Woodhenge - a circle of inverted trees

This month marks the centenary of one of the most remarkable discoveries in British archaeology: the identification of Woodhenge on 12 December 1925. Squadron Leader Gilbert Insall VC, flying a Sopwith Snipe biplane over the fields near Durrington, spotted unusual cropmarks from the air—rings of dark spots that revealed the hidden outline of a massive Neolithic timber circle, just two miles from Stonehenge. This pioneering aerial discovery, followed by excavations led by Maud and Ben Cunnington from 1926 to 1929, transformed our understanding of the Stonehenge landscape.

Over a decade ago, in an update to an earlier post, I explored a whimsical yet intriguing idea inspired by the famous inverted tree at Seahenge: (The post was updated because I had just read the 2004 book Stonehenge and Avebury: The World Heritage Site by Rodney Legg, which makes the same suggestion. Apologies to Rodney that I hadn't spotted his prior idea in my earlier post).

As far as I know, the only extant Neolithic posthole with a large wooden post still in it that we have seen is that at Seahenge. The central posthole was surrounded by a timber fence that was also still there, as are other ones such as at Holme II.

And the main feature of this posthole was that the hole contained an inverted tree.

In an idle moment, I wondered what Woodhenge would have looked like if it had consisted of a magical upside-down tree copse. I rather like it—or I think I would have liked it.

I also think it is likely that Stonehenge started as a wooden circle of inverted trees which were replaced, (only partially?) with stones.

A fresh view on the oldest picture of Stonehenge

 

Merlin flanked by soldiers at the Giant’s Dance. Photo:  London, British Library MS Egerton 3028, fol. 30r. 

Dominguez, Betsy. "Merlin, Myth and Monument: The ‘Stonehenge’ Miniature in BL Egerton MS 3028." Peregrinations: Journal of Medieval Art and Architecture 9, 4 (2025): 133-162. https://digital.kenyon.edu/ perejournal/vol9/iss4/5 

The paper explores one of the earliest visual representations of Stonehenge, arguing that such medieval images mark the monument's pivotal shift from nebulous prehistory into documented "history"—recast through Arthurian myth as a tangible emblem of British kingship and loss. Dominguez centres her analysis on a striking 14th-century ink miniature in British Library MS Egerton 3028 (fol. 30r), which depicts Merlin—portrayed as a diminutive, beardless child—flanked by soldiers amid a partial post-and-lintel structure of the "Giant's Dance". This image, set within an abridged Anglo-Norman verse adaptation of Wace's Roman de Brut (c. 1338–1340), transforms Stonehenge from an ancient enigma into a narrative prop in Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae, symbolising mourning for Saxon-massacred British nobles under King Aurelius Ambrosius.

The article critiques prior readings, urging fidelity to Egerton's text over Geoffrey's fuller account: the image aligns with Merlin's pragmatic counsel on stone transport, not explicit magic. Controversy lingers over the figures—Merlin lifting? Soldiers straining?—yet Dominguez links them to the child's recurring motif, enhancing the manuscript's intimate, myth-infused "pedagogy" for young nobility.

Re-interpreting the Durrington Walls Pit Complex: A Functional Animal-Hunting and Trapping Landscape in the Late Neolithic

 

Abstract 

Large pits surrounding Durrington Walls have generally been interpreted within a symbolic or ritual framework. However, recent sedimentary ancient DNA (sedaDNA) evidence, alongside zooarchaeological, architectural, and ethnographic parallels, suggests an alternative: these pits may have functioned as traps for large animals, integrated into a wider system of controlled hunting and slaughter involving aurochs, cattle, sheep, and pigs. In particular, the presence of Bos and Ovis sedaDNA in the basal deposits of several pits provides evidence suggestive of early animal–pit interaction. Combined with indications of arrow trauma on some pig bones at Durrington Walls, this supports a model in which capture, dispatch, and possibly performative or prestige-motivated killing were key activities. Such an interpretation requires reconsidering the Stonehenge landscape not only as a ceremonial complex, but as a working animal landscape whose monumentality reflects practical engagement with large, dangerous mammals—potentially blending subsistence with social display. This functional lens does not preclude ritual elements but situates them within the gritty realities of Neolithic animal mastery.

