Friday, 29 August 2025

Asbestos on the Drove - August 2025 Summary

The presence of Asbestos Containing Material (ACM) on the byways at Stonehenge is giving rise to lots of comments and confusion and Wiltshire Council has not been helpful in engaging with the community to explain the situation.

My summary of the situation:

1) There was a problem in 2017 with the grassing over of the A344 where asbestos contaminated poor quality top soil was brought in, and then removed which caused a delay. This was a completely separate and unconnected incident to the current Byway 12 Drove problem.  https://www.sarsen.org/2017/06/wiltshire-council-recommend-letting.html for details.    

2) The drove passes over the site of the former Stonehenge aerodrome and debris from its demolition is widespread either side of the drove and even south of the A303.  A BBC report on the aerodrome: https://www.facebook.com/share/v/19pkgeCqtR/

A film of the demolition https://cutt.ly/JrK4KWq7 

I documented in the problem in 2016: https://www.sarsen.org/2016/06/stonehenge-solstice-asbestos-warning.html 

3) Even without sight of these the required desk-based initial assessment should have classified the former aerodrome site as a brownfield site with a high risk of asbestos contamination, from the records of its construction, when asbestos containing sheeting was commonly used for roofing and walls, and its demolition. Wiltshire Council or its contractors should have started with a Phase 1 contaminated land assessment, involving a desk study of historical records, maps, and site walkovers to pinpoint potential asbestos sources from past demolitions. If risks are indicated, this progresses to asbestos-specific surveys: a UKAS-accredited professional survey for locating visible ACMs, and a more intrusive refurbishment and demolition (R&D) survey to uncover hidden materials through sampling and analysis.

These surveys are underpinned by key UK regulations to safeguard health, safety, and the environment. The Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 (CAR 2012) mandates a "duty to manage" asbestos risks, requiring assessments and potential HSE notifications for licensable work. The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 (CDM 2015) oblige clients to provide pre-construction information on hazards, integrating asbestos surveys into project planning. Additionally, the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (Part 2A) serves as a framework for contaminated land remediation.

On the 21st August 2025 I walked the Drove and small ACM fragments were easily spotted, photos below.

On the 27th August 2025 Wiltshire Council in an FOI response stated: Unfortunately, we encountered an issue where some imported materials did not meet our specifications and had to be removed, causing further delays. More recently, a report identified the presence of asbestos sheeting on the byway. This discovery necessitated an extension of the TTRO into September to ensure safe removal and compliance with environmental regulations. It is believed that the asbestos originated from remnants of former airfield hangars previously located on the site.

Until the hazard is dealt with no maintenance work can be carried on that section, whether the rest of the right of way network can be reopened as work appears to be close to being finished is another question.








Wednesday, 27 August 2025

Correcting the Record on the Pembrokeshire Cow

Our baffled blogger friend is confused by the science of the analysis of the now famous cow tooth, unfortunately he then uses that inability to comprehend to spread misinformation. Here is my very quick, simplified analysis which might help correct the record.

The key is this figure;

Click to enlarge

Figure 6 from the paper "Sequential multi-isotope sampling through a Bos taurus tooth from Stonehenge: Investigating cattle mobility in the Neolithic" by Evans et al. (2025), published in the Journal of Archaeological Science https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2025.106269 . It illustrates lead (Pb) isotope data in μ (^{238}U/^{204}Pb) versus T (model age in Ma) space for sequential enamel samples from a Neolithic cow's third molar (M3), dated to approximately 3350–2920 BCE, excavated from Stonehenge's ditch.

