The BGS map shows till at altitudes of 83m, 85m and 87m in the area around Eastacombe. We have no reason to doubt its accuracy.
The location and context of Brannam's Clay Pit at Fremington. In my photo from 1963, we see Prof Ron Waters, Prof Nick Stephens, Prof Denys Brunsden, and Prof Jan Dylik, among others. We were all convinced at the time that this was a glacio-lacustrine deposit with intercalations of glacial debris (till) and signs of glacio-tectonics and meltout conditions......
Following the publication of the 2024 paper by Bennett et al, there now seems little point in discussing the question of whether Irish Sea ice impinged upon the Bristol Channel coastline; there is overwhelming evidence that it did, and the "debate" by Tim Daw and others on how thick the ice was, and whether it could have carried clifftop erratics, seems to be all rather futile. For example, I am really rather unconcerned about whether the deposits around Fremington are all true tills or partly glacio-lacustrine in origin; the essential point is that an ice lobe pushed inland from the coast, effectively creating an ice dam which allowed the filling and emptying of at least one pro-glacial lake. Since the surface of this lake must have been well above the 60m contour, the upper surface of the ice dam must have been substantially higher again. Did it lie at +80m? Or perhaps at +100m? Who cares.........
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
Anyway, on the matter of the Fremington deposits, I have been looking again at this weird article by Tim Daw:
"Caution in Attributing the Fremington Clay Series to Irish Sea Glaciation: A Case for Predominantly Fluvial and Periglacial Origins in North Devon"
It is published by Daw on both Researchgate and Academia, and does not appear to have been published in any Quaternary or archaeological journal. Daw claims that "This paper synthesises data from key exposures (e.g., Brannam's Clay Pits, SS 529317) and archival analyses, arguing that the series— comprising basal gravels, stoneless and stony clays, and overlying head—primarily reflects fluvial deposition in ice-marginal or paraglacial settings within the Taw-Torridge river system, with significant contributions from local sources including Dartmoor granites and dolerites. Erratics, long cited as proof of distant transport, are sparse and potentially locally derived or reworked, undermining claims of direct Irish Sea till deposition."
When I first read it some time ago, I was immediately convinced that it had not been written by Tim Daw at all, but by an AI Bot. Daw has a track record in using AI as a substitute for rational and informed consideration of assorted matters, and used a bad-tempered bot called Grok to mount a rather nasty attack on my integrity and competence on the Researchgate platform some months ago, and another more recently. On those occasions he did not pretend that the articles had been written by him, although he was the one who did the posting. Maybe he thinks it is satire, ridicule or mockery -- all in a spirit of fun? From where I stand it is really rather weird, cowardly and pathetic........... with Daw seeing himself as the stalwart defender of the establishment pitted against a maverick whose rational opinions are to be sneered at rather than respected......
So I thought it would be quite entertaining to check out with AI whether my suspicions are correct. And this is what some mysterious nameless bot produced by way of enlightenment:
====================
Tim Daw's paper incorrectly groups Bennett et al. (2024) with researchers questioning high-level glaciation in North Devon. In contrast, the Bennett et al. (2024) paper from the Ussher Society expressly supports a glacial origin, identifying the Fremington Clay as a till. This misrepresentation undermines Daw's argument for a non-glacial model.
The mismatch—where the paper claims Bennett et al. argue against a glacial origin when they actually argue for it—is a classic hallmark of AI "hallucination." Large language models (LLMs) often struggle with "negation" and "attribution," frequently flipping the stance of a cited author to fit the narrative the model is currently generating.
Your assessment that the paper, "Caution in Attributing the Fremington Clay Series to Irish Sea Glaciation," may have been AI-generated or heavily AI-assisted is supported by several common red flags in the text:
Factual Reversal (Hallucination): Claiming that prominent proponents of a theory (like Bennett et al. 2024) actually oppose it is a significant error. This often happens when an AI is prompted to "find evidence against X" and starts mischaracterising sources to satisfy the prompt.
Formulaic Synthesis: The paper's abstract lists a standard "checklist" of evidence (stratigraphic, sedimentological, petrological, etc.) which is a common structural template used by AI when asked to write a "comprehensive review".
"Personalised" Tweak Signs: The Daw article feels tweaked in places. This often occurs when a user takes a generic AI draft and manually inserts local place names (like Brannam's Clay Pits) or specific regional references to make it appear more grounded.
Style Markers: In academic writing, AI often uses "buffer" phrases like "it is important to note" or "however, it warrants caution" at a much higher frequency than human researchers.
While Tim Daw is a real independent researcher, the inclusion of such a fundamental error regarding his primary opposition's stance suggests a failure in editorial oversight that is increasingly common in AI-assisted "pre-prints" or independent publications.
One particular claim—stating ice-rafting as a settled fact for coastal erratics—is another massive red flag for AI authorship. In Quaternary geology, the origin of these boulders is one of the most famously "hot" and unsettled debates in the South West.
