Tuesday, 28 June 2011

Neolithic Pilgrimage from Woodhenge to Stonehenge

During the Summer Solstice I took the opportunity to walk the once sacred path that would have lead from Woodhenge to Stonehenge, used by our ancestors during the Neolithic Period.

Neolithic Walkway in Red with Scheduled Barrows in Black and the Neolithic shoreline in blue.

As it was probably the first time in 5,000 years since anyone had walked this pilgrimage path on the summer solstice, I thought I should film it for future generations.

Pathway of the Past - Woodhenge to Stonehenge Part I

Pathways of the Past - Woodhenge to Stonehenge Part II

Although I completed the 4km walk with ease, I was unbelievably disappointed at the number of Barrows still remaining, even as they have been identified in the last 100 years and been given Scheduled Monument status that is there to protect form destruction from unscrupulous farmers and property developers who are looking for a 'fast buck'.

Such practices are still continuing today and until someone is thrown into prison our heritage will disappear year by year in front of our eyes.

On our pilgrimage of 8 Barrows only 2 remained!!

But what the walk DID prove that you can walk from Barrow to Barrow - with each barrow being in visible sight of the next.   This is a form of the milestones used by the Roman and Byzantine empires some 2000 years later.

The big question is whether these markers had writing or symbols that could identify where the path lead to and from?  If so was the identifiers either on the side of the Barrows - which would have been a pure white mound about 4 - 6 foot high and 10 - 12 foot in diameter - or did a Standing Stone fit into the centre with the identifier?

Only detailed analysis of remaining undisturbed Barrows will answer that question - so conservation is key!


  1. Robert,

    Isn't it rather silly to argue that your Neolithic ancestors had to go to great expense and labor to erect 8 Barrows made from dirt to be used as 'milestone' markers for a 4 km walk?

    When I was a boy my grandmother would take me on horseback from her remote mountain village to my hometown some 40km away through thick wild woodland and she did not need any Barrows to show her the way!

    Was that video clip a practice run for some BBC documentary you are aspiring to?


  2. Kosta

    Welcome back!

    Happy that your grandmother never got lost - I guess unless 'neddy' had an animal GPS system in-built if they were travelling to a unknown destination they may need some help?

    Fortunately, history proves that 'milestones' were always used in the past - in fact it was accredited to the Roman's who strangely had both Roads, Maps and Writing to help them - as only a 'minority' of citizens could read and therefore use maps.

    The same circumstances occurred a thousand years later in Britain's 'middle ages' were milestones were common place as again a majority of the population could not read or write and moreover, they could not afford maps!!

    This also kills off a previous point you made about writing being a measure of civilisation - if only half the population can read and write, are only half of the society civilised and the others not?

    The most interesting aspect of the Roman invasion is that they were famous of 'assimilating' cultures and ideas, which the good practice they adopted as there own!

    As Milestones didn't appear on Roman roads until after the 64AD invasion is it possible that they saw how the Barrows worked from local tribesmen and therefore adopted the same practice on their road in a smaller stone format??

    Remembering, as I suggested in the blog that the mounds would probably have a single stone standing on top of the Barrow as other Standing Stones(milestones markers) have been found on these 'Pathways of the Past'.


    1. hi!
      I'm from mexico city and i'm very interested in buy your books...however the link in your blog does not work. how can i get them? is there an email where i can write to you? send mine c_emilio_hf@hotmail.com
      thank you and wait for your response


    2. Emilio

      Thanks for the interest - the link is down as we are currently producing a second edition with more information as shown on this web site.

      If you still wish to buy a copy of the first edition, I have reactivated the link!


  3. Robert,

    You don't need to build huge earthen mounts in order to mark a path! And you certainly don't need to build EIGHT such earthen mounts within sight of one another to mark a FOUR km path!

    But if you had to mark the road, why not just mark a tree or big rock or build a rock mount along the side of the road painted with arrows! Neolithic Brits certainly knew about arrows!

    Maybe that is asking too much, since road signs come too close to writing! And your great lost Neolithic civilization did not know how to write! You might say that they were 100% illiterate, as compared to 50% for the more civilized ancient cultures!

    Your blog has been rather quite of late. Sure you don't want to send me that check?


  4. Kostas

    You must try to picture how the Mesolithic landscape would have looked then and not now!

    None of these flat grassy plains existed in this period, they were covered with trees and bushes. You could not see through the foliage so you would need to raise yourself above the greenery.

    Consequently, a tree with a marker is pointless as you don't know which tree to look out for. In this dense folliage only a mound placed at the top of a hill would allow you to see which direction to walk - by spotting the bright white mound of the next Barrow which would be easily seen through the green.