Description and Verification of the Diagram

  • Axes and Layout: The y-axis shows μ ranging from 9.50 to 9.90. The x-axis shows T from 100 to 500 Ma (increasing rightward). This format aligns with UK Pb isoscape conventions, where older T values (higher on the x-axis) correspond to ancient geological terrains like the Avalonian basement in Wales, and younger T values to later events like Hercynian mineralisation in southern England.
  • 1SD Ranges (Boxes):
    • Left box: "1SD range of English ore from Pennines, Mendips and SW England" – Centred around T ≈ 200–300 Ma, μ ≈ 9.75–9.85, reflecting younger, uranium-enriched (higher-μ) Hercynian ores dominant in central and southern England.
    • Right box: "1SD range for Pb ore from Wales" – Centred around T ≈ 400–500 Ma, μ ≈ 9.65–9.75, capturing older, less uranium-enriched (lower-μ) signatures from Welsh Avalonian basement and associated ore fields (e.g., Malvern Complex).
    • Bottom box: "1SD range for Pb ores from Southern Uplands Scotland" – At T ≈ 100–150 Ma, μ ≈ 9.55, highlighting distinct Caledonian signatures north of the Iapetus Suture.
  • Trajectory Path and Arrows: The arrows denote the chronological sequence of enamel slices from earliest (crown, winter) to latest (root/cervix, summer). In hypsodont cattle molars, enamel forms incrementally over ~6–18 months post-birth, capturing time-resolved environmental and physiological signals.
  • Labels with Question Marks:
    • Left circle: "dietary source?" – Proposes the initial Pb signal derives primarily from local dietary intake (e.g., fodder, water, or soil ingestion in the Wiltshire/Stonehenge Chalk area, consistent with nearby English ore influences like the Mendips).
    • Right circle: "skeletal source?" – Suggests the later shift reflects remobilised Pb from the cow's skeletal reserves, potentially triggered by metabolic stress (e.g., calving, lactation, or being used as a beast of burden), overriding contemporary dietary inputs. And then the trajectory returns to the dietary sources.

This diagram is constructed from raw Pb isotope ratios (^{206}Pb/^{204}Pb, ^{207}Pb/^{204}Pb, ^{208}Pb/^{204}Pb) measured via MC-ICP-MS on the nine slices, converted to μ and T using the Albarède et al. (2012) method, and plotted against 1SD ore reference fields (excluding 10% outliers for robustness). Complementary Sr isotopes show a unidirectional decrease from 0.7144 (winter, radiogenic, consistent with western Britain/old rocks) to 0.7110 (summer, less radiogenic, Chalk-like), while Pb concentrations fluctuate with peaks and troughs, decoupling from Sr.

Interpretation in the Paper

The trajectory indicates complex Neolithic cattle husbandry, potentially tied to Welsh-Stonehenge connections (e.g., bluestone transport via livestock haulage). The Pb shift from English-like (higher-μ, younger-T) to Welsh-like (lower-μ, older-T) signatures is not solely attributed to geographic mobility but to a mix of dietary Pb (geogenic from local environments) and skeletal remobilisation. During stress, stored skeletal Pb—from early life exposure to Welsh-like sources—can enter the bloodstream and incorporate into forming enamel, decoupling Pb from Sr (which remains dietary). This echoes prior UK isoscape work, supporting Welsh origins or exposure for the cow's early life. Other factors may include foddering across landscapes or seasonal changes. The paper concludes this provides the first isotopic evidence of Neolithic cattle mobility linked to Wales, enhancing theories of long-distance networks, though physiological drivers must be considered.

Simplified Explanation of How Model Ages (T) Are Calculated

Model ages T for Pb isotopes estimate the time (in Ma) since Pb was last separated from its uranium (U) and thorium (Th) parent elements in source rocks, based on measured isotope ratios. It's a numerical solution to a system of equations assuming single-stage evolution from primordial Pb:

  1. Measure ratios like ^{206}Pb/^{204}Pb, ^{207}Pb/^{204}Pb, and ^{208}Pb/^{204}Pb.
  2. Use starting primordial values (e.g., from meteorites) and decay constants for U and Th.
  3. Solve iteratively (via software) for T, μ (^{238}U/^{204}Pb), and κ (^{232}Th/^{238}U) that best fit the data, e.g.:
    • ^{206}Pb/^{204}Pb = initial + μ (e^{λ_{238} T} - 1) (Similar for 207 and 208, adjusted for isotopes.) This links signatures to geological history, with older T for ancient basements like Wales (~460 Ma) versus younger for England (~300 Ma).

