Monday, 4 April 2011

The Ancient Islands of Essex

By Robert John Langdon

In my book 'The Stonehenge Enigma' we took an in-depth look at just four sites around Stonehenge that was affected by the flood waters that occurred directly after the last Ice Age.

Today I wish to illustrate that this was not the only area in Britain that suffered from the raised water levels.

One of the mysteries of Prehistory is the lack of Mesolithic or Neolithic sites in Eastern Britain such as Kent, Surrey and Essex in comparison to the large number of sites in Wiltshire, Dorset and Cornwall.  There is no 'migration' answer to this problem, for if the 'traditional' archaeologists are right and we came 'out of Africa' to the 'Middle East' then finally through Europe over the sunken land mass that is now the English Channel - then the number of sites in the South East surely would out number the rest of the country - but that's not the case!!

Archaeologists claim that 'modernisation' in the South East removed all traces of the Stone Circles and Hill forts we find in other regions - but again this line of thinking is plainly wrong for there are still some features in the South East but not in such numbers - so what is the answer?

Quite simply, the area suffered from the worst of the flood after the 'Great Melt' and so  South East Britain become a series of small little islands, very few and far between.



I live in Ongar Essex near Epping Forest.  One of the earliest prehistoric monuments I explored over 30 years ago were the two 'Iron Age' sites that are in the middle of this forest.  Clearly when these sites were created when the landscape was far form the tree lined woods we see today.

Never the less, these two sites have been a complete mystery to archaeologists over the years as they have seem to be placed at random on the landscape, never at the top of a hill nor given the fortification needed to be a defensive site.


The first site is called 'Ambresbury Banks' it is so called no doubt as it has 2 to 5 metre banks surrounding the site (and I guess the first person to write a report on it was called Amresbury?).

This old sketch shows that its not the traditional circle we see elsewhere more of a Pentagon with 5 sides.  it has large banks surrounding it and so it is registered as an 'Iron Age Fort' by traditional archaeologists.  But clearly any site visit will show you that is wrong! for in the South West corner there is a large hole that never had any ditches!!




To the south of Amresbury Banks there is a second 'Iron Age Fort' called 'Loughton Camp' this has even more shallower ditched although it is more rounded (oblong) than its sister site.  The problem with this site is that the ditches are even more shallower, to the point of why bother?  Notice also the same opening in the South East corner of the site - the clue is that it is still wet even today!!




The archaeologists suggest as shown on the sign that this site was built for 'animal folds in time of attack!' - all I can say is that a four hectare site would have taken them some 3 - 5 years to complete 'just for animals' to be kept!  Surely, a wooden fence wood have been more effective and quicker?


So as you see the archaeologists just simple 'don't have a clue' what these sites are for and who built them.

If we now take the area back to the Mesolithic about 5000BC we see a very different picture, for Epping Forest now turns into a ISLAND.



Now look at the localities of the 'Iron Age Forts' - They are on the banks of the Mesolithic shoreline, just like the Case Study sites in my book - Now take another look at the South East section of BOTH sites - can you see the water level at that point?

These are NOT 'Iron Age Forts' in fact the archaeologists are 5,000 years out on their estimations - these are Mesolithic Towns and the inlets you see are were they would have let their boats into the town to moor, just as we do now and if you find that hard to believe - lets take an even closer look at 'Loughton Camp' and see something that confirms our hypothesis.



Just outside to the North West is a GIGANTIC HARBOUR capable of taking hundreds of large ships.  The rest of Epping Forests secrets and the other Essex Islands I will keep for my forthcoming book on Mesolithic Essex which is due to be published in the Autumn of 2012.




20 comments:

  1. Robert,

    In a post at Brian's blog you write,

    “...carbon dated boat mooring we have found in the Car park with Bluestones in the back fill dated at 7500BC”

    Some questions:

    1)What exactly has been found at the car-park area?
    2)How has it been carbon-dated? Using what organic material?
    3)What is the elevation difference between the car-park and Stonehenge? When I was visiting there last summer I recall it was substantial.
    4)Why you say this was a 'boat mooring'?

