Surging behavious on Oxford Glacier: Brian Hughes and the Hudgeometer

This post is dedicated to the memory of our dear friend Brian Hughes, who sadly passed away on 25th September 2026.

========================

Brian was the inventor and maker of a scientific instrument which we used for the measurement of ice temperatures on the Oxford Glacier in East Greenland in August 1962.  We believe that these readings were the first ever obtained in Greenland from the surface of a surging glacier. 

See these posts:

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2016/11/oxford-gletscher-east-greenland.html

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2021/10/oxford-gletscher-surface-thermal-regime.html

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2021/09/oxford-gletscher-and-discovery-of-surges.html

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2024/02/lberen-greenlands-galloping-glacier.html

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2024/05/little-ice-age-glacier-surges-in.html

When we were planning the Oxford University Expedition to East Greenland David Sugden and I decided that we wanted to make some glaciological observations on a small glacier somewhere within our field area.  Originally we planned to work on a steep glacier on the west side of Nordvestfjord, but as soon as we saw it from a distance it was clear that it was too large and too heavily crevassed to work on safely, given our limited manpower resources and rather primitive equipment.  So we decided instead to visit a small glacier on the eastern flank of the fjord -- in a valley just to the north of the great diffluent trough of Holger Danskes Briller.  (This glacier was in 1962 identified by the informal name of Uranus Gletscher. ) We moved our equipment up the fjord by kayak, in a journey described in this video called "Into the World's Longest Fjord":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaF5J4KcQGw&t=79s

In addition to all our ropes, ice axes, crampons etc we carried onto the glacier our simple aluminium drilling equipment and the Hudgeometer in its wooden box.  It's a miracle that it all survived -- but after parachute drops and a great deal of rough handling, we were half expecting that the delicate gadget needed for the ice temperature measurements might have been damaged irreperably.  But we had to give it a go.......

Carrying our ice drilling and other equipment on the highly pitted and irregular surface of Oxford Glacier, August 1962.

Svend Wurm about to use the ice drilling equipment at one of the selected sampling sites

In the event, we managed to drill 17 holes on the glacier surface, designed to sample different parts of the glacier.  Because of the inadequacies of our drilling equipment, we never managed to drill down to more than c 4m -- but we did manage to get lots of temperature readings using a thermistor probe on the end of a cable, reading the results off a dial on the Hudgeometer. 

The drilling programme came to an abrupt end when the drill stuck in hole 18 and we found it impossible to get it out.  We tried to melt the drill rods out with the aid of warm liquid (guess where that came from!), all to no avail.  So the rods were abandoned in the hole, and that was the end of our glaciology programme.

Anyway, the results were chaotic, and no matter how much we tried to see patterns and trends in the data, we were flummoxed.  David and I concluded, reluctantly, that the Hudgeometer was giving us false results, possibly because of a calibration error by Brian back in Oxford,   or (more likely) because of some damage done to the equipment during or after transport from the UK to Greenland.  Somewhat disappointed, we walked off the glacier through pits and chasms that were typical of surging glaciers (although we did not know it at the time) and travelled by kayak next day back to our base camp area in Kjove Land.

In the later analysis of our results we could not work out what was happening to the surface layers of ice on the glacier, and because of the strong chance of equipment malfunctions we never did publish our results.  We brought the Hudgeometer back home with us at the end of the expedition, but we have no idea where it is now.  Maybe in an attic, somewhere...........  but it should be in a Museum!! 

We are not sure when, or how, our small glacier was given the official name of "Oxford Gletscher" by the Greenland place names authority.  We had nothing to do with it -- but maybe Svend Wurm made representations in Denmark, having realised, better than we did, that our glaciology results were actually quite significant?

So there we are then.  Our dear friend Brian made a small but not insignificant contribution (a) to the first discovery of a chaotic surging glacier thermal regime in Greenland, and (b) to the naming of the Oxford Glacier as a tribute to the university.  Had he known it, he would no doubt have been very chuffed.