For the Stonehenge cow, the Welsh-like Pb signature, older T, in enamel slices suggests early-life exposure to such elevated-Pb Welsh terrains, with skeletal stores potentially remobilised during stress, amplifying incorporation beyond typical dietary levels. While modern validations use animals from Welsh mining districts where historical mining pollution may augment Pb concentrations, the isotopic compositions closely match geogenic ore signatures, indicating that natural processes dominated in the Neolithic and that mining effects do not fundamentally alter the provenance interpretation.

For more details see also:  Applying lead (Pb) isotopes to explore mobility in humans and animals
Evans JA, Pashley V, Mee K, Wagner D, Parker Pearson M, et al. (2022) Applying lead (Pb) isotopes to explore mobility in humans and animals. PLOS ONE 17(10): e0274831. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274831

Deliberate Sourcing and Symbolic Landscapes at Le Plasker, Carnac

A fascinating new excavation and paper on Le Plasker, recently published in Antiquity, sheds fresh light on the origins of the Carnac megalithic complex. This discovery marks an important addition to Europe’s most celebrated Neolithic landscape, revealing not only a newly identified section of alignments and a pre-megalithic tomb, but also crucial insights into how stone was chosen, sourced, and arranged. The research highlights the sophisticated choices of Neolithic builders, who manipulated their environment with symbolic intent rather than relying solely on the nearest available materials. Excavations show that construction here involved deliberate quarrying, long-distance transport, and symbolic manipulation of the landscape. Across the wider Carnac complex, the integration of tombs, alignments, and imported materials reflects sustained communal effort and cultural intent rather than opportunism.

Mesolithic Occupation

Before megalithic construction, the site was used in the Late Mesolithic (c. 5700–5100 cal BC). Excavations uncovered a hut-like structure with a ditch and three small monoliths, one potentially anthropomorphic. This early use, still visible centuries later, likely influenced the choice of the site for later monuments.

The Tomb Mound

  • Chronology: 4790–4640 cal BC.

  • Source: Locally quarried granite.

  • Details: A circular mound (3.3 m diameter, 0.15 m high) covered a dry-stone cist. The cist (0.7 × 0.9 m) likely held a single tightly flexed burial, though no remains survived.

  • Associated Features: Six oval pavements nearby; two contemporary cooking pits.

  • Significance: Among the earliest monumental tombs in Brittany, marking a transition from pit burials to megalithic architecture.

Monoliths Around the Tomb

  • Arrangement: 46 monoliths within 20 m south of the mound, aligned along an east–west axis through the cist.

  • Characteristics: Natural surfaces placed upwards; largely unworked, with only minor modifications for handling.

  • Source: Granite quarried >2 km away, not from the immediate plateau.

  • Significance: Likely intended to recreate a rocky landscape absent at the site, embedding symbolic meaning in material choice.

Standing Stone Alignments

  • Chronology: 4670–4250 cal BC.

  • Evidence: Foundation pits (1.8 m wide), filled with 60+ wedging stones (>100 kg), suggest uprights over 3 m tall.

  • Features: At least three north–south alignments, constructed in multiple phases. Some pits were paired with cooking pits, possibly used in feasting or as light sources for stones.

  • Significance: Demonstrates phased construction over three centuries, with repeated communal mobilisation and symbolic integration of hearths and stones.

Cooking Pits

  • Form: 1.4–1.5 m wide pits filled with charred granite blocks, often aligned with stone rows.

  • Function: Likely for communal cooking, but may also have illuminated or ritually emphasised standing stones.

  • Chronology: Contemporaneous with alignments; final hearths date 4250–4050 cal BC.

  • Significance: Suggests ritual or feasting contexts integral to monument use.

Imported Materials and Artefacts

  • Finds at Carnac Region: Alpine jadeite axes (~800–1000 km) and Iberian variscite beads (~500–1000 km).

  • At Le Plasker: Few artefacts were recovered, mainly lithics and ceramics, including Late Castellic motifs.