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  2. Kostas

    A total of 4 post holes have been found in The Car Park at Stonehenge where 5 pieces of Pinus Charcoal have been found in the fill and Carbon Dated.

    Dates of these Mooring posts are:

    Postpit 9580 (1989)

    OxA-4920 8400 +/- 100, Calibrated as 7580-7090BC
    OxA-4919 8520 +/- 80, Calibrated as 7700-7420BC
    GU-5109 8880 +/- 120, Calibrated as 8090-7580BC

    PostPit A (1966)
    HAR-455 9130+/- 180, Calibrated as 8820-7730BC

    PostPit B (1966)
    HAR-456 8090=?- 140, Calibrated 7480-6590BC

    PostPit c (1966)
    Not enough Pinus Charcoal to carbon date

    From 'Stonehenge in its environment' Cleal et al.1995.

    The elevation in the car park where the posts were found is 97m OD at their lowest point, but tides would have raised this level to about 99m OD at high tide (if tide change is similar to day).

    Stonehenge is 101m OD and the ditches are 1.2m deep - this gives a minimum of 0.2m of water in the ditch creating a moat. The rate of flow into the moat (as chalk is porous) may be higher depending on the unknown subsoil conditions.

    If you add water to Stonehenge (this can be done in Google Earth by placing an image overlay at an altitude of 97m or tracing on an OS contour map - the 4 posts are in the same water level line indicating that they were built at the same time as water was present.

    Also the construction is unique to a object that needs to take weight as if (as archaeologists believe) they were 'totem poles' you need not dig a pit and then backfill it - you would just cut a sharp end on the base of the pole and hammer it into the ground like a stake.

    These pits were dug and then back filled - which would make them wobble! - the only reason to do it this way is to place a heavy weight on top of the pole (see www.prehistoric-britain.co.uk - go to Gallery and then Car Park for a map and picture of the Mooring posts) This is the way they took Stones off the boats by using the tide to moor up at high tide and wait for the tide to drop - automatically lifting the Stones into the air!!

    Simple when you know how!!

    Robert

    ReplyDelete
  3. Robert,

    The major problem with your theory (as well as with the 'human transport' theory) is the assumption of a superhuman race of prehistoric men who knew how to move great stones (either by land or by sea) but knew not much else.

    If these great seafaring Mesolithic Britons had the navigational skills and the technical knowledge to design great boats to carry huge stones, wont they also put such technological advances to more practical use? Like exploration and commerce with other people who DID leave behind written records and indisputable signs of culture and civilization?

    You have four holes with some pine charcoal in them that date to 8000BC. Out of this you want to create a whole lost and unknown civilization with great knowledge and social organization -- but could not even write their names. I am not convinced!

    The four holes and the charcoal in them are more likely natural occurrences! The charcoal could have come from devastating forest fires deposited in these holes by floods and meltwater when the ice melted around 8000-10,000BC.

    I will not even bother with the many technical details that just do not pan out in your theory!

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Kostas

    This civilisation did put there knowlege into practical use and so navigate the known world. There are Mesolithic tools made of 'Jade' which could only have come from the Alps.

    There is no way you could have walked the 2000 miles to Britain as there we no roads for the next 7000 years let alone maps to guide you.

    What makes you think that they could not read or write? The engineering skills required to build Stonehenge needs this ability.

    If you use reeds to build boats - as in most ancient civilisations you can made papyrus. The problem is that any remains would perish long ago as we do not have the dry climate such as in Egypt or Jordan for such documents to survive.

    And even if you saw such writings would you recognise them? - remember the picts in Britain used just small straight lines no hieroglyphics.

    And ALL the experts agree that the post holes were man made as they have cut sides and a bottom that is flat - the reason for the charcoal is its the method you would need to employ to fell a tree of 1 metre with with a stone tools - This civilisation was quite cleaver!!

    I give you a taster on whats in the book that will blow you doubts away:

    Dentistry
    Amputations
    Brain Surgery - honestly!!
    Skeletons taller than the Celts, Romans, Normans, Tutors and even Victorians....

