Thursday, 5 May 2011

Ancient Civilisation - Aliens from Mars or unexpected technology?

By Robert John Langdon

Many critics have looked at aspects of my new book 'The Stonehenge Enigma' and questioned if our ancestors had the technology to build ships and boats that could sail the known world in Mesolithic times.  Within the book we look at this in depth and I would like to reproduce it here for the benefit of those short of £7.99 for the book.


These are polished 'mace tools' - archaeologists do not know what they are for, there best guess is that it fits on the end of a stick!  So much for science.

The most interesting aspect is the hole!

How do you pot a hole in a stone without metal?  If you’re not sure go and try it - you will fail!!

Archaeologists suggest that they were very patient and chipped away little by little until the hole was formed - but this opens up two other questions:

If it takes so long why bother - if you wanted to fit a stick to the stone split the stick sideways and bind with reed much quicker

Why polish it after, it will increase the time to make the thing 4 fold

At this point the old familiar saying comes to mind 'religious or ceremonial' which is archaeological speak for 'no idea!' and if you thought the above stones were rough enough to be chipped out by a pointed tiped rock take a look at this one!

I bet you could not do a better job with a diamond tipped drill bit!!

So how was it done - aliens, super human strength or just a simple piece of technology out of time?

It’s called a bow drill - simple effective but credited to the Egyptians - but I think we know better now!


(by Robert John Langdon)


  1. Nice stones Robert! Where did you get them? I'd like to get some myself!

    Are we still discussing Stonehenge?


  2. Kosta

    These stones are Mesolithic in date - the sandy ones were found around Stonehenge.

    The mystery of these stone tools is that they are far more sophisticated than tools that have been found in the Neolithic or Iron Age period.

    Details of other aspects of these tools that remain a mystery about this period in history is contained in the book,


  3. Robert,

    ... can't carbon date stones! So how do you know they are Mesolithic? And how do you know that these holes in them were not bored in Roman times? Too much uncertainty here for a non-believer! But a true believer like yourself has no problem!

  4. Kosta

    These stones were dated by 'traditional' archaeologists who base there dates by soil layer dating and sometimes carbon dating organic materials found with the Stones.

    This is not conclusive and there is a conservative tendency with archaeologists to date accordingly - hence over the last 50 years Stonehenge's construction dated has moved from 1500BC to now 3000BC.

    In the course of time they will get it right and catch up with my hypothesis.


  5. Recently found your site.
    Certainly got me thinking and reviewing much of my previous knowledge.
    Colleagues I have studied with in the Middle east have been somewhat perplexed but quite open minded re your hypothesis Robert. Obviously you've done your homework, look forward to reading the book, when is it available?? I have read numerous other theories pertaining to the placement of stones due to the movement of ice, but the evidence seems to be somewhat sketchy .
    As all evidence from this period is, after all.
    C. Agnosta.

  6. Anonymous,

    If you want to know how Stonehenge was made, and all of the other 'prehistoric monuments' in Europe including stone circles, stone alignments, round mounts and henges, read my article, “The un-Henging of Stonehenge”. It's free and you can find it by Googling the exact title.

    My difference with Robert is that he assumes an advanced civilization of Britons around 8000 BC that left no record in History (either by themselves or by others) yet had the technological skills to navigate freely in the open seas in well designed boats carrying huge stones weighing 40 tons (like the larger of the sarsen stones) over long distances (some 250 km) to built a Mesolithic SPA and Healing Center in the middle of nowhere.

    My theory says that at the time of Stonehenge the area was covered by a frozen body of water (lake or river or sea). Ice and Nature played a far greater role in forming these landscape features than Mesolithic men. Read my article for all the minute details how this could have happened! It's the only theory that can explain everything about Stonehenge – including its meaning and alignment with the summer solstice sun.


  7. Robert,

    'Traditional' archeological methods of 'dating by layers' does not work in places where there are floods and water (like in your theory!) and meltwater rivers carrying soil and debris from many other places and from many other time periods!

    You have shown that you can think “outside the box” in thinking about Stonehenge. But this is one box that you have not yet peeked outside its confines to see the Truth about Stonehenge.


