Tuesday, 31 January 2012

So who built Stonehenge and what are these Cro-Magnons?

By Robert John Langdon

Cro-Magnon is the name of a rock shelter near Dordogne, France.  Here three prehistoric skeletons were found in 1868, these humanoid remains are about 28,000 years old.  These skeletons showed the same forehead, upright posture and slender skeletons as modern humans.  Necklaces were found buried with their bodies suggesting the first forms of Homo Sapiens burial rights.  These bodies showed signs of illness and injury; some had fused vertebrae in their necks and others have skull fractures showing that they had cared for each other as these skeletons showed signs of healing and therefore living beyond their injuries.

The reason they were found in a cave has never been fully questioned by archaeologists as often referring to our ancestors as ‘cavemen’ existing only 30,000 years ago ’

How a Cro-magnon man would have looked in comparison to us today - big stones to us, pebbles to them!

This analogy is not very helpful in understanding the complex societies of the past, suggesting the entire population lived in caves, on this basis we would need to cut down the estimated number of humans in Europe at this time by about 70% as there would be insufficient cave for this society.  Moreover, as we have already indicated the animal population, such as the Brown Bear, outnumbered the human population by about 60:1 and they also live in caves, somewhat precarious for a ‘caveman’.

Such misinterpretations cause the study of our history endless problems, as when archaeologists find human bones in caves with bite and scratch marks (from teeth), they immediately assume that these humans were cannibals and therefore primitive and barbaric.  In reality is that they were more likely dinner for either a brown bear or wild cat that roamed the forests of prehistoric Europe.

This exact situation can be identified in another cave discovery of the oldest Cro-Magnon near the Iron Gates in Romania, this site is situated in the Danubain corridor, which maybe the entry point for the Cro-Magnons into Europe from Asia.  Pestera cu Oase (cave with bones) ‘Oase 1’ has a thick jawbone and other Neanderthal features, but with other Homo Sapien features showing signs of being one of the first ‘cross breeds’, he has been dated at 35,000 years ago  – about the same time mankind left Siberia and entered Europe. 

Did Cro-Magnons exist before humanoids moved into Europe or did humanoids move into Europe then became Cro-Magnon?

Before we try to answer this we must try to understand why archaeologists believed this was a sub-species of man and hence the name Cro-Magnon.   The skull is longheaded, the forehead is straight, the brow ridges only slightly projecting, the cranial vault is noticeably flattened and the occipital bone (at the back of the head) projects backwards.  The cranial capacity (brain) is larger than ours, about 1600cc .

Although the skull is relatively long and narrow, the face appears quite short and wide.  The forward projection of the upper jaw is also distinctive, the eye sockets are low-set and rather square in shape and the nasal aperture of the skull is narrow and strongly projecting.  The mandible is robust, with massive ascending ramus (the upward projection of the jaw, where it attaches to the skull), has strongly developed points of muscular attachment and quite a prominent chin. The stature of Cro-Magnon is tall on average about 6' 3"  foot tall, and some up to 7' and their longevity was exceptional for a prehistoric Society as some skeletons are found to be over 50 years old – this should be set in context to other groups, the average age of a Neolithic man was 25 and a Roman 30.

You can see why the Victorians with an average height of 5’ 2” and an average age of death at 34 (44 for the academic classes and 25 the a working class) saw Cro-Magnon man as a sub-species as far apart from themselves as the Neanderthal.

An interesting fact is that there are notable differences between Eastern and Western types of Cro-Magnon man.  The Eastern types have been given individual titles to show the variation such as Brunn Man, Predmost or Combe Capelle.  These Eastern types of humanoid, are generally shorter, more gracile  and smaller brained than our Cro-Magnon, but there is now a tendency to place them all under the banner of ‘modern man’ which has the effect of confusing the issue and leading to generalisations that Cro-Magnon was not as tall or larger brained as they were for smaller non-Cro-Magnons have been added to bring down the average statistic. As an example, the Combe Capelle Man is only 5’ 4” rather than the six foot statue of the Cro-Magnon and hence some reference books classify incorrectly Cro-Magnons as 5’ 6” – 5’ 7”, which is misleading.

