Saturday, 7 January 2012

Irrefutable proof of my hypothesis

By Robert John Langdon

Happy New Year!

I have left the most persuasive proof of my book 'The Stonehenge Enigma' for the first post of 2012.  In 2000 the Museum of London, published a book based on the research undertaken when the extension to the Jubilee Line was being planned.

This research was written by Jane Sidell, Keith Wilkinson , Robert Scaife and Nigel Cameron, all experts in their field working for either the Museum of London or associated Universities.  The book 'The Holocene Evolution of the London Thames', did not raise much interest even though the conclusions should have alerted the archaeological world to the fact that the Holocene (immediately after the ice age) environment was much changed from today.

Here is an example map of their findings:

London in the Roman/Iron Age Period
'Thorney Island' on the left of the map, that is now the location of Big Ben and the Houses of Parliament.

Houses of Parliament and Thorney Island
Notice how much bigger the Thames was just 2000 years ago compared to today.  This is why the first roads were built via Thorney Island as the City of London was impossible to cross without a boat.  Later when the Romans had need of a deep water harbour, the city of London was used and bridges were built to span the river.

If we go back to the first map we see the larger Thames and lots of sand known to geologists as 'alluvium'.  This sand is produced on the banks of rivers as they shrink over the centuries, this give us an indication where the rivers used to flow and the size of the river.  The Thames is quite recent and was made (cut by water) during and just AFTER the last ice age and geologists have plotted its original course north of its current position PRIOR to the last ice age.

Consequently, as we know the river only existed in the Holocene period, we can model the Thames as it was just after the ice melted in the Mesolithic Period.

Mesolithic London and the Thames
As you can see the Thames was 10 times larger than today, which is quite a surprise.   Moreover, the most important question these or subsequent archaeologists did not ask was:

As the River Thames is freshwater and in the Mesolithic Period the Sea water levels were 65m lower than today - where did all that water come from to fill the Thames to that extent?

And the ONLY answer to this question is 'groundwater levels' and Rivers that feed the Thames directly.  Consequently, these volume will in turn need to be 10 times greater than today.  So with all that extra groundwater and swollen rivers - how would Britain look in the Mesolithic Period?


Southern Britain in the Mesolithic Period
The River Thames is feed by many rivers including the Kennet and River Avon, both of which would needed to be 10 times larger to feed the Thames the water it needed to create the 'alluvium' our archaeologist found in the Lower Thames.  This means the River Avon would go from being 65m high at Amesbury to 97m high.  At this height Stonehenge would become a peninsula surrounded by water and the Mesolithic post holes, found in 1966, would have been on the shoreline - for they were used to moor the boats that brought the stones from the Preseli mountains in Wales - a simple and direct route in the Flooded Mesolithic.

For Stonehenge was built NOT in the Neolithic in 3000BC but in the Mesolithic in 8500BC - hence proving my hypothesis.



RJL


(by Robert John Langdon)






36 comments:

  1. So is it the River flow or the Groundwater that gave the Thames so much extra flow?

    Dr Stuart Love

    ReplyDelete
  2. Stuart

    They are dependent on each other, the rivers flowing into the Thames need water from the Groundwater, rain water is only a small percentage for flow.

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  3. Robert,

    Your hypothesis is,

    Stonehenge was built in the Mesolithic in 8500BC when Stonehenge was a peninsula surrounded by water and boats brought bluestones from Wales.

    The irrefutable proof of your hypothesis is (quoting directly from your post),

    “Stonehenge was built NOT in the Neolithic in 3000BC but in the Mesolithic in 8500BC”, when Stonehenge was a peninsula surrounded by water and boats brought bluestones from Wales.

    Your hypothesis proves your hypothesis!

    Sounds like self-confirming affirmation of a belief deeply believed!

    … and a happy new year to you too!

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  4. Happy new year to you too Kostas!

    My hypothesis is that the Groundwater levels (therefore the rivers) during the Mesolithic Period were higher than today and consequently, British prehistoric structures were built on the banks of these raised shorelines - such as Stonehenge, Avebury, Woodhenge and Old Sarum hence re-dating there construction dates.

    The Geological proof, that some (like Brian John's and Julian Richards) require to confirm the 'obvious' is contained in this post, which is not one of the other 41 proofs contained in the book (but I will add it to the next edition).