Running repairs to Sandy's sledge, on which we hauled our camping and glaciology 

equipment up the glacier

==================================

PS.  Why was the machine called "The Hudgeometer" ??  It's a bit complicated.  In our gang of very close friends in Jesus College in 1959-62 which we referred to as The Councule, there were two Brians.  To avoid confusion I was genarally called "BJ" and Brian H was referred to as "Hudges".  His wonderful thermocouple machine, fabricated in the spring of 1962, was naturally enough then referred to as "The Hudgemeter".............

World's Longest Fjord: East Greenland 1962

The Long Walk -- East Greenland 1962

The "Scottish Origin" of the Altar Stone: much mud on faces

The broken Altar Stone beneath sarsen stone 55b.  Did any of the assumed Altar Stone 

samples actually come from the recumbent monolith?

So here is the new paper we have been waiting for, introducing some common sense to the over-excited debate about the so-called "Scottish Origin" of the Altar Stone.   Many thanks for Prof Andy Morton for sending me a copy.

Details:

Searching for the origin of the Stonehenge Altar Stone: new sedimentological, petrographical, mineralogical, geochemical and isotopic constraints
Pirrie D et al, Journal of the Geological Society183 (2026) jgs2026-090, pp 1-19
https://doi.org/10.1144/jgs2026-090

Abstract: 

Accurately constraining the provenance of geological materials from archaeological contexts is critical for the subsequent interpretation of their significance. Stonehenge, the iconic Neolithic monument on Salisbury Plain, is significant in terms of well-documented long-distance transport of geological materials used in its construction, with many of the bluestones transported c. 225 km from West Wales. One stone at Stonehenge, the Altar Stone, is distinctive in terms of its composition, being composed of a well-sorted fine- to very fine-grained calcite-cemented sandstone. Its purpose at the monument, and when it was transported to the site, is unknown. Early interpretations of a provenance from West Wales have previously been discounted based on both geochemical and mineralogical data. More recently, the age of detrital zircon, rutile and apatite grains in the Altar Stone were used to infer a provenance from the Orcadian Basin of NE Scotland. This paper presents a detailed multi-proxy characterization of the sedimentology, geochemistry, detrital and diagenetic mineralogy of the Altar Stone based on both in situ analysis along with the analysis of museum samples confidently attributed to the Altar Stone, as direct sampling is not possible. While the previously published detrital grain dating supports a Laurentian source for the heavy minerals present in the Altar Stone, the overall petrology, heavy mineral assemblage, clay mineralogy and geochemistry show that many outcrops of the Old Red Sandstone (ORS) in the Orcadian Basin could not have been the source of the Altar Stone. To date, no examined outcrop area of the UK ORS can be shown to have the same suite of lithological and geochemical characteristics as documented for the Altar Stone. Consequently, this integrated dataset shows that the exact provenance of the Altar Stone is as yet unknown.

This is a multi-authored work, including Bevins, Ixer, Pearce and Pirrie who were involved in the ill-advised and very premature 2024 suggestion -- heavily hyped in the media -- that the Altar Stone had probably come from the Orcadian Basin of NE Scotland. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07652-1       (They had also been involved in the "initial suggestion" that the Altar Stone had not come from Wales or the Welsh Borderlands, in The Journal of Archaeological Science in 1923.) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X23003905 

In a follow-up paper building on the claim (in late 2024) they asked "Was the Stonehenge Altar Stone from Orkney?" (Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, Vol. 58).  Bevins, Pearce, Pirrie, Ixer, and colleagues tested mainland Orkney monuments and outcrops. They ruled out Orkney specifically, shifting their focus to the Scottish mainland portion of the Orcadian Basin.

Then there was a wider archaeological synthesis in December 2024.  In "Stonehenge and its Altar Stone: the significance of distant stone sources" (Archaeology International, Vol. 27), Parker Pearson, Bevins, Bradley, Ixer, Pearce, and Richards used the 2024 Nature claim to argue that Stonehenge was built as a monument of island-wide Neolithic unification. Fanciful twaddle, but guaranteed to garner lots of attention in the mnedia.......