    Paths would become overgrown too quickly to use as the weather would be hotter and wetter than today and unless you have a marker indicating where you are heading too, totally useless if its the first time you have taken this route.

    The only other marker you could have used would be a standing stone of over 4 metres. Unfortunately, unless you could bring the stone to the location of desire by boat - moving a 10 tonne stone through this kind of forest would be impossible.

    Although my maps have indicated that where paths were close to the shorelines standing stones still do exist - the big question I need to resolve is if one or more small standing stone was placed on top of the Barrows with an indication of the direction the traveller should take as we have seen on the many stone circles in Britain.


  5. Dear Bob
    You still haven't really adressed my previous posts about the Newgrange-Stonehenge Winter solstice alignment.
    Did you ever bother google earthing it, do you actually know how to use google earth ruler?
    Or my question about rock salt in Dolerite?
    how can this be scientifically possble?
    This Big question above as to resolving if one or more standing stones was placed on top of the barrows, just exactly how could such a question be resolved?
    It is much better in these type of arguments to stick to demonstrable facts, theories are cheap.

  6. Kostas
    I have just read your article The Un-henging of Stonehenge, and should like to ask your opinion about how the ice naturally formed the tenon and mortice joints found on the lintels that join the tri-lithons or cut and dressed the stones to preety much the same size.
    it does seem Kostas that now you can sit back and relax, having decided that you alone have solved all the mysteries of Stonehenge that the rest of us may as well go back to studying UFO's or some other silly thing.

  7. Colin

    I don't think the alignment is valid as the chamber is not pointed towards Stonehenge - unless they were using a general direction rule?

    Rock salt is interesting as Bluestones attracts the growth of this natural substance - to give you a 'taste' of the next book - the major cause of death in the Mesolithic age would be infections from cuts, bites etc - rock salt is a natural disinfectant that would be 'salt' ;-) to stop the on-sought of gangrene.

    Sorry no miracle cures here just plain old fashioned practical medication.

    As for demonstrable facts - if the idiots left the barrows alone in Victorian times - we could find at least one without a hole in the top were the treasure hunters had dug to prove if stones were placed on top - fingers crossed we may still get luck in my search for a untouched Barrow.


  8. … aah Robert, still being sophistic hey? I am beginning to believe that you don't know any different. Just like the habitual liar that does not know truth from fiction!

    OK. I'll play your game … since that's all you know.

    The most sacred and most traveled destination of all of antiquity, Stonehenge, attracting travelers from all corners of the Mesolithic world, surely deserves a 'yellow brick road' to help the weary to this place of mystery and healing. I would even expect local guides to be on hand to show these reverent believers the way! It's certainly better than spending many years and human resources hauling bucketfuls of dirt to build earthen mounts, with or without the 'lighthouses' on top!

    I think I will start charging you a fee for each of my posts!


  9. Hello Colin, … and thank you for reading my article! It makes any discussion about Stonehenge we might have that much easier.

    First, let me assure you that I am only committed to Truth and Reason. There is no other agenda in anything I put forth. No books to sell, no journalism career to seek. Just the Truth. If it can be scientifically shown and sensibly argued that Stonehenge was built by an advanced lost Mesolithic civilization, as Robert claims, I will have no problem accepting this. But arguments put forth that defy common sense and recorded History just do not sit well with me intellectually.

    You ask,
    “...how the ice naturally formed the tenon and mortice joints found on the lintels that join the tri-lithons or cut and dressed the stones to preety much the same size.”

    The ice did not form these tenon and mortice joints found at Stonehenge. But the Romans might have, since they were there (founded the city Bath) and they knew about such construction technics! As for the quarrying of stones to be much the same size, let me suggest that naturally quarried stones could also have the same size and shape. Just last summer I was visiting there and saw with my own eyes naturally quarried sarsen stones of generally the same size and shape as those found at Stonehenge. This was just south of Stonehenge on the sea coast at Portland Point I believe.

    For some related discussions on this, check the following links to Brian John's blog “Stonehenge Thoughts” where I often post comments.


    Hope this helps with your good and earnest questions.


  10. Kostas

    Stonehenge is Roman?

    You just taken archaeology back 300 years - that was the conclusion of the first antiquarians!!

    Even I accept that the ditch was dung out by Neolithic Man who left their antler tools as evidence.


  11. Robert,

    Stonehenge is NOT Roman (read my article please!). What I said is the mortise and tenon joints MAY be Roman, since they knew this building technique and they were at Stonehenge more than 2000 years ago.