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hello Robert. I think it makes a lot of sense that Salisbury plain was full of water then, not just as a 'how' the stones got there but 'why'. Rocks and water are naturally found together a lot of the time, particularly in Wales where the great valleys, including those at Preseli, would have been full of water during the Mesolithic and immensely sacred places as a result. After all the Lady of the Lake is Welsh.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Catherine

    Indeed she is! - a reference to the sex of the 'spirit of water' which was know doubt part of the 'Cro-Magnon' migrants and their Mesolithic belief system, which originated in France.

    Quite interestingly, -eau, for example le bateau (the boat), l'oiseau (the bird)are masculine, the one exception is l'eau (water), which is feminine.

    Our language has lost its spiritual core unlike other indo-european languages like, French, Germanic and Celtic.

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  7. Your "hypothesis" (LOL) is nonsense. There is no evidence whatsoever, that UK Holocene sea levels have ever risen above approximately current levels.

    Check the data on global palaeo sea levels.
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleocean.html

    The elevation of Stonehenge is currently 104m above ordnance datum (sea level). For the sea to hae been lapping around Stonehenge in 8000 B.C. would require Southern England to have been rebounding(uplifting) at an average rate of 10.4 mm/yr or 1.04m per century.

    Could you explain this discrepancy???

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anon

    I agree the Holocene sea levels were around 65m below present - but that is not my hypothesis. Careful reading of the theory will show you that GROUNDWATER LEVELS (which is not the sea) was higher.

    GROUNDWATER is the layer of water under the soil which most current water companies drill into for your tap water - if it tastes salty do let the relevant authorities know for they have drop a well into the sea by mistake.

    All river heights are due to the GROUNDWATER levels of the surrounding area, in this case (if you bothered to read it!) the Thames was ten times larger and 10m higher than today due to the extra GROUNDWATER - not sea level.

    Currently The River Avon is 67m high due to the GROUNDWATER in this area, we have calculated that the GROUNDWATER was 97M high at the time of construction of Stonehenge, which is proven by the boat mooring posts in the Stonehenge car park which have been carbon dated as between 8500BC and 7500BC.

    This GROUNDWATER height is reflected in the picture at the top of the Blog - I hope this clarifies your mistake?

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm not the one who's mistaken. You appear to have no grasp whatsoever of "GROUNDWATER" and hydrology in general. The water surface of the "GROUNDWATER" your boat supposedly floated on, would have been 170m above sea level.

    The problem is that there is little or no catchment area to replenish the water in your imaginary river, it would have run off to the sea in fairly short order. Leaving your boats high and dry.

    You've proven nothing.

    As I said, "NONSENSE"

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anon

    Sadly, you are making a common mistake, that even some geologists can quite get their head around - some of them have even been employed by Universities!! Sadly, this reflects in the poor standards of academia at present in this subject.

    Rivers all over Britain are above sea level - do they all run dry? Even the ones that flow directly into the sea do not run out of water in the summer when there is no rainfall!

    The Thames in Oxfordshire is over 100m high and the River Avon near Stonehenge is still 65m above Sea level - but they do not run dry! This is because of GROUNDWATER that is contained in the bedrock and contains vast amounts of water and is only a few meters below the surface today if you dig a well.

    You mention 'catchment area' I think you are referring to the topology of the rivers in question - Thames and Avon - Groundwater levels can be as high as the nearest hill or mountain. Its common sense really!

    Where you get the 170m figure from - I just don't know. The Stonehenge Avon River Level (hence GROUNDWATER level - see the connection?) was 97m above the EXISTING sea level (30m more than today!), you seemed to added Groundwater level to the River level for some strange reason?.

    I can recommend some internet courses on basic hydrology if you find it useful?

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thank you for the lovely informative blog. I have a theory that some of the megaliths of this era were used as defense lines perhaps for trade routes. If you have a spare moment please look over the evidence.

    There are several physical features so many of these sites share around the globe engulfing an enormously wide range of space and time. It's almost unimaginable to us. I believe so much effort was put into them because the effort had become necessary. Their form was more to do with function and this is why their popularity spread. Like agriculture and pottery, the art of war was becoming more sophisticated.
    https://sites.google.com/site/ancienttrenches/home

    ReplyDelete
  12. Drusin

    An interesting theory which I have not considered to date - it certainly would explain carnac stone rows.