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2026/09/another-attack-on-altar-stones-scottish.html

I said in a blog post on 4th September 2026:  As we know from a vast media campaign and from abundant posts on this blog, the idea that the Stonehenge Altar Stone (stone 80) came from "Orcadian" NE Scotland is now taken as an accepted truth. There have been some differences in interpretation from the Bevins - Ixer - Pearce team and the Clarke and Kirkland team, but their papers make some pretty brash claims which have never been properly interrogated in the specialist literature. Well, all that is changing, and with a number of geologists now working on the case, I predict that the whole edifice of the "Scottish Altar Stone" will soon come crashing down.

Prophecy fulfilled.

As readers of this blog will know, I heavily criticised these papers at the time they were published, in these and other posts.

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2026/06/more-fantasising-on-altar-stone.html

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2024/08/yesterday-altar-stone-came-from-orkney.html

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2024/08/the-altar-stone-much-ado-about-nothing.html

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2024/08/the-nature-article-where-was-publishing.html
https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2024/12/the-stonehenge-narrative-becomes-even.html

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2024/09/the-altar-stone-fiasco-much-mud-on-faces.html

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2024/08/the-altar-stone-story-is-already.html

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2024/08/the-problem-of-surrogate-samples.html

My main concerns were, and still are, to do with the use of surrogate samples that might have come from the Altar Stone, or maybe not.  I have also been concerned with the quality of the science used in support of some pretty outrageous claims -- with a small number of field samples (and more often samples cited in other studies) erroneously taken as representative of vast numbers of outcrops and vast swathes of territory.n  The creating and analysis of aggregate samples is another issue.

I will look at this paper in another post -- and I do not accept for a moment the feeble excuse from Bevins, Ixer and Co that their previous deeply misleading and speculative publications were just part of a process of standard scientific elimination in a systematic search for the truth. Their approach is altogether too cavalier and too irresponsible.   In their frantic search for media headlines and popular praise they keep on getting things hopelessly wrong, bringing science itself into disrepute.

It should be noted that the highly critical  riposte of Ciborowsky and Nash (2026) -- which exposed a number of fatal flaws in the proxy Altar Stone data used by Bevins, Ixer et al -- was published too late to be incorporated and properly cited in the latest JGS article.  We have certainly not heard the last of that particular spat -- but the message from Ciborowski and Nash is essentially the same as that of the new article -- namely that the database is simply too flimsy to demonstrate any link between the Altar Stone and Scotland.

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2026/09/stone-62-nice-academic-spat-about.html
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X26004475?via%3Dihub

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2026/09/another-attack-on-altar-stones-scottish.html

One last point.  The eight "Altar Stone" samples that are analysed in this new study are all accepted by the authors as having correct attributions.  However, anybody looking at the data plots on diagrams such as that of Figure 4 must surely ask the same question as the one occurring to me --  "Surely there are such wide variations in these plots that the samples cannot possibly all have come from the same stone?"  The authors declare that they have a "high degree of confidence" that all attributions are correct, and they explain wide internal variations as  resulting from  patchy baryte cement distribution across parts of the Altar Stone surface, surface weathering variations, and heavy minerals located at different concentrations in discontinuous laminations.  All too convenient, with circular reasoning and special pleading never far away.........

Watch this space.......

Sunday afternoon at Rhosygilwen, 15th November

 

Looking forward to this at Rhosygilwen next Sunday -- an informal chat with Glen by the fireside, with plenty of time for questions and a look at one of my Greenland videos.......

Scourse "cancel culture" is facilitated , when it should be condemned. The QRA should pay more attention.........

Map showing my revised LGM limit for the Isles of Scilly.  The most substantial deviation from the old map published by Scourse and others is based on the discovery of glacigenic sediments on the islands of St Mary's and St Agnes.  The published evidence is simply ignored by Scourse, who should know better.......

