Tuesday, 22 December 2015

New Scientific Evidence proves Stonehenge is 5,000 years older than believed

Recent paper by the University of London, Southampton and Manchester; about the discovery of the quarry that provided the 'bluestones' for Stonehenge at Craig Rhos-y-felin caught the eye of the world by archaeologists announcing Stonehenge was originally built in Wales then transferred to Salisbury plain 500 years later.

Which is totally incorrect and wholly inaccurate?

The ‘Craig Rhos-y-felin: a Welsh bluestone Megalith quarry for Stonehenge’ report published in December’s Edition of Antiquity Magazine stated that a series of radio carbon dates was found in the site by a 4m long monolith ready for transportation made of a rock which was microscopically identified as the same bluestone as the rocks that surround the existing Stonehenge site. Moreover, the report’s authors had decided that just two random sample dates (closest to their well publicised hypothesis on Stonehenge's construction date) would be headlined and advertised to the mass media.
 Mike Parker Pearson et al. Craig Rhos-y-felin: a Welsh bluestone megalith quarry for Stonehenge. Antiquity, 89, pp 1331-1352. doi:10.15184/aqy.2015.177. 

In spite of these published radio carbon dates the archaeologists had an obvious problem, as the samples were 500 years older than the dates, they were hoping to find, so they had to invent a new ‘story' to compensate for this ‘poor science’ and so started the speculation, in their report, that the monument was originally built in Wales then moved at a later date. This will no doubt be followed by another report in a few year's time (archaeologists love to do the lucrative lecture tours on limited ‘titbits’ of information) finding remains of a few small bluestones within a short distance from the quarry site and claiming them as evidence of the original Stonehenge – followed by even more lucrative lecture tour.

Nevertheless, if we take an unbiased and more analytical view of the report, we find something very different from the media claims and much more scientifically interesting.

Mike Parker Pearson et al. Craig Rhos-y-felin: a Welsh bluestone megalith quarry for Stonehenge. Antiquity, 89, pp 1331-1352. doi:10.15184/aqy.2015.177.

What was contained in detail within the report but overlooked was the fact that a considerable number of Mesolithic carbon dates (fourteen compared to just two Neolithic dates the report headlined) were obtained from actual human-made hearths much earlier in history, compared to two random nutshells found in an ‘occupation area’, which could have been scattered by animals or the weather?

Consequently, the lowest material found in the excavated area (remembering not the entire site was excavated) was dated at 8550 - 8330 BCE.

These earlier and more frequent dates included dates from hearths rather than just random nutshells and was completely overlooked as it was 'perceived' to be too early to have a connection to Stonehenge. Nevertheless, this connection was well established some fifty years ago and reported in an earlier 'press release' by myself in August 2011 - entitled ‘The Stonehenge Enigma; an inconvenient truth’:


The article shows that English Heritage did their utmost to conceal the truth about the real 'probable' date of Stonehenge being 5,000 years earlier than their current position. This scientific evidence was based on radio carbon dating of the three ‘giant’ post holes found in the visitor’s car park during its construction in 1966.

At the time the wooden remains of the posts (found at the bottom of the post holes) were labelled Neolithic in origin to support the existing antler pick dating hypothesis and shelved for eternity. Fortunately, an inquisitive PhD student writing a thesis on the Stonehenge’s environment found these samples and concluded that they could not be as claimed by the archaeological community, as they were from pine trees which pollen analysis had concluded were ‘extinct’ in this area at this time of Stonehenge’s supposed construction.

Old Visitors Car Park showing the post hole (white circles on the tarmac) and the suggested shoreline of the Avon during the Mesolithic Period

To the (Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission which was later renamed English Heritage) officials dismay they found out that their 'experts' were wrong, and the student was absolutely correct (but never gave her a job) in her assumption as the carbon dating placed them at the start of the Mesolithic of 8860 to 6590 BCE just after the ice age. Rather than then admitting their fundamental error and re-opening the site to look for more holes and dates to get to the bottom of this unique mystery (which would have been the case for most credible scientific disciplines) they came up with a remarkable and unproven 'story' that these were random 'totem poles' placed by wandering 'hunter gatherers' which did not relate to the Stonehenge site just 50m in any away or connection, but was a sheer coincidence, which should be ignored.

Over the last four years since my ‘press release’ was ignored by the mass media, the story has moved on with more evidence of English Heritages continuing this historic cover-up. Archaeologists have now found charcoal from fires in the centre of the Stonehenge monument which dates back to the same early period (but again the news was suppressed) and less than a mile away at the top of the hill that overlooks Stonehenge a site called ‘blick mead’ excavated by the Open University, is showing us that people were living and 'feasting' at this same earlier time period  yet this 'totem'totem pole'pole' myth is still firmly entrenched it EH's view of our prehistoric history through their costly guide and history books.