These ancestors would at the end of the Ice Age move North from France to Doggerland using reed boats to carry themselves and their families,  were they would flourish and create the 'Megalithic' civilisation that went forth and constructed the prehistoric structures that included Stonehenge, for not only had evolution granted them superior bodies, but their brains where 20% larger than today's modern man giving them an IQ of 150 making us look somewhat 'small' in comparison.

The entire history and the 'Ascent of Man' is discussed in my new book 'Dawn of the Lost Civilisation' which is due to be published in June 2012, this will illustrate where mankind has come from using DNA genetics and how this civilisation created the most famous myth our history 'Atlantis' and why we no longer call Cro-Magnon's by their original name as the anthropologists refer to them as 'modern man' so not to cause any social diversity within today's politically correct society.


(by Robert John Langdon)


  1. Robert you write,

    “These ancestors would at the end of the Ice Age move North from France to Doggerland using reed boats to carry themselves and their families,  were they would flourish and create the 'Megalithic' civilisation that went forth and constructed the prehistoric structures that included Stonehenge,”

    More 'made up stories' ! Good for fiction but not fact!


  2. Kostas

    "Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't."
    Mark Twain

    This is the archaeological evidence of a type of humanoid that lived in Northern Europe - my next blog will show you the DNA genetic evidence showing that 70% of the residence in certain land areas of Northern Europe still has Cro-magnon haplogroup marker (including yours truly) and then finally in March, I'll show you on another blog the tools they used which connects these Cro-Magnons to the culture that built Stonehenge - including a 'Long Bow' fitted with a silencer!!

    This is all a prelude to my new book out in June which will support the 'Stonehenge Enigma' and the hypothesis of raised water levels and the re-dating of the sites that match the Mesolithic occupancy of Britain by the Cro-Magnons, who are refereed to as Atlanteans by Plato and Egyptian sources.

    Stay tuned!!


  3. Robert,

    'Made up stories' explaining 'made up stories' makes more 'made up stories'!


  4. Kostas

    What is made up?

    Cro-Magnon - we have physical archaeological evidence

    DNA - A whole new science has been created around haplogroup mutations

    Or is it Stonehenge? You dont believe man made it - so its a made up story? - Sorry my friend your in a minority of one on that idea!


  5. Robert,

    I don't dispute the facts. Just the fiction fabricated from the facts. The term I use for this is Fictional Archeology! A little like Prehistoric Archeology. But more “free”.


  6. Robert,

    The question of an honest debate and censorship in Brian John's blog was recently raised again in his blog,


    Stella Artois on 31 January 2012 20:29 writes,

    "No one has the monopoly on wisdom, so for any meaningful discussion to take place we must have differing points of view;"

    Chris Johnson on 1 February 2012 17:31 writes,

    “One thing I learned from running sites is that it does not really help to moderate comments before posting. The community tends to sort things out and people soon feel when they are not appreciated. Moderation just interrupts the flow of ideas and the conversation”

    Annie O. on 31 January 2012 22:16 said,


    Why are there little to no recent blogs from Kostas, Robert or Geo?

    Are you editing out any objections to your theories? If so, that kind of censorship will turn this site into a boring monogamous essay and not a debate worth visiting.

    Responding to Annie O. Brian on 31 January 2012 22:59 writes,

    "Annie -- Kostas has left of his own accord after I had declined to accept several of his contributions on the basis that he was simply repeating, over and again to the point of absurdity, his strange theory without ever providing a scrap of evidence to show that it bore at least some relationship to the laws of physics. I want this site to be about science, not pseudo-science."

    I stopped contributing to Brian's blog after repeatedly being 'shown the door' and 'silenced in debates' having many of the posts blocked. Some of my blocked posts have appeared in your blog. Readers can judge for themselves their relevance and the merits of my arguments.

