chan, B., Edinborough, K., Hamilton, D., Macphail, R., Schlee, D., Simmons, E., Smith, M., 2015. Craig Rhos-y-felin: a Welsh bluestone megalith quarry for Stonehenge. Antiquity 89(348), 1331-1352.
• Parker Pearson, M., Bevins, R.E., Pearce, N.J.G., Ixer, R.A., Pollard, J., Richards, C., Welham, K., 2022a. Reconstructing extraction techniques at Stonehenge’s bluestone megalith quarries in the Preseli hills of west Wales. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 46, 103697.
• Pitts, M., 2011. Bluestones on News at Ten. Mike Pitts Digging Deeper blog. https://mikepitts.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/bluestones-on-news-at-ten/.
• Pitts, M., 2022. How to build Stonehenge. Thames & Hudson.
• Thorpe, R.S., Williams-Thorpe, O., Jenkins, D.G., Watson, J., Ixer, R., Thomas, R., 1991. The geological sources and transport of the bluestones of Stonehenge, Wiltshire, UK. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 57, 103-157.
• Williams-Thorpe, O., Thorpe, R.S., 1992. Geochemistry, sources and transport of the Stonehenge Bluestones. Proceedings of the British Academy 77, 131-161.
• Stones of Stonehenge website: http://www.stonesofstonehenge.org.uk/2020/07/below-ground-stumps.html (accessed 2025).

 

• stumps.html (accessed 2025).

Pobl nid rhewlifau a gludodd gerrig gleision o Gymru i Gôr y Cewri – ymchwil newydd

Cafodd cerrig gleision byd-enwog Côr y Cewri eu cludo o Sir Benfro i Wastadfaes Caersallog gan bobl ac nid rhewlifoedd fel yr honnwyd yn flaenorol, yn ôl ymchwil wyddonol newydd.

Mae tîm o arbenigwyr dan arweiniad Prifysgol Aberystwyth - ac mewn cydweithrediad â gwyddonwyr yng Ngholeg Prifysgol Llundain (UCL), Prifysgol De Cymru a Phrifysgol Caerwysg - wedi ail-ymweld â’r dadleuon ynghylch a gafodd y cerrig mawrion eu symud dros 200km o orllewin Cymru i Swydd Wilton gan rew neu bobl.

Fel rhan o’u hastudiaeth, buon nhw’n canolbwyntio ar ‘glogfaen Newall’, a gloddiwyd yn Stonehenge ym 1924 ac a fu’n ganolog i’r drafodaeth yn y degawdau diwethaf.

Mae rhai astudiaethau wedi disgrifio clogfaen Newall fel maen dyfod rhewlifol, gan gefnogi'r ddamcaniaeth mai rhew oedd yn gyfrifol am gludo'r creigiau a ddefnyddiwyd i godi’r cylch cerrig enwog ar Wastadfaes Caersallog.

Serch hynny mae aelodau o’r tîm dan arweiniad Aberystwyth wedi cynnal archwiliad manwl o glogfaen Newall – gan ddefnyddio technegau dadansoddi pelydr-X, geocemegol a microsgopig yn ogystal â dadansoddi gweadedd arwynebedd – ac mae’n nhw’n dweud ‘nid oes tystiolaeth i gefnogi’r dehongliad ei fod yn faen dyfod rhewlifol’.

Daw’r astudiaeth i'r casgliad hefyd bod clogfaen Newall yn ddarn o rhyolit oedd yn weddill o’r broses cynhyrchu offer cerrig. Fe ddaeth yn wreiddiol o Graig Rhos-y-Felin yng ngogledd Sir Benfro ac fe’i cludwyd i Gôr y Cewri gan bobl Neolithig. Hon o bosib oedd rhan uchaf Carreg 32d sydd bellach wedi torri â’i darn gwaelod wedi’i gladdu tan ddaear.

Cyhoeddir eu canfyddiadau ynn nghyfnodolyn y Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, ac fe’u disgrifir fel y crynodeb mwyaf cyflawn hyd yma o'r data gwyddonol cyhoeddedig sy’n ymwneud â chlogfaen Newall.