    If you believe that the Ditch was built much later by Neolithic people, you shouldn't have problems with the idea that Stonehenge was modified at many various times throughout History – even as late as the 1950's when Prof. Atchinson erected and put in place many of the trilithons we see today – using modern equipment and techniques, of course! See my comments on this posted in Brian John's blog:

    Were the Neolithic people that dug and buried their deer antler tools in the Ditch the same people who 5000 years earlier had diamond tipped high speed drilling tools to drill through mace stones like a dentist drills through your teeth cavities?

    Does your theory accommodate such catastrophic downgrading of intelligence and civilization? And do you suppose the same is happening now? The antiquarians 300 years ago that believed the Romans built Stonehenge were of Isaac Newton's generation. No offense Robert, but I would take Newton's generation to know Reason (and the truth about Stonehenge) any time over yours!

    By the way, what happened to your claim that the Ditch was actually a moat or water canal for the purpose of transporting stones from dock to site? But that was 5000 years EARLIER!

    “Huston, we have a problem!” Aliens have invaded our moon landing craft!


  12. Dear Bob
    You wrote " I don't think the alignment is valid as the chamber is not pointed towards Stonehenge"
    I despair of you Bob.You "dont think"it is,
    I Know it is, this is what I have been trying to explain to you but you keep refusing to go to google earth and look!!
    Perhaps Kostas is inteligent enough to do it.
    All you have to do is go to Google earth , fly to Newgrange (, then go to tools, ruler, click mouse at entrance of Newgrange, and draw a line to Stonehenge. once you reach Stonehenge (262 miles) check out the bearing in the tool box , it will be 129 degrees 42, which is 39 degrees 42 south of east which is the bearing of Winter solstice sunrise in 2000BC.
    As to Preseli Bluestone growing Rock salt. I own a Bluestone quarry in Wales and have pieces of Bluestone in my garden and they do not grow rock salt on them.
    And anyway the whole Bluestone healing thing was made up by Geofrey Wainwright to sell more books.
    read this:http://www.skyandlandscape.com/pdf/Bluestones1.pdf
    You have the same motives of course, but at least he got paid an advance by his publishing company whereas you are self published.
    I bet me and Kostas are your worst nightmare.
    the moral is GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT
    You still haven't even altered your directions on your "Stone me" page, again I tell you the direction of the Midsummer sunset is neither opposite, or at 90 degrees, but 251 degrees or 49 degrees West of North
    And Kostas you are right it is possible that the roman engineered the Stonehenge lintels there can never be any carbon dated proff of the erection dates only of things found there, i may not agree with you or Brian Johns ( read his blog all the time)opinions but I respect
    your science.
    another good Stonehenge blog is Eternal Idol
    they at least checked my data and agreed with it.

  13. Re my last post: As to Midsummer sunset directions from Stonehenge
    It is 311 degrees not 251 which was a typo, sorry, but still 49 degrees west of north.

  14. Kosta

    The ditch was last dung out in about 2500BC the evidence is conclusive - but it was not the date the MOAT was constructed.

    NB. I use different words to allow people clearly struggling with the concepts to understand clearly - evidently even that level of simplicity still does not work!

    The site was abandoned 2000 years before the Romans invaded, therefore Romans did not 'tinker' with the stones as suggest. This can be proven (as the stone has mortice and tenon joints) by fallen Stone 27 as the date when it collapsed can obtain as it trapped an antler pick directly under that fallen stone, this was dated as 4175BC +/- 185 (like the car park carbon dating the 'experts' seem no to publicise that date too widely!).

    You should save your pennies and buy the book Kostas, its full of factual information that stop people guessing the ridiculous!!


  15. Colin

    I have done as you asked and yes 129degrees 42 is the 2000BC midwinter sunrise which is an alignment with both Stonehenge and Newgrange - I doubt you not!

    But I have already answered this point previously:

    "Finally sat down for 10 mins to look at your hypothesis - the first reference I read showed me that the theory is flawed as you state that angle 129 degrees 42.8 minutes was the Stonehenge/Midwinter sunrise from Newgrange - the problem is that for the sun to travel down the famous corridor, it would need to rise between 133 degrees 49 minutes to 137 degrees 29 minutes.


    So at best the alignment line would miss Stonehenge by between 15 - 45 miles!


    Its at least 4 degrees off central alignment!!

    And if your Bluestones don't encourage the growth of rock salt - then you got the wrong ones - sorry you bought the wrong quarry!

    If you Google it you find a far few gardeners complaining that the salt keeps coming back even when they wash and clean the stones constantly.


  16. If you remember I quoted
    Stonehenge for 2000 BC (from Sun, Moon and Standing Stones, Edwin Wood, O.U.P.) gives 40.32deg S of E 02 130 degrees for winter sunrise.
    Whether it's a couple of degrees out is fine with me - they still line up.