    And guess what?

    Skeletons that lived longer than the Celts, Romans, Normans, Tutors and even Victorians....

    Deposits that showed they lived on a diet of FISH and OYSTERS!!

    Sorry to say your view of prehistoric man is tainted by the Brian's of this world with visions of fur covered hunter gatherers who lived in mud huts but had the knowledge to build Stonehenge with mortice and tenon joints that you DON'T FIND in mud huts!!

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  6. Robert,

    Clear disagreement is almost as good as clear agreement. Both offer the possibility of resolving differences. And if we engage such process with the same intellectual integrity and objectivity in finding the Truth we cannot but succeed! So let's talk some …

    You say “ Sorry to say your view of prehistoric man is tainted by the Brian's of this world...”

    As you know, I have as many points of disagreement with Brian John's views (I assume you mean him) than with your theory. Better to address the ideas themselves than confusing these with the people that may hold them.

    Our main differences, as I understand these, are:

    1)Brian believes that glaciers brought the bluestones to Salsibury Plain at some unspecified past. Neolithic Britons then carried these stones from wherever they were found at Salisbury Plain to built Stonehenge. So though Brian does not believe in the 'human transport' of bluestones from Preseli, he does believe in the 'human transport' and erection of all the stones of Stonehenge from Salisbury Plain.

    2)You believe that Salisbury Plain during the Mesolithic times was really a sea. All the stones of Stonehenge (sarsens and bluestones alike) were brought to Stonehenge by seafaring Mesolithic Britons on boats. These were then erected in there present position and have lasted more or less erect for some 10,000 years. So both you and Brian believe in the 'human transport' of these stones in some capacity or other.

    3)I believe that at the time of the making of Stonehenge, Salisbury Plain was a solidly frozen lake or sea (perhaps your Salisbury Sea was really frozen at this time).

    We know from geological evidence that there was a catastrophic melting of glaciers (inundating in effect Salisbury Plain) followed by a freezing period that lasted some 1000 years (in effect freezing solidly Salisbury Lake or Sea). This is different from glacier ice, with very different physical properties including a solid smooth surface and thermal conduction different from glacier ice.

    The stones of Stonehenge were brought to Stonehenge by Nature (perhaps Brian's glaciers instead of depositing these stones on dry land may have deposited them on a frozen lake or sea).

    Later, geothermal volcanic activity and warming temperatures were responsible for molding the ice sheet cover of Salisbury Plain, creating the geomorphology that we now have: ditches, embankments, circular layers, mounts, circles, alignments, etc.

    Prehistoric men with very little skill and social organization could have dragged these stones on a smooth ice surface and pushed these stones over the circular ice edge to form the stone circles at Stonehenge we now see. And as the ice melted and the ice hole radially grew bigger, more stones were 'hanged' over the ice edge created more such stone circles. And these stone circles were naturally concentric!

    All the 'facts on the ground' can be explained by this theory. You can read the details in my article, “The un-Henging of Stonehenge”.


    Coming back to your great civilization in the UK 10,000 years ago! It's hard to believe how such civilization could have existed without leaving indisputable evidence behind. Putting aside their inability to write and to symbolically communicate (at least no such evidence exists) you would think that their contacts with other cultures that did have writing would have recorded their existence.

    Robert, I ask you. If we were to substitute “Mesolithic Britons” in your arguments with “Men from Mars” what would in your argument distinguish the two?

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  7. Kosta

    1) Brian's argument is now fundamentally flawed as the stones was from the PREVIOUS ice age not the last. That makes the 'move' some 400,00 years ago, not only that but was under a forest for 6,000 years prior to their discovery - you may find one or two stones by chance but not all 56 4 tonne stones that went into the Aubrey holes in phase I - hence the reason he removing my comments on his web site.

    2) Salisbury Plain was not a sea! The water table after the last ice age was 35m higher than today. This would swell all existing rivers like the Avon to be 35m higher and new rivers known as 'Dry Valleys' today were free flowing waters - hence the ability to move stones by boat from Preseli to Stonehenge via a direct route - AS ALL previous ancient civilisation have done throughout the world!