  • Significance: Carnac as a whole had Europe’s highest density of such imports, situating Le Plasker within long-distance exchange networks.

Broader Context in Carnac

The Carnac complex, spanning over 10 km, integrates tombs, tumuli, alignments, and colossal stones such as the 20 m Grand Menhir Brisé at Locmariaquer (transported 7–10 km). At Le Ménec and Kerlescan, thousands of uprights were aligned over several kilometres. Le Plasker contributes a missing segment of this vast architectural project, strategically placed on a ridge visible from the sea.

Conclusion

The evidence from Le Plasker undermines the view of opportunistic stone use. From a Mesolithic hut to a pre-megalithic tomb, to centuries of alignments and cooking pits, the site reflects deliberate reuse, symbolic landscape creation, and communal effort. Builders selectively quarried stone from kilometres away and integrated imported prestige materials into a monumental setting. Like Stonehenge in Britain, Carnac exemplifies how Neolithic societies reshaped their landscapes with symbolic and social intent, not simply pragmatic use of local stone.

Reference:
Blanchard, A. et al. (2025) ‘Le Plasker in Plouharnel (fifth millennium cal BC): a newly discovered section of the megalithic complex of Carnac’, Antiquity, 99(406), pp. 915–934. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2025.10123.

Monday, 25 August 2025

An Erratic Response to Editorial Oversight


The editors of the the E&G Quaternary Science Journal have flagged Brian John's article with a link to the paper that provides a "critical commentary on this article backed up by new scientific findings" https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2025.105303.

An excellent example of editors helping the scientific discourse and discovery progress. Originally the commentary was going to be published in the journal as a comment but as it grew to encompass new findings it was more appropriate to publish it elsewhere.

Richard E. Bevins, Nick J.G. Pearce, Rob A. Ixer, James Scourse, Tim Daw, Mike Parker Pearson, Mike Pitts, David Field, Duncan Pirrie, Ian Saunders, Matthew Power, The enigmatic ‘Newall boulder’ excavated at Stonehenge in 1924: New data and correcting the record, Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, Volume 66, 2025, 105303, ISSN 2352-409X, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2025.105303. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X25003360)

This will only fuel Brian's erratic thoughts on the value of editors, peer review and self published papers:

One minute he’s brandishing peer review as a shield against pseudoscience; the next, he’s dodging it for the "democratic" joys of ResearchGate, all while lobbing grenades at journals that snub him. It’s a gloriously irregular ride, swinging from high-minded ideals to self-justifying rants, with a constant undercurrent of frustration at the archaeological establishment. Let’s map this journey chronologically, with full quotes in italics and titles as clickable URLs, raising an eyebrow or two along the way. Spoiler: consistency isn’t his forte, but the passion? Pure gold.

We start on Tuesday, 26 April 2011, with John sounding like a guardian of scientific purity in On Pseudoscience: “The following are some of the indicators of the possible presence of pseudoscience. • Evasion of peer review before publicizing results (called 'science by press conference').[41] Some proponents of theories that contradict accepted scientific theories avoid subjecting their ideas to peer review, sometimes on the grounds that peer review is biased towards established paradigms, and sometimes on the grounds that assertions cannot be evaluated adequately using standard scientific methods. By remaining insulated from the peer review process, these proponents forgo the opportunity of corrective feedback from informed colleagues.” Peer review is sacred here – no shortcuts, no press conferences. Noble stuff! But brace yourself; irony’s coming.

Jump to Saturday, 19 December 2015, in The Rhosyfelin Affair: after the famine, the feast, and cracks appear: “because of the way in which the papers have been written but because the journal editors (Chris Scarre and Mike Pitts) have apparently gone along with this comprehensive sidestepping of scientific norms.” Editors are now accomplices in shoddy science. Amusingly, this primes his own leap away from those norms.