    I will look at it in depth in the near future and come back to you.

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hi Robert

    I bought your book 'Prehistoric Britain' and am about half way through it - I don't know why, having read some of your blog, why some of your respondents seem to resent buying it so much as it's hardly going to break the bank.

    However I was disappointed with the quality of the reproduction and apparent lack of proof reading - resulting in apparent typos, grammatical errors and repetition of phrases within the same sentence. for example, page 25, in the definition of "Periglacial": should be 'borders', not boarders, and in the next sentence the word 'category' is repeated twice in error.

    Unfortunately this opens up the understanding of your otherwise exciting theory to some unnecessary doubts....have I understood his point correctly? Does he really mean that? (On page 66 is there really a 'scrape slope', or do you mean 'scarp'?)

    Even on your video you refer to the Stonehenge "Circus" rather than 'cursus'- is this a deliberate bit of fun, an acceptable alternative I've never heard of, or what?

    I have been adding some of your key points to my 'blog', and hope you have no objection,

    http://earthhistorya.blogspot.com/

    Yours sincerely

    Howard

    ReplyDelete
  14. Howard

    I'm happy you like the book.

    Sorry for the 'typo's' but I must confess that I left that to the publishers to proof read as by the time I completed the book (given a unrealistic completion date) I was exhausted (as it was my first book) and did not want to see it again - fortunately, my agent as asked me to complete a second edition, as we have new evidence, which will give me a chance to second proof the book.

    Send your address to Bob at bob.davis@abc-publishing-group.co.uk and I'll get him to send you a second edition for free, when its launched in June.

    And yes the video I did say 'circus' which maybe technically a wrong pronunciation, but is clearly a subconscious link to how I feel about the theories behind the earth work ;-)

    Please feel free to add any of my blog information to your blog.

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Robert

      Thank you for taking the time to reply, and for the offer of a second edition which I should be pleased to accept.

      I'm still on board with your theory but I suspect I may be disembarking when Atlantis becomes involved, as it seems to me the Galanopoulos theory about Santorini being the most plausible origin of Plato's recollections is the most 'watertight' based on the increasing archaeological evidence of a fantastic culture being destroyed by vulcanism and tsunami. It's not beyond 'the Pillars of Hercules' as we assume them but in other respects it would seem to fit the bill - the sophistication, the red white and black masonry, the circular features, the proximity to Platos/Solon's birthplaces and therefore received memory, the dating of the disaster to about 1,550-1,600 BC which is about the antiquity he suggests.......

      Maybe I could assist with proof-reading too?

      Howard

      Delete
    2. Howard

      Thank you for the offer that I will forward to the publisher.

      I understand why you look at Santorini and Minoan cultures as they do show signs of influence from an advanced civilisation. Unfortunately, the dates and circumstances of their 'demise' does not meet Plato's dates (9000BC) and were destroyed by volcanic eruptions which was not part of his writings.

      The book you are reading was publish first to show that Stonehenge was built at the time of Atlantis in 8500BC, this remained the centre of human culture until 4500BC when the rest of Atlantis disappeared and the civilisation dispersed throughout the world including the Mediterranean.

      This is verified by the anthropological (DNA) and archaeological evidence found my new book 'Dawn of the lost civilisation' to be released this summer, which allows us to identify the 'mutation' of mankind that created this advanced society.

      The final book 'Echoes of Atlantis' will be publish in 2013 and will detail the 'outposts' set up after the loss of their homeland and the how the mythology of this culture still influence us today.

      RJL

      Delete
  15. Robert,

    I am fed up with Brian's censorship in his blog! He has blocked my last six posts and who knows how many of yours. I have lost hope Brian's blog can be the place where an honest debate on Stonehenge can happen. I will no longer contribute to his blog, after more than two years of almost daily posts – seeing his blog count go from less than 10,000 to now more than 100,000. It's always at the “peak of power” when flawed men unravel with hubris.