    3)The only way you hypothesis can be correct is if Stonehenge was built in a 'mini ice age' as the depth of ice needed for a 4 tonne stone to slide without sticking or braking the ice would be in excess of 12" - which could only happen on a frozen pond or river. The only dates that happened were:

    8300BC - 8100BC
    7400BC - 7200BC
    6600BC - 6500BC
    6100BC - 5900BC
    3700BC - 3500BC
    800BC - 1AD

    Only One of which are supported with any archaeology carbon dating evidence = 8300BC -8100BC in the Car Park - which you dismissed!

    You will find the Stonehenge ditch is not a 'natural ditch' as you suggest as it has built with 'seats' and half walls like a spa bath - this point is overlooked by most books and archaeologists but the notes from the archaeologist who excavated the LT-Col Hawley has good descriptions and the diagrams are very clear!

    The main problem I have with your theory is a social problem!! How are your 'builders' dressed? if you have a terrain like ICELAND - lots of ice and snow, if dressed in furs they would die of hypothermia - the only kind of human that could survive this amount of cold would be Eskimo's and they come from Siberia - so you theory opens up all kinds of interesting ideas which reduce their probability of you being correct.

    Perhaps you can call yours 'The frozen men from Siberia, who left immediately after building Stonehenge'?

    As for written records of my civilisation - your right there should be and believe it or not there is:

    'beyond the pillars of Hercules lay a great nautical civilisation that lived 9000 years before Solon (9500BC)"

    About the same time the first mooring posts were being placed on the shoreline at Stonehenge - his name was Plato!!

    Carbon dating plus credible written records just 2 of the 40 proof I have of my hypothesis!!

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  8. Robert,

    Thanks for the dates! That really adds to my theory!

    You write, “How are your 'builders' dressed?” Did not know you were into Mesolithic fashion! If there were Mesolithic Britons, then you can be sure there were Mesolithic Britons walking the ice fashionably dressed!

    A solidly frozen ice sheet takes hundreds (if not thousand) of years to melt even when the weather is warm during summers. This point can't be taken seriously, Robert!

    As for Salisbury Sea. Does it really matter if the body of frozen water was seawater or freshwater? I only suggested 'sea' because of your inundation picture “the Islands of Essex”. It's not a relevant point for my theory. But thought I use your picture to make you happy.

    I am not going to defend Brian's theory or comments or actions. I have my differences with him, as you know. But I do respect his intellectual integrity and his earnest seeking for Truth of Stonehenge. His site is a wealth of information and his expertise in geomorphology is invaluable. But I do agree with you that there are aspects in his theory that I find unconvincing. Many of these aspects also show up in your theory.

    Both you and Brian share in the conviction that skillful prehistoric Britons build Stonehenge. I argue that ice and Nature played a greater role.

    One point I ask that you clarify. What is the evidence that the holes found at the car-park have flat bottoms and linear sides? The Atkinson pictures I've seen of the pits underlying Stonehenge Layer are round and irregular while the Aubrey holes are bowl-like. Provide solid references please. Post excavation pictures of these holes if you can.

    You write, “ You will find the Stonehenge ditch is not a 'natural ditch' as you suggest as it has built with 'seats' and half walls like a spa bath”

    Robert, once again you are projecting your imagination on what the physical evidence shows. Certainly the ditch is segmented and not one continuous circle. But does that mean that it was a prehistoric SPA?

    If such ditches were naturally made by waterfalls cascading down the circular ice edge, wont you expect the ditch they carve in the chalk to be segmented and not evenly dug as would be the case if dug by men? Where the waterfall was more prominent, that ditch segment will be bigger and deeper. While where there was scant or no waterfall, the ditch will be less carved up, creating your “SPA seats”.

    Robert, re-read my article “The un-Henging of Stonehenge”. It's all explained there. And it's FREE!

    Plato was recounting the Atlantis myth! There are many myths in ancient Greek literature! Including Icarus who flew with wings made of feathers and wax. Was Icarus from your lost civilization too?