    There seems to be not only issues with an understanding of archaeology, maths and astronomy but your reference to 'bluestone' is erroneous. I think you are referring to copper sulphate, when you talk about rock salt. Although it does have a common name of 'bluestone', because it is blue in colour, it is not related petrologically to Preseli Bluestone which is dolerite, nor does it have any relationship to Stonehenge.

    For this reason I feel no need to further debate with you. You seem unable to quote your sources and what you do quote seems to be misinformation.

  17. Robert,

    So first was the MOAT, then was the DITCH! Thanks for clarifying this. We now have TWO for the price on one book!

    Couldn't the Romans “tinker with the stones” in restoring an abandoned Stonehenge? Just like Prof. Atckinson “tinkered” with them when he restored many of the trilithons in the 1950s? Stonehenge certainly was “abandoned” in the 1950s too!

    So Stone 27 fell on deer antlers that dated to 4175BC and therefore the stone is also dated to 4175BC! Robert, if a bookcase in a museum falls on a 5000 year old mummy, does it make the bookcase 5000 years old?

    This is embarrassing. Sorry! And you are asking me to buy your book?


  18. Kostas

    Enlighten me - how did a 4175BC antler get under a fallen stone 27?

    Using your reasoning it was already there being kept as a 'souvenir' by a Roman who collected ancient antlers??


  19. Colin

    Well your getting closure but until you can get to something between 133 and 137 degrees - your miles away.

    and the same can be said for 'copper sulphate'?? - well I hope my daughter knows the difference otherwise Cambridge grads are buggered and have to come and work in your quarry!!

    The details you are desperate for will be in my next book out next year - you should reserve a copy today!


  20. Robert,

    The deer antler was either there or was carried there by melt-water floods. Then Stone 27 fell on it. Just like your theory!


  21. Kostas

    Your dating your melt water at on or after 4175BC? Progress at last!! No record of a ice age then my friend... try again!!

    OK! Let me enlighten you as you clearly don't know or wish to learn about stone 27 or its circumstances.

    They dug a hole for stone 27 - back filled the hole to hold stone 27 and then it fell over 'covering the hole' - that's the important bit!! as it could only get there at the time of construction.

    In the fill they found not a whole antler, its a piece off the top - one may suggest as the holes where cut with such tools - a piece probably broke off and fell into the hole??

    Unfortunately, sceptics such as archaeologists with Phd's in protecting their job and similar deluded and misinformed, like yourself, believe it was always there.... I often see 4000 year old antler (in the case of your Roman build) lying around on the floor - bet you got a few around the house?



  22. Colin

    As Stonehenge was built prior to 4000BC - see above comment to Kostas about stone 27.

    The sunrise in 4000BC (last phase of Stonehenge) the sun would rise 1/2 degree difference to your Google 2000BC calculation - which will not longer align with Stonehenge any more - but the rays of the sun would start further down the chamber than today or 2000BC.

    So you need to either change your theory and find the exact date the sun went down the chamber (and the true date of the construction of Newgrange) which is more important - or find evidence that Stonehenge was built in 2000BC.


  23. Robert,

    IF 'they' dug holes for sarsens, and
    IF 'they' used antlers to dig holes in the bedrock, and
    IF one of the antlers used to dig the hole broke off and was buried in the hole, and
    IF stone 27 fell over covering the hole, and
    IF 'they' did not bother resetting stone 27 into the hole 'they' dug, and
    IF 'they' had no plan that made stone 27 relevant to the project, and
    IF the sanctity of Stonehenge allowed for fallen stones, and
    IF the leader in charge of this project did not object, and
    IF nobody afterward rectified this unsatisfactory situation, and
    IF the antler was not just a piece of an old relic that just got mixed in by accident,
    THEN I suppose you are right!

    Robert, these are believes. I don't believe any of these. You are just making up stories!


  24. Robert you argue,

    “They dug a hole for stone 27 - back filled the hole to hold stone 27 and then it fell over 'covering the hole' - that's the important bit!! as it could only get there at the time of construction.

    In the fill they found not a whole antler, its a piece off the top - one may suggest as the holes where cut with such tools - a piece probably broke off and fell into the hole??”

    You ask, “how did the small broken deer antler covered by Stone 27 get in the hole?”

    Using your own argument (which I don't believe) one possible explanation is if it was mixed in with the gravel used to back fill the hole! Or it could have been buried in the ground from previous times. Of course, I am only guessing! No one was there to know for sure! Not even you, Robert!