Moreover, recently the Stonehenge site has had a major transformation as it has closed
the b- road that went past the stones and gave access to the old visitor’s car park, which was now been moved a mile up the road to the new multi-million pound visitors centre. Consequently, the aged tarmac was removed and was replaced by grass to make it look more like it did at the time of Stonehenge’s construction. Now one might imagine that if you were going to remove the tarmac from the old visitor's car park (knowing you have found something quite extraordinary underneath in the past) you would take this 'once in a life time opportunity’ to excavate the car part fully to see if you can find any more evidence about the Mesolithic Period of Stonehenge’s history?

Did they? - did they heck!! 

“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge.” 
― Stephen Hawking 

So I was personally saddened that further evidence which could support my theory (that these post holes were mooring posts for boats bring the stones from the Preseli Mountains of Wales) would be lost forever. However, a recent blog post has opened up a new light in this matter. Tim Daw was a warden at Stonehenge and he has always been active in taking pictures on the site as he works on a day-to-day basis at Stonehenge and published them on his blog site (last year, he found patch marks by the centre upright stones that were possible for the missing circle stones) so his contribution to the investigation of Stonehenge has been immense.

Tim Daws picture of the post hole - EH would like to lose!! How much history is being lost through ignorance and propaganda??
Tim took some shots of trenches dug during the reinstatement of the grass over the old visitor’s car park and found something quite remarkable - but he was not allowed to publish as EH had warned him that his unauthorized blog activities had to stop or else.... three guesses why this happened? Tim being a man of principal resisted and resigned so continuing his blog work and as a consequence, these new ‘unofficial’ pictures have been made available, showing even more post holes was under the car park.

This newly discovered post hole is on the line of four other known post holes and moreover, supports my hypothesis; they are all on the shoreline of the River Avon in about 8400 BCE. furthermore, the fact that 'totem pole' BCE the rivers of Britain were ten times larger than today history effects on not only the River books. - but the River Nevern which the ‘Brynberian Stream which feeds the Nevern is just 20m away, even today.

A, B, C are the original 1966 post holes - D was found by Tim Daw (before he was asked to leave!)

This fact means that during the Mesolithic period newly quarried, stones could be placed in boats on the shoreline by the quarry in Wales and could be sailed almost ‘directly’ to Stonehenge via just two or three enlarged rivers and not over the longer sea route some archaeologist attempted to consider, as they are totally unaware, the rivers in the past were higher than today.

Direct Boat route from Preseli to Stonehenge using the raise river levels of the Mesolithic
The report also goes int great depth the analysis of the Stones of Stonehenge coming from other Preseli sites such as Carn Goedog, Cerrigmarchogion and Craig Talfynyydd, Carn Breseb, Carn Gyfrwy and finally Carn Alw areas. All of which have streams and rivers connecting them with the River Nevern – one would imagine that most scientists would see this aquatic connection? However, clearly, archaeologists seem only to be able to consider the existence of a hypothetical road system such as Mike Parker-Pearson, who thinks ox-carts following the A40 route was used, even though roads were not invented for another three thousand years, and the majority of the route would be covered with either wood, swamp and even forest, which would make passing impossible.

Nevertheless, this should be no surprise to readers of the Craig Rhos-y-felin Report for the logic as a scientific paper is full of inconsistencies and inaccuracies. The layout of the site was never taken into consideration. My analysis of the area showed that the ‘Brynberian Stream’ by the rocky outcrop was much higher in the past such as in the period directly after the last ice age. This flooding is well known to geologists as sand deposits are in the sub-soil. Geologists had created a false assumption that these flood waters rapidly disappeared after the ice age into the sea. Sadly, this idea is easy shown to be false as the sea levels should have risen to a couple of meters of today’s level then plateauing – but this is not the case.

Craig Rhos-y-felin seen from space (white circle)

We know this quite graphically without referring to ‘peer reviewed’ papers with academics guessing the past with inaccurate data. What we do know for sure today (and was denied by Geologists less than a hundred years ago – to show their credibility) that Doggerland used to exist in the middle of the North Sea (where only a sand bank is left today) this has now been located by sonar and was abundant just after the last ice age – as the sea levels were 65m lower than today, yet it took another ten thousand years for the sea levels to rise and swamp this landmass.

Criag Rhos-y-felin as it would have looked (as an island) in the Mesolithic
So were there large glaciers around on the land (as ice melting in the sea doesn't raise sea levels, as ice is frozen ‘expanded water’) ten thousand years after the ice age ended?

Clearly not, so the Geologists are fundamentally wrong and this kind of misunderstanding continues in sediments like ‘Colluvium’ and ‘Alluvium’ if it’s found in a dried-up area it as called colluvium, but if it’s by an active river, it’s called Alluvium – the point is THEY ARE THE SAME MATERIAL – silt and sand – showing the course of old and new rivers.