Another map by the present author, showing the relationship between proposed ice edges for the LGM and local bathymetry.  The extension of a lobe onto the coasts of St Mary's and St Agnes would not be an "aberration" (as claimed by Scourse) but a perfectly normal feature of ice flow near the edge of an ice stream.  In fact an ice edge running southwards as proposed by Scourse and others is unrealistic -- that would be very much an aberration.

I have been looking at the new Isles of Scilly Field Guide, just published by the Quaternary Research Association.  I will review it in more detail later on, but my initial response is one of profound disappointment and anger that the editorial team has somehow allowed this book to be published without adequate oversight.  James Scourse is the co-editor and prime contributor, and he has been allowed to promote a "cancel culture" directed specifically at me, by effectively ignoring my contributions to Scilly Islands Quaternary research.  This is a pretty appalling abuse of a privileged position, driven by a petty animosity that I find difficult to comprehend.

In fact most of my field observations and conclusions are in line with those published by Scourse -- which makes his animosity even more bizarre. 

In 2018 the Quaternary Newsletter published a short paper of mine, entitled Evidence for extensive ice cover on the Isles of Scilly.  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328413421_Evidence_for_extensive_ice_cover_on_the_Isles_of_Scilly

It was properly peer reviewed, revised and published under the supervision of the QN editor and must -- we assume -- have been considered a worthy contribution to the discussion about the Quaternary history of the islands.  The article was non-confrontational and perfectly respectful of the work done on the islands across many years by James Scourse.  And yet he seems to have considered it to be a personal affront, and he responded with fury in a petulant and indeed arrogant response which the journal published, together with my reply. That was all eight years ago........

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2019/03/scourse-versus-john-rather-scilly-spat.html

Now, in the new Field Guide, Scourse ignores my work completely apart from three brief citations.  Instead, he cites his own response to my article and fails to mention the fact that I disputed every point that he raised.  Just a reminder.  I argued, on the basis of strong presented evidence, that glacial ice must at some time have covered the whole of the Scilly archipelago; that Late Devensian ice was more extensive than Scourse and others have previously claimed; that the "established" Devensian limit on the northern islands is less certain than claimed, because of a lack of dating controls; and that the Scourse Quaternary lithostratigraphic scheme is more complex than it needs to be.  These are important points that deserve careful consideration.  But they are ignored by Scourse in this new Field Guide.

Ironically, the QRA, as publishers of this new Field Guide, is now unwittingly participating in the attempt by Scourse to ignore my carefully considered proposals,  and sharing in the pretence that the "Quaternary narrative" for the Isles of Scilly is universally accepted and undisputed.  In other words, it is participating in the dismissal or "cancellation" of a serious and highly relevant paper published in its own journal.  Scourse also displays a complete lack of respect for me as a serious geomorphologist and field worker with a long track record.   If nothing else, my paper deserves scrutiny because it is the most recent published contribution to the Scilly Islands Quaternary debate.

 Should we laugh, or should we cry?

Another of my suggestions, proposing the existence of a Scilly Nunatak, which seems to me to be based on glaciological common sense.  I have referred to this type of glacial exploitation of topographic  low points as "glacial wrapping".......

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2020/04/the-scilly-nunatak.html

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2021/11/glacial-wrapping.html

====================

Here is a reminder of the articles that Scourse should not simply have cited but should have scrutinized for the perusal of students and future researchers who study within the island group.

Brian John. 2016. The southernmost extent of the Irish Sea Glacier: observations from the Isles of Scilly. Researchgate Working Paper, September 2016, Version: 4

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307906030_The_southernmost_extent_of_the_Irish_Sea_Glacier_observations_from_the_Isles_of_Scilly

Brian John.  2018. Evidence for extensive ice cover on the Isles of Scilly.  Quaternary Newsletter 146,  October 2018, pp 3-27.