1. Introduction

Imagine the chalky Wiltshire downlands at dusk, 5,000 years ago: a line of hunters, cloaked in hides, beats drums of stretched skin to drive a herd of thunderous aurochs toward a concealed arc of yawning pits. The lead bull stumbles, horns glinting in torchlight, as it plummets into the void—a tonne of fury immobilised for the group's survival and spectacle. This scene, drawn from ethnographic accounts of bovid drives in arid landscapes, evokes not mysticism, but the raw calculus of prehistoric pragmatism.

Interpretations of the Stonehenge and Durrington Walls landscape have long prioritised ritual explanations. This interpretive reflex is deeply rooted in twentieth-century prehistory, which tended to equate monumentality with non-utilitarian behaviour. Yet, as new methods such as sedaDNA analysis expand our access to microstratigraphic histories, functional readings that incorporate subsistence, hunting, and animal management practices deserve renewed consideration.

Recent work on the “Durrington pits”—a ring of large, regularly spaced shafts surrounding the henge—has been framed almost exclusively in cosmological terms. However, the discovery of early-phase Bos (cattle/aurochs) and Ovis (sheep) DNA in basal pit deposits invites a reassessment. This paper argues that the pits may have functioned as animal traps, forming part of a landscape-scale system for capturing aurochs and other large mammals. Zooarchaeological hints of arrow use on pigs suggest complementary performative practices, rather than purely pragmatic slaughter. I acknowledge potential ritual overlays but emphasise how this model—bolstered by ethnographic analogues—reframes Neolithic monumentality as a response to ecological and social challenges, including the management of dangerous megafauna amid a shifting climate.

2. Background: The Durrington Walls Landscape

Durrington Walls stands at the centre of a rich archaeological zone, encompassing house clusters, monumental avenues, palisaded enclosures, and extensive middens dominated by pig remains (~90% of identifiable fauna), with cattle comprising around 10%. These have often been interpreted as the remains of feasting associated with Stonehenge’s construction. However, high-resolution analyses of butchery marks, seasonality, and kill methods suggest a more complex picture of animal management and slaughter.

Pigs, herded over long distances (up to 400 km, per isotopic studies), indicate organised procurement, while cattle remains hint at both domestic herds and rarer wild encounters. The recent identification of large pits around Durrington Walls adds a new dimension. Their scale (typically >5 m in diameter and depth), spacing (non-random arcs ~1.5 km radius), and rapid infilling have no close British parallels. While initially interpreted as a boundary or ritual circuit, their physical form invites functional comparison with global pit-trap traditions—systems designed to harness the landscape for high-stakes hunting.

3. Sedimentary aDNA Evidence and “Crime Scene” Signatures

3.1 Methods Overview

SedaDNA was extracted from borehole core samples (e.g., WS 8A) taken from pits in both northern and southern arcs, using established protocols for ancient environmental DNA (e.g., shotgun metagenomics with damage profiling). Signals were authenticated via depth-dependent DNA fragmentation and cross-referenced with chemostratigraphy (e.g., phosphorus peaks) and OSL dating. This multi-proxy approach minimises contamination risks, with 82% of taxa showing stratified distributions indicating minimal post-depositional mixing.

3.2 Key Findings

The sedaDNA study revealed unambiguous signatures of:

• Bos taurus/Bos primigenius (cattle/aurochs) DNA in basal layers across all sampled pits.
• Ovis (sheep) DNA, concentrated in southern pits.

These findings are crucial for three reasons:

1. Stratigraphic Position: The DNA appears in the lowest layers (chemostratigraphic zones CZ2 and CZ3), immediately above the original pit floor (e.g., 4.79 m depth in WS 8A), with bone fragments present—pointing to direct animal presence or deposition during early use, rather than later contamination.
2. Patterned Distribution: Bos signals are ubiquitous, while Ovis is localised south of the monument, suggesting structured animal movement or selective deposition, not random input.
3. Rapid Infilling Events: Microstratigraphy indicates episodic deposition (e.g., 57% of DNA tied to influxing sediments from distal sources), matching scenarios of animals falling (or being driven) into open pits, followed by deliberate backfilling. OSL dates cluster around 3000–2500 BCE, aligning with pit construction.

This pattern is difficult to reconcile with a purely symbolic boundary (e.g., no uniform infill expected). Instead, it aligns with active trapping, where basal residues reflect initial captures. Counter-evidence, such as the absence of articulated skeletons, may stem from post-trap processing (e.g., carcass removal for feasting), a common feature in ethnographic pit systems.

