Debates about archaeological interpretation are always healthy and welcome, and when, as here, arguments are not killed off, they inevitably become stronger. Importantly, the comments by Magli and Belmonte (2023) serve as a reminder that reconciling conflicting theoretical perspectives is never easy when times are changing. Grounded in positivism, their critique draws upon assumptions that become justificatory assertions. For better or worse, archaeological thinking has moved away from the processualism of the late 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s—a key turning point being Hodder's (1984) review of positivism in archaeological interpretation and his call for more contextualised approaches. The authors might usefully have consulted this and other works before setting out onto the choppy waters of post-processual archaeology. Many of their points simply escalate questions posed in my original text (Darvill 2022), and they often fail to distinguish between suggestions, arguments and more solid interpretative statements. Notwithstanding, they neatly arrange their response around three issues that are here addressed seriatim.

In a recent Antiquity article, Parker Pearson and colleagues (2021) presented results from excavations at Waun Mawn in south-west Wales, interpreting the site as a dismantled stone circle and source for some of the Bluestone pillars used in the Aubrey Holes at Stonehenge. Here, the author examines the evidence, showing that alternative interpretations are possible. Waun Mawn is argued to represent a series of smaller stone settings, typical of ceremonial sites in south-west Wales. Meanwhile the Aubrey Holes are shown to reflect a well-established regional sequence in which post circles are followed by pit circles. A Welsh ‘source-circle’ for Stonehenge cannot be excluded but, the author argues, the claim is unsupported by the current evidence.

Large-scale development-led archaeology has changed the very nature of archaeological datasets. In addition to the familiar positive evidence of structures and deposits, there is now a wealth of ‘true-negative’ evidence: the confirmed absence of archaeological remains. Making good use of such data presents a challenge and demands new ways of thinking. Using case studies based on recent developer-led work in the UK, the authors suggest that focusing on ‘fingerprints’ of past human activity at a landscape scale provides a useful approach. The results argue in favour of changes to existing recording systems, as well as the need to integrate more fully both positive and negative evidence in archaeological interpretation.

Scholars have long seen in the monumental composition of Stonehenge evidence for prehistoric time-reckoning—a Neolithic calendar. Exactly how such a calendar functioned, however, remains unclear. Recent advances in understanding the phasing of Stonehenge highlight the unity of the sarsen settings. Here, the author argues that the numerology of these sarsen elements materialises a perpetual calendar based on a tropical solar year of 365.25 days. The indigenous development of such a calendar in north-western Europe is possible, but an Eastern Mediterranean origin is also considered. The adoption of a solar calendar was associated with the spread of solar cosmologies during the third millennium BC and was used to regularise festivals and ceremonies.

Recent investigations at Stonehenge have been accompanied by new research on the origin of the famous ‘bluestones’, a mixed assemblage of rhyolites and dolerites that stand among the much taller sarsens. Some of the rhyolite debitage has been traced to a quarry site at Craig Rhosyfelin near the Pembrokeshire coast; but fieldwork on the upland outcrops of Carn Menyn has also provided evidence for dolerite extraction in the later third millennium BC, and for the production of pillar-like blocks that resemble the Stonehenge bluestones in shape and size. Quarrying at Carn Menyn began much earlier, however, during the seventh millennium BC, suggesting that Mesolithic communities were the first to exploit the geology of this remote upland location.

This article reports the discovery of colour-decorated pottery dating to the third millennium bc from the Isle of Man, the earliest yet known from the British Isles. Scientific studies of the vessel highlight technical aspects of its manufacture which are then used to situate the vessel in a wider social and cultural context through a brief review of its wider biography. The choice of colours — white, black and red — and their arrangement on the vessel walls are linked to wider north European symbolic schemes reflected also in contemporary pottery, mobiliary and rock art.

An extensive high-resolution geophysical survey covering 2 km2 was undertaken to the north of Stonehenge in June and October 2011. The survey is important in providing, for the first time, abundant detail on the form and structure of the Stonehenge Cursus, including the recognition of entrances in both of the long sides. Much additional information about the internal form of round barrows in the Cursus Round Barrow Cemetery, the course of the Avenue, the course of the so-called Gate Ditch, and numerous tracks and early roads crossing the landscape was recorded. A series of previously unrecognized features were identified: a pit-arc or cove below a barrow on the west side of King Barrow Ridge, a square-shaped feature surrounded by pits on the east side of Stonehenge Bottom, and a linear ditch on the same solstical axis, and parallel to, the southern section of the Stonehenge Avenue. An extensive scatter of small metallic anomalies marking the position of camping grounds associated with the Stonehenge Free Festival in the late 1970s and early 1980s raise interesting conservation and management issues.

We are pleased to present the latest account of the sequence of burial and construction at the site of Stonehenge, deduced by its most recent excavators and anchored in time by the application of Bayesian radiocarbon modelling. Five prehistoric stages are proposed, of varied duration, and related by our authors to neighbouring monuments in the Stonehenge environs. While it may never be possible to produce a definitive chronology for this most complex of monuments, the comprehensive and integrated achievement owed to these researchers has brought us much closer to that goal. It is from this firm platform that Stonehenge can begin its new era of communication with the public at large.