    Brian denying censorship in his blog is like the Chinese government arguing political prisoners are mental patients undergoing therapy to cure them of their misguided ideas in defiance of the Party line!

    Brian's censorship target is and has been me! He occasionally blocks you and even more rarely blocks Geo as a cover-up for his true intentions. Why is Brian so threatened by my ideas? Two reasons.

    1) My 'local ice cover theory' comes closest to his 'glacier transport theory'. But unlike the 'glacier transport theory' my theory enables simple, sensible and consistent explanations to every minute detail and 'facts on the ground' (a term I have often used and now Brian adapted!).

    My theory is 'falsifiable' in the best sense of Popper and is based on Nature! Brian seeks to disparage it as 'pseudo-science' with false and deceptive distortions. I am reluctantly coming to the conclusion Brian wants me 'out of the picture' so latter he can claim my ideas as his!

    2) My theory is the only one to argue Nature was responsible for the making of Stonehenge and other sites. With limited involvement by prehistoric people commensurate with their known capabilities. This view (well argued and with sound reasoning based on the physical evidence) is anathema to the archeologists Brian seeks to favor and hope to appease. After fiercely criticizing them over his 'glacier transport' theory.

    Simply put, Brian is caught in a self-contradiction!


  7. Kostas

    Although I accept that censorship of blogs is unnecessary if they reflect opinion on a subject - to debate a blog on another site which is debating information on a separate subject seems pointless.

    If the blog in future returns to the movement of stones to Stonehenge, then your comments maybe more relevant.


  8. Robert,

    Censorship of ideas in a debate anywhere is a serious topic of debate everywhere!

    In this particular case you were directly mentioned in the comments. And you have been directly involved in this debate over censorship in Brian's blog in the past. I found it relevant. You found it not.

    OK. No problem. I wont raise it again! But I needed to put my side of this story “on record”. And since I couldn't pass through the gate keeping in Brian's blog, the next best place with previous comments on this already “on record” was your blog.


  9. Robert,

    Some thoughts regarding Cro-Magnons and Stonehenge.

    The 'no-link' in all 'human agency' explanations of Stonehenge is the lack of historical records of an advanced civilization with the knowledge and intent to construct Stonehenge. Your speculations about the advanced capabilities (physically and mentally) of this superhuman race of Cro-Magnons ascribes to them fictional capabilities for megalithic constructions but still falls far short of filling the missing link in the civilization gap! They just as well be Martians!

    'Human agency' as an explanation is a rabbit's hole of fantasy making! Great for selling books. Dismal for discerning Truth.


  10. Kostas

    Most people would accept that Stonehenge is man made - as the Mortise and Tenon Joints prove (even beyond your theory). These joints represent a 'culture's signature' of the society that constructed Stonehenge - my research has shown that these joints exist elsewhere in the Mesolithic - a recent blog about a well in Germany


    and another found at Star Carr in the worlds oldest house


    This shows us a technique unique to this civilisation, as there are many ways to join wood (or Stone) and to have the same method in the same area of the world is beyond coincidence and this is not the only evidence we have the new book 'Dawn of the Lost Civilisation' has over 200 pages of other evidence, some I will share over the next few months within this blog.

    Interestingly, there is no real difference from a 'mutated' homo sapien species or a 'Martian', as they both bring a different perspective to a problem and therefore a differing solution, which we can anthropologically trace.

    Some may like the idea of 'aliens' coming down altering our DNA to make modern man - if we find in the future that is true (by a discovery of a UFO somewhere in Southern France) so be it, the anthropological evidence will not alter and my book will still be accurate, for what we are proving is that 'a breed of mankind' changed the course of world history by creating a civilisation that feed vital science, maths and engineering skills to the civilisation, we recognise today as US!


  11. Robert,

    If the “Mortise and Tenon Joints” is the evidence which proves Stonehenge originally was man-made then I have a “bridge to sell you”. Certainly the “mortice and tenon joints” are man-made. But in the time span of some 5000 years Stonehenge is said to have existed, there were humans and human involvement that shaped Stonehenge and left behind such evidence. Certainly the Romans knew such building techniques. And the Romans WERE at Stonehenge. The Romans founded Bath just a short distance west of Stonehenge after all!

