Castilly Henge or Plen-an-gwarry?

 

The archaeological trenches at Castilly Henge in Luxulyan, Cornwall, are now well into their third week, of the four-week excavation programme, 15 September to 10 October 2025. This collaborative effort between Historic England, the Cornwall Heritage Trust, and the Cornwall Archaeological Society aims to ground-truth the intriguing anomalies detected in the 2022 geophysical surveys, particularly the eccentric ovoid arrangement of pits in the southern interior, some of which hinted at recumbent stones. The project's blogs and social media updates emphasise community engagement, but the silence on artefacts or structures builds suspense ahead of the public open day on 11 October. https://www.cornwallheritagetrust.org/community/castilly-henge/

Labelled a Class I henge due to its ovoid form (approximately 49m north-south by 30m east-west), internal ditch, and external bank, the site's prehistoric credentials have always been tenuous. The 1962 excavations by the Cornwall Archaeological Society, directed by Charles Thomas and published in 1964, found scant evidence beyond two undiagnostic flint flakes and the monument's general resemblance to other henges.

"Apart, perhaps, from the two flint flakes, only one of which actually occurred in primary silting, there is no evidence that Castilly is a prehistoric henge at all, save from the general resemblance to Class I henges." https://cornisharchaeology.org.uk/2022/08/19/volume-3-1964/

Instead, the work revealed extensive medieval remodelling: disturbed ditch silting redeposited to create a spectator-friendly internal slope, a secondary southern entrance formed by filling a natural causeway with bank spoil, and 13th-14th century pottery sherds in key contexts. Thomas concluded that Castilly had been adapted as a plen-an-gwarry, a Cornish amphitheatre for miracle plays like Perran Round. https://st-piran.com/perranround.html

The 2022 surveys—employing vehicle-towed GPR, earth resistance, and magnetometry—reignited debate by identifying pits (c. 1.5m diameter, 0.65-1.3m deep) forming an incomplete southern arc, with rectilinear anomalies suggesting buried stones. https://historicengland.org.uk/research/results/reports/8881/CastillyHengeLuxulyanCornwall_ReportonGeophysicalSurveysFebruary2022

This has fuelled speculation of a "hidden stone circle," drawing parallels to Cornish sites like the Stripple Stones. However, as sarsen.org readers know, geophysical data can be deceptive, and Castilly's anomalies demand cautious interpretation. I remember the cautionary tale of Durrington Walls and the so-called "superhenge", where similar optimism met a sobering reality. The geophysical signals of wooden post holes had mimicked stones due to chalk backfill and compaction, and no buried megaliths were present.

Castilly's situation mirrors this closely. The 2022 GPR and earth resistance data showed high-amplitude anomalies, but magnetometry was subdued, possibly from the site's slate geology rather than stone fills. The pits' rectilinear shapes could indicate flat-lying stones—or, as at Durrington, the voids left by extracted timbers. If the ongoing trenches reveal empty sockets or postholes with prehistoric fills (e.g., charcoal for dating), it might confirm a Neolithic phase with temporary uprights, perhaps for rituals before abandonment. But if medieval material dominates, or the anomalies prove natural/geological, the henge theory falters, reinforcing Thomas's medieval amphitheatre interpretation.

Comparisons with Perran Round bolster this scepticism. That site, with its circular rampart, external ditch, and central depression (the "Devil's Spoon" for theatrical "Hell"), is a documented plen-an-gwarry with Iron Age origins but medieval primacy. Castilly's irregularities—ovoid shape, segmented ditch, secondary entrance—could similarly reflect adaptation for drama, with pits as postholes for temporary play structures rather than prehistoric settings. The 1964 sections showed no internal features in the central area, despite stripping to bedrock, suggesting any anomalies are peripheral and potentially later.

So is it a henge? with stones? I hope so, but until the results of the present excavations are revealed we just don't know. https://historicengland.org.uk/research/current/discover-and-understand/landscapes/castilly-henge-excavation/

Correcting the Record on the West Kennet Limestone

Our welsh Make Archaeology Glacial Again correspondent is worried about the dry stone walling in the West Kennet Long Barrow -"Oolitic Limestone slabs, assumed to have come either from near Calne or near Frome. Apparently the slabs were very rotten when they were exposed during the digs by Piggott and others, and were replaced with a tonne of nice shiny new slabs in the 1950's"

A quick glance at Piggott's Excavation book would have put his mind at rest and reassured him that the sourcing of non-local rocks was what neolithic builders did; why is another and very interesting question.

Look at these lovely sharp edged stones they found, and the sensible discussion by Piggott.  

That the reconstruction was maybe over enthusiastic, but it was of its time, and that material was brought in to stabilise the monument is no secret. As with anything Atkinson had a hand in the documentation is lamentable but there is no conspiracy.