4. Ethnographic and Archaeological Analogues for Pit Trapping

Pit trapping for large mammals is globally attested, with traits mirroring Durrington's pits. Table 1 summarises key parallels, highlighting alignments in scale, spacing, and residues while noting ecological variances (e.g., chalk downlands vs. tundra).

Table 1: Comparative Features of Pit-Trapping Systems

System	Region/Era	Prey Type	Pit Scale/Spacing	Drive Elements	Residues/Infilling	Key Alignment with Durrington
Caribou Drives	Arctic/North America, Historic	Reindeer/Caribou	3–6 m deep; spaced lines	Palisade funnels	Basal dung/bone; rapid fill post-kill	Structured arcs; episodic deposition
Bovid Traps	Eurasian Steppe, Bronze Age	Wild cattle/horse	4–7 m diameter; linear arrays	Fenceline gaps	DNA/bone in bases; deliberate backfill	Non-random spacing; animal signals in lows
Wild Boar Pits	Medieval Europe	Boar/Pigs	2–5 m deep; clustered	Natural topography aids	Gnaw marks; quick infill	Pig dominance; trauma hints
Elephant/Bovid Pits	Central Africa/South Asia, Ethnographic	Elephants/Water buffalo	5–10 m diameter; hazard fences	Beaters + barriers	Faecal/DNA residues; event-based fill	Large scale for megafauna; basal organics

These systems share functional imperatives: pits as immobilisers, integrated with drives for predictability. Durrington's pits exhibit all core traits, suggesting adaptation to local aurochs behaviour (e.g., flight along avenues).

5. The Aurochs Problem: Dangerous Prey and Monumental Solutions

Aurochs (Bos primigenius) were formidable: males reached ~1 tonne, with aggressive charges documented ethnographically. Trapping via pits is one of few effective methods, as spears risked hunter injury. Their tendency to follow linear routes when driven suits landscape-scale funnels.

Given the Bos sedaDNA (potentially including wild primigenius, though domestic taurus dominates post-Mesolithic), the simplest explanation is that pits immobilised large bovines—opportunistically or via coordinated drives. This accounts for the pits' engineering: sheer walls prevent escape, while arcs maximise coverage. Absence of direct primigenius bones may reflect rarity or selective deposition, but sedaDNA bridges this gap.

6. Pig Hunting with Arrows: Evidence Suggesting Sporting or Display Behaviour

Zooarchaeological patterns at Durrington Walls include hints of arrow trauma on some domestic pig bones, unusual given pigs' manageability. Arrows are inefficient for close-quarters dispatch—stunning or knifing suffices—yet trauma signatures imply short-range shots, potentially in confined settings (cf. experimental lithic impacts).

This parallels performative hunts in later cultures (e.g., Iron Age boar spearing for status). Contextualised amid aurochs traps, arrow-hunting of pigs may represent a lower-risk proxy: a blood sport broadcasting prowess during gatherings. While evidence is tentative (trauma not ubiquitous), it suggests hunting as social theatre, complementing pit pragmatism.

7. Palisades as Animal Control Structures

Timber palisades near Durrington Walls (4 m high, with narrow gaps) are typically seen as ceremonial. Yet their form—long barriers with controlled interruptions—resembles ethnographic drive structures. Integrated with pits, they would:

• Channel animals toward gaps/crossings.
• Limit escape during drives.
• Create kill zones for ambush.

This yields a coherent system: palisades prod, pits capture, aligning with Ovis/Bos distributions.

8. Mesolithic Precedents: Stonehenge Pits as Potential Machans

Mesolithic postholes at Stonehenge resemble machans—elevated platforms for ambush in Asia/Africa—offering visibility and safety for archers. If functional here, they suggest continuity: early hunting infrastructure evolving into Neolithic traps, not a ritual rupture.

9. Discussion: Ritual Reflex vs. Functional Interpretation

Ritual interpretations dominate partly due to modern unease with slaughter, framing monuments as symbolic despite functional cues. Durrington's pits align better with trapping: architecture for containment, sedaDNA for interaction, middens for processing.

Counters—e.g., no in-pit tools—may reflect cleaning for reuse, as in steppe systems. This model enriches Neolithic views: as ecological engineers, communities engineered landscapes against megafauna decline (~2500 BCE), blending hunt with homage. Gendered prestige (male-led drives) or seasonal timing (winter feasts) warrant future modelling.