    The logical fallacy here is to date the work on stones to the age of the stones. Old stones (and wood) can be worked by humans at any time. Doesn't make the work as old as the stone!

    Whereas we have historical records of the Roman presence at Stonehenge, we have no historical records of Cro-Magnons or Martians being there! Thanks for being "on record" as making no distinction between the two!

    On a different note: What do you know of the recently discovered “great feast” that took place near Stonehenge some 3400 BC and where the men and cattle came from?


  12. Kostas

    So Romans added the M&T joints at Stonehenge - did they also dig up the oldest house in the World at Star Carr add the same style of M&T joint and then bury it again - or the one in Germany - both unlike Stonehenge, buried at the time of the Romans?

    As for evidence of Cro-Magnon's being at Stonehenge in 10 - 5000BC - recent genetic sampling of the Wiltshire population shows Cro-Magnon DNA in 60% of the population - I wonder how that got there?

    As for your feast - No idea on a 3400BC feast (I'm sure there was a few!) I think you are referring to 'Vespasian Camp' a site (that was an island in the Mesolithic' that overlooks Stonehenge?

    This was found by Open University students and the camp fires were carbon dated at 6250BC which caused a stir in the archaeological world as no-one was supposed to be at Stonehenge until 3400BC.

    Strangely, this is predicted in my book, publish a year before the finds, as it is another meeting place for boats like Avebury and Old Sarum. But archaeologist saw fit to congratulate me on my insights on Prehistoric Britain.


  13. Robert,

    Cro-Magnon DNA found in people today does not prove Cro-Magnons (or anyone else for that matter) built Stonehenge! To prove that you need evidence of an advanced civilization with sizable population and reasons to built Stonehenge. Substituting 'Cro-Magnons' for 'Neolithic' in any debate on Stonehenge does not change the arguments or the debate. Connecting Cro-Magnons with Martians visiting Earth and 'seeding civilization' on Earth makes your debating points that much the worst!


  14. Robert,

    From a post by Tony H. on 2 February 2012 21:08 in http://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2012/02/on-cultural-links.html

    Here are some provocative comments from MPP in "If Only Stones Could Speak" (2010), National Geographic.

    'The Story We Can Now Tell'

    pages 49-50

    "We do not know why the builders of Stonehenge went to the trouble to bring bluestones from faraway Wales. One possibility is that the early farmers who may have first moved to Salisbury Plain around 3800 BC came from Wales. Perhaps they went back to bring stones to link them with their place of origin. Mike plans to explore this theory by using the same tests that told us where the animals eaten at the [Durrington Walls] Southern Circle were raised. Inside Boles Barrow, a burial around 11 miles west of Stonehenge, diggers found a half-ton bluestone. Could this be a hint of a link between people and places? Astrontium isotope analysis of the teeth from the skulls found in the barrow should tell us where those people came from. The remains of what looks like a huge feast also held around 3800 BC were found at a nearby site [ within sight of Stonehenge, and not far either from 'Bluestonehenge'] called Coneybury Hill. While the strontium tests at Boles Barrow will tell us about people, the same test at Coneybury may give us information about their cattle. Those 2 tests could provide the key connection among early farmers, their animals, the bluestones, and Wales."

    Can you comment on this? Specifically,

    “where the animals eaten at the [Durrington Walls] Southern Circle were raised”


    “The remains of what looks like a huge feast also held around 3800 BC were found at a nearby site [ within sight of Stonehenge, and not far either from 'Bluestonehenge'] called Coneybury Hill. While the strontium tests at Boles Barrow will tell us about people, the same test at Coneybury may give us information about their cattle.”


