Wednesday, 10 August 2011

The Stonehenge Enigma - An inconvenient truth

By Robert John Langdon

In 1935 a car park was created to the north of the A344 road from Amesbury to Devizes, some 100m north-west of Stonehenge, so that visitors’ cars would not hinder traffic. Although the area stripped of turf and soil was examined by W.E.V. Young, an experienced excavator who worked with Alexander Keiller at Avebury, no features were found.  The car park was later doubled in size but as the experts assumed that no activity would be in that area, there was no record of archaeological work undertaken.

Car Park post holes marked like white mini roundabouts

Q. Why did Young not notice four, one metre post holes - not exactly small are they?

Q. If four massive features were 'missed' what other features were 'overlooked' or destroyed?

Q. If W.E.V. Young was a 'poor' archaeologist, why did he become the curator of the Avebury Museum? 

However, in 1966 when it was again extended (so that it was by this time four times the size of the original), a series of circular features cut into the chalk bedrock, and set roughly in line, were observed. Excavation was undertaken by Faith Vatcher, at that time the much-respected curator of the Avebury Museum, with her husband Major Lance Vatcher.

They discovered that three of the features were substantial post-holes cut into the ground, while a fourth was the place where a tree had once stood. Whereas tree-throws are commonly found on the chalk of this area, these pits were more unusual. There is no record of whether the area where the new visitor facilities were to be placed was investigated by the Vatchers. However, when these facilities were also enlarged in 1988, a fourth post hole was discovered.

Ronald Hutton (in 'Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles' 1991) mentions that neither Stonehenge nor Mesolithic experts took much interest in the discovery.. maybe because it didn't fit into their ideas of how things had been in the area.

This is probably why after taken samples of the Post holes the samples were sealed up and sent into an achieve without being carbon dated to verify the Late Neolithic date they suggested in the report.

Q. Why did Vatchers not send away the samples for carbon dating?

Q. If the forth pit was a tree holes and this area was a forest, where are the others in the car park?

Q. If they found three pits in a row, why did they not follow the line and find the post hole found in 1988?

These were skilled archaeologists that went on to further their career excavating other sites, writing books and lecturing.  The mystery of the post-holes would have remained hidden away if it was not for the enquiring mind of a graduate Susan Limbrey, who realised that Pine wood would not be growing in the Boreal Period of Stonehenge - at that point in 1975 that 2 of the three carbon samples were carbon dated.

Pit A    HAR-455 9130+/-180 BP    corrected to   8820BC to 7730BC
Pit B    HAR-456 8090+/-140 BP    corrected to   7480BC to 6590BC

Q. When they found the wood was Pine, why did they not know that Pine only grew in this area in the Mesolithic?

Q. Why was only 2 of the 3 samples carbon dated?

Q. Once the date was verified why was the car park not closed and dug up to see what else was missed?

Thirteen Years later a fourth post hole was discovered by Martin Trott, a young graduate of Southampton University who at the time was working for Wessex Archaeology (later he joined the Inland Revenue.)
The four pits were all roughly circular, 1.3m to 1.9m in diameter, and 1.3m to 1.5m deep, and appear once to have held substantial posts c.0.75m in diameter. Unlike the Vatcher’s pits, Trott’s was found to have been re-cut at a much later stage and subsequently deliberately back filled. 

Q. Did the other three pits have this detail and was not accurately report?

Only a few undiagnostic flint flakes and other remains were incorporated into the fill of the pits. However, charcoal from the fills was found to be solely from pine trees. More surprisingly, radiocarbon dates obtained from this charcoal suggest that the pits had been dug between 8090BC to 7090BC.

Post Hole 9580  QxA-4220 8400+/- 100 BP  corrected to 7580-7090BC
                          QxA-4219 8520+/- 80 BP    corrected to 7700-7420BC
                          GU-5109   8880+/- 80 BP    corrected to 8090-7690BC

Q. As this find would verify the astonishing finds of the 1960's why was a junior member of the archaeology community responsible for the excavation?

Q. This post hole was used for over 400 years, so were is the evidence of settlements (houses) in this area?

Q. To cut down a tree then dig a hole then stand the post upright using stone tools would have taken weeks - where are the camp fires and stone tool flints from sharpening the axes?

According to the book - Stonehenge in its landscape; Snail shells and pollen grains preserved in the fill suggest that the pits were cut in woodland. Taken together, the disposition of soil layers within the pits, the pine charcoal, radiocarbon dates and snail shells provide sound evidence that during the Early Mesolithic a group of people erected stout pine posts in the middle of a mature pine and hazel (Boreal) woodland.... "They are likely to be individual uprights, perhaps reminiscent of those American Indian (totem poles)"(Cleal et al 1995, 43-56).

Although Mesolithic sites normally produce evidence for light structures, such as shelters, huts or hearths, the lack of these features in the Stonehenge Car Park is without parallel.

'Totem Pole' sitting in Stonehenge's 'dry' river valley

Q. American Indian 'totem poles' are placed on a plain so they can be seen from a distance - why were buried in a forest?

Q. Why place the 'totem poles' in a valley when there is high ground just 50 metres away?

And if we use the average date for the construction of these post holes the frequency and alignment just makes the current explanation of these features a complete nonsense.  The 'experts' would have you believe that:  Post A would be planted in about 8275BC - then some 385 years later they planted WA 9580 (75 metres away), returning 855 years later Post B is then planted next to Post A in an alignment with Post C (who's date may never be known), leaving no trace of occupancy as this is a traditional hunter-gather ceremonial meeting spot.

Q.  Pine is a softwood and would rot in less than 25 years, how did they know where to plant the second, third and forth post?

Q. If they kept coming back year after year to the same spot, why is there no evidence in the car park unlike other sites?

Q. As the post had rotted, why cut a new hole, why not use the old hole?

The 'experts' would have you believe that the same type of hunter-gathers returned to the same spot some 4,000 years later (as the post holes are not dated beyond 7000BC) by complete chance (as all the totem poles had rotted away) to build the first phase of Stonehenge!!

Clearly this version of events just does not stand up to scrutiny.  The history of the site including the original  discovery shows that an attempt has been made to 'brush the evidence under the carpet' or to dismiss the findings as superficial to the story of Stonehenge, as any other conclusion will embarrass the 'experts' and English Heritable that has spend so much time and money convincing the public that they known exactly what happened in prehistoric times at Stonehenge.


The Stonehenge Enigma, shows that these structures played a more significant role than has previously been believed.  Not only does it reveal what these post holes were for, but it also goes on the give a more plausable explanation on what really happened at Stonehenge in the past - an inconvenient truth for both the archaeological establishment and anthropologists, for if the truth was admitted they would have to accept that Stonehenge is 5,000 years older than they have told you, and the history of how our civilisation developed, would need to be completely re-written.