    But my commitment to knowing the truth of Stonehenge has not wavered. We need a forum where sincere and serious people can come to exchange views and ideas. Your blog could be that place. If you agree, and for the “record”, I would like to post my comments here addressing some of the lop-sided arguments in Brian's blog. Below are two posts blocked by Brian responding to recent discussions in his blog on the Avenue and on the foliated rhyolite fragments found in the Stonehenge landscape.


    Brian writes,

    “The occurrence of foliated rhyolites at the Cursus and elsewhere is intriguing to say the least -- and Ixer and Bevins have not sought to explain that. Neither has anybody else. Any suggestions?”

    Yes Brian, there is a sensible explanation! If the foliated rhyolite fragments were initially entrained by glaciers and latter were carried and dumped at Stonehenge, the Cursus etc. by meltwater streams over a shrinking local ice cover with stream channels and retaining basins! This scenario would explain everything. No need for Neolithic people to break up huge lumps of stone and create the 'debitage' or carry stones from Wales to stone factories at Stonehenge.

    Brian writes,

    “It just so happens that I have problems with the "periglacial explanation" for those stripes. Is that such a big deal?”


    You should definitely have problems with the “periglacial explanations” for those stripes! As should everybody else! These present an important key as to what really went on at Stonehenge.

    What troubles me is not the problems you are having, but the explanations you are now embracing! Clearly these stripes were formed by streams running down the hill from Stonehenge. And clearly such a stream had to be confined in order to be running straight and diagonally to the contour lines of the hill. So what could that be? Ice embankments perhaps? Want to think it over?

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  16. Kostas

    I understand your frustration and I'm happy for you to use my blog to state your views, so long as it is connected to the construction of Stonehenge or other associated Prehistoric British subject matter.

    The only time I will censor comments if they are rude or they become juvenile name calling sessions - which I know from experience you do not lower yourself to participate in such a matter.

    As for your comments, I can not answer for Brian, but Rhyolites, could have spread from Stonehenge through human intervention, as the site had over estimated 5,000 pieces scattered over the site, just 2km away OR they may of used bluestones on the Cursus - there was a Long Barrow (now gone) in the East and a Henge and Round barrow in the West. The bluestones (Rhyolites) could have been part of those constructions.

    As for the 'Periglacial Stripes' sadly no one on that site has ever stated that other 'archaeological cuttings' by the Heel stone C36 and C91 showed no sign of these marks indicating they started AFTER the Heel stone - therefore I think even you would agree they must be man made, as part of a Road - probably to bring the stones to Stonehenge.

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  17. Robert you write,

    “As for the 'Periglacial Stripes' ... 'archaeological cuttings' by the Heel stone C36 and C91 showed no sign of these marks indicating they started AFTER the Heel stone – therefore I think even you would agree they must be man made, as part of a Road”

    No Robert I don't agree this indicates the Stripes were man-made. Many problems with such explanation! But there is a simple and sensible explanation why there are no such stripes by the Heel stone.

    As you know, my working hypothesis is the Avenue was a meltwater channel etched into a local ice cover (perhaps no thicker than 10-20 m at the time) and Stonehenge was a meltwater retaining basin in the ice cover. The Stripes along the Avenue were formed by such a meltwater stream running down the Avenue and straight to the boggy lowland near the Cursus -- before veering off at the 'elbow' into the Avon River.

    This would explain why the Avenue is straight for some 500m, why it veers off at the 'elbow' to drain into the Avon River, why there is a boggy lowland at the Avenue's straight end near the Cursus, why the Stripes run parallel to the Avenue, why the Stripes are diagonal to the contour lines of the hill when they should otherwise be perpendicular to the hill contours and why there are NO STRIPES BY THE HEEL STONE!

    Want to know why? Because the ground is more level at the Heel Stone and more steep at the Avenue going down the hill. Obviously, the meltwater stream velocity will be stronger going down the hill than on level ground. And thus etching the Stripes into the chalky bedrock down the Avenue and not by the Heel stone!

    As for the heap of rhyolite fragments found by the Avenue, isn't it interesting these should be found on the western side of the Avenue? Just like what my working hypothesis would have predicted!

    There are no 'facts on the ground' my working hypothesis does not explain! Try me!

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  18. Kostas

    Quite strangely, you are right!