  15. Kostas

    I personally don't go down the 'aliens from Mars' route, it was an analogy to show you that you can identify cultures by their art, style and craft work. But if you wanted to favour Martians, then that's ok with me as it is more probable than Stonehenge being built by 'natural' causes.

    Coneybury Hill is next to 'Vespasian Camp' but on the mainland overlooking Stonehenge. In 3800BC as well as 6520BC, the animals would be kept on 'small holdings' and be brought to these sites to trade, feast and tell stories - these types of 'fairs' have been around until modern times.

    I suspect the 'roundhouses' they find are animal enclosures and not the human habitat current archaeologists believes - who wants to live in a mud hut with animals when you have wood working knowledge and can build a log cabin (which leaves no foundations)?

    Domestication of cattle, as well as dogs was achieved in France prior to the end of the last ice age so these techniques are not new - you maybe confused with the 'neolithic revolution' which is when land is processed for food, a totally different concept, known as farming.


  16. Robert,

    Yea, well, maybe ... that a nice story but … what the science says? Where did these cattle come from? Do you know? Wales maybe? Same as the people at the feast 3800 BC? Interesting …

    Stay stunned!


  17. Kostas

    By 3800BC cattle would be everywhere?

    The Idea that people came from Wales and brought Cattle and Stones is pure 'dribble' constructed by academics who have no idea what happened at Stonehenge or why!!

    The reason Stonehenge is important is that it was once connected to the North Sea (Doggerland or Atlantis - whatever you prefer) and it was a main sailing route out the Bristol channel and the Mediterranean. As proven on my previous blog the water levels of the Thames was ten times greater and higher than today and so the 'feeder' rivers the Kennett and Avon will also be ten times higher.

    Until MPP realises his mistakes, then any suggestions based on any findings in the Stonehenge area, should not be then seriously, as he is just guessing!


  18. Robert,

    “... just guessing”? Every 'human agency' theory is amaze of guesswork. Without any historical records, these becomes fictional patchwork of 'made up stories'! And with every new finding we get a new version of the narrative! Only my theory is one and the same. Consistent through and through.


  19. Robert,

    The 'human agency' explanations for Stonehenge have to be constantly resuscitated with new 'made up stories' breathed into them every time new 'facts on the ground' are discovered. And each new patch in the fabricated narrative wholly (or unholy) depends on the intentions of prehistoric people whose intentions we know nothing about; because they left no records behind. Like the Egyptians and the Greeks and the Chinese and the Hindu and every other great civilization from the past.

    Contrast this 'flight of fantasy' narratives with the simple, sensible and consistent theory I argue: Nature was primarily responsible for the making of Stonehenge and all other prehistoric sites. With prehistoric people peripherally involved commensurate with their known capabilities.

    How could this be? I argue the ground at the time of the making of Stonehenge was covered by a 'local ice sheet'. Possibly frozen waterways formed after the great glacier meltdown quickly followed by the deep freeze that lasted some 2000 years. Or perhaps this ice cover I hypothesize was what remained from earlier glaciations after the great melt but 'caught in time' in the deep freeze. The erratic stones which now are found in so many stone circles and alignments in the area may have been originally glacier erratics which became exposed and stranded on the ice surface.

    In places where there were 'coves of stones' or one large megalith, the ice sheet will melt more rapidly. Thus creating ever expanding circular ice holes which later became meltwater retaining basins; with meltwater channels (avenues) running from them. This explains why in the middle of many stone circles and henges we find one large megalith or a cove of stones. And why there are 'avenues' at such places mainly aligned with the solstice sunrise.

    Prehistoric people, for sport or ritual, would push erratics found on the ice surface near the basin over the circular ice edge, creating stone circles below. The sarsens at Stonehenge and other places were 'dropped from above' by prehistoric people and not 'dragged on the ground'. And as the ice retaining basin grew radially larger and more stones were brought to the site by meltwater and Nature, more stones would be dropped over the circular ice edge creating more concentric circles. These concentric circles would be more 'complete' in the direction of the source of the erratics and less complete in sections not accessible to the stones. Again details found on site at Stonehenge but not explained by any 'human agency' theories.