    To argue, however, that Stone 27 fell over the hole during construction is shear speculation. Why was the stone just left lying after it fell and not erected?

    The very human erection of these stones is shear speculation. And forced arguments based on speculation are 'phallasious' arguments.


  25. This comment has been removed by the author.

  26. Kostas

    Sorry reading back my reply I may have confused my point.

    The point is that Stonehenge is not Roman - stone 27 - as its linked to the Sarsens and not the ditch I think proves the uprights were laid in about 4100BC.

    In the book (please note Colin) the Avenue was built slightly prior to this in 4300BC as the Soltice Sunrise is central to the causeway.

    In the book was found evidence of similar post holes (as in the Car Park) at the end of The Avenue, were clearly these Sarsen stones were unloaded some few years later.

    The carbon dating is 4175BC +/- 185 so its a good fit.

    If you wish to believe that the Romans remodelled the structure by placing lintels on top of the Sarsens - then it would be hard to argue, but I can't see the point and if they did would they not finish the job my removing the ugly lumps on the backs of the Sarsen stones and carve their own deities into the fronts?


  27. Robert,

    The carbon dating of organic material found around Stonehenge date more or less to the same period because that's when the land in the area started to grow trees again – after being covered by ice.

    The Romans may have started to 'tinker' with the stones at Stonehenge but just gave up a task not all that important to them. Remember, they didn't stay at the UK for all that long!

    But the more relevant question, using your theory that these stones were erected by humans (which I don't believe) is why didn't your Mesolithic lost civilization remove the ugly lumps in many of these sarsens? And if they quarried and carried these stones, why choose them to be so lumpy? Is that the way to dress up a place of great significance to them where people from the Mesolithic world would come to worship and get healed?

    Your last comment, however, reflects a more conciliatory spirit of conversation. Certainly, much of what we claim to know about Stonehenge comes down to what we fundamentally believe about Stonehenge. This sometimes makes it hard to talk about Stonehenge as often such discussions quickly degenerate to forceful affirmations of our believes.

    Whereas your fundamental belief is that Stonehenge was built by an advanced lost civilization of Mesolithic people, I believe that Nature played a far greater role; but not exclusively. People played their part too. Within the sensible limits of what prehistoric people could do, however.

    My theory stipulates that local ice (as with frozen lakes, rivers and seas) covered sections of southwestern UK at the time when Stonehenge was made. Whenever that was. I leave the exact dates open since these do not change anything fundamental to my theory – other than it was at a time when there were people living in the area. My sense is that this happened after the catastrophic glacier Great Melt followed by a period of some 2000 years of the Big Freeze around 8,000BC. These dates are obtained from the global temperature charts that Brian John had posted in his blog several months ago.

    The Great Melt inundated the land forming vast meltwater lakes, rivers and rising seas; while the Big Freeze that quickly followed, lasting for some 2000 years, froze these 'waterways' solid. I will not go into detail about how Stonehenge and all the earthworks erroneously attributed to human labor were then made. It's all in my article “The un-Henging of Stonehenge”.

    So you see, Robert, there is some overlap common to our theories. We both believe there were vast waterways in the area at one time. But I believe these waterways froze solid for some 2000 years, whereas you place boats in them. However, while I am supported by geological temperature records, you are opposed by recorded History and common sense. And so have to make up stories to make your boats 'hold water'.


  28. OK Bob Davis/ RJ Langdon
    I am just a dumb shmuck who knows nothing and you are the master genius who has discoverd the ultimate secrets of Stonehenge.
    The Bluestones that I have and sell to English Heritage and had petrologically analysed as matching some of the stones at Stonehenge must be wrong and you must be right
    oh dear your ego must be so happy.
    It never occurs to you that others may have something to contribute, and you could learn something new. Lets face it you had no idea that Newgrange and Stonehenge lined up at all so you have to quibble on dates and small amounts of azimuth
    And no I am not desperate to read your theories,
    unless you get a publishing deal with a real publishing company and not just one you set up yourself because no one else would publish your
    unscientific tosh.
    I am amazed that Kostas has anything more to do with you he must be lonely too.
    Have a nice day!

  29. Colin,

    I can understand your frustration! I have sought in earnest to have an intellectually honest and open conversation with Robert from the very start. Going back to when Robert started posting in Brian John's blog. And I am still open to having such discussion. Now, however, my approach to his posts is to meet 'fire with fire'. If Robert wishes to play a game of sophistry and slight of logic, I can play that game too. And when there is an opening to having a more earnest debate, I am also open to that – as it occasionally happens.