    I just looked at the profile for The Avenue and the Heel Stone is at the top of The Avenue - sadly, I also shows a problem with your theory as the Avenue goes down hill from the Heel Stone to Stonehenge itself (without any stripes) and the hill levels off halfway down The Avenue (0.3km) and then goes uphill to Stonehenge Bottom (0.3km) - doesn't exactly follows the ice flow (if there was one!).

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  19. Robert,

    It's the direction and velocity of the stream flow that matters! And the flow, as my hypothesis argues, would be from Stonehenge to Heel stone and down the Avenue to the Avenue 'elbow' where the Avenue veers off to River Avon in a not too well defined path. Nothing to do with any “ice flow (if there was one!)”. My hypothesis calls for a STATIC local ice cover which melts in place without any ice flow movement!

    Once again and in every detail my theory holds up!

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  20. Kostas

    If Stonehenge was a 'melt water basin' - which is unlikely as it is 2/3 down the highest peak in the area, rather than the top - to spill its melt water down a path only 34m wide in a straight line where the surrounding area has the same gradient and height is 'unique' to say the least.

    Why would the melt water not slide down the entire SE side of the site which is 1m lower than the NE side?

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  21. Robert,

    Keep on asking such questions! I like it. I will eventually convince you I am right!

    1) “ If Stonehenge was a 'melt water basin' - which is unlikely as it is 2/3 down the highest peak in the area, rather than the top”

    Water collecting basin “at the top of the hill”? Robert even you should realize water collects at a local low point and not "at the top of the hill”!!! When an ice sheet melts, the “top of the hill” would often be the first to be clear of ice. And lets not forget water flows “down the hill” and not “up the hill”.

    2) “to spill its melt water down a path only 34m wide in a straight line where the surrounding area has the same gradient and height is 'unique' to say the least.”

    The retaining basin at Stonehenge first resulted from a “cove of erratics” probably dumped at the site by earlier glaciers. This would include the “Alter Stone” which sits more or less at the focal point of the inner sarsen horseshoe. This is typical with many stone circles where you'll find somewhere in the center either one huge stone or a cove of stones. These cove of stones at the surface of the ice sheet will become singularity points for solar heat to intensify and start a process of more accelerated melting just at such places. As a consequence, a meltwater retaining basin would form at such places. Now all the various stones circles.

    Similarly, when temperatures spiked during the rapid melting of glaciers, at such a meltwater retaining basins the direction of the 'solar plane' of greatest solar heat locally will be towards the sunrise and most intense during the summer solstice. This would create a meltwater channel on the surface of the ice starting at the Stonehenge basin (or at other similar sites!) and extending straight for as far as the ice surface would permit. This resulted in the formation of the Avenue and naturally explains the orientation of the Avenue towards the summer solstice; why the Avenue is straight for some 500m, why it then veers off at the 'elbow' towards the River Avon where it drained; why there are meltwater stripes parallel to the Avenue where the Avenue is steep and not where the Avenue is more flat; why the stripes as well as the Avenue are diagonally to the contour lines of the hill and not perpendicular if meltwater was free to flow downhill without restrain; why there is a “boggy bottom” at the end of the Avenue by the 'elbow'; why there is a heap of rhyolite fragments on the western side of the Avenue and not on the eastern side, etc.

    3) “Why would the melt water not slide down the entire SE side of the site which is 1m lower than the NE side?”

    I answered this already under 2). Moreover, the topography of the land is generally not the same as the topography of the surface of an ice sheet. It is a total irrelevancy that the SE side of the site now is 1 m lower than the NE side!

    Ah! Robert! You are in the presence of Truth! Your only challenge is to be noble and recognize it!

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  22. Kostas

    "Similarly, when temperatures spiked during the rapid melting of glaciers, at such a meltwater retaining basins the direction of the 'solar plane' of greatest solar heat locally will be towards the sunrise and most intense during the summer solstice"

    When I go sun bathing, I rarely do it at sunrise - I think you find that just after midday is the hottest part of the day - whatever time of year.

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  23. Robert,

    We are not talking here about catching sun RAYS but the SOLAR PLANE at a locality! Here the locality would be the Stonehenge Basin in the ice cover at the time.