Stonehenge's Car Park showing the shoreline of the River Avon during the Mesolithic Period.
The post holes that were found in 1966 where mooring posts for the boats that brought the stones to Stonehenge.
From Robert Langdon's book - The Stonehenge Enigma.

Q. So what are the post holes found in the Stonehenge Car Park?

A.  These are mooring posts for Mesolithic ships and boats - after the great ice age melt rivers and streams were overflowing with water from the two miles of ice that had been sitting on Britain.  This water soaked into the land and raised the ground water table.  Rivers like the Avon as illustrated above were 30m higher than today.

Mooring post with lintel

Q. How long did this flooding last?

A.  Thousands of years until the Neolithic period - We can see from geographical data on sea levels that the water flowed into the sea only in relatively small but constant rate for the next 10,000 years.  The big inundation from the ice age melt did not happen.  This can be seen with Doggerland that was an island in the North Sea prior to the ice age, this area did not flood until 5000BC - 7,000 years after the ice caps had melted.

Q.  So how do you explain the gap between the post hole dates in the Car Park?

A.  These mooring posts would have worn out over time and need to be replaced.  I suspect if English Heritage surveyed the Car Park correctly in 1966 they would find post holes all the way (75m) to the single post hole they found in 1988. Moreover, this was the way our ancestors brought the stones to Stonehenge, as in Mesolithic times it was a peninsula surround on three sides by water. This mooring point would have lasted over 2000 years.

Bringing stones to Stonehenge

Q.  So why does this make Stonehenge 5000 years earlier?

A. If the 'experts' are right, these hunter-gatherers needed to return every year to the same spot.  When people camp they make fires, this area should have over 1500 Mesolithic Camp fires - but it doesn't even have one!  So they either camped on Stonehenge or the nearest camp Woodhenge.  Consequently, this would change history, as Woodhenge and Stonehenge is dated as 3000BC not 8000BC and therefore the sequence of development as seen in history books would be completely wrong!  Moreover, the only dating evidence for Stonehenge is antler picks in the ditch (stone can't be dated) so if they admitted that hunter-gatherers camped at Stonehenge, there opens a distinct possibility that the ditch dates are wrong as the better carbon dating evidence is available from the Car Park Post Holes.

Q. What makes you believe that Stonehenge was built at the same time as the mooring posts?

A. The size of these holes and the reason they dug a flat pit then packed it with infill against the posts.  The only reason you dig a pit with a flat bottom is to stop the pole sinking into the ground over time, due to its weight.  And the only reason you do this is when it had something on top of it that carries weight.  Below is an illustration of the mooring posts and a cross beam holding a stone - Moreover, you can use this construction like a crane as the tides will lift the stone from the boats by tying them up at high tide and then waiting for the tide to drop.  The boat can then be removed and the stone lowered to the ground on a sledge or rollers.

Mooring post with horizontal tree truck added - securing a Bluestone  from Wales
Q. Although the posts maybe Mesolithic, what makes you think that Stonehenge was constructed then?

A.  In the post hole found in 1988 they found something very interesting a piece of Rhyolite.  And that's now really interesting until you realise that Rhyolite is the technical name for Bluestone!!  and it was wedged in between two soil samples dated 7560BC to 7335BC.  This is the best scientific evidence for the building of Stonehenge Phase I - after the ditches/moats were constructed.  Of course you could believe it got there by accident (all the way from Wales during the ice age) but the likelihood is that it is a fragment from the Bluestones being worked prior to erection.

Mooring posts and water surrounding Stonehenge

Q. So what is the fuss about Stonehenge being 5,000 years older than they believe?

A. This would make Stonehenge the oldest monument in the world and therefore its builders become the beginning of western European civilisation - this goes against all current hunter-gatherers theories as they were 'supposedly' civilised by the far eastern travellers and adopting farming prior to building Stonehenge. If a civilisation could build Stonehenge and live off boats, what need is farming and is this a reason it was not adopted until the waters finally fell in the Neolithic Period? - This not only changes our history but the history of the world.

Extracts and pictures from the book can be found at:

(by Robert John Langdon)


  1. Robert,

    If one of these Car Park holes was a tree, why couldn't all of these be tree holes? These are certainly well spaced and big enough to have been trees. Including the 'near straight' alignment!

    Of course, trees are not as mystical as 'mooring posts' at a busy port carrying stones to Stonehenge and operating 24/7 using man-made hills with lighthouses on top to guide reed boats from all corners of the world to come to Stonehenge for the healing power of the bluestones and to bath in the Mesolithic ditch SPA. Wait! I think I see the golden double arch of a McDonald's !


  2. Kostas

    The tree hole was 2 metres wide and 1 metre deep with no evidence of wedges or compressed filling like the other 4 post holes.

    The other 4 post holes had vertical sides and were 2m deep and 1m wide, with wedges, compressed fill and pine charcoal.

    Even the most inexperienced archaeologist will know the difference. Believe me, if there were any chance of being tree holes - I'm sure English Heritage would have dropped the 'totem pole' idea for your natural solution as the dates contradict their evaluation of the site.

    Moreover, your comments seem to omit the fact carbon dating evidence was found, have you abandoned your insistence on seeking scientific truth?

    The truth is that my hypothesis is the ONLY theory that fits the scientific objective evidence here!!

  3. Robert,

    Always the 'spin-master', hey?

    You write, “ hypothesis is the ONLY theory that fits the scientific objective evidence here!! “

    Robert, from a false premise you can deduce anything!

    You could do even better -- and leave no room for 'falsifiability' and meaningful argument -- if you simply assumed that extra-terrestrials build Stonehenge. Using their superior technical knowledge you can then explain all the “scientific objective evidence” !! Why limit yourself to mere Mesolithic men!

    All I could do then is to resort to ridicule! Oops! That's what I have been doing!


  4. Kostas

    No false premises here, just detailed analysis of the facts as we know them backed by carbon dating evidence.

    If you are stating that the evidence is strong that all sceptics can do is ridicule, your probably right, all this means is that their arguments are lost and the truth has clearly been, at last, revealed.

    "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science".

    Albert Einstein

  5. Robert,

    No one can 'prove a negative'. That's why any hypothesis we have must be 'falsifiable'.

    Your Mesolithic Lost Civilization is not 'falsifiable'. It cannot be 'proven' not to have existed. Just as I cannot 'prove' that the Great Pyramids were not built by aliens. Or that Creationism is wrong.

    If rational argument is not enough to prove a hypothesis is false (ie 'falsifiable'), we're only left with an appeal to 'common sense'. So I ask you,

    “Does it make sense that men would spend many years of their short lives to built man-made hills to guide reed boats a few miles up a waterway in their own back yard, yet be able to find their way around the world? And why they needed to built eight 'hill markers' over a two kilometer hike from Woodstone to Stonehenge, as you have claimed?”