Dywedodd prif awdur y papur, yr Athro Richard Bevins o Adran Daearyddiaeth a Gwyddorau Daear Prifysgol Aberystwyth:

“Rydyn ni wedi cynnal archwiliadau manwl o glogfaen Newall Côr y Cewri a’i gymharu â channoedd o samplau o graig o Sir Benfro. Mae ein canfyddiadau’n cynnig tystiolaeth ddigamsyniol bod y clogfaen wedi’i wahanu oddi wrth biler o rhyolit a ddeilliodd o Graig Rhos-y-Felin, gyda samplau o’r naill le a’r llall yn dangos nodweddion petrolegol a mwynegol union yr un fath nas canfuwyd yn unman arall yn Sir Benfro er gwaethaf chwilio helaeth.

“Mewn cydweithrediad â chydweithwyr archeolegol, daethon ni o hyd hefyd i dystiolaeth gref o weithgaredd chwarela helaeth yng Nghraig Rhos-y-Felin yn y cyfnod Neolithig, sy’n ategu ymhellach ein dadl mai pobl a gludodd y cerrig o Sir Benfro i Swydd Wilton. Byddai hynny wedi bod yn gamp anhygoel ond, fel y dengys Côr y Cewri ei hun, byddai wedi bod yn bosibl ac mae digon o dystiolaeth y byddai technoleg cludo ar gyfer symud cerrig trwm wedi bod ar gael i bobl Neolithig ar y pryd.

“Yn ogystal, ni ddaethpwyd o hyd i’r garreg las yn unman arall ar Wastadfaes Caersallog ac eithrio yng nghyffiniau agos Côr y Cewri ei hun. Pe baen nhw wedi’u symud yno gan rewlifoedd, byddai dosbarthiad llawer mwy gwasgaredig o gerrig tebyg ar draws y rhanbarth.”

I gloi, dywed awduron yr astudiaeth “rydyn ni’n ategu ein dehongliad blaenorol nad yw clogfaen Newall yn faen dyfod rhewlifol, nad oes tystiolaeth o rewlifiant ar Wastadfaes Caersallog, a bod y cerrig gleision wedi’u cludo i Gôr y Cewri gan bobl ac nid gan rew.”

Mae’r rhestr lawn o awduron fu’n rhan o’r astudiaeth yn cynnwys Richard E. Bevins, Nick J.G. Pearce ac Ian Saunders (Prifysgol Aberystwyth); Rob A. Ixer a Mike Parker Pearson (Coleg Prifysgol Llundain); James Scourse (Prifysgol Caerwysg); Tim Daw, Mike Pitts a David Field (ymchwilwyr annibynnol); Duncan Pirrie (Prifysgol De Cymru) a Matthew Power (Vidence inc.).

Roedd yr Athro Bevins a’r Athro Nick Pearce o Brifysgol Aberystwyth hefyd yn rhan o astudiaeth bwysig a gyhoeddwyd yn 2024 yn dangos mai tywodfaen o ogledd-ddwyrain yr Alban oedd y Maen Allor yng nghanol Côr y Cewri ac nid oedd un o’r cerrig gleision o Fynydd Preseli yn Sir Benfro fel y credwyd cyn hynny.

Mae’r Athro Bevins yn ddiolchgar i Ymddiriedolaeth Leverhulme am ddyfarniad Cymrodoriaeth Emeritws.

Dolenni:

Journal of Archaeological Science: Adroddiadau - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2025.105303

Humans not glaciers moved bluestones from Wales to Stonehenge – new research

The renowned bluestone boulders of Stonehenge were transported from Pembrokeshire to Salisbury Plain by humans and not glaciers as previously claimed, according to new scientific research.

A team of experts led by Aberystwyth University - in collaboration with scientists from University College London, the University of South Wales and the University of Exeter - has revisited arguments around whether the large stones were moved more than 200km from west Wales to Wiltshire by ice or people.

They focused their study on a distinctive piece of rock known as the ‘Newall boulder’, which was excavated at Stonehenge in 1924 and which has been central to the debate in recent decades.

Some studies have described the Newall boulder as a glacial erratic, supporting the theory that ice was responsible for transporting the rocks that built the famous stone circle on Salisbury Plain.

However members of the Aberystwyth-led team have carried out a detailed examination of the boulder - using X-ray, goechemical and microscopic analysis as well as surface textural analysis - and say ‘there is no evidence to support the interpretation that it is a glacial erratic'.

The study also concludes that the Newall boulder is a piece of rhyolite debitage originally sourced from Craig Rhos-y-Felin in north Pembrokeshire and transported to Stonehenge by Neolithic people, possibly being the broken top of Stone 32d, now a buried stump.