    I am fully aware that Robert's main motivation is to promote and sell his book. But I also know that some visiting his site, like yourself, may be more earnest in seeking the truth about Stonehenge. My posts aim to reach them, more so than seeking to change Robert's mind about anything. But when Robert (and others) put forth an explanation and a theory that defy sense and History, I am inclined by nature to spot-light such sophistry with the light of Reason. But I am not engaged in this because I have nothing better to do.

    In pointing out weaknesses in Robert's arguments, my arguments grow stronger! It's a symbiotic relationship!


  30. Kostas
    I think we all feel this sense of frustration. including Bob, because we all believe our pet theories, and dearly want to share them with the world.
    As far as mainstream archeology is concerned we are beyond the pale. The thing that we forget is that most people don't give a damn about Stonehenge.
    Bob is winding us up because then at least he gets some kind of intelectually stimulating dialogue. Without us how much chat would he get?
    The sad thing is that he really believes that he will sell lots of books, when it takes more than a self penned article in the gutter press to do that.
    What we have in common is that we all have much invested in finding out about Stonehenge, so any new info that comes out attracts our interest. I have recently read Prof. Gorden Freeman's Excellent book called Canada's Stonehenge and am in grown up dialogue with him without conflict, just 2 guys with a genuine passion about Stonehenge.It really is worth a buy.
    I should learn not to take any notice of self published books, I could self publish a book showing that aliens built Stonehenge simply because there is no proof. that they didn't!
    As for Bob, good luck in your quest for recognition, remember the general public don't care about truth only sensation, pity you don't have big tits as they guarantee book sales.
    if you want to spend some of your booksales money on a present for your daughter check out my website

  31. Colin

    I find your personal attacks wholly unwarranted and unprofessional.

    The blog has been setup to exchange ideas and details relating to the book and associated theories.

    I have tried to point out the errors within your claim and to indicate other 'better reasoned' avenues you should pursue if your theories are to gain any credibility.

    If you wish to question a part of my hypothesis then I shall respond in full - but if you wish to rant then please take your comments elsewhere.


  32. Colin

    For your information:

    "Self-publishing is the publication of any book or other media by the author of the work, without the involvement of an established third-party publisher. It is generally entirely done at the expense of the author" - Wikipedia

    ABC Publishing Group is owned by PTS Ltd registered in England since 1991 as a Limited company by guarantee and is owned by shareholders. It also holders a licence and registration as a publishing house since 2010.

    Robert J Langdon is our first contracted author to ABC Publishing Group and is therefore not a self-publisher.

    Bob Davis

  33. Haven't been able to access decent IT for a couple of weeks, what happened? Ive enjoyed keeping up with a somewhat lively, even boisterous banter but Im really not sure where this is leading. It seems that ? Robert ( i have no reason to believe otherwise) is now open to persecution. Ive always believed that much is to be learnt from open discussion and debate. surely scrutinizing detail which is inappropriate to the subject matter is somewhat childish. All opinions are wholly if not partly avalid and should be respected. As for self publishing , the likes of Anne Frank, John le Carre, Edgar Allan Poe and Joseph Heller would not have existed . From a theological point of view I dont remember the authors of the first testament approaching, harper Collins or Penguin? If Langdon is self publishing, good for him!!! He will in this case have invested much time and money into a venture he believed in, ie conviction to his cause. I have no idea if Bob is Rob or Martha for that matter but I have looked up several people who mock the bluestones healing properties but able advertise them as having them ?
    As for dear Kosta, a worthy adversary not afraid to debate and perhaps even look at evidence.

    C.Agnosta ( a deeply offended member of the general public )
    p.s hope you are able to visit Turkey one day Mr. L, we have history to the gills

  34. Robert, Colin and all,

    Other motives aside, our interest and passion about Stonehenge draw us together in this (and other) blogs. I for one welcome that opportunity and am appreciative that Robert, Brian and others provide us such public squares to air our views and debate our theories. And in the process if Robert sells more books, I don't begrudge this. Just like I don't mind if the cafe operator profits selling us coffee while sitting and conversing in his chairs. I just lament the fact that we cannot be more intellectually honest in our discussions. I think we can be more productive if we were. After all, don't we all just want to know the Truth about Stonehenge? We should be able to distinguish facts from made up stories! Let's debate the hard facts!

    OK. To that end, I am quoting below from an article I recently read on the web.

