The researchers asked where the Millstone Grit monoliths known as the Devil’s Arrows originated and whether Neolithic builders deliberately moved them, rather than erecting boulders left locally by Ice Age glaciers.
The research question and why it matters
The researchers asked where the Millstone Grit monoliths known as the Devil’s Arrows originated and whether Neolithic builders deliberately moved them, rather than erecting boulders left locally by Ice Age glaciers.
The Arrows had long been recognized as the tallest surviving standing-stone alignment in Britain, but proposals ranged from local glacial erratics to several gritstone source areas. Antiquarian accounts also described additional stones and suggested that one was reused in the Aldborough Battle Cross. The new study replaces those broad source proposals with paired mineral-age fingerprints and a test of regional ice movement.
What researchers found
The mineral-age fingerprints linked the standing stones to Millstone Grit at Brimham Rocks, about 18 kilometers west of Boroughbridge, rather than to nearer gritstone outcrops roughly 5 kilometers away or the long-suspected Plumpton Rocks source. Reconstructed ice flow did not support glacial transport from Brimham. The analysis also matched the stone used for Aldborough's medieval Battle Cross to the monument group, supporting historical reports that a missing Arrow was broken up and reused.
Key results from the tested systems
source distance
Mineral fingerprints matched the stones to Brimham Rocks west of Boroughbridge.
largest-stone mass
The monoliths required moving exceptionally heavy blocks across the landscape.
maximum surviving height
The row contains Britain's tallest surviving standing stones.
independent age fingerprints
Zircon and apatite uranium–lead age distributions were compared with candidate sources.
How the research worked
Microscopic zircon and apatite grains from the stones and candidate outcrops were dated with uranium–lead techniques. Researchers compared the resulting mixtures of Lower Palaeozoic, Mesoproterozoic and Archean ages, examined stone weathering and possible cup-and-ring markings, and reconstructed regional ice movement to test whether glaciers could have carried matching rock toward Boroughbridge.
How to interpret this design
The design determines what kind of conclusion the evidence can support. Direct measurement strengthens the reported observation, while generalization beyond the tested subjects, material, place or conditions requires additional evidence.
The conclusion is drawn from preserved material and its context. Dating, contamination control, site history, sample preservation and representativeness determine how far the interpretation can extend.
What strengthens or limits the finding?
Two mineral systems supplied distinctive age distributions that could be compared with regional rocks, while reconstructed ice direction tested a competing natural-transport explanation. Provenance is much stronger than inference about how people moved the stones or what the chosen landscape meant to them.
The result is meaningfully informative, but identifiable limitations could alter the size, reach or causal interpretation of the finding.
Funding and disclosure context
The recorded funding source is: Timescales of Mineral Systems Group, AuScope and Australia's National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy. The complete conflict-of-interest declaration should be checked in the original publication rather than inferred. Funding or a disclosed relationship does not by itself invalidate a result, but it is relevant when judging design choices, analysis and the need for independent replication.
What it means
The result makes the choice of stone itself part of the archaeological evidence. Neolithic builders appear to have selected material from a conspicuous upland landscape and transported exceptionally large blocks across country, implying planning and collective labor beyond simply using the nearest suitable rock.
Deeper analysis
Two mineral clocks narrow the source
Sandstone contains durable grains eroded from much older rocks. The mixture of ages is inherited from the sediment's source region. Matching both zircon and apatite distributions gives a more discriminating signature than visual similarity alone.
The glacier explanation made a testable prediction
If ice delivered the stones naturally, reconstructed flow needed to connect Brimham with Boroughbridge in the correct direction. The mismatch does not describe the human method, but it removes a major alternative to deliberate transport.
Distance can be cultural evidence
Closer gritstone existed. Choosing a more distant, visually distinctive outcrop suggests that origin mattered, though geology cannot tell us what meaning people assigned to it. The safest conclusion is deliberate selection, not a specific belief system.
Reuse preserved a lost part of the monument
The Aldborough cross shows how later communities can both destroy and preserve prehistoric material. Its fingerprint supports old accounts while reminding us that today's three-stone row is an incomplete remnant.
What it does NOT prove
- It does not identify the exact quarry face or the date when each stone was extracted.
- It does not reveal whether rollers, sledges, prepared tracks, waterways, seasonal conditions or another transport system was used.
- It does not prove why Brimham Rocks mattered or whether the motivation was religious, political, social or practical.
- It does not establish that every historically reported missing stone came from the same source.
- It does not show that all British megalith builders preferred distant stone over local material.
Important limitations
- A geological fingerprint identifies the best-supported source area, not the exact human route, sequence of moves or organization of labor.
- Only surviving and identifiable monument material can be sampled; lost, buried or heavily reworked stones leave gaps in the original alignment.
- Regional sedimentary rocks can share some inherited mineral ages, so the conclusion depends on the combined zircon–apatite pattern and geological context rather than one unique grain.
- Weathering and possible rock art support a landscape connection but are more interpretive than the uranium–lead provenance result.
- The published records reviewed here did not expose the total mineral-grain count, limiting an independent assessment of sampling precision in this summary.
- The 25-tonne and 7-meter descriptions characterize the largest stones approximately; individual monolith dimensions differ.
How this fits with previous research
The Arrows had long been recognized as the tallest surviving standing-stone alignment in Britain, but proposals ranged from local glacial erratics to several gritstone source areas. Antiquarian accounts also described additional stones and suggested that one was reused in the Aldborough Battle Cross. The new study replaces those broad source proposals with paired mineral-age fingerprints and a test of regional ice movement.
Questions still unanswered
- Can fieldwork identify the precise extraction scars or worked surfaces at Brimham Rocks?
- What route would minimize slope, wet ground and river crossings for stones of this mass?
- Were the surviving stones transported and erected in one coordinated episode or over a longer interval?
- Do buried traces, sediments or wear marks preserve evidence of hauling technology near the alignment?
- How did the monument relate chronologically and socially to the nearby late-Neolithic henge complex?
Relevant U.S. government resources
These resources serve different purposes. A registry can verify what researchers planned, a repository can locate government-funded work, and an agency page can supply authoritative background. None automatically proves that this paper's conclusion is correct.
Federal archaeology resources ↗
Federal archaeology standards and background help frame preservation, provenance and interpretation. They are not evidence for the specific ancient-DNA or fossil result unless directly cited by the research.
Reuse note: Facts and discoveries are summarized here in original language. We link to government material instead of copying it wholesale, and we do not reuse agency logos, photographs, charts or third-party material unless the specific reuse rights are verified.
Mineral fingerprints traced the Devil’s Arrows to rock 18 kilometers away
This review was developed from the source record below and, when separately available, the primary paper or government report. The summary and analysis on this page are original editorial writing.
- Source organization
- University of York
- Source type
- University
- Authors
- Anthony Clarke, Jim Leary and Chris Kirkland
- Journal / report
- Proceedings of the Royal Society A
- Publication date
- September 9, 2026
- DOI
- 10.1098/rspa.2026.0504
- PMID
- Not available
- Institution
- Curtin University and the University of York
- Funding
- Timescales of Mineral Systems Group, AuScope and Australia's National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy
- Conflicts
- Not available in the institutional release or bibliographic record reviewed for this article
- Open access
- Yes
- Reuse approach
- Geological findings and measurements summarized in original language from the University of York, the open peer-reviewed paper record and official heritage context; no source wording, site photographs, mineral images, maps, figures, tables or artwork reproduced.
AI-assisted editorial process: AI tools helped organize sources and draft this review. The linked research records—not AI output—are the evidence. Publication standards and corrections are publisher-directed. Read our AI transparency policy.