Tuesday, 2 August 2011

Oldest open-aired cemetery found in Somerset

By Robert John Langdon

This article appeared recently:

"Somerset was the site of the UK's oldest open-air cemetery, the county council says.
Recent radiocarbon dating of two skulls found at a sand quarry in Greylake nature reserve near Middlezoy in 1928 revealed them to be 10,000 years old.
The council said the find was made under its Lost Islands of Somerset project by a team investigating the archaeology of the Somerset Levels.
Since their discovery, the skulls have been held at Bridgwater's Blake Museum.
The new findings show that by around 8,300 BC, hunter-gatherers were burying their dead on what was once an island amid the Levels.
All the other human remains from this early period in Britain have been found in caves such as Aveline's Hole in Somerset which is the largest Mesolithic burial ground in the UK.
Somerset County Councillor Christine Lawrence, cabinet member for community services said: "Somerset's wonderfully rich heritage plays a big part in attracting visitors. I'm delighted that this project has thrown new light on to these exciting finds."
"Amazing news"
"This was amazing news and was just the result we were hoping for," added Dr Richard Brunning, from Somerset County Council's Heritage Service who is leading the Lost Islands of Somerset Project.
"It shows that a Mesolithic hunter-gatherer group was operating from the island and burying its dead there.
"Such open-air cemeteries are extremely rare in Europe and this is the only one known from the UK."
Flint tools were also found in large numbers on the site in the 1950s suggesting that it was used as a long-term camp site.
The Lost Islands of Somerset Project team will carry out more analysis on the skulls and tools to ascertain how this ancient community lived and died".

Quite interesting until you read between the lines and then some disturbing questions arise:

  • These skulls were discovered in 1922 - why is it taken 80 years to realise that the find was important?
  • The good doctor claims that they were a burial - so did they find the rest of the skeleton and if so what position were they buried in?
  • What ages were the skulls - are we looking at a family or ancestors over a period of time?
  • Lost islands of Somerset - nice idea, have they been reading my book?
So what can we truly assume from this evidence?

Well looking at the online archive I can tell you that only the skulls only were found so burial is unlikely and as the original discoverer believed them to be victims of the Sedgmoor battle burials of the 16th century - we can now see why it took 80 years for someone to carbon date the skulls.

As you see when archaeologist get it wrong - they do it big time!

The doctor talks of the skulls being buried on Somerset islands unfortunately I have found the exact site the skulls were found and the profile shows that the quarry is not on an island - nice try!!

What they have found is a boat accident in 8300BC, as you can see they would be islands close to the site and no doubt they were either sailing to or form Glastonbury via Priest Hill which contains a Long Barrow at Collard Hill would you believe!!

Sorry to say just another case of when academics just get it wrong due to them trying to tow the accepted path of scientific nonsense rather than looking at the facts and coming to their own conclusions.  At least it will give my second edition extra material.

This is not the first time that the 'experts' have got it all wrong - the Visitors Car Park Post Holes that we have been discussion recently were found in 1966 and classified as late Neolithic (the same date as Stonehenge), it was only an eagle eyed student (without a PhD or MSc) to realise that the wood found 'pine' did not exist in the late Neolithic Period - it was only then that the sample were sent for carbon testing. Where it would still be sitting now and my hypothesis would have no real evidence.

How many other samples have yet to be discovered??

This is why I question all  academic research, not because they don't understand but they want to keep their jobs and be employed in the future as they have mortgages to pay and children to feed, so they will reflect the 'accepted dates and theories'.

This is institutional self regulation - we see it with the financial services and with the media. It is neither the truth or full disclosure.


(by Robert John Langdon)


  1. Robert,

    The “open air cemetery” and severed sculls found in sand quarries in Somerset Levels were deposited and buried there by floods and melt water. The same as with the flint stone tools also found there. If statues and tablets existed in the Mesolithic UK, these would be found there are well. Read my article, “The un-Hending of Stonehenge” where I explain all this.

    That these sculls date to 8,300BC should surprise no one. This is the time when the great floods may have occurred following the Big Freeze.


  2. Begging your illustrious pardon but if you distrust all academic research then how do arrive at your own conclusions? Guesswork or divine elucidation? I'm astonished that you have challenged these recent findings based on press releases and articles intended for general consumption. It might be wiser to read the papers and dispute points for which you have tenable points of contention. As far as I am able deduce, your position is purely that of one who wishes to gain financially. You are, are you not, attempting to promote a series of publications from which you intent to profit? I can see no other purpose, least of which might be for academic recognition because your own declarations purport that you think little of academies or their academicians. It is therefore unethical, unwarranted and if I may say so, of breathtaking stupidity to condemn working people who invariably treat their daily endeavors in an impartial and vocational fashion, rather than as you unequivocally insinuate, as time marking jobsworths. They are accountable, academically, professionally and legally, you are not - at least in the first two instances. Should your remarks be taken as inflammatory or professionally libelous, and I sincerely hope that they are advised to this end were you to continue in your unfounded vilification, that they challenge your attempts to discredit them as officers fraudulently in receipt of salaries from the public purse, and as such actionable via the civil courts. During the interim I feel obliged to suggest a simple apology indicating that you may have been untoward in you remarks and that your passion as a private individual for your singular subject may have got the better of you. It would certainly be the professional course to pursue in this regard, and would repair and enhance your own reputation.
    Phillip Blomquist-Pardue.

  3. Kosta

    We are in agreement at last!

    But the collection of skulls is probably not natural as you suggest - five adults in close proximity in water is more likely a boating accident!

  4. Philip (and other members of the cartoon network)

    I don't distrust academic research - I question their conclusions, I sure what their findings are accurate and true - but as can be seen from this illustration the original conclusion the skulls are 16th century is clearly a mistake.