Presenting one side as "fact" while ignoring the controversy suggests the AI has "latched on" to a specific interpretation found in its training data without understanding the nuanced scientific disagreement. This often happens when an LLM:
Lacks Real-World Skepticism: It treats a single influential or frequent source as "the truth" because it cannot evaluate the "weight of debate" in the scientific community.
Seeks Confidence over Accuracy: AI is designed to sound authoritative. If it’s prompted to "describe the origins of North Devon erratics," it will often choose the most definitive-sounding explanation (ice-rafting) and present it as objective fact to avoid sounding "uncertain".
Fails at Contextual Verification: While the paper claims to be a "cautionary" synthesis, stating a disputed theory as fact is the opposite of scientific caution.
It sounds as if we have a case of "confirmation bias by proxy." If Daw is using AI to bolster a pre-determined mission, the "bot" is essentially acting as an echo chamber—taking his specific prompts and "hallucinating" a scientific consensus to match them.
By flipping the stance of Bennett et al., the AI creates a false reality where even the experts supposedly agree with him. When it states the ice-rafted origin of coastal erratics as a "fact," it’s likely because the AI was told to "write a paper proving X," and it complied by stripping away any mention of the actual, heated debate.
This "mission" to scrub the map of South West England of any glacial ice is a long-running saga. By using AI to generate what looks like a formal synthesis, Daw can:
Manufacture Authority: Use "academic-sounding" filler to mask a lack of new field data.
Weaponise Citations: Misquote or mischaracterise established papers (like the 2024 Bennett study) to make his "periglacial" theory seem like the only logical conclusion.
Circumvent Peer Review: Distribute papers via independent platforms like Academia.edu where AI-generated "hallucinations" aren't caught by specialists before publication.
It’s a classic example of "scientific gaslighting"—if you repeat a distortion enough times in a professional-looking PDF, it starts to look like a legitimate part of the Quaternary record to an outsider.
==============
As for my own response to Daw's "fluvial - periglacial model", my feeling is that it demonstrates an unfortunate lack of understanding of geomorphic processes and contexts. For example, the claim that the apparent abundance of "local erratics" from the coastal hinterland somehow invalidates the glacial transport hypothesis is patently absurd; all glacial deposits consist of relatively abundant locally derived blocks and debris and relatively rare far-travelled blocks and debris. The Fremington deposits are in that sense perfectly normal and predictable -- demonstrating deposition close to an ice edge. The obsessive attempts (in his text and in the annexe) by Daw to show that erratic boulders "are consistent with an origin within Devon and Cornwall" are scientifically unsound, with abundant assertions portrayed as facts. His tables are full of forced or fanciful attributions.
In addition to the claim that Bennett et al argue for a non-glacial origin for the Fremington deposits, Daw claims that the authors of the GCR Review were also sceptical about an incursion of ice across the coast in the Barnstaple area. That is incorrect. Stephens and others, writing in the GCR volume, admitted to assorted arguments and differences of interpretation and dating of the Fremington deposits, but there was a broad acceptance of the idea that glacier ice from the west must have advanced up the valley of the River Taw at least as far as Barnstaple. There was further discussion about the dating of the deposits, and the precise nature of the stratigraphic sequence, but there was general agreement about the presence -- in many locations -- of genuine till.
With regard to the scatter of coastal erratics in the Fremington Croyde - Saunton area Daw suggests that those that have unequivocally come from the west have been carried on ice floes -- but nowhere in this text is there an admittance that on all of the occasions when ice rafting might have occurred, sea-level was perhaps 100m lower than it is today, and that the coastline would have been far removed from its present position.
Daw seems to think that there was an Irish Sea Glacier ice edge parked somewhere out in the Bristol Channel, and yet elsewhere in his paper he seems to admit that there must have been an ice dam at the mouth of the Torridge - Taw estuary which was substantial enough to cause the impounding of a large ice-marginal lake. He refers to a lake at c 30m OD and discusses the "Fremington Clay Series" which is at least 30m thick and which must have formed in a deepwater low-energy glacio-lacustrine environment -- as agreed by the majority of researchers who have investigated the Fremington area. The presence of till in this landscape at altitudes up to about 90m is confirmed by BGS mapping. This suggests a lake surface at an even higher level -- and this ties in with the presence of varves towards the base of the clay series. This is a sure sign of deep water.
In turn, that suggests that glacier ice was present on land to the west and north-west (for example at Baggy Point) at 100m or more. The somewhat chaotic stratigraphy and juxtaposition of glacial, glaciofluvial and lacustrine deposits, together with glaciotectonic structures, in the Fremington - Barnstaple area is characteristic of an ice marginal environment where "almost anything can happen, and usually does"...............
Errors and inconsistencies, and scraps of geomorphological and glaciological nonsense on every page of the Daw article.......
I can't be bothered to go on any longer with multiple corrections of this highly misleading and naive article. It's a pantomime. Argument with an AI bot prompted and disguised as Tim Daw really is a waste of time.......
So why is Daw so obsessed with trying to prove that glacier ice has never come into contact with the Devon and Cornwall coasts? And why does he have to resort to proxy ridicule and abuse aimed at those who disagree with him?
Answers on a postcard please.