    Brian thinks that you are only trying to sell more books by shrouding Stonehenge in mystery. Tell me it isn't so! And I'll continue to add meaningful content to your blog!

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  9. The problem with 'theories' is that people come up with all manner of ideas without 'thinking through' the other circumstances such as social organisation.

    You have a ice man theory which suggests that at a time you have yet to state ice and volcanic activities? created a natural round ditch and the rocks for Stonehenge - these rocks were 'slide' into place on ice.

    I have no problems on accepting sliding stones on ice - but I do have a problem with who these people are and where did they live, how could they feed themselves etc - only once a complete picture of how this society lived can someone claim a 'true' theory. The problem with your theory is that these people could not survive temperatures so far below zero that unless there physical bodies had adapted - like the eskimo's to the environment they would die!

    This kind of evolution takes many thousands of years - the mini ice age you indicating takes just 100 years. Therefore when the mini ice age came - the people had to go south so no-one was at Stonehenge during these periods!

    As a philosopher studying for a Phd at UCL in London I can assre you that I know myths from facts - plato did not write about myths! he stated only factural evidence from conversations by Socrates - what science fiction writers did with these facts is turn them into myths which is your perception of Atlantis - the only thing we know about Atlantians is that they lived in the Alantic Ocean at 9000BC and was distroyed by flooding (not ice!).

    Northern Doggerland was distroyed by flooding at that time (the rest flooded in 5000BC) and some of the survivors ended up at Stonehenge in 8500BC.

    As stated previously, I am a scientist by education my book has 40 'scientific' (and maths is a tool of science as it's the only thing that can prove quantum physics) facts - you freeby has one 'proof of evidence' Stones slide on ice!!

    If you are serious about your theory you need to obtain the book 'Stonehenge in it's landscape' by cleal et al. (not me!) it's £60 but essential as it has full details of all the excavations (including the car park which was 40 years after Atkinson) which will help you getting the facts correct.

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  10. Robert,

    Now you are getting agitated and personal! I was hoping that we can have a good reasoned discussion on Stonehenge. I am still hoping …

    You write,

    “The problem with 'theories' is that people come up with all manner of ideas without 'thinking through' the other circumstances such as social organisation.”

    That's exactly what I think you are doing! Where is your evidence of the kind of advanced social organization that would give 'meaning and purpose' to the building of Stonehenge? And would have the technological knowledge and economic resources to built Stonehenge? That's just one problem with your theory!

    My explanation does not require either extensive social organization or advanced technological knowledge and economic resources. It doesn't require blinding belief nor super human powers to mobilize the huddled starving masses to an impossible task that adds nothing to their survival.

    You further write,

    “I have no problems on accepting sliding stones on ice - but I do have a problem with who these people are and where did they live, how could they feed themselves etc - only once a complete picture of how this society lived can someone claim a 'true' theory.”

    Robert, these people are the people living in the UK during the various recorded Ice Ages. Or you don't believe there were people living in the UK during the various recorded Ice Ages? When the Thames froze solid in the not too distant past, did the Londoners vanish? Did they come from Siberia to vacation in London? Come on now! Let's have an honest conversation that seeks the Truth.

    You write,

    “As stated previously, I am a scientist by education my book has 40 'scientific' (and maths is a tool of science as it's the only thing that can prove quantum physics) facts - you freeby has one 'proof of evidence' Stones slide on ice!!”

    There is nothing about Stonehenge and other such 'monuments' that cannot be explained by my theory in simple and natural terms. Please re-read my article “The un-Henging of Stonehenge”. It's free! Google it and you'll find it!

    Robert, I am discussing your ideas and explanations. Who you are is irrelevant to that discussion.

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  11. Kosta

    The 200 page book goes into great depth to not only explain the reasons my hypothesis is more realistic than convention theory (sorry 6 pages is just an idea not even a theory)- so people have referred to it as common sense as there are similar models throughout the ancient world.