    These are just some of the many details in the 'facts on the ground' my theory is able to explain sensibly and consistently. How does 'human agency' explain any of these? Human intentionality and lost advanced civilizations and superhuman race of humans?

    Nature, my friend! It all comes down to Nature! Truth IS Nature! As Nature IS True!


  20. Kostas

    Its a kind of prehistoric crop circle theory really?

    No doubt you are of the belief that these too are 'natural' even though men (usually carrying large wooden planks) have confessed their actions.

    Mind you sounds rather cold pushing these stones around for 'fun' did they have homes with log fires nearby to get warm (was the public house invented yet?) I noticed you have not indicated a date that can be checked through carbon dating of the finds or the Greenland ice cores?

    And what did they place on their feet to get a grip on all this ice - spikes or a tennis racket on the feet - any chance of finding these on site?

    And stone circles in other counties like Spain, Turkey and Egypt - seems to be the biggest hole in the theory due to the lack of ice. Mind, why spoil a good story with checkable facts!

    Keep the faith!!


  21. Kostas

    I forgot to mention try this link -


    They are a bunch of druids who love to hear all this natural Stonehenge rubbish - But be careful! or they will get you naked dancing around the stones next solstice.


  22. Robert,

    You lost my well reasoned argument when you have to drag druids to Stonehenge!

    Why not address with reason specifics I raise? How does your theory explain the concentric designs? How does it explain the cove of stones found in the middle of stone circles and henges? How does it explain the stripes parallel to the Avenue? How does it explain the alignment of the Avenue with the solstice sunrise? How does it explain the segmented circular ditch? How does it explain the 'empty quarter' being at the SW section of Stonehenge? How does it explain the foliated rhyolite fragments found at the Stonehenge landscape? How does it explain the heap of such foliated rhyolite fragments found on the western side of the Avenue and not the eastern side? How does it explain why the stripes of the Avenue are on the steeper parts of the Avenue going down hill and not on the more flat parts of the Avenue? How does it explain the 500m straight section of the Avenue? How does it explain the Avenue 'elbow'? How does it explain the boggy bottom near the Cursus at the end of the Avenue? How does it explain the many 'empty pits' at the Stonehenge Layer? How does it explain the Heel stone in the way of the Avenue? How does it explain the disarticulated human remains found along with animal bones and other debris? I'll stop here!

    Faith is what you're left when you lose a well reasoned argument! Want to try reasoning for a change?


  23. Kostas


    "The English word theory was derived from a technical term in Ancient Greek philosophy. The word theoria, θεωρία, meant "a looking at, viewing, beholding", and referring to contemplation or speculation, as opposed to action.

    In modern science the term "theory", or "scientific theory" is generally understood to refer to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with scientific method. Such theories are preferably described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it.

    A common distinction made in science is between theories and hypotheses. Hypotheses are individual empirically testable conjectures, while theories are collections of hypotheses that are logically linked together into a coherent explanation of some aspect of reality and which have individually or jointly received some empirical support"

    It is not a long list of statements without any form of evidence (empirical support) - when you find evidence that supports any of your hypothesis, do let me know.


    1. Robert,

      There you go again! Lecturing me about the meaning of words in my own native language! It's a desperate ploy when you are losing an argument. Declare the obvious as your own, celebrate victory in defeat, and walk off the stage hoping your naked butt is not noticed.

      My theory is exactly what a scientific and 'falsifiable' theory should be. It is able to explain in simple, sensible and logically consistent arguments all the 'facts on the ground' – all the question in my last post you avoided answering!

      The 'evidence' that proves any hypothesis are the explanations the hypothesis enables! Try explaining the 'facts on the ground' I listed using your hypothesis, Robert!


  24. Kostas

    You will like this quote from plato that will appear in my new book "they (the Greek history) are no better than the tales of children, for, in the first place, you remember one dulge only, whereas there were many of them and in the next place, you do not know that there dwelt in your land the fairest and noblest race of men (cro-magnons) that ever lived, of whom you and your whole city (Athens) are but a seed or remnant. And this was unknown to you, because for many generations the survivors of that destruction (Atlantis) died and made no sign (writings)".

    I put in the brackets to help you understand the passage. It seems us cro-magnons have been helping and guiding (and seeding) your nation for the last 10,000 years.

    Would you like me to reserve you a copy?


  25. More childish banter Robert?

    What Plato was talking about were the Olympian gods! Or possibly even the Doric Macedonians!

    You seem to have problems knowing who these cro-magnons were. On the one hand you ascribe to them superhuman attributes, on the other you make them out to be too wimpy to even step out of their huts and into the elements and ice! You write,

    “ what did they place on their feet to get a grip on all this ice - spikes or a tennis racket on the feet” ?

    Inconsistencies and self-contradictions always trap the mindless in their own traps!

    Want to talk substantively about Stonehenge?


  26. Kostas

    This was a conversation between Solon (the Greek) and the Egyptian temple priests (more cro-magnons) who was telling the tale of Atlantis.

    he goes on...

    "She (Atlanteans - cro-magnons) founded your city a thousand years before ours (Egypt) receiving from the Earth and Hephaestus the seed of your race and then she founded ours, the constitution of which is set down in our sacred registers as 8000 years old."

    So what cro-magnons were around 9000 years ago - oh yes the one's that built Stonehenge.

    You did once complain that an advanced civilisation would leave written records of their existence - we'll they did not, but others did and his name is Plato.

    Even more empirical support for my scientific hypothesis unlike your ice theory.



  27. Robert,

    Quoting from your quote, “receiving from the Earth and Hephaestus the seed of your race”

    Hephaestus was the son of Zeus and Hera! Zeus and Hera were Greek gods. Ergo, the seed of your race traces back to Soil and Greek gods! Hmm! Interesting!

    You are trapped in your own fantasies! That much the worst you call them 'science'. Leaves no rational room to see the errors in your way.

    Want to talk substantively about Stonehenge?


  28. Kostas

    I know, they regarded the cro-magnon's as gods - I'll illustrate that with another quote the Egptian priest told the disbelieving solon (kostas) "Yet, before proceeding further in the narrative, I ought to warn you, that you must not be surprised if you should perhaps hear Hellenic names given to foreigners"

    Just imagine the first cro-magnon (Hera) setting foot on ancient Athens from his reed boat from Stonehenge - he is 6' 7" blue eyed and blonde haired, the Greeks small, dark skinned and impoverished - they would see him as a God or a son of their Gods, who has just travelled from beyond the end of the world (known in the future by the Greeks, as the pillars of Hercules).

    They brought their laws and philosophy that would be incorporated and adopted as their own, as well as showing the Greeks how to build a true city - that's what the Egyptians was telling Solon.

    We now have archaeology, anthropological and now written evidence for this time and species of man and yet Kosta you still refuse to believe the empirical evidence that is known as science, for a theory with no supporting evidence.

    I wonder who exactly is the fantasist?


  29. Robert you write,

    “I wonder who exactly is the fantasist?”

    A 'fantasist' Robert is one who fantasizes! Whether in writing or in speech! Read back your own comments and all the references you are making to Mythological figures to answer your question!

    By the way, get your Mythology straight! Hera was a Greek Goddess! The wife of Zeus!

    Have anything substantive to talk about Stonehenge? Or I should just move on …


  30. Kostas

    Your quite right Hera was a Goddess and the Cro-Magnon's from their Neanderthal heritage would have been a matriarchal society and therefore Goddesses would have dictated the law and be the 'priesthood' of Atlantis and consequently Greece and Egypt.

    As for Stonehenge, as you clearly see that the book 'The Stonehenge Enigma' was published first so that the date connection of 8500BC, when the carbon dating in the mooring posts in the car park verifies. Was constructed by Atlanteans (cro-magnon's) around the date that they 'seeded' other societies and prehistoric monuments throughout the world.

    I am disappointed that you have yet 'worked out' that if this hypothesis is correct, a simple DNA test can be made to test the reliability of (this part) of my hypothesis. For if cro-magnon's seeded both Greece and Egypt, their must be DNA markers in the bloodline of their descendants?

    For how would you get Cro-Magnon bloodline in an area of the world that no cro-magnon skeletons or culture has been found to date??

    Do you agree that if I can show that cro-magnon DNA are in the ruling classes (as the others were used as servants) I would be correct in my hypothesis and you would need to withdraw your accusation of 'fantasist'??


  31. Robert,

    You can find DNA markers of chimpanzees too! Do we argue therefore chimps built Stonehenge? Your whole line of arguing Robert is logically flawed. Too much Fantasy too little Reason! Too much book promotion! Too little substance! Too bad!

    Moving on … below is a quote describing an early excavation of Boles Barrow.(Tony Hinchliffe said on 11 August 2011 18:29 ... http://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2011/08/boles-barrow-bluestone.html )

    “when they reached the old soil buried under the mound of chalk & rubble, over 3m from the top of the barrow, they found more skeletons 'which had not previously been disturbed'. Like all those found before, the bones were in a 'condition of utter disorder'.”

    What sacred burial grounds and reverence for dead ancestors would account for such treatment of human remains? Does your 'boat people theory' explain any of this? Meltwater retaining basins in a local ice cover does!


  32. Kostas

    It seems that when it comes to scientific evidence you are quite shy of the results and their implications - nevertheless they will all be contained in the 'Dawn of the lost Civilisation' out in June if you wish to reserve a copy.

    As for the Bales Barrow, as seen in West Kennett and other 'well preserved' barrows, these structures are 'boats' to the afterlife - hence there shape and construction.

    Excarnated bones are placed inside, for the voyage to the afterlife - there position is on sides of hills (never at the top and never at the bottom) but at the waterline. Each one has a chamber of stones inside where the bones are gathered - hence the 'condition of disorder' as its not a whole body burial and would only consist of the larger bones only - like a modern day church skullery

    Absolutely nothing to do with Meltwater - unless it can build boat shaped mounts with stone surroundings, a multi-chambered interior and moats of water surrounding the entire monument!!


  33. Robert,

    Why not include the whole body 'for the voyage to the afterlife' ? Like the well preserved Egyptian mummies!

    You make no sense, as usual!


  34. Kostas

    Excarnation is the 'oldest' death ceremonial process in the world - the Indians in America practised it as well.

    This allows us to understand their philosophy of death and consequently life. Dolmens are structures archaeologists do not fully understand, but they are the platforms that the body was laid upon when dead for the birds to feed on (hence being off the ground) many had palisades around them (as in Stonehenge) to stop larger animals eating the dead, not all archaeological labelled Dolmens are real Dolmens, only the ones on pillars and with a FLAT top for the body - the rest are 'other' old destryed barrow chambers etc.

    These were 'dualists' and separated the body from the spirit, the birds were seen as sacred spirits - that's why they did not eat birds - no chicken found in Mesolithic sites!! When the bones were bare they collected them together and placed them in the boat tomb - the Egyptian did a variation - by taking the organs out themselves rather than letting the 'bird gods' (like Ba) do it for them - then the rest is bound together and placed in the tomb for the journey. We still place bodies in boats, its called a coffin and that's why it has broad (necessary) shoulders on traditional coffins - us Irish still place two pennies on the eyes to 'pay the ferryman'.

    Simple and obvious really, if you think out of the 21st century box.


  35. Actually Robert, you got it all wrong! The Dolmens with FLAT tops were prehistoric picnic tables. Families would climb on top and feast on raw meat from the day's hunt. The smell of raw meat would attract wild animals and for safety they built Dolmens high enough and in the open out of reach of animals. And afterward, they would all lie down naked in the afternoon getting sun tanned.

    Some habits go far back! It all makes sense. Not a rocket science is it!