By Monday, 12 September 2016, in New online paper: Rhosyfelin is NOT a quarry, John’s gone full rebel: “what to do with the paper as submitted and rejected? There would be no point in sending it to another journal, since it was written FOR the journal Antiquity and would make little sense anywhere else. For better or for worse, I have now published it online as a 'working paper.' This means it becomes available for people too see and to comment on, and I can alter it if anybody points out mistakes or pieces of unfortunate phraseology. Does it have any 'status' or 'academic value'? I leave that for others to judge, but I quite like the 'democratic publishing' process that is now possible, thanks to the web and online publishing platforms like ResearchGate. In the process of making revisions I have taken on board all of the comments from the Antiquity editor and my own referees and those chosen by him -- and I thank all of them for their help in improving the manuscript. It is now as reliable, I think, as anything you are likely to read in a learned journal anywhere.” Oh, the irony! That 2011 warning about dodging peer review? Forgotten. He’s now bypassing journals, calling it “democratic.” Sceptical me wonders: empowerment or just a rejected author’s cope?

The love for open platforms surges in Monday, 2 November 2020, Waun Mawn and Proto-Stonehenge -- all fantasy, no facts: “Democratic peer review, beyond the reach of manipulative and biased editors, is something that I find quite refreshing on the Researchgate platform........” Editors are “manipulative” now, and ResearchGate’s crowd-sourced scrutiny is his new muse. Quite the pivot from peer review as anti-pseudoscience hero.

Yet in Saturday, 20 February 2021, Do you believe in scrutiny?, he nods to Carl Sagan: “One of my heroes, Carl Sagan, wrote a great deal about science and scientific scrutiny, and argued that without careful peer-review and assessment, science is effectively dead. Peer review is not a guarantee of quality. I like publishing on Researchgate and Academia, as long as there is no pretence involved.” Peer review’s vital, but flawed – and he’s still got one foot in ResearchGate’s camp. It's like praising a diet while munching crisps.

By Saturday, 17 July 2021, Archaeology and interpretative inflation — who’s to blame?, he’s spreading the blame: “The authors of journal articles MUST take full responsibility for how they are represented in the media — they after all are the ones who write the abstracts, and who sign off the press releases. So get real, editors — rubbish in rubbish out. Archaeologists are not as innocent as you make out. It’s about time that academic archaeologistrs — and their geologist colleagues — started to take their academic duties and responsibilities seriously by presenting hard evidence (and admitting to controversy where it exists) instead of peddling myths.” Editors and authors are both culprits now. Scepticism spikes: if everyone’s messing up, why not fix it?

In Wednesday, 26 October 2022, Through the two million barrier, John levels the playing field: “I insist that blogs such as mine are no more disreputable than certain academic journals and web sites, given what we know about the corruption that is associated with the peer review process. Some journals maintain high standards, and operate a very good peer review process -- but some peer reviewed articles are so appalling that they do nothing for the reputations of published authors and bring the journals themselves into disrepute.” Blogs as journal peers? A bold claim, but it feels like a defensive jab.

He doubles down in Thursday, 1 December 2022, How to sell a hoax: “it has occurred to me that what you really need, as an ambitious hoaxer, is an academic context in which critical scrutiny is suspended and material gets published because of the reputations of the authors rather than on the basis of scientific or academic worth. The Stonehenge bluestone myth or hoax has been perpetrated not just with the connivance of the Editor of 'Antiquity' journal (see below) but with the active support of scores of other editors and peer reviewers as well. ..the peer reviewers and editors have been negligent in allowing these bits of over-interpretation and 'myth promotion'..” Peer review enabling hoaxes? Spicy, especially from our former pseudoscience foe.