    For some reason known only to yourself you keep mentioning aliens or super human powers? I must remind you that the system of transporting stones by boat 'is known' and is undisputable - nothing super human or alien!! Unlike you or other theorists who set men to drag these stones either across Ice or Fields - whatever happened to the forests that surrounded Stonehenge??

    A book by 'Hero of Alexandria' shows diagrams of batteries, hydraulic motors and steam engines - this book was published about 50BC - you would no doubt call them messages from mars, but all it shows is that 21st century men are ignorant of the true history of the world and that human progress runs in cycles and not a linear line as you suggest.

    A typical cycle is the Roman Empire in Britain, they lived in central heated houses that were not replicated for 2000 years - no doubt you would have called their technology 'alien'?

    The fact that you have not addressed any science in your paper questions its validity - how deep has the ice to be to support a 4 tonne bluestone or a 12 tonne sarsen? And how cold does the outside temperature have to be to get that kind of ice? What date was Stonehenge built? And why are there over 100 stone circles and only some have ditches??

    Sorry Barrows, long barrows and ditches built by nature just is not logical - show me the barrows and ditches in Iceland today!

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  12. Robert,

    Are we now resorting to 'counting pages' to account for Truth? I suppose that's little better than listing degrees and credentials!

    You seem to be missing my point about 'aliens'. Your explanation of Stonehenge (for example) as being built by an advanced lost civilization that has left no evidence in History is no different than explaining Stonehenge by arguing that aliens built it. I know you don't mean to argue that aliens built it! But you can't logically distinguish one argument from another!

    Robert, I am earnest in having a good conversation with you. But can we be more disciplined in our discussion? I am as much at fault as you are. So let's take one point at a time and exchange our views and explanations. Making generalities and dragging into this Hero of Alexandria is not helpful. Hero was a Greek that lived in Alexandria some 8000 years after you claim men built Stonehenge! Personally, I would have used Archimedes! He could move not only heavy stones, but the entire Earth!

    But seriously, let's take one point at the time: “what was the purpose and use of Stonehenge?”

    That will certainly add more content to your blog!!!

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  13. As Archaeologists have already realised Stonehenge was a place of healing. A Mesolithic hospital in modern terms.

    They treated the sick (like the amesbury archer from the Alps) with the 'treated' purified waters from the moat - if they died they were then excarnated in the Bluestone Circle (8500BC).

    This use was prior to the Sarsen Stones and the Avenue being introduced some 4000 years later in the Neolithic Period.

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  14. Robert,

    Archeologists also say that Stonehenge was built 5000 years AFTER your dates! Since when did you start believing archeologists? When their narrative fits your purpose?

    Please don't make references to 'archeologists' to justify your conclusions. Use the 'raw evidence' and not the various interpretations of that evidence when you discuss Stonehenge with me. Otherwise we'll go nowhere and your count will plummet!

    So, what is the EVIDENCE that Stonehenge was a 'healing center' ? Broken bones buried around Stonehenge? Perhaps your target audience for your book may like being mystified ...

    In another post I explained how round barrows could be naturally formed. You did not respond!

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  15. Kosta

    Unlike you I'm not a sceptic!

    I'm a trained archaeologist who doubts some of the methods employed by both Archaeology and Geology. The Prehistoric History we have found from the Bronze Age to the Roman invasion in 65AD as almost 90% correct in my view - but the evidence in the Mesolithic and Neolithic is not sound.

    Therefore to dismiss other archaelogists findings is illogical - any scientist takes the evidence found and re-examines the results, this way new interpretations can be found that have been previously overlooked - that is what I have done with my book, I've taken accepted Archaeological, Geological and Topological findings by credible scientists and been able to find details within the findings they have missed.

    This is the difference between our to hypothesis - mine is based on facts!

    As for Barrows that were made naturally I asked were they were to be found in Iceland or even North America or even New Zealand were similar conditions to the ice cap over Britain occured.

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  16. Robert,

    You are confusing “facts” for “interpretations”! I asked you before to stick to the “raw evidence” when discussing Stonehenge with me. That's what I have done. All the interpretations of the facts by archeologists and geologists can be challenged. You have challenged many yourself. Yet those interpretations/facts that suit your purposes you choose not the question. That's where a “skeptic” like me comes in. I have no other purpose than knowing the Truth. I have no book to sell or film to plug.