Brian John.  2019. Reply to Scourse "Comment on Evidence for extensive ice cover on the Isles of Scilly by Brian John.  Quaternary Newsletter 147, Feb 2019, pp 7-9.

Also relevant:

Bennett, J. A., Cullingford, R. A., Gibbard, P. L., Hughes, P. D., & Murton, J. B. (2024). The Quaternary Geology of Devon. Proceedings of the Ussher Society, 15, 84-130.

https://ussher.org.uk/wp- content/uploads/benettetal1584130v2.pdf

Quote:  Glaciation appears to have modified the landscape south of the Bristol Channel relatively little, although this is not surprising given that the ice from both the Irish Sea and South Wales did not penetrate far beyond the present north Devon and Somerset coast. Presumably the relatively easily deformed marine deposits flooring the Bristol Channel allowed the ice to flow along or across the valley until reaching the resistant rocks on today’s northern coast of Devon. Here, river valleys parallel to the coast and also truncated may in fact be ice- marginal landforms (Rolfe, 2015; Gibbard, et al. 2017). The BRITICE project (Clark et al., 2020) takes a broad view of the glacial limits in Britain but suggests that the pace of ice retreat from the Celtic Sea may have varied according to bed topography. In addition, Scourse et al. (2021) propose short- lived events of ice advance down the Celtic Sea that may have affected the north Devon coast and the further possibility that the ice margin had advanced as far as the shelf break at 25.5 ka.

This is a reasonable analysis, but it is unduly cautious.  I think we could include the western coast of Devon as another topographic barrier to ice flow from the west.

Some of the exposures of Devensian till on the Isles of Scilly:

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2016/04/devensian-till-on-isles-of-scilly.html

Posible glacial deposits on the island of Samson:

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2024/01/glacial-erratics-on-samson-isles-of.html

The Scilly nunatak:

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2020/04/the-scilly-nunatak.html

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2020/04/the-ice-edge-on-scilly-nunatak.html

Glacier ice in the Celtic Sea arena -- the eastern terminus:

https://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2020/04/the-devensian-celtic-sea-piedmont-lobe.html

There is no particular logic behind the idea that in the LGM the ice edge lay precisely on the northern fringe of the Isles of Scilly........

Peter Kokelaar's latest blog update

 

Some of the Scottish erratics found in the Gower raised beaches by Peter Kokelaar, with acknowledgement to his latest blog post.  The pebbles are identified in the caption to Fig 7.

In his latest blog update Prof Peter Kokelaar concentrates on the Scottish erratics found in Gower exposures of the Ipswichian raised beach and on the debate about the source of the Altar Stone.  He also makes a new contribution to the discussion about zircons and the work of Clarke and Kirkland.  He does not mince his words, and his vocabulary is refreshingly colourful...........

https://kokelaargower.com/stonehenge/

He is particularly scathing about the human transport hypothesis with regard to the Stonehenge bluestones. He refers to "serious subjectivity" and "media hype", and to the degrading of public trust in so-called experts.  He agrees with my point that some of the extreme components or "fantastic claims" in the MPP bluestone narrative are now effectively debunked.

Quote: 

"There has been a strong tendency amongst supporters of human transport to interpret all exotic rock fragments (not all of monolith stone types) as reflecting ‘dressing’ and accidental distribution by human hands, and thus to refer to them as ‘debitage’. This might be justified for monolith rock types in the vicinity of the monuments, but the interpretation potentially involves circular reasoning. As carefully detailed by Thorpe et al. (Table 2, 1991), there are bluestone and other rock fragments widely scattered, e.g., 30 km north around Avebury and 3 km south near Lake. Together with pieces of known erratic types in Barrow Amesbury 39 (a burial site), which pre-dates erection of the large stones of Stonehenge, these all together suggest a natural distribution and render associated claims of human scattering as special pleading. "
 

Quote:

"If the stones were glacially delivered, it would explain why experts on Stonehenge archaeology have commented that the site was never fully completed although repeatedly restructured (Late Neolithic ca. 2950 BC to Early Bronze Age ca. 2,100 BC; Parker Pearson 2023). Based on the irregular gaps (Fig. 1) and the use of rather unremarkable and mixed types of small and rounded stones, it has been inferred that the source of substantial dolerite bluestone megaliths must have been “used up”, so that a full pattern of pillars was never completed. There are 43 stones known today; filling the gaps hypothetically yields 80."