    I can only try to “shame your intelligence” into realizing that this just doesn't make sense. But I cannot 'prove' that your Mesolithic men did not built these!

    “Nothing is more beautiful than Truth and nothing can be more True than Reason”
    Constantinos Ragazas


  6. Kostas

    Your are right in some your assumptions, but not all.

    For the 'light beacons' Silbury hill is not the only one. If you get to visit the uffington white horse you will find a natural harbour with a 'light beacon' of similar proportion (dragon hill) which also has a flat to to accommodate the beacon.

    I have already stated the lasted research shows that Silbury was built up in layers (like the pyramids) over the course of time.

    The later Neolithic ancient barrow paths - you need to remember that the region was immersed in a forest and therefore a barrow was placed on each 'high point' as they could be seen from the top of the last barrow - so in some landscapes they would use more and others less per kilometre.

    As for world travel, they placed stone circles on islands and peninsulas, These can still be seen down the coast of France and Portugal. The Roman and medieval sailors also emulated these known navigation points thousands of years later before detailed and accurate maps were available.

    For that reason and the evidence of Barrows and Stone circles show the hypothesis to be the best reasoned theory available today, as it doesn't really on superstition, UFO's or fantastic natural earth sculptures - just plain common sense and reasoning of the observable evidence.

  7. Robert,

    Stone circles have been found all over the world. The oldest known is found in Armenia. There are also stone circles in the bottom of Lake Michigan, in Australia, in Russia, and of course in other places in Europe especially Brittany, France. These are natural formations, as I have explained in my article, “The un-Henging of Stonehenge”. I have also seen “natural bridges” and a beautiful natural “delicate arch” in Utah (it has since collapsed). All natural!

    But you still insist that these were made by Mesolithic men! And you still insist that a great lost civilization in Mesolithic UK went around the globe showing other 'less civilized' people how to built lighthouses and pyramids and stone circles. A little like Imperial UK in more recent history! (it must be the genes!)

    Robert, if the Romans and others used stone circle markers along the coast to navigate, does it mean that stone circles were built by Mesolithic men for that purpose? Romans also used the Rock of Gibraltar to navigate! Was this placed there by Mesolithic men too? People use all kinds of markers to help them get from place to place. When I am in London I use Big Ben to help me find my way around the city. Did I built Big Ben?

    Using what cannot be proven (Mesolithic Lost Civilization) to 'prove the evidence' is logically flawed. You use a Mesolithic Lost Civilization to explain the stone circles. Others use aliens to explain these. Neither can be 'falsifiable'. It's what one chooses to believe.

    Reason is reduced to Belief! Some would find a Mesolithic Lost Civilization in the UK agreeable to their ethnic identity. Others may find extraterrestrials agreeable to their cosmic identity. None can be convinced by Reason, however. Since everybody sees reason in their beliefs.

    But 'sensible' Reason is grounded in Nature. And Nature is what sustains us as existing beings - and not as imagined beings.

    Robert, a word of caution! Don't get lost in your own fantasies! Better to know you are making up stories than to believe in the stories your are making up!


    PS. Have you been censoring posts? Whatever happened to good Dr Evil?

  8. Kostas

    The only posts censored are those with bad language or just plain juvenile statements that degrade sensible debate - hence is lack of comment.

    Moreover, this great civilisation was not British in origin and they did not look like me (as I'm Mediterranean in complexion as you can clearly see in my photograph)or speak my language. So I have no cultural agenda here.

    However, you will need to produce (as I have) comprehensive proof (any proof would be nice!)of your theory before you can expect anyone to consider it feasible or even conceivable as ice was never present in either France or Portugal, so their Stone circles can not be 'natural' as you believe.

  9. Robert,

    Have you censored any more of Dr Evil's comments? I found them rather revealing!

    You could of course avoid such criticism all together by not professing too much of who and what you are! Just stick to your ideas, rather than selling yourself through hype and marketing.

    I for one am not at all impressed or persuaded by 'credentials'. That's why I can be so intellectually courageous with what I think, argue and reason. For me, what is important is the Truth of Stonehenge, not the Truth of me! Oops! I forgot! You don't believe in Truth! Just many made-up truths that slug it out in the marketplace of ideas – and may the best hyped truth win!

    I could give you dozens of reasons why my theory makes sense. I have given you in the past dozens of reasons why my theory makes sense. And you just simply ignored these.

    But if you are inclined for more, check my recent posts in Brian John's blog

    There I provide an explanation for the many anomalous 'drainage channels' found at the Mendipes. Brian thinks these are etched into the limestone strata through the action of 'meltwater turbulence' under the ice cap and at the ice edge.

    My explanation – consistent with my theory of 'local ice cover over geothermal sub-terrain' -- is that these drain channels are 'hot/cold thermal cracks' in the limestone strata interface.

    The characteristics of these 'drain channels' fit well this hypothesis. These are “steep-sided and quite deeply incised into the landscape” and are zigzag.

    Most interesting is that the bedrock of the Mendips is limestone, while the bedrock of Salisbury Plain is chalk. And while limestone cracks when subjected to hot/cold extremes, chalk just crumbles. Thus, chalk would radiate the geothermal heat evenly and directly onto the ice cover (thus forming ice holes), while limestone would form cracks in the strata (thus making 'drain channels').

    So Robert, how does your Mesolithic Lost Civilization theory explain such differences in the geomorphology of the Mendips vs Salisbury Plain? No explanation? I thought so …


  10. Kostas

    The site is a discussion on the details of my book The Stonehenge Enigma - Dr Evils attempt to discredit by hypothesis on the basis of a MBA I took 20 years ago is totally irreverent!

    The MBA contributed no one single element to the hypothesis - its just an irrelevant attempt by a fellow author - and yes I know who the person is, hence the false name and I also know that I have outsold him (according to Amazon) by 4 to 1 even though his book has been out many years and mine just 3 months.

    Even so, if he wishes to make a comment on the book that is worthy of comment then I will publish his comments and reply to them - if he wishes to drag the debate into a juvenile 'slagging match' then I'm not interested.

    Furthermore, I do not need to 'sell' myself and my biography quite deliberately shows that I'm not (like him) an academic who demands acceptance and respect because they spend years on a pointless degree, which arguments have now shown clearly taught them nothing tangible on the subject matter. Consequently,he has revert to personal attacks rather than debating the facts.

    As for your theory - give me just one reference to suggest polar ice covered France or Portugal at any point in history?

    And what relevance has Mendip ice cracks to do with the same region in question on the Southern European continent??

    If you can't answer the questions you can always talk about my MBA!!