    Robert, it just does not add anything to your arguments on Stonehenge to toot your own horn and wrap yourself in the mantle of academics. It's the ideas and reasoning we have about Stonehenge that we should be discussing. Nor our academic degrees of other such personal credentials. I have some, myself!

    To that end, you ask: “As for Barrows that were made naturally I asked were they were to be found in Iceland or even North America or even New Zealand “

    Robert, we are not debating the proposition “If Ice, Then Barrows”.

    Certainly there were other geological conditions involved and geomorphology specific to southern UK at the time when these landscape features were made.

    We know there was a catastrophic melting of glaciers followed by deep freezing temperatures that lasted some 1000 years. Such conditions would have on one hand raised water levels very high and formed retaining lakes of meltwater. While during the freezing episodes this water would have frozen solid.

    When this ice sheet gradually melted again, geothermal and volcanic activity would have shaped the ice sheets into various retaining areas (round or oblong) where meltwater, along with soil and debris, would have collected. These are the present day Barrows. They were naturally made!

    To argue that these were made by men carrying bucketfuls of dirt from one place to another is just nonsense! It is estimated, for example, that Sillsbury Hill would have taken 15 years for some 1000 men to have build. Are we to believe that these Britons had nothing better to do than spend their prime years howling dirt from one place to another? I offer a more sensible explanation consistent with the scientific evidence and common sense.

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  17. Kosta

    This is where our transatlantic interpretations clash - for us a 'Sceptic' may judge a hypothesis but only when he has a superior knowledge of the subject and is able to give a credible counter argument based of facts or logic.

    Therefore, I accept you are a 'Skeptic' as clearly you use this term for someone who disagrees with evidence without a credible counter argument based on speculation.


    I DO agree that to built Silbury Hill is a task almost beyond imagination.... unless you had a very good reason beyond the religious nonsense of ceremony archaeologists have put forward.

    Fortunately, my book answers this question in great detail (for the first time in history) giving the reason for their endeavours and how it was even financed!!

    No other archaeology book has ever been able to produce such detail, which should please any Sceptic as the circumstantial evidence is beyond doubt.

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  18. Robert,

    You write, "I accept you are a 'Skeptic' as clearly you use this term for someone who disagrees with evidence without a credible counter argument based on speculation.”

    Please, don't lecture me about the correct meaning of a word in my own native language! Skeptic is a Greek word that derives from the word 'skepsi' or 'thought'. It means someone who questions through thought what others believe as fact!

    Can we dispense with such undignified tactics in order to have a good and reasoned conversation on Stonehenge? Such 'personal attacks' do not add to that discussion, but detract from it. Unless your sole purpose is to mislead your visitors to sell books by mystifying Stonehenge and making yourself the 'authority' on Stonehenge – which clearly you are not!

    You write, “No other archaeology book has ever been able to produce such detail, which should please any Sceptic as the circumstantial evidence is beyond doubt.”

    Yea! Right! Buy the book, people! I have a bottle of snake oil that will cure all your curiosities and make the itch go away!

    If your sole purpose is to make provocative comments in order to stir up book sales, count me out! I will give you one more chance to show your true intentions.

    You believe Stonehenge and all the other 'prehistoric monuments' in the UK were build by men.

    I argue that Ice and Nature had a far greater role in making Stonehenge and the landscape monuments.

    Please list all your reasons why you feel men built these monuments:

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  19. Hello, interesting reading; I live in Essex and I'm currently studying bushcraft, I'd be very interested in consulting you about some of the practices that were here during the meso-lithic. Is there an e-mail address I can use to contact you? I'm on youtube, there I show some of the practical experiments I've done regarding this matter ... search 'Essex Bushcraft' I should be top of the list. Regards.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anon

    You can contact me directly at: robert.john.langdon@prehistoric-britain.co.uk

    RJL

    ReplyDelete