10. Conclusion

Reinterpreting Durrington Walls pits as animal traps offers a materially grounded alternative to ritual models. SedaDNA proves early Bos/Ovis interaction; zooarchaeology hints at performative kills; ethnography supplies analogues. Viewing this as a working landscape—of aurochs captures, pig spectacles, and palisade prods—reclaims Neolithic monumentality as bold ecology: human-animal encounters forging social bonds amid peril. Future work, including micromorphology for tool traces, could test this further, illuminating an era of tangible triumphs.

 

Skyscape Academy Launches Groundbreaking Programme in Archaeoastronomy

 

Midsummer Sunset Alignment

Skyscape Academy today announced the launch of its inaugural 15-month training programme in archaeoastronomy and skyscape archaeology. Set to commence in January 2026, the initiative invites enthusiasts and scholars alike to explore how prehistoric peoples, from the builders of Stonehenge to Polynesian navigators, aligned their monuments with the rhythms of the sun, moon, and stars.

The full programme, priced at an accessible £1,250 (a 38% discount from the standard £2,000), offers a comprehensive journey through foundational concepts, hands-on fieldwork, historical theory, and advanced lunar and stellar analyses. No prior knowledge of astronomy or archaeology is required for most modules, making it ideal for beginners inspired by Wiltshire's iconic landscapes. Highlights include:

• Introduction to Archaeoastronomy (31 January – 1 February 2026): A beginner-friendly overview of global sites, spotlighting Stonehenge's solstice alignments.
• Foundations in Skyscape Archaeology (11–12 April 2026): Core methods for interpreting celestial influences on ancient structures.
• Fieldwork and Data Analysis (13–14 June 2026): Practical skills for surveying sites like the Wiltshire henges.
• History and Theory (12–13 September 2026): Tracing the evolution of archaeoastronomical thought.
• Advanced Topics (7–8 November 2026): Deep dives into lunar standstills and statistical validation, with exclusive access to cutting-edge research.

For more details or to enrol, visit skyscape.academy. Early bird discounts are available until the end of 2025.

Ciborowski and Nash (2026): An Arithmetic Framework for Geochemical Provenance – A Review and Its Bearing on Stonehenge Studies

T. Jake R. Ciborowski, David J. Nash, 

Defining similarity: An arithmetic method for archaeological source provenance targeting using geochemical data,

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, Volume 69, 2026, 105513, ISSN 2352-409X,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2025.105513.
(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X25005462)

 

The provenance of Stonehenge’s sarsen megaliths continues to stimulate scholarly debate, particularly as increasingly precise geochemical datasets expose the methodological challenges of lithic sourcing. In a significant contribution published online on 2 December 2025 in Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports (69:105513), T. Jake R. Ciborowski and David J. Nash introduce a new arithmetic framework for quantifying geochemical similarity between archaeological artefacts and potential source outcrops. Arising from the contested interpretations of the Phillips’ Core dataset (Nash et al., 2020; Hancock et al., 2024; Nash & Ciborowski, 2025), their open-access study reaffirms the West Woods provenance for Stonehenge’s principal sarsens and proposes a generalisable method for lithic provenancing across diverse geological contexts.

---

Methodological Innovation: From Ratios to Ranked Similarity

Ciborowski and Nash’s central innovation is to formalise a transparent, petrologically grounded arithmetic approach that overcomes limitations in both visual inspection and conventional multivariate statistics. These traditional methods can obscure key geological processes—especially the variable silicification that characterises silcrete formation—and may introduce subjectivity when applied to complex datasets.

Building on the immobile trace-element/Zr ratio approach used in Nash et al. (2020), the authors propose a simple but powerful measure of pairwise geochemical similarity. Equation 1 calculates the percentage difference (ΔEi/Zr %) between any trace element/Zr ratio in an artefact and a prospective source:

By taking the geometric mean of Δ values across many elements—21 immobile trace elements in the case of the silcrete dataset—the method yields a single, scale-independent similarity score that can be used to rank potential source outcrops objectively.

This formulation avoids the known pitfalls of relying on raw element concentrations, which may vary widely due to silicification, hydrodynamic sorting in the host sediments, or weathering. The authors explicitly contrast their approach with that of Hancock et al. (2024), who used concentration data and unusually wide tolerances (–50% to +100%), a strategy the present authors argue is incompatible with silcrete petrogenesis.

Applied to the Stonehenge dataset—comprising ICP-MS analyses from the Phillips’ Core and samples from 20 southern British sarsen outcrops—the method ranks West Woods (Outcrop 6) unequivocally as the most similar source, with a geometric mean Δ value near 29%. Outcrops proposed by Hancock et al. (2024), including Clatford Bottom (Outcrop 3) and Piggledene (Outcrop 4), rank only 7th and 8th respectively.

Strikingly, comparisons among the three subsamples of the Phillips’ Core itself yield similarity scores of 12–20%. In several cases, West Woods samples are more similar to individual core subsamples than those subsamples are to each other—a result that strongly reinforces the West Woods connection and highlights the natural variability within a single silcrete block.

The authors demonstrate the method’s generality through multiple “worked examples” involving igneous lithologies—obsidian, basalt, andesite, and dolerite—and show that the arithmetic framework performs well across both high-precision ICP-MS datasets and lower-precision, non-destructive pXRF data.

---

Implications for Stonehenge Provenance

Within Stonehenge research, this study consolidates the case for West Woods as the principal source of the sarsen megaliths, including the trilithon uprights. Rather than relying on binary “match/no-match” interpretations, the arithmetic framework quantifies similarity as a continuous measure. This is particularly valuable for silcrete, where substantial intra-outcrop and intra-stone variability is expected.

While the present paper does not analyse other sarsen stones directly, the authors note that this method is especially well suited for evaluating sarsen outliers identified in earlier surveys—such as Stone 26 or lintel Stone 160—where geochemical affinities differ from the main cluster. They also demonstrate how similarity scores can be mapped spatially (“source vectoring”) to identify promising areas for further field sampling (Fig. 13).

Taken together, these results support an interpretation of deliberate, targeted extraction rather than glacial agency, consistent with broader archaeological evidence for complex quarrying and transport networks in the Late Neolithic.

---

A Note on Bluestone Dolerites: Scope and Clarification

A particularly informative worked example in the paper applies the arithmetic method to Preseli dolerites, using the dataset published by Pearce et al. (2022), which includes pXRF measurements from Stone 62, a core extracted from it, and seven potential source outcrops. This case study demonstrates both the utility and the nuance of the ΔEi/Zr % approach for igneous rocks. As expected, Stone 62 is most similar to its own core, validating the method’s internal consistency. When compared against regional outcrops, Carn Goedog emerges as the closest match (geometric mean Δ ≈ 20–25%), followed by Carn Ddafad-las and Garn Ddu Fach (both ≈ 25–30%) . Intriguingly, the Garn Ddu Fach sample appears slightly more similar to Stone 62 than the Stone 62 core itself, highlighting natural intra-monolith variation and illustrating how the arithmetic framework can refine interpretations previously based solely on cluster analyses. Although restricted to one monolith, this example shows how the method complements ongoing Preseli quarry research, offering a transparent and effective way to interrogate fine-grained geochemical differences within a dolerite suite.

---

Broader Scholarly Significance

Beyond Stonehenge, the authors argue persuasively that their arithmetic approach fills a methodological gap between subjective visual comparisons and statistically opaque clustering or discriminant analyses. By emphasising petrological reasoning—immobile elements for silcretes, incompatible elements for igneous suite discrimination, compatible elements for intra-suite differentiation—the method offers a clear and reproducible framework for geochemical provenance work.

Limitations are candidly acknowledged:

• No universal exclusion threshold yet exists for ΔEi/Zr values.
• Element choice must be petrologically justified for each lithology.
• Arithmetic similarity measures should complement, not replace, petrographic and archaeological evidence.

Despite these caveats, the paper represents a measured and substantial methodological advance, providing a transparent and adaptable tool for archaeologists working with diverse lithic materials.

---

Conclusion

Ciborowski and Nash (2026) offers a rigorous, process-aware approach to geochemical provenancing and provides the clearest quantitative support yet for a West Woods origin of Stonehenge’s principal sarsens. The authors’ arithmetic framework—simple in formulation but powerful in application—bridges geochemical precision and archaeological interpretation. Its demonstrated utility across silcrete, basalt, and obsidian artefacts positions it as a promising standard for future provenance studies, both within and beyond Stonehenge research.

 

Maud Cunnington Photographs

I was pleased to find on Ancestry.com a couple of photographs of Maud Cunnington, which can be used as alternatives to the widely known, slightly unflattering, one.

Birth 24 SEP 1869 • Vernon House Asylum, Briton Ferry, Glamorgan, Wales
Death 28 FEB 1952 • 33 Long St., Devizes, Wiltshire, England

Maud Cunnington - 12/9/1896 Age 27 - The fashion suggests the date is accurate.

Maud Cunnington née Pegge captioned as ca.1919 age 50 (I think it is about 1908 judging from the fashion which would mean she is about 39)

Maud Cunnington - an unprovenanced photo from the Wiltshire Museum DZSWS:2018.7040 - From the fashion 1910 -1915 age 40-45

Wiltshire Museum DZSWS:1983.8618 black and white photograph of B.H. Cunnington, Maud Cunnington and Heywood Sumner at Tisbury, 1924

Click photos to embiggen

An online discussion of whether the two Ancestry photos are actually of Maud lead to further analysis including the use of AI to compare the pictures which included a simulated rotation of the Museum portrait:

Key Feature Comparison

Strong similarities (these are the diagnostically important ones):

• Nose shape (best identifier across angles): The profile nose in both the 1896 and 1908 images shows a straight-to-slightly convex bridge with a refined, slightly rounded tip. When you mentally rotate the 1930 frontal view, the nose proportions, bridge width, and tip shape align very well. This is one of the strongest matches.
• Jawline and chin: The lower facial structure is consistent. The 1896 and 1908 profiles show a gently rounded chin and a moderately defined jaw. In the 1930 photo the face has naturally softened and filled out with age (typical subcutaneous fat redistribution), but the underlying bone structure of the mandible and chin point remains compatible.
• Eye–brow–orbit relationship: Even though angles differ, the spacing, the slight hooding that develops with age, and the position of the eyebrows relative to the nose bridge are coherent.
• Overall cranial proportions and head shape: The relationship between forehead height, mid-face width, and lower face width is consistent when you allow for normal aging. No major disproportions.
• Ears: Visible in the two profile shots; the helix curve and lobe attachment appear to match.

Differences (all explainable):

• Ageing (34 years between 1896 and 1930): Expected changes in skin texture, slight jowling, loss of facial volume in some areas, and softening of features are all present and natural. The 1908 photo sits perfectly as an intermediate stage.
• Hairstyle, clothing & lighting: Completely different eras and fashions (late Victorian vs Edwardian vs interwar). These are not diagnostic for identity.
• Photo angle & quality: Two strict profiles vs one more frontal view + different photographers, lighting, and print quality. The 1930 image is less “studio retouched” than the earlier two.
• Expression & pose: Neutral in all, but not identical — again, not diagnostic.

Likelihood Assessment

High likelihood — these are almost certainly all Maud Cunnington.

The core craniofacial geometry (especially nose + jaw/chin structure) holds together convincingly across the three images. The 1908 photograph functions as an excellent “bridge” image. There are no red-flag discrepancies in bone structure that would suggest these are different people.

Interglacial Seas in Somerset: The Burtle Beds and the Demise of Glacial Transport for Stonehenge's Bluestones

Introduction

The transport of Stonehenge’s bluestones—igneous rocks sourced from the Mynydd Preseli region of west Wales—remain one of the most debated questions in British prehistory. Two major explanations have dominated: transport by Pleistocene glaciation or deliberate human movement during the Neolithic. The glacial hypothesis, once influential, suggested that Irish Sea ice carried the stones into southern England during the Devensian glaciation. However, accumulating geomorphological evidence increasingly contradicts this scenario.

A key contribution comes from Kidson et al. (1978), whose investigation of the Burtle Beds in the Somerset Levels provides robust evidence for intact interglacial marine deposits. This finding strongly challenges the idea that Devensian ice reached the lowlands of Somerset and, by extension, the feasibility of glacial delivery of the bluestones.

(Figure 1: Distribution of Burtle Bed sites across the Somerset Levels, - Kidson et al., 1978. Note the confinement to river valleys below 23 m OD, with no upland glacial signatures.)

The Burtle Beds: An Interglacial Marine Record

The Somerset Levels, a low-lying basin between the Mendip and Quantock Hills, preserve a complex sequence of Quaternary sediments. Among them are the Burtle Beds—Pleistocene sands, gravels, silts, and clays forming raised patches (“batches”) in the landscape. Their origin was historically contested, with interpretations ranging from interglacial marine transgression to glacial outwash.

Kidson et al.’s trench investigation at the Greylake No. 2 sandpit provided decisive clarification. By examining the full sedimentary sequence, including faunal assemblages, granulometry, and geomorphological context, they concluded that the beds represent in situ estuarine and nearshore marine environments.

(Figure 2: Schematic cross-section of Burtle Beds at Greylake No. 2, showing marine transgression sequence. After Fig. 2 in Kidson et al., 1978.

Key Findings

• Faunal Assemblages: Abundant molluscs (Hydrobia ulvae, Littorina spp.), foraminifera (Ammonia spp., Elphidium spp.), and ostracods (Cyprideis torosa, Leptocythere spp.) indicate in situ estuarine and near-shore marine deposition. These are life assemblages, not reworked glacial debris, with population structures (e.g., juvenile-to-adult ratios) confirming local habitats from brackish mudflats to fully saline channels. Water temperatures mirrored the modern Bristol Channel, ruling out cold-stage periglacial sorting.
• Stratigraphy and Environment: The sequence records a progressive marine transgression: basal clays (samples 8–15) represent intertidal mudflats at ~15–30‰ salinity, grading into sands (samples 16–24) deposited near low-water mark in a channel-shoal setting. No agglutinating marsh species or glacial tills appear; instead, phytal (algae-attached) forms suggest open-coast influx.
• Age and Elevation: Radiometric and palaeomagnetic assays were inconclusive, but geomorphology and ostracod affinities favour an Ipswichian (Marine Isotope Stage 5e, c. 130,000–115,000 years BP) attribution over Hoxnian (MIS 11). Critically, 25 sites (Table 1) yield elevations from 4.6 m to 22.8 m OD (Ordnance Datum Newlyn), with the authors estimating peak mean sea level at 9–12 m above present, and Mean High Water Spring Tides (MHWST) at 15–18 m OD. Post-depositional erosion accounts for the upper limit; these are not storm ridges but intact transgressive beds.

This marine signature directly rebuts Kellaway's outwash model, as the fauna demand temperate, current-swept accumulation incompatible with meltwater deposition.

 

Site	Elevation (m OD)	Notes
Ponfield Nr Langport	15.2–22.8	Highest; sand at depth
Sedgemoor Hill	18.2	Isolated batch
Greylake No. 2	7.0–7.6	Excavation site
Middlezoy	10.7–12.2	Valley fill

(Table 1 excerpt: Selected Burtle Bed sites and elevations, adapted from Kidson et al., 1978. Full table spans 25 localities, emphasising lowland confinement.)

Implications for Devensian Glaciation

If Devensian ice had advanced into the Somerset Levels, the Burtle Beds would show evidence of disturbance, erosion, or burial beneath glacial deposits. Yet the stratigraphy above them contains only periglacial head deposits and solifluction layers, indicating cold-climate processes without direct ice contact. This supports broader reconstructions placing the southern limit of Irish Sea ice offshore in the Bristol Channel, not onshore in Somerset.

These findings parallel research in Devon and surrounding regions, where low-elevation erratics once attributed to Devensian glaciation have since been reassessed as either pre-Devensian or non-glacial in origin. Together, these data strongly suggest that Devensian ice did not traverse the Somerset lowlands.

Conclusion

The Burtle Beds provide a clear and coherent record of interglacial marine deposition in the Somerset Levels. Their intact state decisively argues against a Last Glacial Maximum incursion in the region, undermining key assumptions of the glacial transport hypothesis for Stonehenge’s bluestones. 

References

BULLEID, A., & JACKSON, J. W. (1937). The Burtle Sand-Beds of Somerset. Proceedings of the Somerset Archaeological and Natural History Society, 83, 171–196. https://sanhs.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/16-A-Bulleid.pdf 

KIDSON, C., GILBERTSON, D.D., HAYNES, J.R., HEYWORTH, A., HUGHES, C.E. and WHATLEY, R.C. (1978), Interglacial marine deposits of the Somerset Levels, South West England. Boreas, 7: 215-228. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1502-3885.1978.tb00280.x