  11. Robert,

    Dr Evil is not a HE, but a SHE! I have several private email exchanges with her since she posted her comments in your blog. She does not have a book on Stonehenge and she is not in competition with you over the sell of any books. Your 'explanation' of her is just a 'made-up story that you believe'. It's not true!That you should project such 'reality' onto such scant evidence speaks much about how you 'project imagination' in the 'scientific evidence' in your Stonehenge theory – it's all made up! Your Mesolithic Lost Civilization is all made up to 'explain' Stonehenge. How they lived, where they vacationed, what they ate, how they were dressed, how they traveled, what they worshiped, what language they spoke – all made up!

    But Dr Evil's comments obviously touched a nerve with you. This shows weakness and insecurity. Why? Because you seek to give your ideas credibility through your credentials. Rather than letting the power of reason give your ideas credibility.

    As to your question: There is no current scientific evidence that Salisbury Plain was covered by an ice sheet either. Yet all the geomorphology of the henges found there and all the stone circles and ditches and embankments and avenues, and barrows … can be explained by this hypothesis. The difference between the drainage channels found at the Mendips and the stone circles found at Salisbury Plain can also be explained by my hypothesis – evidence that otherwise is hard to justify. In fact, I have yet to come across any 'raw evidence' (as compared to 'interpreted evidence') that is not explained by my hypothesis.

    We don't need to invent a Mesolithic Lost Civilization, Robert, to explain what is natural!


  12. Kostas

    If you wish to believe the good doctor is female then that's your choice - I never suggested they wrote a book on Stonehenge, again as you have done in the past, you have jump to an incorrect conclusion.

    Moreover, you have failed to answer questions on southern stone circles which clearly shows that you have no evidence.

    This posting was about the evidence found in the Car Park which a part from an incorrect 'natural' observation which has been found incorrect you have not put forward any reason that is linked to your theory.

    Therefore all you have is just an idea not a theory or hypothesis as it has no verifiable proof.

    The fact you revert to personal attack over scientific debate on the book shows that you, like the doctor, have failed to find any flaws in my hypothesis and consequently, you wish to enter into tiresome creditability debate - which I have no interest as its irrelevant to the facts.

  13. Robert,

    Her first name is Margot! You still insist she is a he? I also have her last name, but I wont publicize it here!

    Stick to your false ideas, Robert, no matter what! After all, 'truth is relative'. If enough people believe it, it 'becomes true'. Right?

    And Robert, if you took the time to read my comments carefully, you would have realized that I don't care about your 'credentials'. Just your ideas. I am urging you in fact to avoid such 'personal attacks' by not making your credentials the substance of your ideas. You don't get it, do you!

    Anyway, I'd rather debate evidence and explanations. You write,

    “ give me just one reference to suggest polar ice covered France or Portugal at any point in history”

    I don't have a single reference to give you that “polar ice covered France or Portugal”. But that's not relevant! We don't need polar bears roaming the countryside and coastlines in order to have ice on the ground. Local ice can form by bodies of water freezing solid during Ice Ages. Such ice sheets will not leave behind the same evidence and tracks of debris as a retreating glacier. What evidence does an ice cube leave on a plate after it melts and the water evaporates?

    Let's just say that the evidence IS the stone circles and stone alignments and ditches and embankments and avenues and barrows and all other earthworks we see but think are man-made!

    To explain all such similar stone circles and alignments all over the world otherwise, Robert, you'll need to invent a globetrotting Mesolithic Lost Civilization! And make up patches of endless fabrications to stitch together a theory out of thin cloth!


  14. Kostas

    Sadly people do not hide behind characters from the cartoon network without reason!

    Alas, your assumptions like your ice sculptures theory just do not make sense.

  15. … poor, very poor! Guilty on all counts!

    Maybe you can do better with the Car Park holes! How are these different in their physical characteristics from the Aubrey holes, the X, Y and Z holes found at Stonehenge? Can you explain to the world why these were made? I know you said something about 'mooring posts' and dock cranes that can swivel to unload your heavy burden. Can you give us the details how this was to happen?

    Maybe you can start out by reminding us of your engineering credentials!


  16. Kostas

    Spent two years at the Southbank University in London studying an Engineering foundation course and was invited by Jesus College Cambridge (University)to do a full degree - to which I had to decline due to financial constraints because of a new family. So I'm not a qualified Engineeer, but I know a lot more than most Archaeologists.

    If you wish to get a real engineerers view on Archaeology see Geoff Carters blog site: who will in details show you what is really possible with the existing post hole structures - just to prove to you that i'm not the only archaeologist that thinks our perception of history is fundamentally incorrect.

    Aubrey holes (X holes) are much smaller than the post holes that held the bluestones they are about 1m x 1m and round bottomed - as Geoff will show you on his site a 'post hole' is flat as it is made to take a weight on the top.

    Y and Z holes are 0.5m x 1m and v in shape these look like stake holes - their hole shape is probably a reflection on the technique of the posts removal.

    Stonehenge was an 'excarnation' site - the Q & R holes held stone platforms for the bodies - which face the Midsummer Sun/Moon set (NW) - So I would imagine that in an earlier phase (before the palisade was built) a wooden screen was erected around the mortuary slabs, to keep away animals.

    Mooring Posts - If you visit my book site you will see pictures of how these post used to look, with a cross beam that was used to take the stones off and on the boats - if you sail to these mooring posts at high tide and tie the stone to the horizontal posts - as the tide drops the stone lifts, just like magic.

    Remove the boat, place either a sledge or rollers under the stone and let it down - if you wrap your rope around the post a couple of times, it acts like a pulley, so you can lower the stone with ease.

    Not rocket science! but a superior intelligence that can use our natural resources to its maximum potential - is this what Plato was writing about when he told the world some 8500 years later, about his advanced civilisation?

  17. Sheer fantasy, Robert! Sheer fantasy! As convincing as alien abductions!

    You tell your stories as if you were there in person at the time! A sure sign that your imagination has taken flight over and above reality.

    So that you know. I really don't care about your credentials! I only bring this issue up because you make it an issue!

    The more you profess, the more you confess!


  18. Kostas

    No doubt you prefer fantasy over simple engineering - sorry to disappoint you.

    My book contains over 40 scientific verifiable proofs of my hypothesis - unlike others who have only one proof (the ditch antlers from English Heritage) and some would you believe not even one - now that's what I call a fantasy!

  19. Robert,

    … so you rather not post my last comment, hey? When you selectively block what is not favorable to your position, Robert, you commit censorship!

    Maybe you will answer this question: Is it your position that the holes at the Car Park have flat bottoms because these held mooring posts with flat bottoms to bare the weight pressing down? I think that's what you wrote in your post above. Just verifying your reasoning.


  20. Kostas

    Been on holiday hence the delay.

    I do not block or censor any posts UNLESS they revert to 'trivia' or pointless 'name calling' - its not productive or mature!!

    To show you my dedication to open censorship I have copied a private email from a very prominent archaeologist how has criticise my book which I offered to do so on this blog site but to date has refused - therefore I will not identify him...

  21. The Letter..

    Where do I start? Well I haven't got the time to go through the whole book in detail - life's too short. I am an open minded archaeologist, prepared to listen to new ideas and alternative opinions, but not when they are based on ignoring scientific facts and what can be best described as fantasy.

    The basic idea behind the whole book, that sea levels were 35m higher than they are today is complete nonsense. The 'proofs' that litter the book are nothing of the sort. And this is not just a case of an archaeologist, representative of the 'establishment' being unprepared to have his ideas challenged. Where are the marine sediments that should be left after waters recede? Why do we have prehistoric sites that according to this scheme should be under deep water? Where did all this water go when the sea levels fell by 35m? (It has to go somewhere..) Why am I wasting my time asking these questions when there is no answer to them?

    I do object too to the tone that is adopted, accusing archaeologists quite frankly of being stupid and narrow minded, mocking methods of dating etc which the author clearly hasn't understood (his own admission). Most of what
    is said about archaeology betrays a woeful ignorance of the subject and its practices. Has he been to an excavation recently?

    Is he seriously suggesting that we won't use digital cameras but are somehow wedded to outmoded technology?

    So, if a reader is prepared to ignore established (that word again) and uncontroversial aspects of geology, glacial history, archaeology and sheer common sense, then they might be prepared to believe some of what is contained in this book. But if they have no interest in the real world of the past then they might as well read works of fiction....

    The description of the 'ureka' moment of watching waters rise at Stonehenge is interesting. The car park never floods (it's on a slope and lies on chalk - the most porous rock we have), and the photo of the 'flood' is carefully taken across a shallow puddle on the track adjacent to the car park - a puddle that forms because the track has been gravelled and is much used by vehicles. Hardly the 'proof' of a Mesolithic harbour.

    I doubt if anything I or anyone else says will have the slightest effect on the author's ideas, as I am no doubt seen as part of the establishment conspiracy to keep the truth from the masses. But I just thought that you, as the publisher, and as my comments were solicited, might like to know that in my opinion it's all nonsense.

    I am not sure what the market is for a book like this. No doubt it will find a readership among those who seek out conspiracy theories but it certainly won't (as it claims) revolutionise our understanding of prehistoric Britain or Stonehenge (let alone the world).

    This will come over as entirely negative. It is, and my (probably) obvious irritation is largely a result of the books mocking tone towards archaeology, a subject that I am passionate about and have dedicated much of my life to. I also know a bit about Stonehenge.


  22. The Reply..

    I must confess my disappointment on reading your review. The reason I sent it to you in the first place is that I thought you would be 'open minded' enough to read the book (in full) as reading your books (not just the introductions) I got the distinct idea that you too suspected that Stonehenge bottom had a bigger influence over Stonehenge that previously believed and hence your quotations in my book.

    My hypotheses, doesn't involve UFO's, Magical levitations of Stones or Natural ice sculptures constructing Stonehenge. It is a simple view that after the ice age as 2 miles (equivalent to 126,720 inches of rain) of ice melted on our little island the environment must have flooded, which meant Mesolithic man must have adapted to the environment to survive - not exactly rocket science is it?

    I would expect someone who is not 'institutionalised' like yourself would see that that makes perfect sense. In fact NOT to believe that would be a true 'fantasy', looking at what 2 - 3 inches of rain does to our present environment.

    Since the book was completed last year, two very critical discoveries have been made that back-up this hypothesis - the first was the discovery of a 8,000 year old boat in the Solent (details on my blog site) the boat is made of 'planked' wood of 10m length, you would imagine that this would make major front page archaeological news, it didn't. In fact the group have had their funding suspended and so the true secrets of the Mesolithic Period my never be known!! One would imagine that 'open minded' archaeologists like yourself would write articles about the Mesolithic boat people, but they don't they seem to just cast doubts on the findings as it 'rocks the boat' of the establishment - the same way the discovery of post holes in the Stonehenge Car Park in 1966 was buried on shelves for 10 years before being carbon dated.

    The second is the O-18 isotope, you can use it to date water!! Are you aware that over 50% of the present groundwater in Britain dates back to.... ready... the ice age!! Who would have believed that? In fact they have found it takes up to 25,000 years for some water to penetrate the rocks and go into the sea from surface land (don't worry, most Phd Geologists don't know that either!)

    I'm fully aware that at least half of my 'proofs' will be proven wrong in time. I have no problem with that, I do not have an ego to boost and I know that I will get things wrong as their are experienced professionals out there, who may have more tangible evidence than me. But I does mean that half of the proofs will be right, which then will make the hypothesis the most probable history of the Mesolithic period - No more hunter-gatherers, whorah!!

    JR, I'm not here to call names at each other if I disagree, I'm here to open the debate and raise the profile of archaeology in the eyes of the public.

    Robert John Langdon

  23. The problem is that JR only read the Prologue and came to the conclusion that I was 'knocking' the establishment so I have to be wrong - the fact that he assumed the sea levels increased goes against one of the main proofs of the hypothesis - Doggerland, which would have disappeared 7,000 years earlier than it did.

    As me 'making-up' my eureka moment - why would I do that? and did he expect me to have a camera ready to take a picture to prove what happened?

    Peer review seems to revolve around qualifications and questioning episodes in my life that have no relevance to the subject under question, rather than questioning the evidence in the book - perhaps people should read the book before criticising?

  24. Robert,

    How convenient to use as pretext my 'censorship' post to post your reply to your archeologist detractor! But be that as it may!

    You know you are censoring (you blocked a couple of my comments already!) and no claims to the contrary can change the facts! At least you are not invoking 'national security' to stifle free speech.

    You have the right not to respond to a post, but have no right to block it! Even if you find it disagreeable. Let others make that determination. And if the comment is distasteful they will credit you for posting it. Blocking posts discredits you! It shows weakness and inability to engage in open debate. What do you have to fear?

    Robert, let me be clear about one thing. I am here to help you find your way to the Truth of Stonehenge. And it distresses me that you always find a way of entangling yourself to unnecessary controversy with the 'establishment'.

    They have their role to play. We have ours. Why be so disagreeable? Stick to the tangible facts and to 'sensible' Reason. Let's have the kind of discussion that you feel the 'establishment' cannot have!

    Reading JR's letter, he raises some very legitimate and important objections to your Mesolithic inundation theory. Let me explicitly list some of these and give you the opportunity to respond to each in turn.

    1) “Where are the marine sediments that should be left after waters recede?”

    2) “Why do we have prehistoric sites that according to this scheme should be under deep water?”

    3) “Where did all this water go when the sea levels fell by 35m?”

    I'll stop here and wait for your response!


  25. Kostas

    The fact that I publish any of your comments will show any 'rational' person reading these comments that i'm very liberal minded.

    As for the points raised:

    1. Marine sediments - the key word here is marine, its RIVER not a sea - for Stonehenge it's the River Avon... do read the book!

    2. There is no prehistoric sites in my book under water a part from Doggerland?????

    3. Did you read my reply? "The problem is that JR only read the Prologue and came to the conclusion that I was 'knocking' the establishment so I have to be wrong - the fact that he assumed the sea levels increased goes against one of the main proofs of the hypothesis - Doggerland, which would have disappeared 7,000 years earlier than it did."

    The hypotheses raises the Groundwater Level NOT THE Sea Level, Rivers are connected to groundwater levels and not sea levels.

    Clearly your just another critic how has not read the book - that makes 5 now or 0.005% of the people who have bought the book - oops, I forgot none of the 5 critics have ever read the book!!

  26. Robert,

    1) The same question, with 'marine sediments' replaced by 'river sediments'.

    2) Perhaps the prehistoric sites in your book may not be underwater, but there would be prehistoric sites underwater.

    3) You write, “ The hypotheses raises the Groundwater Level NOT THE Sea Level”. Are you saying that your two-miles-thick-ice covering the UK all went underground? Much to disbelieve here!

    I doubt if we can resolve our differences on these, Robert. But I have a different question.

    Using your sketch above in this post: In order to 'unload' the sarsens using your mooring/crane idea, the boat would have to be directly beneath the horizontal beam supported by the mooring posts. Once the stone is secured by a rope (???) connected to the beam, it seems reasonable that when the tide recedes the stone will be lifted.

    (Not sure about the mechanics of any of this. Especially how the horizontal beam could be so secured to the two posts to assure a structure that could support tens of tons of weight placed on these. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for argument sake.)

    My question:

    These mooring posts will be underwater for a good part of the time. During the movement of tides and the unloading of stones, there will be much 'back and forth' wear and tear to the mooring post holes; making the entire structure very unstable under water and under pressure from the weight placed on it.

    The chalk bedrock is the softest and most absorbent of all formations. The mooring post holes being under water and under pressure (is that you?) will surely compromise the structural integrity of such a stone-lifting devise anchored in chalk and being under water during high tides! Right?

    Of course, you can make a real-time video of the capabilities of such a stone-lifting devise and discredit my skepticism.

    I wont even raise questions about how the mooring holes were dug up underwater or even how deep and how wide the water channel would need to be in order for a reed boat to float into this crane-devise carrying a ten ton stone.

    Sheer fantasy, Robert! But I wish you well with your book sells. You deserve all that they deserve buying your book!


  27. kostas

    1. There is - its called sand or if you want the technical term 'alluvium' and its found in the boreholes surrounding Stonehenge - the other proof is called a River terrance 'Geomorthology 33' (2000) page 167 -181 D.Maddy et al.

    2.I think the question you are asking is if the River Avon is 30m higher surely it will swamp prehistoric sites? And you would imagine if this was a man guessing you would looking at the laws of average you will be right... but your not, in the book I made that question much harder as I included not only all sites that surround the River Avon but include monuments such as Barrows - round and long.

    There are 50 of them in the region as as the book describes as proof no25 the 50 barrows (and sites) that are built between 89m to 115m above sea level or 30m+ above the level of the Avon.

    Proof 27 looks at the 5 sites around stonehenge and calculates that to get all three at exactly the same hight above the avon is 2,839,841 to 1

    So I guess the answer is again NO!

    3.Again IF YOU READ MY RELY TO JR.. I state that new O-18 isotope dating can test the age of water - over half the water in the Groundwater is from the ice age - it can take upto 25,000 years to migrate to the sea - Google it and get yourself informed.

    The joint is mortice and tenon as used on the Sarsem stones at Stonehenge - not exactly rocket science is it?

    For goodness sake Kostas go down to your local lake and have a good look at the wooden mooring posts and the boardwalks you are walking on - these post take boats all year round... when they were out they replace them - if you read the blog (above) they did this for 1500 years hence the carbon dating evidence.

    As for digging them underwater.. you dig them at low tide... where do you get your mad ideas from??

    Reed boats are shallowed bottomed that why they are perfect for 'shore mooring' - Again, Google reed boats and see how the third world cultures still use reed boats today.

    I don't mind answering technical questions in detail but you need to research the basics first!


  28. Robert,

    I have seen better explanations of Stone Age ingenuity in Disney cartoons.

    The sand in pits and terraces you use as evidence can also be explained by my theory. What about finding some fossils of Mesolithic organisms living in your waterways? My theory does not require such evidence. Yours most definitely does!


  29. Kostas

    I did not find the river terraces - geologist did!

    You now wish to find 10,000 year old fossils - I suggest you annoy your old friend Brian and get him to search the area. The fact that it's a 'dry river valley' clearly shows that there once (at some point in time) had a river that formed the contours of the land - so logically there must have some dead water creatures in the sub-soil - can Geologist find them - no!

    Why? perhaps the techniques currently used do not allow such creatures to be found as they are usually have to be buried in mud over millions of years to be fossils, so they are only microscopic remains which Geologists are not equipt to find.

    As for Disney characters - why don't you ask you friend Dr Evil why they can't find the evidence that would prove my hypothesis right or wrong??

    As for you theory - it doesn't need evidence just a weird obsession with ice sculptures.


  30. Robert,

    Don't get me wrong! I never suggested you “found anything”.

    We are both using the scientific evidence that is available to us. I appreciate that you may be more aware of some of this evidence than I. The O18 dating of water was new to me. And so was the N15 post. Very interesting and relevant.

    As for “proving your hypothesis right or wrong” … which hypothesis? The one that claims Avon River was once much bigger and wider (I agree) or your Mesolithic Lost Civilization of boat people? While the first is 'falsifiable', the second is not! And that is the problem! It can only be taken on Faith!

    Question: How does the Avenue figure in with all of this? If the Avon River was as high as Stonehenge, since the Avenue leads to the Avon River wont the Avenue be underwater too?


  31. Kostas

    I have two camps to 'persuade' first the geologists as they insist that the last time water flowed at the height suggested is 400,000BC when the Dry River Valleys were formed - that is just plain nonsense as the ice melt must have returned the dry river valley at Stonehenge (which is 30m above the present River Avon) back into a river again - the question is 'how long'?

    Which leads to your second question The Avenue - if you are a mathematician and you know the River Level now and also during Mesolithic Period - to a certain degree of accuracy you can plot the height during the other periods of History.

    In the Mesolithic The Avenue was underwater but as the river resided the original car park moorings would dry up, so they needed another mooring spot - in the book it shows that in the Neolithic period (4000 years later) more of these mooring posts have been found at the end of The Avenue at the 'Elbow'.

    The second group is the Archaeologists, for one we plot the shorelines we find - 'just like magic' - that all the prehistoric monuments are built on the shorelines, like these mooring posts and The Avenue that (after 'tying up') that they used to enter the monument - hence there are no houses at Stonehenge

    So small steps.... for the picture is so much more bigger than this!!


  32. Robert,

    My understanding is that The Avenue aligns with the summer solstice sun for about 500 m and then verses off sharply towards the River Avon.

    Several questions about that:

    1) Why is The Avenue aligned with the summer solstice sun?

    2) Why is it straight for some 500 meters and then it sharply veers off to end at the River Avon?

    3) Why The Avenue is marked off from the rest of the surrounding landscape by alluvial deposits?

    4) What was the purpose for The Avenue according to your 'boat mooring theory'?

    5) If The Avenue marks the path from the river's bank to Stonehenge, why not use a more sensible and easier path, more designed for human transport ease? Certainly if you want to climb a hill, the easiest way is to take a more circuitous path along the side rather than 'straight up' for 500 meters!

    But here is the real rub between our theories.

    All the evidence that you point to as collaborative for your Mesolithic lost civilization boat people theory, can also be explained by my 'local ice cover' theory!

    In an earlier post, which you chose to block, I explain our differences this way:

    Think of each of the 40 'scientific facts' in your book, Robert, as dots on a page. You have connected these dots with your Mesolithic lost civilization narrative: ditches were moats to carry stones; holes held up mooring-cranes and anchored reed boats; flat tops were lighthouses to guide reed boats at night; round barrows were milestones and road signs to direct boat traffic to Stonehenge; bluestones held up stone slabs for excarnation of the dead; and on and on! All made-up stories!

    Others may connect the same dots using 'alien visitations'. Yet others, with more imagination and a gift for mythology, to Merlin the Wizard or even Harry Potter. There is no end to the many narratives that can connect the dots. Just like there is no end to the pictures that one can draw connecting dots on a page.

    That you have fabricated a narrative that connects the dots does not 'prove' your theory! Why? Because there is no Historical record of a Mesolithic lost civilization of boat people at the UK. And if there is no such record, your theory is not 'falsifiable'. It can only be taken on Faith and National Pride!


  33. Kostas

    1. Its aligned to the summer solstice as the civilisation 'changed' in the Neolithic - became farmers, maybe religious beliefs?

    2. The Avenue terminated at 'the elbow' where we find mooring posts for the Neolithic shoreline - when it dried up they followed the river until as now it terminates at the Avon - this took another 2,000 years - hence the shape!

    3. Sorry don't understand the question - what alluvial deposits?

    4. As 2 a mooring point.

    5. I expect with the 'sun god'? boats would come to that 'sacred point' and walk down a processional walkway - we see this in contemporary Egyptian mooring sites and walkways in Karnak.

    The rest of the question is a personal commentary wish I choose not to comment on!

  34. Robert,

    I am posting below my response to Geo Cur that Brian blocked in his blog! Hope it is OK with you! I am especially encouraged that Brian feels so strongly against my theory to go through such extreme measures as blocking my response to Geo! Imagine that! He wants to control what others can or cannot see and think! Does not trust people to make up their own minds!

    Geo Cur,

    I accept your invitation to discuss Stonehenge honestly and openly. We are all interested in knowing the truth. We have the same objective. But arriving at the truth may require a sustained and reasoned conversation. To make our exchanges reasonably short, we may need to take few points at a time for discussion.

    You write,

    “Throughout Europe there are post Mesolithic circular and roughly circular man made monuments of various diameters where the builders have dug a ditch and either removed the spoil or more likely heaped it either immediately outside or inside the ditch thus creating a bank .”

    You are assuming that these other post Mesolithic monuments in Europe were also man-made. So the argument is circular at its best. Beyond that logical flaw, you need to answer the question who these people were and why such similar monuments were build by them not only in the UK and Europe, but throughout the World!
    There are stone circles found in many diverse areas of the World. From the bottom of Lake Michigan, to Armenia, to Israel, to Honk Kong, to Portugal, to Australia. Were all these made by the same lost civilization that left no records behind? Were there many separate such lost civilizations responsible for all these? The only common factor to all these stone circles is Nature. I suggest that Nature was responsible for these, with some help from primitive men commensurate with their abilities.

    Here is how I think these megalithic stone circles were formed:

    1) solidly frozen waterway
    2) hole in the ice sheet
    3) megalithic entrainment on the surface of the ice sheet
    4) primitive men 'dropping the stones from above' around the circular ice rim.

    There is nothing in this description that does not naturally occur. Waterways can solidly freeze. Ice holes can form in the ice sheet. Erratics can be entrained on an ice sheet. And certainly men (and even boys) can push big stones over an ice edge. I've done so myself as a boy growing up in Greece.

    This hypothesis explains the concentric design of these monuments and why the circular ditch is segmented and the embankment is on the inside of the ditch. As well as many other details of the geomorphology of these sites.

    As the ice hole grew radially bigger, new stone circles dropped from above will of course form the next circle. And latter with greater meltwater flow on the ice surface when glacier melt became more profuse, you would get volumes of water falling over the circular ice rim. These would dig the ditch in segments, deeper where the waterfall would be the greatest. And as the ditch was dug, the splatter of soil and debris would create the ditch embankment on the INSIDE of the ditch.

    This is my hypothesis! It makes perfect sensible sense to me! But it may not for you!

    I am very interested in knowing examples of circular post-Mesolithic ditches with the embankment on the OUTSIDE!


  35. Newark, Ohio has the "Great Circle Mound" with the embankment on the outside.

  36. Kostas

    I'm sure there are quite a few post-mesolithic ditches with external embankments.

    In Britain there are numerous 'causeway enclosures' which have more than one concentric circles - figsbury ring and old sarum are in close proximity - that have ditches outer banks but also inner ditches with no banks at all.

    Sorry to tell you that these will not fit your 'natural model' and are clearly man made, for there are walkways at random intervals over the ditches.


  37. Robert,

    Words don't always accurately convey the true 'picture' of an idea. Admittedly, I am at fault here!

    Inner embankment, ditches, ditches with outward embankment, inner ditches with no embankment … it can quickly get confusing!

    Certainly ditches need embankments to be ditches. Do we mean embankments that rise above the outer level ground, below the inner circular area, a ditch on the outside higher than the inside, or the other way around …

    I think we need some pictures!!!