Surveys and excavations in 1980–1 confirmed Peak Camp as a Neolithic enclosure on a flat promontory of the Cotswold escarpment overlooking the Severn Valley just 1 km south of Crickley Hill. Although heavily eroded by quarrying the site can be reconstructed as having two concentric arcs of boundary earthworks forming an oval plan which was probably open to the north where a steep natural slope defined the edge of the site. A section through the outer boundary showed four main phases of ditch construction, at least one causewayed. An extensive series of radiocarbon dates shows construction began in the late 37th century cal bc and probably continued through successive remodellings into the 33rd century cal bc or beyond. An internal ditch or elongated pit situated in the area between the inner and outer boundary earthworks had a similar history. Where sampled, the ditch and internal feature were rich in material culture, including a substantial assemblage of plain bowl pottery; flint implements and working waste; animal remains dominated by cattle but including also the remains of a cat; human foot bones; slight traces of cereal production; a fragment of a Group VI axe; part of a sandstone disc; and a highly unusual shale arc pendant of continental type. It is suggested that the ditch fills represent selectively redeposited midden material from within the site that started to accumulate in the late 5th or early 4th millennium cal bc. The construction and use of Peak Camp is contemporary with activity on Crickley Hill, and the two sites probably formed components of a single complex. Its use was also contemporary with the deposition of burials at local long barrows in the Cotswold-Severn tradition which are linked by common ceramic traditions and the selective deposition of human body parts.

The following paper is the first published account of an excavation that took place at Stonehenge during April 2008. As this was the first excavation to take place within the stone circle for some forty years, the excavation has attracted an uncommon degree of interest, hence its publication in the Antiquaries Journal as an interim account of work in progress, in the form of an edited transcript of a paper first given at the Ordinary Meeting of the Society of Antiquaries of London on 9 October 2008. The paper explains that the 2008 excavation set out to date the construction of the Double Bluestone Circle at Stonehenge and to chart the subsequent history of the bluestones and their use at the monument. Evidence is presented for a provisional working date of around 2300 bc for the construction of the Double Bluestone Circle, while it is argued that the history of the site is far more complex than has been allowed for in existing interpretations, with a multiplicity of overlapping and intercutting (though not continuous) events, including substantial late Roman, medieval and early modern activity. The excavated material, and the evidence from the surviving stones, supports the suggestion that bluestones were brought to the site because of their perceived special qualities, perhaps for their supposed healing properties, and that some knowledge of those qualities remained current in later times with the result that in excess of two-thirds of the original bluestone volume has now disappeared.

Excavations at Hartshill Copse in 2003 uncovered evidence for Late Bronze Age settlement, securely dated to the 10th century BC, associated with long alignments of closely set posts: prehistoric landscape features with few known parallels. Extensive sampling of the settlement remains yielded quantities of burnt flint and plain Post Deverel-Rimbury potsherds, and, quite unexpectedly, a substantial quantity of iron hammerscale. This paper presents the excavation data, with supporting dating evidence, and the results of detailed analysis of the metallurgical residues. It explores the spatial distribution of artefact types within the settlement, and presents an interpretative model for settlement use. The nature of the settlement, with its carefully planned use of space and close relationship with the post alignments, is then discussed. Together, all this provides conclusive evidence for the earliest ironworking site yet recognised in Britain. The paper concludes with a comprehensive discussion of early ironworking in its British and European context.

Reappraisal of an early 20th century excavation at the Cronk yn How round barrow near Ramsey in the Isle of Man suggests that a stone pair was demolished during the 3rd millennium BC to make way for a round barrow with a single central burial. It is suggested that one of the stones from the original pair was decorated with a series of motifs before being incorporated into the barrow. Some of the motifs used find parallels amongst later Neolithic incised rock art on the walls of tombs and houses, and on stone plaques. Other motifs, including what appear to be representations of deer, serve to expand the repertoire of known designs and highlight the potential of this kind of this rather understudied category of rock art. Parallels for the zoomorphic motifs can be found in Scandinavia. A review of other rock art within the Isle of Man revealed more than 70 recorded panels at 55 individual sites making this one of the more densely populated rock art landscapes in the west of Britain. Two main styles are represented, the passage-grave style, which includes the Cronk yn How Stone, and the cup-mark dominated style, or Galician Style. The latter accounts for more than 95% of recorded sites which accords well with what is known of the Isle of Man's cultural relationships during the 4th and 3rd millennia BC.

Topographical and geophysical surveys carried out in August 2002 at three monuments in the Preseli Hills of Pembrokeshire are reported: Bedd Arthur, Gors Fawr and Meini Gwyr. Previously unrecorded features were revealed at all three sites, most spectacularly at Meini Gwyr which, from the evidence of geophysical survey, appears to be a multi-phase monument that includes a double pit-circle, hengi-form monument and embanked enclosure with an internal stone circle. Comparisons are made with plans prepared by Flinders Petrie in 1926, published here for the first time. A viewshed analysis of the surveyed sites and others of similar kind in the area allows an appreciation of landscape setting and intervisibility. It is suggested that the stone circles are sited in relation to upland stone sources. All the monuments considered here are compared with contemporary structures recorded elsewhere in the British Isles. It is concluded that while the stone circles and oval setting fit comfortably within a distribution pattern that extends across most of the British Isles, the later phases of Meini Gwyr at least belong to a more localized tradition of monument building focused on the Irish Sea region.

A small panel of mobiliary rock art containing two cup-mark motifs discovered in north Pembrokeshire in August 2002 is described and compared with other finds of rock art from Wales. Although the sites with passage-grave style rock art in north Wales are well-known, the more widespread yet less impressive cup-mark dominated panels found mainly around the upland fringes of the country have received relatively little attention. A provisional corpus of 33 rock-art sites comprising more than 37 panels is provided.