  8. Kosta

    I agree with you the dating of such items is problematical for the reasons you suggest.

    But to confuse Roman technology with Prehistoric - not even the worst Archaeologist could do that! and as such tools have never been found in Roman villas or Temples - lets accept these objects are Prehistoric.

    Where these tools sit in Prehistory is in itself a facinating subject as a chapter in my book illustrates - as an example did you know that Mesolithic tools were smaller and sharper than Bronze Age Stone tools?

    Any educated guesses on that evidence (not mentioning Advance Civilisations)on that fact?

    The 'traditional' archaeologists suggest that sharp tools don't last as long as blunt ones!! - I would love to suggest such as fact to one who is about to have a shave with a bunt razor blade!


  9. Many thanks Kostas, Stonehenge's Mysterious Stones, excellent link. I remember reading some of Johns hypothesis in the past. The evidence initially seems overwhelming....but, somehow doesnt quite fit. Have glacier maps of the age ever been developed? As we know glaciers can take 1000's of yrs to melt, revealing underlying land mass. During this transition would there not have been evidence for 'dating by layers' ?
    Whilst some of Langdon's theories appear proposterous, until recently the english channel had always been the channel. Now we discover with further technology and renewed vigour that it was a landmass supporting a civilised people.
    Glacial movement of the stones to the Stonehenge site seems a fair hypothesis, but not complete. I fear that in our interpretation of (not fact) but assumption, we may dismiss relevant information, as we say in the UK ' lets not throw the baby out with the bath water'. My previous partner was an archaeologist, and he always advised me to carefully consider all information prior to dismissing it, as we all all know , it simply requires an open mind and opposable thumbs.
    My apologies if this is somewhat unreadable, computers arent really my thing, Im a scientist by trade.
    Charlie A

  10. Charlie A,

    I have been trying to have an honest and reasoned discussion with Robert on Stonehenge for some time now. Perhaps we can show Robert what a 'good conversation' looks and feels like!

    My main disagreement with Robert is that he believes Stonehenge and all other prehistoric 'monuments' were made by men. I argue that Ice and Nature played a far greater role.

    My 'ice cover theory' is different from Brian John's is many important aspects. Foremost of these is that the ice in my theory was not 'glacial' in nature, but 'local' when vast bodies of water solidly froze.

    I agree with Robert that the 'great meltdown' of the glacier ice inundated coastal areas of the UK and formed vast waterways, lakes, and rivers. But soon after the 'great meltdown' came the 'deep freeze' which lasted some 1000 years around 10,000 BC.

    During this time Robert's waterways froze solid and provided the natural transport for the Stonehenge stones. When the frozen bodies of water began to melt once again, geothermal and volcanic activity shaped the solid ice into an 'ice mold' that became basins for meltwater to collect along with soil and debris deposits. These resulted in the round and long barrows, ditches and embankments, avenues and concentric stone alignments and generally the geomorphology we now see.

    I have asked Robert to list his reasons why he thinks these 'prehistoric monuments' were made by men. I am still waiting for his response to that simple and direct question!


  11. Kosta

    Silbury Hill - built in flat layers to give it height during construction finished with loose chalk to make it a mound.

    The exact same way as a Egyptian Pyramid is built - or is that natural as well??


  12. Robert,

    You write, “Silbury Hill - built in flat layers to give it height during construction finished with loose chalk to make it a mound.”

    All the natural alluvial soil deposits (as Silbury Hill is) show just such 'flat layers'. Are you suggesting that such 'flat layers' we see in river cut embankments were also made by Neolithic Britons? Come on now!

    You write, “The exact same way as a Egyptian Pyramid is built - or is that natural as well??”

    Robert, the building of the Egyptian pyramids is still an open mystery. We can't use one unsolved mystery to solve another! Besides, your syllogism here is logically wrong!

    1) Egyptian pyramids were built in layers.
    2) Egyptian pyramids were built by men.
    3) Silbury Hill was built in layers.
    Therefore, Silbury Hill was built by men???

    Robert, its degrading to have to respond to such arguments! Can you show some 'thoughtful consideration'?

