Sticky tape did what drills could not. Researchers at Curtin University and the University of York lifted microscopic mineral grains off the surface of the Devil’s Arrows, three gritstone pillars standing near Boroughbridge in North Yorkshire, and matched them to the rock outcrops of Brimham Rocks, 18 kilometres (11 miles) to the west. The identification, led by Dr. Anthony Clarke of Curtin University, was reported on September 9, 2026.
Each pillar weighs more than 25 tonnes and stands up to seven metres tall. They were raised around 2000 BC, and the University of York puts them taller than Stonehenge at nearly seven metres, in what it calls Britain’s tallest surviving standing stone row.
Zircon and apatite fingerprints
The method needed to leave a protected monument untouched. According to Curtin University, the team used a non-invasive adhesive tape technique to collect mineral grains from the stones, then read each grain’s age “fingerprint.” The grains were zircon and apatite, crystals that lock in uranium-lead ages from the moment they formed. Those ages differ from one rock source to another, so a handful of grains can act as a signature of where a stone was cut.
The paper, “Deliberate prehistoric sourcing of the Devil’s Arrows, Britain’s tallest stone row,” by Clarke, Jim Leary and Chris Kirkland, appeared in Proceedings of the Royal Society A, volume 482, issue 2345, article 20260504, according to Sci.News. Its age patterns span the Lower Paleozoic, the Mesoproterozoic and the Archean, and the stones’ signature matched geological samples from Brimham Rocks rather than the other candidate outcrops.
Adhesive peel sampling matters because the monument is protected. Cutting a core out of a standing stone that has stood for roughly 4,000 years is not an option, whereas the tape collects mineral grains without damaging the stones. The team compared the resulting age patterns against geological samples from the potential source locations, and the comparison, per Sci.News, identified Brimham Rocks as the origin, about 18 km (11 miles) west of the site.
Brimham Rocks over Plumpton Rocks
The nearer candidate had long been favoured. Plumpton Rocks, which sits closer to the monument than Brimham does, was the assumed source until the grain comparison pointed elsewhere. In Clarke’s words, “these stones weren’t simply taken from the nearest available source, they were deliberately chosen from a challenging landscape 18 kilometres away.”
Moving a 25-tonne stone 18 kilometres across Yorkshire is a different proposition from picking up a boulder from a field. Dr. Jim Leary of the University of York, a co-author, put it this way in the York release: “Neolithic communities moved several 25-tonne stones 18km across Yorkshire, transforming a familiar site into an epic quest.” In the Curtin release Leary adds that the results show ancient communities “were making deliberate and meaningful choices about where their stones came from,” and Justin Scully, the National Trust general manager, thanked the researchers for helping “uncover this new chapter in the stones’ story.”
The study also addressed the oldest alternative explanation, that glaciers had dropped the rock near the site. Regional ice-movement evidence ruled that out, according to the account in Archaeology Magazine, which adds that weathering features on the stone surfaces and possible links to cup-and-ring rock art strengthen the tie to Brimham.
That choice has a wider meaning in Neolithic archaeology. The paper itself is registered under the DOI 10.1098/rspa.2026.0504, and its details here come through the institutions’ own releases and the Sci.News report. Sci.News notes that the pattern of selecting stone from difficult ground, rather than from the easiest outcrop, parallels intentional sourcing decisions at Stonehenge and other monuments of the period. Curtin’s summary draws the same conclusion: the findings suggest the landscape held cultural or spiritual meaning beyond practical convenience, which fits the idea that the builders were choosing a place, not just a rock.
Three standing stones and a lost fourth
The monument today is a row of three, aligned north-northwest to south-southeast across 174 metres, and nearly seven metres tall at its highest. Archaeology magazine describes it as a rare example of a lowland stone alignment. Historical accounts mention a possible fourth stone.
The York release says the study confirmed a 19th-century hypothesis that a lost monolith was reused in the Battle Cross at Aldborough, a 15th-century memorial. Archaeology magazine reports the same idea in softer terms, saying a fourth stone believed to belong to the original monument was broken up and reused in antiquity.
What the work does not yet show is how the stones travelled. The grain analysis fixes the quarry, and it says nothing about the route, the sledges or the number of people needed to move a 25-tonne block 18 kilometres, and Leary’s “epic quest” remains an interpretation of the destination, not a recorded journey.
This article was produced with the assistance of AI and reviewed by Morning Overview editors prior to publication.
More from Morning Overview
- NTSB report details how a family of four died when their plane’s nose suddenly pitched up
- Doctors warn a silent liver disease now affects one in three American adults
- Common allergy, bladder and sleep pills tied to sharply higher dementia odds
- The second-largest U.S. reservoir just fell to its lowest level ever recorded