    “The last of the ice ages in human experience (often referred to as the Ice Age) reached its maximum roughly 20,000 years ago, and then gave way to warming. Sea level rose in two major steps, one centered near 14,000 years and the other near 11,500 years. However, between these two periods of rapid melting there was a pause in melting and sea level rise, known as the "Younger Dryas" period. During the Younger Dryas the climate system went back into almost fully glacial conditions, after having offered balmy conditions for more than 1000 years. The reasons for these large swings in climate change are not yet well understood.” http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/01_1.shtml


    “A one-degree global change is significant because it takes a vast amount of heat to warm all the oceans, atmosphere, and land by that much. In the past, a one- to two-degree drop was all it took to plunge the Earth into the Little Ice Age. A five-degree drop was enough to bury a large part of North America under a towering mass of ice 20,000 years ago.” http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php

    The key ideas here is that the last glacier maximum was about 20,000 years ago. This covered most parts of Northern Europe and most of the UK. At around 14,000 years ago there was a “rapid melting” of glaciers with rising sea levels. Then there was a Big Freeze and a return to “almost fully glacial conditions” that lasted some 2500 years -- from 14,000 to 11,500 BP. At around 11,500 BP we once again have “rapid melting” of glaciers and rising sea levels.

    This description of geological climate events fits perfectly with my theory:

    1) glacier ice covered most of Northern Europe
    2) Rapid catastrophic melting of glaciers forming vast lakes, rivers, rising seas and waterways
    3) Precipitous Big Freezing that lasted some 2500 years freezing these vast lakes and waterways solid.
    4) Rapid melting once again of glaciers and 'local ice' formed in the Big Freeze of lakes and waterways.

    This entirely is consistent with my 'local ice cover' theory. And as I show in my article, “The un-Henging of Stonehenge”, once we accept that local ice covered many parts of southwestern UK at the time when Stonehenge and other earthworks were made, we are able to explain EVERYTHING about Stonehenge and all the other prehistoric monuments.

    The stones at Stonehenge were carried there by Nature on the surface of frozen waterways.

    These were 'dropped from above' by prehistoric men over a “precipice” of ice. (my theory in a nutshell)

    As an added aside:

    “The Oxford English Dictionary cites Ælfric's 10th-century glossary, in which henge-cliff is given the meaning "precipice" “ ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonehenge )

    hmmm … interesting! Even the Oxford English Dictionary seems to agree with me!

    It's now your turn Robert to agree with the only theory that can explain everything about Stonehenge! Don't let your book promotion get in the way to Truth!


  35. Kostas et al.

    Always happy to debate FACTS!

    1) I agree - Glacier covered most of northern Europe and I have blog a map here to that effect.

    2) I agree - Glacier melting causes lakes and rivers

    3) I agree - A 'mini ice age' would freeze these waters

    4) I agree - Lakes returned after the mini ice age

    Point 5 missing - ice made ditches around Stonehenge and Barrows - a complete No No!!

    So with you on 4 of your 5 points - I need to see some empirical evidence of the last point!


    PS hi to C.Agnosta thank you for your comments.

  36. Robert,

    I am not surprised that you are in agreement with so much of my 'local ice theory'! I am very pleased you are able to openly say so. I will make every effort to help bridge our differences where you disagree with me. Now that we have laid the intellectual groundwork, we can elevate our discussions to the next level.

    You write,

    “Point 5 missing - ice made ditches around Stonehenge and Barrows - a complete No No!!”

    Picture a solidly frozen lake. Consider that this 'local ice' (very different in some properties from 'glacier ice') covered a very active volcanic area with various geothermal hot spots throughout.

    (The evidence for this: Bath is one such geothermal hot spot with the warmest waters in all of Europe even today. The surprising high temperatures recorded by some bore holes taken around Stonehenge recently is another piece of evidence for this hypothesis. The geological history of the entire area of Wales and SW UK provides also much scientific record for such very active volcanic conditions existing in this area in the not too distant past. Many of the Celtic myths and folklore feature volcanoes prominently – you do believe in the 'spoken tradition' of a culture Robert, don't you?)

    Now Robert, consider that as the atmosphere got warmer and the ice started to melt, at places where there were geothermal hot spots the ice will melt more rapidly, forming a hole through the ice which would expand uniformly radially (solidly frozen water radiates heat more evenly than glacier ice made from packed snow!). These expanding ice holes are responsible for the near-circles we see in the many stone circles. These expanding ice holes are also responsible for the 'concentric circles' feature we also see in the many stone circles, and at Stonehenge.

    But you ask about the ditches around Stonehenge and Barrows! I am coming to that! Certainly ice did not make these ditches! But meltwater waterfalls over an 'ice precipice' would make such ditches! As the falling water would cut into the chalk bedrock! And of course such waterfall would be more prominent in some sections of the circular waterfall than in other sections.

    This would explain the observed facts about the ditch: that the ditch was 'built' in 'sections'; that these sections are not always connected to form a complete circle; that these sections are deeper at places; that there are 'benches' in the Ditch. These are not for a Neolithic SPA, Robert, as you and others would like us to believe!