    Your argument does nothing to explain why Mesolithic Britons would spend generations of men and immense effort to howl dirt from one place to another. And do all that on boats while most of the land was inundated with water, according to your theory!

    Please remind me again what was the 'purpose' for these mounts? To act as navigational posts and docks? So where did your Britons get the dirt to make these since the land was submerged? Or did they bring the dirt from West Wales on boats as well?

    You have yet to respond to my question: What are your reasons for thinking that all these 'monuments' were built by men?


  13. Kosta

    You been listening to your mate Brian too much!

    The land was not 'under water' as you both suggest - the table table was raised by about 35m higher than today's level.

    The consequence of a raised water table is that levels of rivers and streams increase - this effect would isolate pockets of high ground and turn them into Islands and peninsulas..

    Stonehenge was a peninsula and Avebury an Island - at the time Silbury Hill did not exist about 8500BC. When the Mesolithic waters subsided the island of Avebury lost its water and the mooring stations it used during earlier times disappeared.

    Our ancestors kept the trading post active for boats by building the moat that currently surrounds Avebury today, but at the beginning of the Neolithic Period about 4000BC even this turned dry.

    So they relocated the trading port at Silbury Hill with its new entrance at the sanctuary which then lead to the old trading post at Avebury.

    The new port needed a marker for the boats navigate to at night so Silbury hill was constructed with soil from the surrounding area (at low tide the surround of Silbury Hill would be used as it acts to 'dreg' the hill which allows boats to moor in deeper water (see book for details).

    MEN built the mound by hand over the course of a few years and the top was deliberately left flat for its purpose - a fire beacon.

    This would allow boats to use the harbour on a 24/7 basis - this model was replaced by the ancestors that eventually migrated to the Mediterranean when they built the Alexandria Lighthouse in 50BC.

    I do not need to prove men built Silbury Hill as it is unique and therefore man made as natural features by their nature are common and not time restricted - therefore we could see them being created somewhere in the world today - which we can't.

    So unless you give us some proof of this 'natural' process by indicating where its happening today in the world, i'm sorry to say you theory fails.


  14. Ding ding boys....round over.
    Im trying not to be swayed by Roberts romantic notions and follow the facts, but my experience of geologists v archaeologists is there never seems to be a common ground. there have been several articles and theories published on the possibility of 'ice age' man so its hard to concede having visited stonehenge , avebury and certainly woodhenge that these unique constructions were not developed by design but by a geological process. Such convenient placement of stones versus considered placement and construction can be otherwise seen as the hand of 'God' versus 'the capability of man' . Suddenly Roberts conclusions don't seem so far fetched. Also why hasnt this phenomena been repeated by nature elsewhere to this extent??Perhaps we're just priveleged here in the UK
    Ms Agnosta.

  15. Robert,

    You need not 'prove' that men built these monuments. Just give me the reasons why you think men built these!

    You write, “This would allow boats to use the harbour on a 24/7 basis - this model was replaced by the ancestors that eventually migrated to the Mediterranean when they built the Alexandria Lighthouse in 50BC.”

    So now we have a busy harbor operating 24/7 and ancient Britons coming to built The Alexandria Lighthouse without a trace!

    Robert, I am sorry but you have discredited yourself with such statements. Why not try your hand at writing fairy tales and create the next “Harry Potter” sensation?

    I just can't take you seriously any more!


  16. Ms Agnosta

    Didn't realize the Ms part! Is Agnosta your actual name?

    You write, “Such convenient placement of stones versus considered placement and construction can be otherwise seen as the hand of 'God' versus 'the capability of man' .”

    My 'ice cover theory' calls for a collaborative effort between Nature and Man. Certainly, the placement of stones in a circular arrangement at Stonehenge was the intent of men, but the circular ice hole and the transport of stones on a hard ice surface was the work of Nature.

    The geological conditions at the UK during the time of the making of Stonehenge is in all likelihood rare and unique, as is the vast bedrock of chalk. That in my opinion makes Stonehenge more significant and consequential than the belief some advanced lost civilization built it. Surely 'romance' is often more compelling than 'reason'.

    There isn't anything that this ice-cover theory can't consistently and sensibly explain without a patchwork of narratives disjoint from History and common sense.