Tuesday, 9 May 2023, The ResearchGate phenomenon, sees him preaching: “ResearchGate does not charge fees for putting content on the site and does not require peer review. As readers will know, I am a great fan of ResearchGate, and I have uploaded many (but not all) of my papers onto the site over the years. The big advantages of ResearchGate, from an author's point of view, are: 3. The ability to publish 'pre-publication' articles or 'working papers' for scrutiny and comment by peers. Such articles may then be corrected or modified on the basis of feedback and comments, and submitted later to journals. This makes the peer review process quite democratic -- unlike the peer review process undertaken by journal editors, which is secretive and often biased, and which can be unreliable. As we know, many articles are published that should never have seen the light of day, and some that are quite worthy are rejected on the basis of biased and ill-informed reviews by anonymous peer reviewers. the peer review process is collapsing, as journal editors find it increasingly difficult to find qualified reviewers for submitted articles. So the idea that journal articles are somehow more reliable and respectable than Researchgate working papers (for example) no longer holds.” ResearchGate’s no-fee, no-peer-review model is his utopia. But wasn’t dodging peer review a pseudoscience red flag? The selective memory is chuckle-worthy.

In Sunday, 19 March 2023, The bluestone papers -- some available, some inaccessible and invisible, he tackles critics: “As faithful readers of this blog will know, over the years we have published scores of comments from a mysterious geologist (let's call him Dr X) on the matter of peer-reviewed publications. He has often suggested, under one pseudonym or another, that the only 'publications' that have any value are those that appear in peer-reviewed specialist journals. Because of that, he suggests, my publications that appear online on the Researchgate and Academia web sites are not worthy of serious academic attention. In effect, he tells me, nobody is going to take me seriously until my evidence and interpretations appear in proper archaeological journals, so I should 'put up or shut up'............. Now of course I fully acknowledge that Dr X has a point. Learned journals are reputed to be the 'gold standard' routes for the dissemination of scientific (and humanities) research, since peer review and editorial scrutiny supposedly guarantee quality, shutting off rubbish that might otherwise appear in the public domain and cause mayhem. That's the theory, anyway. In reality, nonsense articles do appear with frightening regularity in learned journals, since the researchers who submit articles are nowadays allowed to recommend -- or even choose -- their own referees, and since editors who want things published will always find a way, regardless of the quality of the material being considered. This is why fraudulent articles have to be retracted with alarming regularity. But things are not that simple. As we have seen, 'Antiquity' journal, which年生 itself as one of the top-ranked journals, deserves praise for making its articles genuinely open access -- but not from the date of publication. So those who want to read them as soon as they are published are frustrated. Their editorial standards are appalling too, and they have been responsible for publishing the three papers from MPP and his associates which have done most to disseminate the new mythology of the bluestones. As for myself, I fully accept that I could and should have published more in learned journals. I have offered to submit one or two things to archaeology journals over the years, but you will not be surprised to learn that editors (with rare exceptions) will not touch anything from me with a bargepole. They won't even look at a manuscript. I wonder why? So by default I have taken to using Academia and Researchgate as my publishing platform. I like the latter best, because it is so efficient and simple to use.” He concedes journals’ “gold standard” status but cries foul over rejections. Sceptical note: if editors won’t bite, is ResearchGate really a choice or a fallback?

Monday, 1 January 2024, Thought for the New Year: The Death of Science, brings apocalyptic vibes: “Every year we seem to see standards slipping further, with papers published (with massive accompanying PR) which should never have seen the light of day. I wonder, on such occasions, what sort of peer review process operates, and what motivates editors to accept and publish material which is so blatantly defective.” Slipping standards – a classic gripe, but from a self-publisher, it’s peak pot-kettle humour.

In Tuesday, 20 August 2024, The Nature article: where was the publishing threshold?, he zooms in: “The reviewers are clearly influenced by the assurance that the long-distance transport of bluestones over sea or land was exceptional but not impossible, since it is already known (so say the authors) that they moved 80 bluestones over 225 kms from Preseli to Stonehenge. If the referees had been properly informed that the human transport of the bluestones was and is hotly disputed, they would have been much more sceptical about the 750km journey proposed for the Altar Stone. The publication threshold would have been a great deal higher. Almost certainly the authors would not have been allowed to get away with 4 surrogate samples rather than actual ones. And the referees would have looked for much stronger evidence to support the proposition that the Altar Stone could not possibly have come from any of the alternative ORS terranes examined by the authors. All very dodgy indeed..........” Dodgy referees, lax thresholds – his distrust is in overdrive.