    Cascading meltwater waterfalls over a round ice precipice explain these ditches. As would also explain the Aubrey holes and other concentric circles of holes at Stonehenge (notice that these are at the outer perimeter of Stonehenge and along the Ditch and not in the middle where the sarsens are).


    To C. Agnosta:
    Your characterization of me as “...a worthy adversary not afraid to debate and perhaps even look at evidence” can be made more perfect by dropping “perhaps”!

    I do welcome all careful examination of the raw facts of Stonehenge. But I also have serious doubts about the accepted interpretations of these raw facts!


  37. Kostas

    Nice idea - by like Newton gravity has gotcha! Cause the ditch is deeper to the wrong side if gravity was balancing this hot vortex - it should be perfectly level at the base of the ditch - but it isn't.

    Even if we accept (which I don't) all this volcanic activity causing these strange melt patterns as the circle of the ditch - the result would be a perfect circle - which it isn't and the ditch would also have symmetry of depth and construction - which it does not either.

    The ditch is a strange mixture of single pits joined with small walls. Then there is the fill - its 2/3 on the interior and 1/3 on the exterior - how does that work, with natural forces?

    Totally man made - try Avebury is more Circluar and smoother.


  38. Ahh! Robert, I only wish I was there to point out the 'errors of your ways'.

    You write,

    “...the ditch is deeper to the wrong side if gravity was balancing this hot vortex - it should be perfectly level at the base of the ditch - but it isn't.”

    Clearly, with this statement you are either not understanding my explanation or you purposely choose not to understand it. I am not sure which is worst! Not understanding, or choosing not to understand!

    We have a circular ice precipice with waterfalls cascading over it. Surely, at places the water flow will be stronger and more profuse than on other places. Thus creating an uneven segmented ditch carved into the chalk bedrock. The ditch was formed by cascading waterfalls. Not by 'whirlpools of water' at the base of the retaining basin.

    Where is the “wrong side if gravity was balancing this hot vortex” to any of this? And what does “gravity was balancing this hot vortex” really means anyway!

    You write that if my theory is true, “ … the result would be a perfect circle - which it isn't and the ditch would also have symmetry of depth and construction - which it does not either”.

    Robert, “perfect circles” and “symmetry of depth and construction” are what men are capable of doing! Nature has a different design plan!

    My explanation of the Ditch is that Nature made it. While your explanation of the Ditch is that Man made it. So who is closer to the Truth here?

    You write, “Then there is the fill - its 2/3 on the interior and 1/3 on the exterior - how does that work, with natural forces?”

    Robert, the exterior to the Ditch was covered and protected from erosion by the ice sheet. The interior to the Ditch was a retaining basin of meltwater cascading over the ice precipice and collecting inside.

    With the meltwater you get lots of soil and debris deposits in the interior of the circular basin. My theory, therefore, agrees with this raw fact that 2/3 of the fill is in the interior and 1/3 on the exterior. Of course!

    So Robert, even that which you use to refute my theory only confirms my theory! A clear indication that my theory is True!


  39. Kostas

    As Tom Cruise would say - "show me the money" therefore I say "show me the evidence?" I accept not even the full fantasy but half a hot vortex making a circle in Greenland, Iceland or antartica - if your right there must be at least one in operation?

    Or a half made circle which men never tamper with - show me just one natural feature!!

    If not...just another lost theory!!


  40. Robert,

    You are revealing too much of yourself with your comment "show me the money"!!!!

    Just when I thought maybe this time you are being earnest and honest with your replies, once again you show your real intent – money, mystery and book sells!

    Where have I spoken of a “hot vertex” anywhere in my comments or in my article? These are your terms aimed to confuse the issues and the readers regarding my theory! It's a not too subtle rhetoric ploy. I am fully aware of it and I can practice it better than most -- if I were to choose to. But I don't choose to because my real intent is to reveal the Truth about Stonehenge.

    The evidence, dear Robert, is in the ground at Stonehenge and at all the earthworks -- including the ditches! These were made by Nature as I have described in my previous post.

    But you just dodge the explanations. Clearly, you are not very comfortable with the Truth of Stonehenge! Rather you make up myths and stories about amazing lost civilizations of boat people that could circumnavigate the globe but needed huge man-made hills with stones on top to help them navigate a few miles up a river in their own back yard!

    Too bad! You are not yet ready for the Truth!


  41. For those who are interested in returning the Stonehenge Ancestors,
    I am sharing my new machinima film
    Stonehenge Is Our Temple
    Please sign the e-petition in link below film and share the film so others will get the message, thank you ~