Their findings, published in the Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, are described as the most complete summary to date of the published scientific data relating to the Newall Boulder.

Lead author Professor Richard Bevins from the Department of Geography and Earth Sciences at Aberystwyth University said:

“We have carried out detailed examinations of Stonehenge’s Newall boulder and compared it with hundreds of rock samples from Pembrokeshire. Our findings provide convincing evidence that the boulder was detached from a pillar of rhyolite which originated from Craig Rhos-y-Felin, with both samples showing identical petrological and mineralogical features not found elsewhere in Pembrokeshire despite extensive examination”.

“In collaboration with archaeological colleagues we also found strong evidence of extensive Neolithic stone extraction at Craig Rhos-y-Felin, which further supports our argument in favour of human transport of the rocks from Pembrokeshire to Wiltshire. It would have been an incredible feat but, as Stonehenge itself shows, it would have been possible and there is plenty of evidence of haulage technology for moving heavy boulders that would have been available to Neolithic people at that time”.

“Additionally, bluestone has not been found anywhere else on Salisbury Plain with the exception of the immediate environs of Stonehenge itself. Had they been moved there by glaciers, there would be a much more dispersed distribution of similar stones across the region”.
In conclusion, the study authors say “we reiterate our previous interpretation that the Newall boulder is not a glacial erratic, that there is no evidence of glaciation on the Salisbury Plain, and that the bluestones were transported to Stonehenge by humans and not by ice.”
The full list of authors involved in the study includes: Richard E. Bevins, Nick J.G. Pearce and Ian Saunders (Aberystwyth University); Rob A. Ixer and Mike Parker Pearson (University College London); James Scourse (University of Exeter); Tim Daw, Mike Pitts and David Field (independent researchers); Duncan Pirrie (University of South Wales) and Matthew Power (Vidence inc.).
Professor Bevins and Professor Nick Pearce from Aberystwyth University were also involved in a major study published in 2024 which showed the Altar Stone at the heart of Stonehenge was a sandstone transported from north-east Scotland and was not one of the bluestones from Mynydd Preseli in Pembrokeshire as previously thought.

Professor Bevins is grateful to the Leverhulme Trust for an award of an Emeritus Fellowship.

Links

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports: doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2025.105303

Correcting the Record on the Ramson Cliff Erratic

The latest Quaternary Geology of Devon report has this to say about the Ramson Cliff erratic on Baggy Point:

"In north Devon, however, in addition to the blocks in the till,an isolated block of epidiorite was found at about 80 m OD on Baggy Point promontory [SS 4356 4070] by Madgett andMadgett (1974) which can only have been emplaced by an icesheet. Whilst this implies ice-sheet transport,..."

Bennett, J.A., Cullingford, R.A., Gibbard, P.L., Hughes, P.D. and Murton, J.B. 2024. The Quaternary Geologyof Devon. Proceedings of the Ussher Society, 15, 84-130.

Quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus - they are wrong, in error, and it is with understanding, not condemnation that I need to correct them.

Their error is not without consequences as it provides succor to the Glacial Transport Theory of Stonehenge as it desperately seeks a drop of evidence in its fact free desert death.

Even before its recent repositioning on the cliff edge the boulder wasn't in a secure context, the first hearsay reports of it - https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-erratics-at-baggy-point-croyde-and.html - have it as a standing stone. An artefact of human movement. And how and when it arrived in that position is a mystery as there are no records of such a standing stone or boulder in the records. 

To say it, "can only have been emplaced by an icesheet," is naïve and credulous, with the lack of any other such erratics at such a height the prior assumption must be that is is very, very unlikely. 

A crack team of investigators have investigated the historical sources, and it is the sources that tell the real story,  https://www.sarsen.org/2025/07/the-mystery-of-ramson-cliff-boulder.html

The Mystery of the Ramson Cliff Boulder

Chapter One: A Curious Find on Baggy Point

It was a splendid summer holiday and the Famous Five—Julian, Dick, George, Anne, and Timmy the dog—were staying in the charming village of Croyde, on the rugged North Devon coast. The Bristol Channel sparkled under the sun, and the cliffs of Baggy Point beckoned for adventure. One morning, as they rambled along the crest above Ramson Cliff, Timmy bounded ahead, sniffing furiously at a large, angular boulder on the coast path.

The "high level" epidiorite erratic on Ramson Cliff (photo: Paul Madgett)

 

“Gosh, what’s this?” exclaimed George, running her hand over the rough epidiorite surface. “It’s not like the smooth stones on the beach below!”

Julian, ever the leader, examined it closely. “It’s jolly odd for such a big rock to be up here, all alone. It’s the only one high above sea level on this coast, I’d wager!”

Anne, peering over his shoulder, wondered if the boulder once stood upright, as if placed deliberately. “I think it has been recently moved here. It looks like it was once upright, like a beacon or a rubbing stone. Maybe it was an ancient standing stone. I must find out all about it.”

Dick, always ready for a mystery, grinned. “I bet it’s a clue to something! Let’s call it the Ramson Cliff Boulder. Perhaps it’s a forgotten treasure marker!”

Julian stood up deep in thought. “In my detective books it is always important that the evidence is not moved before it is examined. I’m reading a jolly good story now where a handkerchief was taken to the police station and it couldn’t be used as evidence to show that the missing lady had been on the bus because it wasn’t recorded in its original position. I bet it’s the same for this stone.”

Timmy barked in agreement, and the Five decided to investigate.

Chapter Two: Clues from the Past

The Five headed to the village library, where they met Mrs. Madgett, a kind geologist who, with her husband Paul, had recorded the boulder in 1969 for the Quaternary Newsletter (Vol. 14, November 1974).

She explained that there was an old man in Wales who was convinced that this boulder showed that there was a glacier in the last ice age and if it reached up over the cliff to drop the rock it then went onto to Stonehenge and dropped more rocks there.

“Gosh,” said Anne, “if he thinks this one rock proves all that, it is really important we get to the bottom of this mystery.”

 Mrs Madgett pulled out an old piece of paper which was the report of the discovery:

 

“It was hidden from the coast path and by a stone wall to the south,” Mrs. Madgett explained. “But in the early 1970s, Farmer Tregellis ploughed the field, dislodged it, and dragged it to the edge by the Coast Path. Now it’s half-hidden by gorse bushes!”  The boulder had “always been there,” (*) and he hadn’t moved it before because it felt like part of the land.

But the Five were puzzled. Why had there been this boulder, unlike any other, in the middle of an eight-acre arable field called Ramson, where stones had been cleared to build walls?

George used her Ordnance Survey map to work out where it was spotted in the field, she was a whizz with maps. To help the others she then marked it on an aerial photo.

 Julian frowned. “If it was moved, how do we know where it really came from? Could it be a prehistoric standing stone, like the one near Putsborough?”

Mrs. Madgett nodded. “That’s one idea. The Putsborough stone is local sandstone, but this boulder’s rough and angular, not wave-worn like the erratics at Saunton Down End or under Saunton Cliffs. Perhaps it was raised upright long ago,  dragged up from the shore, and the rough bits ae where it got damaged when it was moved.”

Dick’s eyes lit up. “What if it’s a beacon marker? I found an old map in Early Devon Maps (Ravenhill & Rowe, 2000, pp. 52–53) that marks ‘Cride Beacon’ right near this spot!”

Anne shivered with excitement. “A beacon for pirates or smugglers, maybe?”

George, practical as ever, wasn’t convinced. “Let’s check proper records. If it’s important, it should be on Ordnance Survey maps or old photos! It should show up if it was in the middle of the field all those years ago.”

Chapter Three: The Missing Map Marks

The Five pored over Ordnance Survey maps (National Library of Scotland) but found no trace of the boulder. They examined a 1940s aerial photo (Historic England) and another from the North Devon AONB NMP Project (Knight et al., English Heritage Project 6083).  Nothing!

Julian found a really old map in a dusty drawer. “Look, even the 1839 Georgeham Tithe Map  doesn’t show a boulder.”

“That’s dashed queer,” said Julian. “A boulder this big should’ve been noticed!”

Dick scratched his head. “Unless it was moved there later. Maybe it’s a boundary stone, like the one in Mearlands field nearby!

The Five checked the Devon and Dartmoor Historic Environment Record (Heritage Gateway), which listed a boundary stone (HER number MDV61368) in Mearlands, a field named from the Anglo-Saxon gemoere (boundary). The tithe map showed strips marked by “mearstones.” Could their boulder have been dragged from Croyde Bay, as suggested by Stephens et al. (1998) in The Quaternary History of North Devon and West Somerset (JNCC), It is possible, however, that this boulder was dragged up from Croyde Bay to act as a boundary marker”?

Chapter Four: A Wartime Twist

The Five’s investigation took a thrilling turn when they met old Mr. Penrose, who remembered Baggy Point during World War II. “The American Army took over in 1943,” he said, sipping his tea. “They turned it into an Assault Training Centre for D-Day, bulldozing hedges and walls for company-sized exercises with live ammunition!” (The American).

George’s eyes widened. “Gosh, they might’ve moved the boulder or disturbed the field!”

Anne nodded. “Maybe that explains why it’s not in old records. If it was moved during the war or later, it’s not in its natural spot!”

Julian summed up wisely, “We must remember that sometimes, things moved by hands or history can fool even the keenest detectives. It’s why original position and context matter so very much.”

Timmy woofed, as if agreeing. The Five realised the boulder’s history was muddled by human activity—farming, boundaries, and wartime changes.

Chapter Five: Solving the Mystery

Back at Ramson Cliff, the Five sat by the boulder, now near the Coast Path, and pieced together their clues. Julian summed up: “It’s not on maps or photos, so it wasn’t always here. The field was cleared for farming, and there’s a boundary stone nearby. The war disturbed the area, and the boulder was moved in the 1970s. It’s not a glacial erratic with a clear geological story.”

Dick added, “It might’ve been a standing stone or beacon marker, but we can’t prove it. It’s more like an artefact of human meddling! That’s the answer.”

George patted Timmy. “Well, we’ve solved it, even if it’s not pirate treasure. It’s a jolly good mystery!”

Anne smiled. “Let’s have a picnic to celebrate—ginger beer and all!”

As the sun set over Baggy Point, the Five enjoyed their picnic, content that the Ramson Cliff Boulder, though not a glacial clue, was a splendid adventure.

 

The latest on Stonehenge Sarsen Sources - July 2025

In 2020, a landmark geochemical study by Nash et al. proposed that most Stonehenge’s sarsen stones, came from West Woods, about 25 km to the north in the Marlborough Downs. Using portable X-ray fluorescence (pXRF) and Bayesian PCA of trace elements such as zirconium and niobium, they tied 50 of the 52 stones to a geochemical signature matching this source. Among the most carefully matched was Stone #58, part of a central trilithon, sampled in 1958 via the now-famous “Phillips Core.”

The latest of a series of papers in the journal Archaeometry, debating the interpretation of geochemical data and its implications for the monument has just been published. This exchange highlights the nuances of scientific provenancing: data can be reanalysed differently, leading to conflicting conclusions. To clarify the sequence of claims and counterclaims chronologically, based on the provided documents and the broader context.

The Original Claim: Nash et al. (2020)

• In a landmark study, David Nash and colleagues used portable X-ray fluorescence (pXRF) to analyse 52 sarsen stones at Stonehenge, taking multiple readings per stone. For Stone #58 they also analysed the sample of it, the pXRF matched the stone to 49 other stones so they could use the sample as being representative of them.
• They also sampled sarsen outcrops from 20 potential source areas across southern England.
• Using Bayesian principal component analysis (BPCA) on immobile trace elements (e.g., normalised to zirconium to account for silica dilution during rock formation), they concluded that 50 of the 52 stones share a common chemistry, likely originating from a single source: West Woods.  A variant of PCA that incorporates prior information, BPCA is beneficial in geological provenancing because it handles missing data and reduces dimensionality while preserving meaningful geochemical trends.
• Two outlier stones had different signatures, suggesting multiple sources overall.
• This implied organised transport from a concentrated area rather than scattered local boulders.

The Challenge: Hancock et al. (2024)

• R.G.V. Hancock and team reinterpreted the same dataset from Nash et al. (2020), focusing narrowly on Stone #58.
• They used absolute elemental concentrations (not normalised) and selected different discriminating elements (e.g., Ga, Fe₂O₃, Hf).
• Their analysis suggested the data do not definitively match Stone #58 to West Woods. Instead, they argued: “as a minimum, the Wiltshire sites of Clatford Bottom and Piggledene with West Woods a distant third, appear as potential sources of stone #58. None of these locations, however, has elemental concentrations from one up to three samples that would geochemically merge with those of the Phillips core samples.”
• They criticised Nash's choice of elements (e.g., Hf's correlation with Zr making it less useful) and highlighted issues like detection limits and data quality variability in the original dataset.
• Key point: They aimed to "replicate" Nash's findings but ended up questioning the certainty, emphasising that sarsen geochemistry can vary even within a single outcrop due to formation processes.

The Comment: Nash and Ciborowski (2025)

• Nash and T.J.R. Ciborowski respond directly to Hancock et al. (2024). They identify three main "problems" with Hancock's approach:
1. Use of absolute concentrations: Sarsens form through silica cementation, which dilutes trace elements. Nash argues for normalising data (e.g., to Zr, an immobile element) to correct for this; Hancock's raw data ignores dilution effects, potentially leading to misleading comparisons.
2. Selection of discriminating elements: Hancock used elements like Fe and Ga, which can be mobile during weathering or silicification, making them unreliable for sourcing. Nash prefers immobile ones (e.g., Zr, Nb, Th) that better reflect the parent sediment's signature.
3. Single-sample comparisons: Hancock compared single samples from outcrops to the Phillips' Core, ignoring intra-site variability. Nash used multi-sample ranges and statistical envelopes to account for heterogeneity in silcretes.
• They defend West Woods as the probable source, noting that Hancock's reanalysis overlooks petrological (rock structure) evidence and wider silcrete literature. They include figures showing how dilution affects concentrations and petrographic images of zircon grains.

The Response: Hancock et al. (2025)

• In the “Archaeometry - 2025 - Hancock - On Sourcing Stonehenge Sarsen Stone #58...", Hancock and colleagues counter Nash's criticisms.
• On absolute concentrations: They argue silica dilution has minimal practical impact in this dataset, as most samples are 97–100% SiO₂. They point to examples where lower-SiO₂ samples (silicified sandstones) show extreme variations unrelated to dilution.
• On element selection: Minor differences exist (e.g., Nash used Rb, Th, U; Hancock used Ga, Fe₂O₃), but Hancock claims these don't explain the divergent conclusions. They question Nash's use of Hf (due to its correlation with Zr) and Fe₂O₃ (not significantly different across high-SiO₂ samples).
• On single samples: Hancock clarifies they didn't rely on single samples for their own analysis but used Nash's provided data. They note anomalies in some Nash samples (e.g., from Monkton Down and Totterdown Wood) that don't fit neatly.
• They reiterate that the source of Stone #58 remains uncertain and call for re-examination of Nash's claims. They also touch on potential glacial transport of sarsens, adding another layer to the debate.

Further Support from Recent Studies: Harding et al. (2025)

A recent paper by Harding et al. (published online January 2025 in Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society) applies the same pXRF geochemical techniques to two outlier sarsens in the Stonehenge landscape: the Cuckoo Stone and Tor Stone, located on opposite banks of the River Avon.

Key findings:

• Both stones exhibit geochemical signatures statistically indistinguishable from the majority of Stonehenge sarsens, pointing to West Woods as their likely origin.
• They were probably transported and erected in the early Late Neolithic (early 3rd millennium BCE), contemporary with Stonehenge Phase 1 and about 400-500 years before the main sarsen structures.
• Visibility analysis shows the stones were intervisible and positioned to form a "planned portal" across the River Avon, integrating into the broader Neolithic landscape.

This study, co-authored by Nash and Ciborowski, reinforces the West Woods sourcing hypothesis and extends the timeline of sarsen movement into the Stonehenge area. It also counters ideas of local sarsen abundance by arguing geological conditions on Salisbury Plain were unsuitable for forming large boulders like those at West Woods.

• Unresolved Issues: Methodological debates persist, but glacial claims are a red herring. Future work might use advanced zircon dating or quarry surveys to confirm West Woods.
• Implications for Stonehenge: Human transport from West Woods implies Neolithic ingenuity. Dismissing glaciation strengthens this narrative, avoiding unproven shortcuts.

 

What to Make of It All?

This back-and-forth is classic academic discourse: science thrives on scrutiny, and geochemical sourcing is inherently tricky for materials like sarsen, which form in variable groundwater environments. Here's a hopefully balanced take:

• Strengths of Nash's Position: Their original study is comprehensive, using non-destructive methods on the actual monument and statistical rigour to handle variability. Normalising for dilution is standard in geochemistry, and West Woods fits archaeologically (it's a dense sarsen field, suitable for quarrying multiple stones).
• Strengths of Hancock's Position: Reanalysing existing data is valid and cost-effective. They highlight real issues like data quality (e.g., detection limits) and question over-reliance on certain elements. If dilution effects are overstated, absolute concentrations might suffice for this specific dataset.
• Points of Agreement: Both sides acknowledge sarsen heterogeneity and the limitations of single-sample data. They agree the dataset is valuable but interpret its nuances differently.
• Unresolved Issues: The debate centres on methodology rather than new evidence. Stone #58 might be from West Woods, but Hancock's work introduces doubt. Were all sarsens from one source? Future work could involve more sampling, advanced techniques (e.g., laser ablation ICP-MS for precise zircon analysis), or integrating geophysical surveys of potential quarries.
• Implications for Stonehenge: If West Woods is confirmed, it suggests sophisticated Neolithic logistics over 25 km. If not, it opens doors to multi-source models, perhaps involving local boulders. This doesn't upend Stonehenge's story but refines it, science is iterative.

The geochemical back-and-forth remains a healthy academic exercise, with Nash's normalised, multi-sample approach appearing more robust for silcretes, while Hancock highlights valid data limitations. West Woods still leads as the probable source for most sarsens, supported by archaeological fit (dense boulder fields for quarrying).

However, Hancock's invocation of glacial transport based on John (2009), positing that ice sheets might have naturally deposited sarsens near Stonehenge, reducing the need for human effort, warrants particular scepticism. This idea, echoed in fringe theories for Stonehenge's bluestones (smaller Welsh stones), lacks empirical support and contradicts established geology. During the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM, ~27–19 ka ago), the British-Irish Ice Sheet (BIIS) covered Scotland, Ireland, most of Wales, and northern England, but stopped well north of Wiltshire's Marlborough Downs and Salisbury Plain. Southern England was periglacial, cold tundra with permafrost, but ice-free, as glaciers flowed from highlands without extending south. No glacial erratics (transported boulders) of any kind, let alone sarsens, have been found on Salisbury Plain.

Recent studies (2024–2025) further debunk glacial theories for Stonehenge stones. A July 2025 analysis of the "Newall boulder" (a bluestone fragment) found "no evidence to support an interpretation that it is a glacial erratic. Nash's dismissal, that glacial ideas have "no basis in fact”, is thus justified; invoking them risks pseudoscience, as sarsens form from local Palaeogene sands, not distant bedrock.

• Unresolved Issues: Methodological debates persist, but glacial claims are a red herring. Future work might use advanced zircon dating or quarry surveys to confirm West Woods.
• Implications for Stonehenge: Human transport from West Woods implies Neolithic ingenuity. Dismissing glaciation strengthens this narrative, avoiding unproven shortcuts.

In summary, the debate refines provenancing without resolution yet, but glacial transport is soundly refuted.

References: 

Ciborowski, T. J. R., D. J. Nash, T. Darvill, et al. 2024. “Local and Exotic Sources of Sarsen Debitage at Stonehenge Revealed by Geochemical Provenancing.” Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 53: 104406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2024.104406.

Hancock, R. G. V., M. P. Gorton, W. C. Mahaney, S. Aufreiter, and K. Michelaki. 2024. “Stonehenge Revisited: A Geochemical Approach to Interpreting the Geographical Source of Sarcen Stone #58.” Archaeometry 67, no. 1: 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/arcm.12999.

Hancock, R. G. V., M. P. Gorton, W. C. Mahaney, S. Aufreiter, and K. Michelaki. 2025. “ On Sourcing Stonehenge Sarsen Stone #58: A Response to Nash and Ciborowski's Comments.” Archaeometry 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1111/arcm.70028.

Harding, P. et al. (2024) ‘Earliest Movement of Sarsen Into the Stonehenge Landscape: New Insights from Geochemical and Visibility Analysis of the Cuckoo Stone and Tor Stone’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 90, pp. 229–251. doi:10.1017/ppr.2024.13.

John, B. S., & Jackson, L. Jr. (2009). Stonehenge's Mysterious Stones. Earth, 54(1), 36–42 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270162075_Stonehenge's_mysterious_stones

Nash, D. J., and T. J. R. Ciborowski. 2025. “Comment on: Stonehenge Revisited: A Geochemical Approach to Interpreting the Geographical Source of Sarsen Stone #58.” Archaeometry 1–14. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/arcm.13105.

Nash, D. J., T. J. R. Ciborowski, J. S. Ullyott, et al. 2020. “Origins of the Sarsen Megaliths at Stonehenge.” Science Advances 6, no. 31: 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abc0133.