    It is easy to understand these mistakes if, like me, you studied at the highest level with the most revered professors noticing that they have a tendency to 'play safe' rather than be dynamic with their conclusions, which may cause them peer ridicule as you are attempting to do with me :-).

    Fortunately, have been fantastically successful in business which has allowed me to retire at 50 to take up my studies - Consequently, I do not suffer the same restrictive influences or do I need to obtain financial gain through my books (which collective funds are going to a prehistoric search and information web site for the benefit of the general public - to be launched in Dec 2011).

    You questions on the above paper should be asked of the author not me, as I have asked for details and been pointed to the Counties archive where I found the original 1922 findings and conclusions as I have reported.

    If you write a press release you should supply sufficient information to justify your conclusion. If not you have only yourself to blame.

    I have proven that the skulls are not on an island as the profile from the OS map shows clearly and therefore, until someone shows me the skulls are on an island - not apology is required.

    I suggest you take your time and re-read the blog with more consideration as these FACTS are clearly stated.

  5. Excuse me, I thought I was visiting a site where we debate, not the rights wrongs, constitutions and archaic constraints of a closed door instution but explore the possibility of other options. So who has actually read the book ?? As an academic ( yes University of Guildford ) I chose to read the book, I certainly dont remember being cohersed or forced to do so as so many other buyers obviously have. I wish you all success with your ventures both research and commercial, but really Dr, Evil ( who really should reflect on providing info about himself before critiscizing some elses creditation)
    Mr Langdon, Im sure Mr. Darwin himself will look down on you from the Natural History Museum and encourage you to persevere in your right to express your beleif. As for other members of the ? cartoon network Im sure a solid wooden fence and a sunny garden will provide these fishwives with the platform they so deserve.
    Meanwhile , lets keep asking questions , keep delving into the past and maybe we will uncover gems of information that will help complete the history we so love.

    C. Agnosta
    or should it be Dee Dee

  6. At last a sane voice in a noise of insecurity and mental psychoses.

    If you have a valid question about the book or hypothesis - do ask - if not - go away and ask mummy why daddy didn't love you.

  7. Sadly in future I will need to moderate the comments on the blog as some idiots have started you use abusive language.

    All serious comments both negative and positive will always be published.

  8. Robert,

    Notoriety breads success! You should be happy with the responses you have stirred, Robert. It's the best way of getting your book sold!

    I thought that's what you are seeking. But your last comment on filtering comments throws a shadow on that outcome. Let the peoples voices be voiced! Don't succumb to the same temptation as all autocrats censoring free expression. Such tactics only show weakness and inability to respond well to necessary criticism!

    As someone who frequently challenged your theories, I wish you well!


  9. Robert,

    Picking up on a previous comment, you write

    “But the collection of skulls is probably not natural as you suggest - five adults in close proximity in water is more likely a boating accident! “

    Going down with a sinking ship and drowning will leave the skeletal remains intact. You have raised the question in your post: What happened to the rest of the body if only two skulls are found?

    Robert, if you answer your own question honestly and truthfully, you will come to agree with me that these human skulls were deposited in the sand by floods and melt water. As were also the human remains found in Salisbury Plain. Re-read my article Robert! It's been there all along! No need to reinvent the will!

    Or is this another example of the 'subjectivity of truth'? Can the 'Truth of Stonehenge' Robert be subjective? Made up at will through yarn and story telling? Surely what we BELIEVE is subjective, but not what IS! Whether we know it or not!


  10. Kostas

    Thank you for your comments.

    Rest assured I have never and will never censor any comments - so long as they have are about either the book or about prehistory.

    But abusive language or personal jealousy does nothing in seeking solutions to the past.

  11. Kostas

    Back to business again!

    As far as I have read (which does mean I could be wrong!) in boating accidents tyhe skulls are the only body parts left (Titanic is a classic) as the body is eaten which means the smaller bones are scattered by both fish and tide over 100's of years.

    I would imagine somewhere you'll find 5 pelvises some distance from the skulls.

    As for subjective truth - let me explain:

    if I said a absolute truth is 1+1 = 2 you will probably agree - but in certain circumstances 1+1 = 10!!

    As I am a computer programmer and my maths is based on binary not decimal like yours. But at the time of the question it was the best evidence was that we was talking about decimal maths.

    Both answers are true in certain circumstances - so now its a paradox.

    History is the same - unless I can physically take you back to the Mesolithic Period and you can experience the past for real - all we have is a theory that best fits the evidence. This is not and can never be an absolute for it will always be possible that it maybe wrong - so its therefore subjective.

    My children read history books as if its absolutely true, but I know that the history was written by people who wanted to influence our society - so its not absolutely true, just a version of the truth.

    As an example, Henry the 8th went to war on the catholic church because they would not grant him a divorce - absolute spin!! - Henry was broke and needed the church riches to prop up his reign, so he used marriage as an excuse to take their land and steal their gold.

    We invaded Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction - complete tosh! - we needed to secure the oil fields to stabilise the capitalist market we live under.

    Truth is subject at best!

  12. Robert,

    If we know what is meant by 1+1=10, then we'll know the 'truth' of it.

    It's 'semantics'! A Greek word meaning 'meaning'.

    Can we agree that while KNOWING is subjective, TRUTH is not?

    The Truth of Stonehenge is an OBJECTIVE TRUTH which is not yet KNOWN to some of us?!!


  13. Kosta

    But as you will never experience Stonehenge at its construction that absolute truth can never be known.

    You left with best 'guess' from evidence.

  14. Fair enough. But don't challenge Objective Truth in principle ... its an intellectual attitude that allows objective probing and reasoning!