Finally, in Sunday, 11 May 2025, The increasingly bizarre defence of Bluestone Orthodoxy, and Sunday, 10 August 2025, My Response to Daw's Desperate Diatribe, he turns on anonymous reviews and even ResearchGate: “Anonymous peer reviews in circumstances such as these are of course completely worthless, and I refuse to engage with this one. If a reviewer does not wish to publish his / her name alongside disparaging and insulting comments, why should anybody take them seriously? What on earth is this article doing on the Researchgate web site? I am contacting the moderators to check out what their policy on AI might be, and to ask for the removal of something that makes no pretence at all to represent original scientific thought or process.” And: “He even asked Researchgate to change the typeface at the head of the article, to make it look as if it was extracted from an academic journal. Cheap stunt. I'm amazed that Researchgate accepted it, given that it contains no scientific content whatsoever.” His beloved platform betrays him with “cheap stunts” and AI nonsense. The irony’s rich – the democratiser doubting the democracy! And, of course, there were no such cheap stunts, as he knows, the site doesn't set the typeface, or judge the content.

John’s arc is a riot: from peer review purist to its fiercest critic, championing self-publishing until it disappoints. It’s passionate, contradictory, and delightfully erratic. One can’t help but grin: if only he’d submit a journal article about it!

 

 


Friday, 22 August 2025

Spinal Tap at Stonehenge

 I was lucky enough to be able to watch the filming of the concert that Spinal Tap and friends put on last night at Stonehenge. The rocks formed the backdrop to the stage and gave an opportunity for some photos.













Click to embiggen


Wednesday, 20 August 2025

Isotopic Insights from Prehistoric Feasting

"Our research highlights the strong parallels between the intense concentrations of activity associated with feasting event(s) at various henges and enclosures in southern Britain around 2500 BC, including Durrington Walls, Mount Pleasant and West Kennet palisaded enclosures, and at Newgrange. While there are clear similarities and differences in the character of the monuments at these places, contemporaneous largescale seasonal gatherings at midwinter for monument building and feasting occurred at each. At Newgrange and Durrington Walls, at least, we can now say that the feasting was focused on pigs that had been specially fattened on mast in advance. In combination, this suggests that these places may have been strongly interconnected through highly fluid and intersecting webs of contact at this time, thereby resulting in shared practices and worldviews."

Guiry E., Beglane F., Carlin N., Orton D., Teeter M., Szpak P.(2025). Pigs, pannage, and the solstice: isotopic insights from prehistoric feasting at Newgrange. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 1–21, https://doi.org/10.1017/ppr.2025.10063

A fascinating study which will lead to reinterpretation of much Neolithic feasting data. The isotopic evidence from fattening on mast is important.

On a quick read through I am a little concerned that it seems that the peak of pig slaughtering was more likely to be November rather than at the Solstice for their conclusions. This is based on May farrowing which is at the end of the seasonality of Wild Boar and pigs raised naturally. 

Tuesday, 19 August 2025

Neolithic Trackway Mats Theory: A Novel Addition to Megalith Transport Proposals

Neolithic Trackway Mats Theory: A Novel Approach to Megalith Transport

AI was challenged to propose a novel addition to the debate on how Neolithic megaliths were moved. The result is the Neolithic Trackway Mats Theory, a practical and original idea drawing from modern engineering and known Neolithic technology. (If this has been proposed before apologies for failing to identify a source.)

Theory Overview

The core idea involves using Neolithic ground mats—constructed from bundled or woven branches, reeds, or similar biodegradable materials—to create temporary trackways across difficult or soft terrain. These mats would be laid ahead of the megalith to provide a firm base, reducing resistance when moving massive stones. They could be moved and reused, similar to modern site trackways used for heavy vehicles on soft ground. This method would be particularly effective for crossing bogs, marshes, or waterlogged soils, common in many British Neolithic landscapes.

Modern Parallels

Portable ground protection mats are widely used today. Heavy machinery, cranes, and even tanks move across soft or fragile ground by placing mats under their tracks or wheels. These mats distribute weight, prevent sinking, and can be repositioned as needed. The concept translates easily to Neolithic conditions, given the resources and technology available at the time. For example, see modern archaeology compounds.

Neolithic Implementation

Neolithic communities had the skills to construct trackway mats from reeds, branches, bracken, hides or woven timber. Unlike the permanent brushwood foundations of the Sweet Track near Glastonbury, this theory proposes temporary, moveable mats. Preconstructed mats could be placed to form a temporary trackway, lifted, and moved forward as stone transport progressed. These mats would prevent rollers or sledges from sinking into the soil, reduce friction, and support immense weights on weak surfaces, particularly in soft valley floors, ancient bogs, or glacial till.

Trackway mats would make it easier for people—and possibly draught animals—to move heavy stones across rough or soft terrain. By spreading the load over a wider surface area, mats prevent sinking into mud or ruts, which would otherwise cause delays. The textured surfaces of the mats also improve traction, reducing slipping risks while pulling or pushing. Mats effectively transform uneven or boggy terrain into a temporary roadway, enabling more efficient transport with less effort.

Integration with Timber Rail Systems

The trackway mats theory complements existing timber rail systems proposed for Neolithic stone transport. Mats could be placed beneath and around timber rails to stabilise them and ensure they remain level on uneven or soft ground. This creates a consistent surface, reducing the likelihood of rails shifting or sinking. Mats also simplify the process of laying rails, preventing them from sinking during placement, and facilitate sledge movement by minimising friction. Workers could alternate between extending mats and rails, enabling rapid progress across varied terrain.

Potential Advantages

  • Reduces friction and prevents sinking of sledges or rollers
  • Makes previously impassable terrain navigable
  • Requires only modest additional labour and materials
  • Leaves few archaeologically visible traces, explaining the lack of direct evidence
  • Provides continuity with later timber trackways

Conclusion

The Neolithic trackway mats theory offers a practical, resource-conscious solution to the challenge of moving megaliths across Britain's varied landscapes. Drawing on modern engineering and archaeological precedent, the simplicity and adaptability of mats could have made them indispensable in Neolithic construction.

Appendix: Timber Rails or Slipways

Several studies have explored timber slipways (or rails) for megalith transport. Below is a summary of key findings:

Key Research Findings

  • Experimental archaeology: Full-scale experiments showed a 40-ton block could be moved on an oak sledge over a greased timber-rail slipway, requiring around 130 people on a 1:20 slope.
  • Contrasted with roller theories: Slipways are argued to be more efficient and better supported by ethnographic parallels than free-rolling logs.
  • Lubrication: Pig fat, tallow, and other greases were likely used to reduce friction on wooden rails.
  • Ethnographic reinterpretations: Images from Nias and Sumba, once thought to show rollers, are now interpreted by some as evidence for static timber slipways.

References

  • Richards, J and Whitby, M, ‘The engineering of Stonehenge’, in Science and Stonehenge, ed B Cunliffe and C Renfrew, Proceedings of the British Academy 92 (Oxford, 1997), 231–56. Demonstrates the use of an oak sledge on a greased timber-rail slipway. Link
  • R. H. G. Parry (2000); Megalith mechanics. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Civil Engineering, 138(4): 183–192. Discusses sleds on lubricated timber rails. Link
  • Harris, Barney. (2018a). Roll Me a Great Stone: A Brief Historiography of Megalithic Construction and the Genesis of the Roller Hypothesis. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 37: 267–281. Link
  • Harris, Barney. (2018b) Moving megaliths: time to park the rollers. British Archaeology, Dec 1, 2018. Reinterprets ethnographic photos as evidence of slipways. Link
  • Shillito, L.-M. (2019) ‘Building Stonehenge? An alternative interpretation of lipid residues in Neolithic Grooved Ware from Durrington Walls’, Antiquity, 93(370): 1052–1060. Suggests pig fat was used to grease sledges and rails. Link