Remembering this lack of distinction, we find that an old river ran around this quarry:

“Most of the site was then covered by a layer of yellow colluvium (035), dated by oak charcoal to 1030–910 cal BC (combine SUERC-46199; 2799±30 BP and SUERC-46203; 2841±28 BP). This deposit is contemporary with the uppermost fill of a palaeochannel of the Brynberian stream that flowed past the northern tip of the outcrop. Charcoal of Corylus and Tilia from the basal fill of this palaeochannel dates to 5800–5640 cal BC (OxA- 32021; 6833±40 BP) and 5620–5460 cal BC (OxA-32022; 6543±37 BP), both at 95.4% probability” 

What they are trying to tell us is that an enlarged stream that feed into the River Nevern was flowing (at one time up to the rocks themselves) even up to 3400BCE, and this shoreline were still exposed up to the Bronze Age. Yet no one realised that you could load these stones quite easily into a boat for transport like the Egyptians did some 4,000 years later in their quarries?

The 'enlarged stream' is more of a huge river - perfect to float a boat with a 4 tonne bluestone down river to the Nevern

The site layout also gives a clear indication on when the stone was quarried. The single monolith ready for transportation is by the river on the east side of the site. The hearths which are clearly man-made are just to the south of the monolith – where you would expect them – except these are the Mesolithic hearths, and they're not one but four hearths dating from 8550 – 8330 BCE; 8220 – 7790 BCE 7490 – 7190BCE and 5210 – 4947 BCE and the report quite clearly states:

“There is no evidence of any Mesolithic Quarrying or working of Rhyolite from this crop” 

Firstly, how would they know what marks are Mesolithic or Neolithic (same tools?) And secondly, what the hell do you think they were doing there during that 1500 year period... having a picnic??
However, what is quite remarkable is the fact that this is a Rhyolite quarry. For back at Stonehenge Pit 9580 was excavated in 1989, which was in line with not only with the four post holes found in 1966, but moreover, the one found last month by Tim Daw we talk about earlier At 1.3m then widened to 1.9m wide – so what was this large trunk of a tree used for? What is sure it could take a considerable weight if required – but what could be the load?

Well 20cm down the infill of this post hole they found... a piece of Rhyolite...would you believe! And the date for this deposit can be estimated as the soil deposit it was sitting upon was carbon dated as 7560 - 7335 BCE overlapping the date of hearth number three.

Post holes at Stonehenge on the shoreline of the River Avon - taking off the Preseli bluestones from the boats

We can now narrow down the exact date for the construction of Phase I of Stonehenge (bluestone placements in the Aubrey holes) to 7490 to 7335 BCE. In fact, if we look at the carbon dating of the hearths at Craig Rhos-y-felin and the Car park post hole samples date at Stonehenge we see something quite remarkable:

    • Craig Rhos-y-felin (BCE)                             Stonehenge Visitor's Car Park(BGE)
    • Hearth One: 8550 – 8330                                HAR-455 8820 - 7730 
    • Hearth Two: 8220 – 7790                               GU-5109: 8090 - 7690 
    • Hearth Three: 7490 – 7190                             QxA-4220: 7580 – 7090 
    • OxA 30503: 7490 – 7190                                Har-456: 7480 – 6590 
    • SUERC-51163: 7540 - 7300                           QxA- 4219: 7700 - 7420 

So if the archaeologists are correct – it’s just an amazing coincidence that the three oldest hearths were burning wood at the exact same time ‘nomads’ were placing ‘totem poles’ at a site which one day would be now as Stonehenge (even if we ignore the other carbon dated pits with charcoal deposits found in the quarry) and it ‘just so happens’ to have the exact bluestone which appears in the ancient temple, 200 miles away!

So is it a ‘cock-up’ or a conspiracy? 

EH has invested heavy in its new 'money spinner' the Stonehenge Visitors Centre. Within it you will see many claims and models about the origin and possible function of Stonehenge - this exhibition has cost hundreds of thousands of pounds to design and produce... what would happen if it was wrong in its assumptions??

Not only would it have to scrap all the exhibits and a new one installed but also the books and literature written over the decades would need to be 'pulped' as they tell a story of nonsense, just as the Victorian had to pulp their books about the Stonehenge the Roman Temple to the Sun (although the druids still believe it...bless!).

Moreover, the directors responsible for this multi-million pound fraud would suffer a potential financial and credibility loss would have to 'fall on their swords' and find new jobs (no many jobs around for discredited archaeologists or historians).

So they do what they need to do to keep their positions... they lie, they cover up and they remove anyone who undermines their authority and control - like poor Tim Daw.