  17. I confess ...female. having moved to the uk from the middle east, not by glacial movement but by an advanced civilization called BA,

  18. C.A.

    Welcome to my web site.

    I hope you find the content and discussion on the topics raised of interest as I aim to promote a 'common sense' approach to archaeological history that fits the evidence we find in our landscape.


  19. Kostas

    What can I say?

    I have completed a 'comprehensive' history of prehistoric Britain which justifies all aspects of life of our ancestors including the technology they employed.

    I have written a blog yesterday for your benefit so you can appreciate the simplicity of my hypothesis. Boats are 'common place throughout the world (except in Britain it seems!) and if we accept boats were used - then logically they need ways of guiding their boats to safe harbour.

    All Silbury hill is a big hill with a bonfire on top (not exactly rocket science is it?) But people like yourself want to turn it into science fiction.

    History shows that 'prototypes' are built before the real thing is established - in Britain we had wooden circles before stone was used, in Egypt the 'steep pyramid' was built before the Giza perfection was established - as for lighthouses, Silbury Hill was the first, but not the last.

    You see Kostas - simple common sense, just as Einstein predicted about the world - shame about this quantum rubbish!


  20. Robert,

    There is as much 'common sense' logic in your explanations as in the statement “If you fly too fast on a broom, you risk falling”.

    A belief to a believer is 'common sense' too! Try arguing 'evolution' with a 'creationist'!


  21. I've just come back from Demark's Frederiksborg region and the landscape is covered with Long Barrows.

    Its interesting for Robert to associate them with boats as most are by the sea as it is a maritime society even today.

    These Barrows are sandstone blocks on a granite sub-soil. I have no idea what Constantinos is taking about when he suggests these monuments are naturally formed landscape features, as they have chambers inside.

    He be better off claiming ufo's planted them to point the way to the yellow brick road.

  22. Thank you for the information Bob.

    I hope to go and see in person this year all of the Long Barrows of Northern Europe in preparation to my next book out next summer.


  23. Bob,

    Danish landscape aside, the only true statement in your entire post is “I have no idea what Constantinos is taking about”. Yet you go on to comment nonetheless on what you have no idea about!

    By the way, UFOs do not need Long Barrows to navigate! Hasn't Robert made that clear to you? Only Mesolithic Britons sailing a short distance up a river to find Stonehenge need Long Barrows. They were not clever enough, I guess, to just leave markers on the existing landscape. Had to howl dirt from Wales to built mounts that from a distance are indistinguishable from hills.

    By the way, men can built chambers in any hill. Does that make the hill man-made?


  24. I just knew it - the little green men are watching!!

    Costa, the MEN who built the chambers would have needed to dismantle the barrow to put the chamber into it (why would you do that?). And as the weight of a boulder is considerably heaver than the loose chalk in England, would it not make a different design or pattern if the ice/waters created it?

    And as I think Agnosta stated: where are the other elsewhere in the world? Why is here so special? (world is made of common substances found everywhere and ice caps have been coming and going for about a billion years??)

    You said your theory is 'rare and unique' I give you that one! but try, 'unprovable and rubbish' instead.

    For such clear folly does not help the work of people like Robert on this site (or even on my site), who are trying to find the truth.

  25. Prisoner 6:

    I am tempted to dismantle your argument, but then “why bother”. Let prisoners enjoy their self-made walls! Personal attacks will not get you closer the the Truth you claim you seek! And personal attacks will not make an argument sensible to Truth.

    Let Robert speak for himself. His blog has benefited greatly from my content to it -- going from 0 comments in all of his posts to now probably over 40 and showing some life in his count.

    But if instead he rather avoid challenges to his explanations (as obviously you do) then he can just not respond to my comments. And I'll stop making them.


  26. Methinks that RJL, Bob Davis and prisoner 6 are all the same person!
    I bet this gets edited out Bob

  27. Colin

    Not one for censorship!

    As for conspiracy theories - I leave that to Kostas!!


  28. What if one of these stones were found in Canada origin unknown cause found in tool box of tractor i have yet to trace the origin of

  29. Would love to find a bluestone in Canada still in situ!! RJL