Quite so.

In his discussion of the Clarke and Kirkland Salisbury Plain zircon paper Prof Kokelaar does not mince his words.  He accuses them of using the straw man technique in their discussion, and of quite inadequate sampling.  And he says that their dismissial of the glacial transport hypothesis is "absolute nonsense".  On the Boles Barrow bluestone:  "........the range of convoluted and contradictory claims made through time, not helped by the boulder being collected and moved more than once and also the suggestion that it was stolen from Stonehenge for a garden ornament (subsequently refuted), is astonishing and mind-numbing."

There is aninteresting discussion on the zircon work in western Scotland and elsewhere, and again it is argued that the work of Clarke and Kirkland is inadequate and unreliable.

Returning to the arguments of MPP and his colleagues, Peter says:  "The supposed bluestone quarries and previous-monument sources have been disproved and the bizarre embellishment concerning the transport by cattle similarly is unwarranted. The Altar Stone transport from Scotland most sensibly also did not involve humans either."

This is Peter's view of the BBC 2021 Lost Circle "information disaster":  There are hundreds of perfectly natural outcrops of jointed dolerite like this (ie Carn Goedog) dotted throughout upland Britain, some quite nearby too, and of course also abroad. Surely many thousands of years of freeze-thaw mechanical break-up cannot be overlooked? From this nonsense, ignoring simple natural processes and geology and by implication suggesting ancient quarry sites all over the country, there apparently can have been no scientific-editorial oversight and advice for the archaeologist(s). Gross mis-pleading like this, on a television channel that prides itself in distinguishing the truth, surely undermines simple enquiry and learning, undermines the credibility of actual experts, and, given the n-fold repetition of the BBC programme, is effectively misleading a host of people. Thankfully numerous sensible people have taken issue with the programme and the ‘quarries’ have been debunked and abandoned amongst aficionados, although the BBC continues the promotion. Also thankfully, most of the ground excavation has been restored to nature.

And then: 

" The nonsense carried on. After the Altar Stone saga in 2024, in 2025, just this last year, there came another remarkable gem of mis-information. British Geological Survey Press (20/8/2025): “Scientists uncover secrets of Stonehenge’s mysterious cattle” and next day BBC News: “New analysis of a Neolithic cow’s tooth found at Stonehenge shows the animal likely came from Wales, reinforcing theories that cattle helped transport the enormous stones”. And “You can tell that the animal had been grazing on Palaeozoic rock, typical of those found in Wales, particularly in and around where bluestones are found… We’re beginning to see so many connections between Wales and Stonehenge. Not only is it the closest rock, but there are other links as well.” The italics are mine; nothing supports these contentions, which are false and are sheer hype. "

"The claim that the cow-tooth findings add to confirmation of the “theory” that cattle were involved in transport of the megaliths is udderly ridiculous. Apart from confusing theory and hypothesis in this media hype, the unjustified claims were disturbing as they came from the Press Office of the British Geological Survey. No sane geologist would support them. Actually, the original scientific report of the cow-tooth findings, in contrast to the hype, was quite reserved, acknowledging limitations to interpretations that should be borne in mind. What is it then, really, that causes decent science to be so compromised in the media? There certainly is cavalier ignorance on the part of media producers, whose driver seems to be promotion of viewing figures or sales… Honesty about the issues might have been more interesting and more stimulating of genuine interest… Some of the media nonsense is arrogant and insulting."

It's gratifying that  senior geoloist like Peter is now going on the record and making points that are very similar to mine, going back over the years..........  I know that other geologists will shortly be following suit.  Truth will out...........

=============