Public Rights of Way: Pausing to Enjoy the View vs Camping

1. Introduction

Public Rights of Way (PROWs) are highways under common law, granting the public the right to "pass and repass." Courts have consistently debated the extent to which incidental activities, such as pausing to rest or camping, fall within this right. This article analyses key case law and statutory provisions to clarify the legality of pausing briefly versus camping on PROWs. Judicial decisions and academic commentary establish that short pauses are generally lawful, whereas camping exceeds the scope of highway rights and risks liability under the Highways Act 1980.

2. Case Law

2.1 Passing and Repassing as the Core Right

• Hickman v Maisey [1900] 1 QB 752
  The defendant used a highway to observe and record racehorse activities. The court ruled this use unlawful, emphasising that public rights on highways are limited to "passing and repassing" and activities reasonably incidental to it.
  Commentary: Rodgers (2014) describes Hickman as "the high-water mark of judicial restrictiveness" (Law of the Countryside), but its principle continues to define the boundaries of lawful highway use.

2.2 Broadening the Scope of Reasonable Use

• DPP v Jones [1999] 2 AC 240 (HL)
  Protesters peacefully assembled on the verge of the A344 near Stonehenge. The House of Lords departed from the restrictive Hickman approach, holding that public use of highways extends to "reasonable, peaceful, and non-obstructive" activities compatible with the highway’s primary purpose of passage.
  Commentary: Lord Irvine LC stated that highways are "open-air spaces where a range of reasonable activities might occur" (DPP v Jones). Dyson (1999) notes that this decision broadens permissible highway activities but maintains limits on obstruction (Modern Law Review, 62 MLR 543).

2.3 Stationary Use and Obstruction

• DPP v Verma [1996] RTR 121
  Parking for purposes unrelated to passage was deemed an obstruction, reinforcing that stationary activities must align with the highway’s purpose.

• Herrick v Kidner [2010] EWHC 269 (Admin)
  Protest structures on highway land were ruled an unlawful appropriation of public space.

• CPS v Riley [2016] EWHC 2255 (Admin)
  Blocking a highway was held to violate s.137 of the Highways Act 1980.
  Analysis: These cases demonstrate judicial intolerance for prolonged or obstructive uses of highways, particularly where structures or vehicles are involved.

3. Statutory Framework

• Highways Act 1980, s.137
  This section states: "If a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way wilfully obstructs the free passage along a highway he is guilty of an offence…" Camping, involving overnight occupation with tents or structures, typically constitutes an obstruction unless justified as a reasonable and lawful use, which case law suggests it is not.

• Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CROW Act)
  The CROW Act grants public access to open country and registered common land for passage on foot but explicitly excludes camping or prolonged occupation.

• Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
  This Act empowers police to remove trespassers, including those camping in tents or vehicles, from land where they have no lawful right to remain.

4. Academic Commentary

Legal scholars reinforce the distinction between brief pauses and camping:

• Rodgers (Law of the Countryside, 2014) argues that brief resting or picnicking on a PROW is permissible, but camping constitutes an unlawful obstruction due to its extended duration and occupation of space.

• Woolley (Rights of Way Law and Practice, 4th ed, 2016) clarifies that public rights do not extend to using highways as places of residence or for prolonged stays.

• Dyson (Modern Law Review, 1999, 62 MLR 543) highlights that DPP v Jones expanded permissible activities but maintains obstruction as the key legal boundary.

• The Law Commission Report No. 280 (1999), Rights of Access to the Countryside, confirms that camping falls outside the statutory rights granted by the CROW Act, reflecting Parliament’s intent to exclude such activities.

5. Permissive Rights

• In England and Wales, a landowner cannot lawfully grant permission for camping on a Public Right of Way (PROW), as it constitutes a wilful obstruction under section 137 of the Highways Act 1980, infringing on the public's inalienable right to pass and repass, regardless of the landowner's consent. While permission might avert private trespass claims, it does not provide legal excuse for blocking the highway, and camping remains a criminal offence. Similarly, no right to camp can arise through long usage or prescription, as prescriptive rights under common law or the Prescription Act 1832 are limited to easements like passage or utilities that could be granted by deed, and camping's obstructive nature conflicts with statutory prohibitions, preventing its acquisition even after 20 years of continuous use.

6. Conclusion

• Pausing to Enjoy the View: Lawful, as it is incidental to passage and aligns with the "reasonable use" principle established in Hickman v Maisey and DPP v Jones.

• Camping on a PROW: Unlawful, as it involves prolonged occupation, obstructs passage, and violates s.137 of the Highways Act 1980.

• Academic Consensus: Brief pauses are permitted, parking is incidental to the highway's vehicular purpose, though there is no absolute "right" to park indefinitely, but camping exceeds the lawful scope of PROW rights.

• The distinction hinges on duration and purpose: short, incidental pauses are consistent with highway rights, while extended occupation, such as camping, constitutes obstruction and trespass.

(I'm not a lawyer, this is just an opinion not legal advice)

Correcting the Record on Brian John's Silly Rant

Updated - I have reviewed Brian John's responses (https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2025/09/bevins-et-al-2025-very-silly-rant.html https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2025/09/bevins-et-al-2025-more-about-that-very.html ) to the paper "The enigmatic ‘Newall boulder’ excavated at Stonehenge in 1924: New data and correcting the record" by Richard E. Bevins and colleagues (2025), of which I am a co-author. My review is based on the content of John's blog posts and the paper. My analysis tries to remain objective, focusing on strengths, weaknesses, and the broader debate between human transport (supported by the paper) and glacial transport (advocated by John).

Summary of the Paper (Bevins et al., 2025) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2025.105303

The 15-page paper systematically addresses the Newall boulder's history, petrography, geochemistry, morphology, and context to argue against it being a glacial erratic. It corrects perceived errors in prior works, including John's 2024a paper, and reinforces human transport of Stonehenge's bluestones from west Wales.

• Key Arguments:

  • Historical Clarifications (Section 2): Details the boulder's excavation, sampling (1970s IGS, 1980s OU), and storage. Corrects John's claims about its "rediscovery" and sample numbering.
  • Provenancing (Section 3): Petrographic matches (e.g., stilpnomelane, chlorite, titanite, resorbed zircons) and new pXRF data link the boulder to Craig Rhos-y-Felin. High Ca is attributed to post-depositional tufa in chalky soils, not disproving the source.
  • Stone Identification (Section 4): Clarifies mislabelling of buried stumps 32c, 32d, 32e (e.g., 32d as foliated rhyolite from Craig Rhos-y-Felin, not spotted dolerite).
  • Morphology (Section 5): The boulder's bullet shape matches weathered pillar tops at Craig Rhos-y-Felin, not glacial wear. Disputes John's "diagnostic features" as weathering artefacts.
  • Glacial Hypothesis (Section 6): No striations or clear glacial indicators; disputes ice extent models, erratics in Bristol Channel, and Anglian glaciation claims. Models like BRITICE-CHRONO limit ice to Celtic Sea margins.
  • Assemblage (Section 7): Restricted to 12–15 lithologies from discrete sources (mostly west Wales, plus NE Scotland), not 46+ as John claims. Includes debitage but argues against diverse glacial deposits.
  • Distribution (Section 8): No erratics or glacial features on Salisbury Plain; fragments near Stonehenge are human-dispersed debitage.
  • Archaeological Context (Section 9): Evidence from quarries (Craig Rhos-y-Felin, Carn Goedog), tools, and parallels (e.g., Irish megaliths) supports human effort. Disputes lack of haulage evidence.
  • Conclusions (Section 10): Reaffirms human transport; no glaciation on Salisbury Plain.

The paper is data-driven, interdisciplinary, and corrective, acknowledging scant evidence for either transport mechanism but favouring human agency based on provenancing and archaeology.

Summary of Brian John's Reply

John's response is presented across two blog posts, self-described as a "very silly rant" (though serious in intent), written three months post-publication. The first post (dated September 2025) frames the paper as an "ad hominem attack" by a "gang of eleven" to silence glacial transport debate. He cites himself extensively (e.g., his 2024a paper in E&G Quaternary Science Journal, 2024b in Quaternary Newsletter, and blog posts) and accuses the authors of bias, selective evidence, pseudo-science, and obsession with "precision provenancing" to uphold a human-transport narrative linked to Neolithic quarries.

John structures his critique around the paper's sections (2–10), disputing claims point-by-point:

• Section 2 (The Newall Boulder): Calls it "petty and sterile," criticising terminology (e.g., "areas" vs. "sampling locations" or "facets") and accusing the authors of targeting him unfairly for not citing unpublished works.
• Section 3 (Testing a Craig Rhos-y-felin Source): Disputes the provenancing as unconvincing, arguing similarities don't prove origin and calling for denser sampling across nearby outcrops to rule out alternatives.
• Section 4 (Clarification of Craig Rhos-y-felin Rhyolite at Stonehenge): Agrees on labelling confusion but rejects the claim that Stone 32d is from Craig Rhos-y-felin, calling it "disingenuous" based on old photos.
• Section 5 (Morphology of the Newall Boulder): Rejects interpretations of a "monolith extraction point" at Craig Rhos-y-felin, arguing fracture scars show natural, multi-stage breakage (not quarrying). He accepts the boulder could be a broken block but attributes breakage to glacial processes.
• Section 6 (So is the Newall Boulder a Glacial Erratic?): Defends glacial transport, refuting the paper's dismissal of erratics in the Bristol Channel/Somerset Lowlands and ice-sheet models. He accuses authors of fundamental errors on glaciation, ice rafting, and dating (e.g., Anglian glaciation), citing his own experience and publications.
• Section 7 (The Bluestone Assemblage): Argues the assemblage includes ~46 lithologies (including debitage, hammer stones, etc.), not 12–15, indicating a glacial erratic collection. He calls the paper's restricted-source claim "disingenuous" and notes inconsistencies in the authors' past arguments.

The second post (dated 24 September 2025) continues the critique:

• Section 8 (Salisbury Plain and the Distribution of Bluestone Fragments): Accuses the authors of being "economical with the truth" by claiming no bluestones beyond 4 km from Stonehenge, ignoring inconvenient fragments. Cites finds near West Kennet/Avebury (e.g., granodiorite), Boles Barrow as a glacial erratic, and disputes fieldwalking surveys and gravel analyses (e.g., contra Green, Scourse, Parker Pearson). Argues some Stonehenge fragments show glacial abrasion, not solely human shaping.
• Section 9 (The Archaeological Context): Denies quarrying at Craig Rhos-y-felin and Carn Goedog as "misinterpreted natural features," dismissing haulage evidence from cromlechs (e.g., local sourcing at Pentre Ifan). Rejects long-distance transport as supposition, cites alternative views (e.g., Stonehenge as a quarry per Thorpe et al., 1991), questions Altar Stone's origin, and dismisses Waun Mawn (citing his 2024b paper). Omits referencing the paper's cited critiques but accuses authors of ignoring his 2015 papers (John et al., 2015a, b).
• Section 10 (Conclusions): Reiterates disagreements, claims no "killer facts" resolve the debate, credits himself for forcing "retreats" from "wilder narratives," and accepts potential Rhos-y-felin links but insists on glacial transport. Dismisses quarrying as "flimsy" and decries Stonehenge's "curse."

John ends both posts with quips (e.g., steamrollers as scrap metal) and includes images (e.g., of the boulder, sites like Bedd yr Afanc, with no detailed descriptions but linked to glacial arguments). He provides links to his blog posts and ResearchGate articles.

Evaluation of John's Points

John's expertise in glacial geomorphology shines in discussions of ice dynamics, but his tone (e.g., "condescending nonsense," "deluded") and self-referential approach undermine objectivity. The full paper addresses many of his concerns with data, revealing some misrepresentations in his reply.

• Section 2 (The Newall Boulder): John's dismissal as "petty and sterile" overlooks the paper's aim to correct factual errors (e.g., his claims of "brief examination" and "rediscovery"). His terminology critique ("areas" vs. "facets") is minor; the paper's Fig. 1 and Table 1 provide clarity. Fair point on citing unpublished works, but the section is archival, not primarily targeting him.
• Section 3 (Testing a Craig Rhos-y-Felin Source): John concedes new data's interest but deems it unconvincing, demanding denser regional sampling. The paper counters with specific matches (e.g., stilpnomelane aggregates, resorbed zircons in hundreds of samples) and new pXRF/PCA analyses (Fig. 3) distinguishing Craig Rhos-y-Felin from other rhyolites. John's stilpnomelane ubiquity claim lacks specifics; the paper notes its unique association here. High Ca is explained as post-burial tufa, not disproving the source—John overlooks this.
• Section 4 (Clarification of Craig Rhos-y-Felin Rhyolite at Stonehenge): John agrees on labelling confusion but calls the 32d identification "disingenuous" based on old photos. The paper provides evidence (Fig. 5, Atkinson's 1954 photo) showing 32d's foliation matching Craig Rhos-y-Felin, correcting historical errors (e.g., Cleal et al., 1995). This strengthens the monolith link, weakening John's speculation dismissal.
• Section 5 (Morphology of the Newall Boulder): John rejects monolith extraction, arguing natural fractures, and accepts broken block but glacial breakage. The paper (Fig. 6) shows pillar tops naturally bullet-shaped and tapering, matching 32d's dimensions—attributing breakage to human/natural processes at Stonehenge, not glaciation. John's "blunt bullet-shaped clasts" commonality is noted but contextualised as non-diagnostic.
• Section 6 (So is the Newall Boulder a Glacial Erratic?): John defends glacial features (e.g., facets, scratches) and models (e.g., Anglian extent, Bristol Channel erratics). However, the paper disputes diagnostics as weathering, notes no striations, and critiques models (e.g., BRITICE-CHRONO limits ice; Ely et al., 2024 on surge events). John's refutation of glacimarine transport lacks counter-evidence; the paper cites Pearce et al. (2024) for rafting. His "ground truthing" emphasis is valid, but the paper highlights absent glacial deposits on Salisbury Plain.
• Section 7 (The Bluestone Assemblage): The discrepancy in lithology counts (46 vs. 12–15) stems from definitions—John includes all fragments, while the paper focuses on monoliths. This isn't inconsistency on the authors' part but differing scopes; John's "rubbish stones" argument (citing Thorpe et al., 1991) is intriguing but doesn't disprove human transport if stones were multi-purpose.
• Section 8 (Salisbury Plain and the Distribution of Bluestone Fragments): John accuses the authors of being "economical with the truth" by claiming no bluestones beyond 4 km from Stonehenge, ignoring inconvenient fragments. He cites finds near West Kennet/Avebury (e.g., granodiorite), Boles Barrow as a glacial erratic, and disputes fieldwalking surveys and gravel analyses (e.g., contra Green, Scourse, Parker Pearson). He also argues some Stonehenge fragments show glacial abrasion, not human shaping. The paper emphasises the restricted distribution of non-sarsen lithics, supported by systematic surveys showing no far-flung erratics; fragments beyond Stonehenge are rare and not diagnostic of glaciation. Boles Barrow's debated status (likely local or from Stonehenge) does not prove glacial transport, and gravel analyses (e.g., Green) remain robust. John's reliance on blog posts and undated 'future postings' lacks peer-reviewed substantiation; we maintain that angular debitage near Stonehenge derives from monolith dressing, not ice.
• Section 9 (The Archaeological Context): John denies quarrying at Craig Rhos-y-felin and Carn Goedog as "misinterpreted natural features," dismissing haulage evidence from cromlechs (e.g., local sourcing at Pentre Ifan). He rejects long-distance transport as supposition, cites alternative views (e.g., Stonehenge as a quarry per Thorpe et al., 1991), questions Altar Stone's origin, and dismisses Waun Mawn (citing his 2024b paper). He omits referencing the paper's cited critiques but accuses authors of ignoring his 2015 papers (John et al., 2015a, b). The paper highlights archaeological parallels (e.g., Brittany megaliths moved kilometres) and direct evidence from excavations (Parker Pearson et al., 2019; 2022a), including engineering features like ramps and props. Local sourcing for cromlechs does not negate broader Neolithic capabilities; trading networks (e.g., axe-heads) support feasibility. John's dismissal of Waun Mawn ignores our contextualisation within Preseli's monumental landscape.
• Section 10 (Conclusions): John reiterates disagreements, claims no "killer facts" resolve the debate, credits himself for forcing "retreats" from "wilder narratives," and accepts potential Rhos-y-felin links but insists on glacial transport. He dismisses quarrying as "flimsy" and decries Stonehenge's "curse." The paper synthesises data showing the boulder's non-glacial nature and restricted lithologies from human-selected sites. John's final concessions (e.g., boulder as monolith fragment) align with our findings but contradict his glacial insistence without new evidence.

Overall Observations

John's critique makes a couple of valid points about potential sampling gaps and model uncertainties but ultimately fails to dismantle our data, including new geochemical analyses (e.g., portable XRF), photographic evidence (e.g., Figures 5–6), and interdisciplinary insights (e.g., quarrying at Craig Rhos-y-felin and Carn Goedog, distributions lacking erratics). This leaves his glacial hypothesis less tenable, particularly without explanations for absent deposits or erratics on Salisbury Plain. His reply often misrepresents our work (e.g., ignoring the tufa explanation for calcium or the specific context of stilpnomelane features). Such continued misrepresentation of scientific evidence risks aligning his contributions with pseudoscientific narratives surrounding Stonehenge, potentially tarnishing an otherwise notable legacy in glacial geomorphology.

Fremington Clay Erratics: Elevation and Stratigraphic Context

The Fremington Clay of North Devon has long been recognised as one of the few possible glacial deposits in South West England. Reports of erratics and dropstones have played an important role in interpreting its depositional environment as glacilacustrine. However, the precise stratigraphic context and elevation (OD, above sea level) of these erratics requires clarification.

This document synthesises evidence from published studies (Hawkins & Hawkins, 1990; Cattell, 2003; Scourse, 2024; GeoGuide/GCR entries), historical reports, and BGS memoirs to establish the depth, stratigraphic position, and elevation range of the erratic-bearing horizons. Additional historical detail is incorporated from Arber (1964), which provides first-hand accounts from local workers confirming the embedded positions of erratics within the clay sequence.

1. Historical Observations from Clay Pits

• 19th–20th century clay pits near Fremington and Roundswell exposed the Fremington Clay. Erratics of sandstone, quartzite, granite, dolerite, and other lithologies were recorded (Dewey, 1910; Taylor, 1956; Maw, 1864; Arber, 1964).

• Higher Gorse (Brannam’s) Clay Pit: BGS (1970) log shows:

  • 4 m of stony/boulder clay (erratic-bearing)
  • 6 m of largely stone-free lacustrine clay ("pottery clay")
  • Underlain by basal gravels (2 m thick)

• These pits sit at low topographic elevations (~10–20 m OD).

• Detailed stratigraphic insights from Arber (1964), based on local informants and pit observations at Bickington (Tews Lane pits) and nearby farms:

  • General sequence: Basal gravel over Culm Measures, followed by clay with stones, smooth brown potting clay (up to 21 feet/6.4 m thick), "horseflesh" clay with small stones, grit, and decayed wood (2+ feet/0.6+ m), and surface gravel (up to 16+ feet/4.9+ m thick, also erratic-bearing).
  • Specific erratic positions:
    • Combrew Farm: Vesicular granophyre (erratic No. 6 in Taylor, 1956) found isolated in the middle of the clay bed.
    • Chilcotts Farm: Hypersthene-andesite (erratic No. 7 in Taylor, 1956) excavated ~22 feet (6.7 m) below ground surface around 1870.
    • Bickington pits: Quartz-dolerite boulder (No. 9 in Taylor, 1956) in the very middle of the brown clay; another smooth rounded boulder (unidentified, ~19 inches/48 cm long) 10 feet (3 m) below the upper clay surface; another 16 feet (4.9 m) below the upper clay surface; another quartz-dolerite (No. 13 in Taylor, 1956) ~10 feet (3 m) from the clay top.
    • Over 50 small pebbles collected since 1956, mostly at or near the base or top of the clay, but some embedded 5–11 feet (1.5–3.4 m) above the base. Two pebbles (one olivine-dolerite) found 2–3 feet (0.6–0.9 m) above the base in 1955.

• Arber (1964) emphasises that these observations provide direct evidence of erratics embedded in the "heart" of the Fremington Clay, reinforcing its glacial origin (e.g., as bottom-moraine from an Irish Sea ice-sheet, per Zeuner, 1959).

References: Hawkins & Hawkins (1990); Edmonds et al. (1985); GeoGuide/GCR14 Brannam; Arber (1964).

2. Lake Cutting (Barnstaple Bypass)

• Excavation up to 9 m deep exposed a complete Fremington Clay sequence (Hawkins & Hawkins, 1990).

• Stratigraphy:

  • Unit A: gravelly clay with many clasts (interpreted as till/head)
  • Unit B: stony clay with fewer clasts (erratic-bearing)
  • Unit C: red, laminated silty clay, stone-free (glacilacustrine)
  • Unit D: thin fine sand
  • Unit E: coarse glaciofluvial sandy gravel over bedrock

• Erratic clasts (sandstone, mudstone, quartz, granite, dolerite) concentrated in Units A & B.

Elevation control (Cattell, 2003):

• Crest of cutting: ~30 m OD.
• Base of clays: dips from ~26 m OD (crest) to ~20 m OD (road level beneath Lake Overbridge).
• Boreholes north of the road confirm clay–gravel contact at 19.9–20.4 m OD.

Thus, the erratic-bearing horizons lie between ~20–26 m OD.

References: Hawkins & Hawkins (1990); Cattell (2003).

3. GeoGuide / GCR14 Brannam’s Clay Pit

• Fremington Clay thickness up to ~27 m.
• Sequence: basal gravels → stoneless laminated clays (glacilacustrine) → increasingly stony clays with occasional dropstones.
• One striated microdolerite cobble reported in situ within unit B (Croot et al., 1996).
• Confirms dropstones/erratics occur in upper clay units, but does not provide OD values. This aligns with Arber (1964)'s observations of erratics in the middle and upper parts of the smooth clay, transitioning to stony layers.

Reference: GeoGuide Scottish Geology Trust (GCR14 Brannam).

4. Regional Context (Scourse, 2024)

• Focuses on raised beaches and relative sea-level history (MIS 4–3).
• Confirms Fremington deposits interpreted as glacilacustrine with occasional dropstones.
• Does not provide new OD control for erratic horizons, but supports the glacial interpretation consistent with historical evidence like Arber (1964).

Reference: Scourse (2024, Journal of Quaternary Science).

5. Synthesis

• Erratic-bearing horizons (stony clays, Units A/B) occur in the upper Fremington Clay sequence, consistently recorded in both pits and the Lake cutting. Arber (1964) adds granular detail on embedded erratics at depths of 5–22 feet (1.5–6.7 m) within the clay, including the middle of the potting clay layer, corroborating the presence of dropstones throughout the deposit rather than solely at boundaries.

• Stone-free laminated clays (Unit C) represent the main lacustrine body (dropstone-poor).

• Elevation control:

  • Clay pits (Higher Gorse/Brannam, Bickington): near sea level, ~10–20 m OD, with erratics found at depths implying positions well below 20 m OD.
  • Lake cutting (Barnstaple bypass): erratics at ~20–26 m OD.

• No evidence supports claims that erratics occur at "quite high elevation"; exposures are confined to low ground just above sea level. The depths reported in Arber (1964) further indicate erratics are not surficial but integrated into the low-elevation clay body.

6: Conclusion:

At Fremington, exposures in clay pits and in the Lake cutting reveal a glacilacustrine clay sequence with occasional dropstones and erratic clasts embedded at various depths within the deposit. These horizons occur at low elevations, between ~10–26 m OD, rather than on high ground.

7: References:

Arber, M.A. (1964). Erratic boulders within the Fremington Clay of North Devon. Geological Magazine, 101(3), 282–283. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0016756800049517

Hawkins, A.B. & Hawkins, S.C. (1990). Quaternary deposits in the Lake Cutting of the Barnstaple Bypass, North Devon. Proceedings of the Ussher Society, 7, 301–303. http://ussher.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/journal/1990/21-Hawkins_Hawkins1990.pdf
Cattell, A. (2003). Geological and geotechnical aspects of a landslip in the Fremington Clay, North Devon. Geoscience in South-West England, 10, 397–402. http://ussher.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/journal/2003/03-Cattell_2003.pdf
Edmonds, E.A., Whittaker, A. & Williams, B.J. (1985). Geology of the country around Ilfracombe and Barnstaple. BGS Memoir. https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Geology_of_the_Country_Around_Ilfracombe/IxNXAAAAMAAJ?hl=en
Croot, D., Gilbert, A., Griffiths, J. & van der Meer, J.J. (1996). The character, age and depositional environments of the Fremington Clay Series, North Devon. In: Charman et al. (eds), Devon & East Cornwall Field Guide, Quaternary Research Association. https://researchportal.plymouth.ac.uk/en/publications/the-character-age-and-depositional-environments-of-the-fremington
GeoGuide Scottish Geology Trust (GCR14 Brannam’s Clay Pit): https://geoguide.scottishgeologytrust.org/p/gcr14/gcr14_brannam
Scourse, J. (2024). Pleistocene raised beaches of south-west Britain and the last glaciation of the Celtic Sea. Journal of Quaternary Science. DOI: 10.1002/jqs.3611

Stonehenge Byway 12 (North) Inspection 04/09/2025

Wiltshire Council kindly shared photos of the repaired and cleaned up drove. There doesn't seem to be any record of any repairs done to any of the other byways that were also closed.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/the_drove_stonehenge#incoming-3163421 explains the repair planning process:

"Please note there is no formal plan - works have been undertaken on a “Walk, Talk, Build” Basis. The Walk, Talk, Build process is a collaborative and phased approach often used in construction and infrastructure projects to ensure stakeholder engagement, clarity of scope, and smooth delivery. I am satisfied you have otherwise received all the reports we hold in relation to the ‘scope of works’ as requested."

"The response in relation to asbestos was a verbal report of the presence of asbestos received from English Heritage Staff on the site. The initial indications being that this material originates from the 1st world war airfield hangers that were on the site. Whilst a verbal report was received, there has never been the necessity to have a technical report compiled on the asbestos."

 

Obsidian Mirrors of Mobility: Tracing Stone Journeys in the Neolithic

 

Introduction

Obsidian, the volcanic glass prized for its sharpness and distinct geochemical “fingerprints,” has provided an unparalleled window into Neolithic social, economic, and cultural interactions. Research since 2020 reveals that communities across Anatolia and adjacent regions exploited both local and distant obsidian outcrops, participating in dynamic exchange networks that bridged Central Anatolia, the Aegean, the Zagros, and, in some cases, reached as far as Central Europe.

Regional Procurement Patterns

Central Anatolia was dominated by key sources such as Göllü Dağ and Nenezi Dağ, with other prominent sources including Acıgöl and Nemrut Dağ. At sites like Balıklı (c. 8200–7900 BC), over 90% of obsidian artefacts derive from the local Göllü Dağ source, with limited input from Nenezi Dağ. This pattern suggests intensive local knapping and a degree of self-sufficiency, contrasting with the more interconnected trade networks in western Anatolia.

The Aceramic Neolithic site of Sıraltepe, likewise near major sources, shows evidence of local workshop production using multiple sources (Göllü Dağ, Nenezi Dağ, Acıgöl), along with specialized artefacts such as obsidian mirrors, which also appear at Tepecik-Çiftlik, Çatalhöyük-East, and Tel Kabri.

Exchange Networks and Long-Distance Conveyance

Northwest and Western Anatolia display greater obsidian source diversity, incorporating supplies from distant Aegean islands as well as central Anatolia. At Bağlarbaşı (late 8th–7th to c. 6000 BC), obsidian artefacts include rare sources such as Acıgöl, Hasan Dağ, and Yalaz in Galatia. Inland routes, rather than coasts, appear crucial to neolithisation in these regions.

In western Anatolia, direct procurement of Melian obsidian—often exceeding 80% of lithic assemblages in late periods—reflects both seafaring skills and regional “gateway” communities serving as nodes in long-distance exchange.

In the Zagros, sites like Ali Kosh and Chagha Sefid feature obsidian from both south-eastern Anatolian and Armenian sources (Nemrut Dağ, Bingöl A/B, Kars-Digor, Meydan Dağ, Geghasar), with phase-specific shifts illustrating changing networks over time.

Recent geochemical analysis demonstrates westernmost distributions of Anatolian obsidian in Neolithic Poland, showing that certain blades originated from Nemrut Dağ nearly 2,200 km away, likely reflecting selective, direct trade or social gifting, as intermediary finds are lacking.

Technological Advances and Methodological Reassessment

Advanced techniques (such as SEM-EDS, PIXE, pXRF, EDXRF) have enabled the discrimination of multiple obsidian sources, challenging earlier models of simple or single-area procurement. Multi-source attributions for prestige objects, vessels, and curated tools are now understood as evidence of complex regional interaction and mobility.

Comparison with Neolithic Britain

Comparable procurement and movement patterns are seen in Neolithic Britain. Axeheads of Langdale tuff from Cumbria and the sources of the stones of Stonehenge (now traced to southwest Wales and  Scotland) and other sites in Wessex were widely distributed, with deposition in many non-utilitarian or symbolic contexts. Much like Anatolian obsidian, these materials reflect both functional utility and symbolic significance in constructing connections across landscapes.

Conclusion

From Anatolia to Cumbria, Neolithic communities demonstrated remarkable capacity for stone acquisition, transformation, and long-distance exchange. Obsidian artefacts and monumental stones were not mere functional objects but powerful symbols of social networks, identity, and connectivity.

 

1. Brandl M, Martinez MM, Hauzenberger C, Filzmoser P, Milić B, Horejs B. Unveiling Neolithic Economic Behavior: A Novel Approach to Chert Procurement at Çukuriçi Höyük, Western Anatolia. J Archaeol Method Theory. 2025;32(1):16. doi: 10.1007/s10816-024-09681-6. Epub 2024 Dec 24. PMID: 39723349; PMCID: PMC11666786.
2. Clough, T.H. McK., & Cummins, W.A. (Eds.). (1988). Stone Axe Studies, Vol. 2. CBA Research Report 67.
   https://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archives/view/cba_rr/rr67.cfm
3. Frahm, E. (2024). Reassessing the origins of Near Eastern obsidian vessels. Journal of Archaeological Science Reports.
   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2024.104731
4. Gemici, H.C., Atakuman, O., Kolankaya-Bostancı, E., & Fidan, F. (2024). Diversity of obsidian sources in the northwest Anatolian site of Bağlarbaşı. Quaternary Science Reviews.
   https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379124000441
5. Hughes, R.E. et al. (2025) ‘Long-Distance Obsidian Conveyance During the Neolithic: A Critical Analysis of Three Obsidian Blades Found in Poland’, European Journal of Archaeology, pp. 1–22. doi:10.1017/eaa.2025.10018.
6. Koptekin, D., et al. (2024). Out-of-Anatolia cultural and genetic interactions during the Neolithic. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adr3326
   
   
7. Parker Pearson, M. (2012). Stonehenge: Exploring the Greatest Stone Age Mystery. London: Simon & Schuster.
   https://www.simonandschuster.co.uk/books/Stonehenge/Mike-Parker-Pearson/9780857207326
8. Zeynalov, A.A. (2025). Procurement and exchange of obsidian in the Middle East.
   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2025.105313
9. Efe, T., & Baysal, E. (2024). Diversity of obsidian sources in the northwest Anatolian site of Bağlarbaşı and the dynamics of neolithisation. Quaternary International, 689-690, 22-34.
   https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379124000441
10. Milic, M., Horejs, B., & Duru, G. (2024). A novel approach to chert and obsidian procurement at Çukuriçi Höyük. Journal of Archaeological Science Reports, 57, Article 104687. doi: 10.1007/s10816-024-09681-6
11. Eastham, P. (2023). The Langdale Axe. Hidden Cumbrian Histories.
    https://hiddencumbrianhistories.substack.com/p/the-langdale-axe-0d8
12. Bradley, R., & Edmonds, M. (2019). British Neolithic axehead distributions and their implications. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 27, 836-859.
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10816-019-09438-6
13. Clarke, A.J.I., Kirkland, C.L., Bevins, R.E. et al. A Scottish provenance for the Altar Stone of Stonehenge. Nature 632, 570–575 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07652-1
14. Keller, J., & Seifried, R. (n.d.). The present status of obsidian source identification in Anatolia and the Near East.
    https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Present-Status-of-Obsidian-Source-in-Anatolia-Keller-Seifried/4f665c733ef60b7b2e5aab196d473eba0819ab41
15. Nishiaki, Y., et al. (2019). Obsidian provenance analyses at Göytepe, Azerbaijan.
    https://doi.org/10.1111/arcm.12457
16. Alice Vinet, Neolithic obsidian mirrors from Southwest Asia: A reflection on their diffusion and manufacture. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, Volume 62, April 2025, 105047. doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2025.105047
17. Nash, D. J., et al. (2020). Origins of the sarsen megaliths at Stonehenge. Science Advances, 6, eabc0133.
    https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abc0133
18. Abdullah Hacar, Nilay Çetin, Yakup Ünlüler (2024). New Neolithic finds from the highlands between Central Anatolia and the Mediterranean. Journal of Archaeological Science Reports, 58, Article 104712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2024.104802
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X24004309
19. Baysal, E. (2024). A new area for Neolithic research in Anatolia. Documenta Praehistorica, 45, 34-45.
    https://journals.uni-lj.si/DocumentaPraehistorica/article/view/45.3
20. Marchand, F., et al. (2025). Out-of-Anatolia: Cultural and genetic interactions during the Neolithic expansion in West Anatolia. Science, 385(6705), 128-135.
    https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adr3326
21. Amber Roy, Rachel J. Crellin, Oliver J.T. Harris (2023). Use-wear analysis reveals the first direct evidence for the use of Neolithic polished stone axes in Britain. Journal of Archaeological Science Reports, 49, 103882, ISSN 2352-409X, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2023.103882.