    The Solar Plane at the Stonehenge Basin will intersect the ground at a straight line in the direction of the sunrise (in the morning) and sunset (in the afternoon). This is the reason why in so many sites we have NE-SW and NW-SE causeways and avenues. Depending on the local topology, we may have one or more such avenues. At Stonehenge we have the main Avenue in the direction of the sunrise and a smaller avenue SE. But no avenues in the direction of SW or NW. Why? Because of the uphill terrain on that side!

    (Robert, these are approximate directions! Please don't make spurious arguments about the exact directions!)

    Why is the Solar Plane in the direction of sunrise (in the morning) and sunset (in the afternoon)? Because when we are able to spot the sun on the horizon we are looking straight into the Solar Plane!

    Try not to get sunburn Robert!

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  24. Kostas

    I understand what your trying to say, but it does not make physical sense.

    This 'Solar Plane' is the perception of a sunrise from a fixed point i.e. YOU - if you are watching the solstice sunrise at Stonehenge, yes it rises on a plane between you and the centre of the stone circle over the heal stone - it also shines on the entire earth's surface including the region on either side of The Avenue - so it would melt everywhere not in one 34m slice only, unless the rest of the land surface was in shade - and if so what was the shade??

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  25. Robert,

    No you don't understand! But it's not your fault. It's my problem making this more manifest to more minds.

    The 'plane' you are describing is 'plane-ground', were we to think of the Earth as flat. It is the 'tangent plane' to the globe at a given point (locality). Of course the entire 'plane-ground' would be sun lite any time of daylight. Irrelevant!

    By 'solar plane' I mean the idealized 'orbital plane' of the Earth orbiting around the Sun. By 'solar plane at a locality' I mean the parallel displacement of this 'solar plane' at a given point (locality). Its intersection with the 'plane-ground', as marked on the ground, will be a straight line from the given point (locality) in the direction of sunrise (during the morning) and in the direction of the sunset (during the afternoon). The 'solar plane at a locality' gives the gradient of the greatest solar radiance.

    All I described above is perfectly reflected in the 'facts on the ground' at various prehistoric sites. These orientations (of avenues and causeways, etc.) are not the premeditated intentions of prehistoric people. But rather of Nature! Why we didn't recognize this before? Hard to see the sunrise looking in the direction of the sunset!

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  26. Kostas

    Thank you for simplifying that for us - I'm sure in some parallel universe that make complete sense.

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  27. Ah! Robert! That “parallel universe” is called Nature!

    Most people live in a “man-made universe” of their own fantasies and myth-making!

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  28. Robert,

    You heard me before speak of Brian John's 'self-contradiction'. Let me elaborate a bit here.

    Brian is equally certain Neolithic Brits could not have brought the bluestones to Stonehenge as he is certain Neolithic Brits built Stonehenge. This is a 'self-contradiction'! Either of these tasks (transporting 2 ton bluestones over long distances or transporting 40 ton sarsens over short distances to built Stonehenge) require advanced technical knowledge and social organization. And you just can't claim Neolithic Brits had such capabilities to built Stonehenge but lacked such capabilities to bring bluestones to Stonehenge from Wales.

    As you know, I don't believe in your 'boat transport theory' either! But at least you are consistent. You have assumed all along these prehistoric monuments were man-made. And you assume Neolithic Brits had the capabilities to built them as well as to bring bluestones over long distances. In this respect your theory is not different from all the archeologists. These are all 'made up stories' that seek to invent British Prehistory! Collectively I call these 'human agency' theories.

    In contrast, I propose the 'natural agency' theory which argues these prehistoric sites and earthworks were made by natural processes. With limited involvement by prehistoric people commensurate with their known capabilities.
    As my comments here and elsewhere in Brian's blog argue, this theory can provide simple, sensible and consistent explanations to all the irrefutable 'facts on the ground'. Point at hand are the Avenue 'stripes' I explain in the comments above.

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  29. Kostas

    The problem with your 'Natural Agency' theory is that these monuments would had to be built some 20,000 years ago to take into account ice fields in the UK - this also does not take into account other similar monuments in France, Poland etc which are very similar, without any history of ice action.

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  30. Robert,

    Why are you saying such obviously false and misleading things? The Devensian glaciation happened just 12K years ago. And there were other periods of smaller ice-age episodes latter and as late as few hundred years ago when the River Thames completely froze solid!