    Can you please post some pictures of various such ditches/embankments and add your verbal descriptions of these?

    I have no problems with “causeway enclosures”. I believe and have reasons to believe these may be natural. The fact that there are no archeological evidence of these ever being occupied by people adds to this belief!


  38. Starlady,

    I enjoyed your sense of humor!

    Keeps all of us on the ball with our misuse of language!


  39. Robert,

    Another blocked post by Brian ...

    Geo Cur,

    I am genuinely interested in knowing what makes these monuments man-made in the minds of people.

    I am not challenging your beliefs! But to get to the bottom of this, we need to weed out 'flawed logic', 'expert opinion', and 'evidence that can be disputed'. I'll list some examples of what I mean by these for clarity.

    Example of “expert opinion and evidence that can be disputed”: Phase I of Stonehenge is the outer ditch dating to around 3100BC, as determined by carbon dating of a broken deer antler used as a digging tool and ceremoniously buried in the ditch after its completion.

    Example of “evidence that cannot be disputed”: Stonehenge is made of concentric but incomplete circles of sarsens, bluestones, Aubrey holes and an outer ditch at some distance from the stones.

    Example of “flawed reasoning”: Egyptians dragged megaliths long distances to construct the Great Pyramids. Therefore Neolithic people could drag megaliths to built Stonehenge.

    Example of “reasoning that cannot be disputed”: Under prolonged freezing conditions a waterway can solidly freeze.

    The 'evidence' that I use for my theory are the indisputable 'facts on the ground'. To all these, I have consistent and simple explanations applying my hypothesis. I could go in far greater detail but Brian may block my posts! Read my article for my explanations for the 'facts on the ground'.

    Brian repeatedly asks for 'evidence' of my working hypothesis that Nature is responsible for these prehistoric monuments with some help by prehistoric people commensurate with their abilities.

    And I counter argue that by logical necessity a hypothesis can only be dis-proven but never proven. If a hypothesis can be 'proven' (as with a video of a crime) it is not a hypothesis but a fact!

    My hypothesis has not thus far been 'falsified'. Is it true?

    I argue that if a hypothesis provides simple, consistent and sensible explanations to the 'indisputable facts', then we believe it to be true.

    The 'explanations for the evidence' IS the 'evidence' of a hypothesis!

    That was so for Copernicus! That is so for us!


  40. Kostas

    I've been blocked by Brian now!!

    Ask him where the bluestone are in Avebury? - as they should have been lying in the local vicinity if his ice cap theory is correct.

  41. Robert,

    … concerning your call on Brian to explain why there are no bluestones found at Avebury or elsewhere in Salisbury Plain other than Stonehenge.

    For what it's worth, I agree with you that if glaciers carried the bluestones to Stonehenge, they should have carried some 'other' bluestones elsewhere also. Especially to Avebury just a short distance from Stonehenge. Possibly these 'other' bluestones may have been 'flushed' into the sea by subsequent glacier advances. But in some cases that would have required the glaciers to have advanced in the same direction as the previous retreat. A physical impossibility. In any event you would expect some 'other' bluestones to be found elsewhere if these were carried by glaciers.

    But before you get too carried away that this 'proves' your boat transport theory, let me quickly argue that I disagree with you! On the other hand, my 'local ice cover' theory can explain all this, and more!

    The problem with Brian's glacier transport is that this provides a 'one time' and 'one direction' transport of ALL erratics no matter where they may have been picked up from.

    A 'local ice cover' provides a 'multi-time' transport and from specific locations each time as separate geological episodes entrain erratics and bring these to Salisbury Plain. If I was to venture a guess, I suspect the bluestones account for a specific geological event (seismic, volcanic, glacial, landslide etc.) which entrained and transported the bluestones to Stonehenge. That would account for their non existence elsewhere, as it may have been an isolated and limited episode. Hard to make that argument with glacier flow that would carry large and varied amounts of erratics from many different places and dump these along the way of the glacier retreat. This results in an 'all or nothing' transport for all stones found at Salisbury Plain.


  42. Kostas

    I agree and 'Bob The Builder' was making the same point - it's all or nothing.

    If there are lots of Bluestones then all of the Stone circles from Preseli to Stonehenge should have at least one bluestone at random - but there is not one!!

    Even the Stone circles in the Preseli Mountains such as "Gaws Fawr" which has no Bluestones in the circle even though it is surrounded by them.


  43. Robert,

    The lack of bluestones in all other stone circles (even where bluestones abound in the vicinity) puts into questions the core reasoning on Stonehenge of many.

    1) It questions Brian's claim that the builders of Stonehenge were 'opportunistic scavengers' that picked and used stones in the surrounding area that they could find. If so, why not pick bluestones to build "Gaws Fawr" where, as you say, bluestones abound in the vicinity?

    2) It questions current archeological arguments that bluestones had 'healing powers' and possessed deep spiritual significance for Neolithic Britons that would compel great expense and effort to transport these to Stonehenge over long distances. If that is so, why these 'magical bluestones' are not found anywhere else?

    I think the presence of bluestones at Stonehenge but nowhere else in other monuments (if true) is a very grave evidence that Brian's, Wainwright's and even your theories are plain wrong! The only theory standing and looking grand is my 'local ice transport' theory!

    Nothing special about bluestones! But a single isolated geological episode was responsible for bringing these 'few' bluestones to Stonehenge over a frozen waterway! No need to drag into this 'human intent'.

    Typically, when the evidence on the ground brings us too close to the conclusion that Nature is mainly responsible for these prehistoric monuments with some help by prehistoric men commensurate with their abilities, Brian shuts off further discussion and asks for the impossible: that I provide evidence of geological conditions existing now that existed 10,000 years ago in the UK.

    I take Brian's behavior and censorship of my posts in his blog as a confirmation of the strength of my arguments and theory.


  44. Kostas

    Your assumption on 2 is misplaced as their maybe another reason.

    If Bluestones have 'magical powers' they would be at other Stone Circles is wrong as Stonehenge is not a stone circle it is a temple - hence the massive construction of Stones as a foundation platform.

    That's why they are not found in other Stone Circles - for Stone Circles have a different function - navigation aids and hence the basic construction.


  45. … of course! ;) Why didn't I think of that!

    Bluestones have 'healing powers' only at Stonehenge!

    Location, location, location! As any real estate agent (or promoter of books) will tell us!

    Robert, you can substitute “at other monuments” for “ at other stone circles” and my argument continuous to be strong and valid!


  46. Hello therе, just becamе аleгt tο your blog through Google,
    anԁ found thаt it's really informative. I am going to watch out for brussels. I will appreciate if you continue this in future. Lots of people will be benefited from your writing. Cheers!
    My weblog ... Dostarcz PIT 2012