    As of your argument such prehistoric monuments are man-made because these can be found at other parts of Europe and in fact all around the world, this very fact gives further credence of the 'Natural Agency' I am advocating! If there is one factor common all over the world is Nature! Or you believe people all over the world had the same capabilities and had the same ideas as Neolithic Brits to built stone circles and stone alignments and round barrows?

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  31. Kostas

    What I am advocating is that because stone circles for example are found even in Egypt - we found one just by Aswan in the Lower Nile only last field trip last month - that a single civilisation was spreading their technology throughout the world at about 10K to 8K years ago - 'Natural Agency' through 'mini ice ages' can cause a stone circle in Africa.

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  32. Robert,

    It pleases me you are so vocally advocating your position! Let's 'analyze that' !

    You argue

    “ that a single civilisation was spreading their technology throughout the world at about 10K to 8K years ago”

    Is this the Ancient British Empire? Where is the evidence for that? How can you have such a Great Civilization able to circumnavigate the globe colonizing and spreading their advanced knowledge and culture, yet leave no written records and other evidence behind? It is more credible to believe on 'alien visitation'! At least in spaceships aliens can come and go unnoticed!

    As for stone circles found in tropical places like Africa. Each of these instances needs to be examined carefully. Certainly stone circles can be built at any time. I am building one myself in my back yard! And if I keep it well covered and hidden, I could claim its discovery as dating back to a Great Prehistoric Civilization.

    As for there not being any snow cover in Africa, are you sure? I've seen photos of mountains in Africa covered with snow year round! Many scientists now even believe at one time the entire surface of the Earth was covered by glaciers. Much here that's uncertain and unknown! But the occurrence of such megalithic stone circles and stone alignments all over the world convinces me these are the result of Nature. With perhaps some intervention by men, like pushing big stones over a circular ice edge and seeing them drop and splatter in the meltwater mud below.

    Robert, I can appreciate your myth-making! As I said before, you are creating a new genre of books. I suggest this be called “fictional archeology”. I am sure there is a big readership out there for just that kind of literature. And I sincerely hope you do well with it. As I also realize such books can only do well if they are not presented as fiction, but real.

    Confess to me and I'll keep your secret!

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  33. Kostas

    You need to detached yourself from today.

    'Ancient British Empire' - Britain did not exist - these are Northern Europeans, mutations from the Homo Sapien/Neanderthal cross breeding known to anthropologists and archaeologists as Cro-Magnon Man.

    I will be publishing a blog about them in the next few days - I can assure you (as we have their bones and DNA) these people existed - 6'3" high 190kg and a brain 20% larger than Modern humans, scientists have calculated that there IQ was 20% larger than ours placing them in the top 5% of today's humanity (geniuses) - these are the people that built Stonehenge and the Stone circles who traded throughout the world and your philosopher Plato refereed to their homeland as Atlantis.

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  34. Robert,

    There are so many holes in your “theory” that I don't know where to begin. So I'll leave it at that and not! I know what you are doing. And I like you too much. So I wont press these points. Rather, I like to put some pen to some discussions going on in Brian John's blog.

    In recent posts Brian and others argue Stonehenge and many other prehistoric monuments were left incomplete. That prehistoric people and people generally have a predilection not to complete what they started. Much cheap psychoanalysis one can make of such statements! Punters explain this occurrence by Neolithic Brits, however, with any one of the following excuses:

    1)poor planing
    2)run out of stones
    3)lost interesting
    4)human folly
    5)shift in priorities and purpose
    6)these where never meant to be completed (attractive “heroic ruins”)
    7)Stone destruction phase – purposeful destruction of stones to release hidden magical powers.
    8)Competing tribes, wars and destruction
    9)These are “crescent temples” for moon worship and not complete circles (this one is yours!)
    10) Etc.

    All these 'explanations' assume 'human agency'. All these 'explanations' are 'made up stories'. And for the 'true believers' any one of these is enough to satisfy their belief. Like sightings of saints and angels.

    But there is an obvious explanation why these prehistoric sites are incomplete. Never to ever be considered by those preaching the 'human agency' religion. NATURE! Stonehenge and other sites are incomplete because Nature made them. Completeness is a 'human category' reflecting human intent.

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete