Friday, 24 February 2012

Avebury's ancient secrets

By Robert John Langdon

AS one of the secrets from my new book has been drawn out in previous posts, I may as well give you a full view of what we have found out about the site and its function in the post 'Atlantean' period of British history.

You must forget the rubbish you have seen from Hollywood and the ‘biased’ writings of the early Celtic and English monks  - nobody likes to be robbed and if you are, don’t expect a good positive write up afterwards!  These people (the remnants of the civilisation known as Atlantis) held a regular court in a place called a ‘thing’, and within this assembly all members of the community would conduct debates and important votes such as electing a king.  This is the first form of ‘democracy’ seen in northern Europe and it is something I believe they exported to Ancient Greece, with other Atlantean philosophies 11,000 years ago,  as the priests told Solon, in Plato's Critias, as part of the Atlantian ‘seeding’ of this new country.

Scandinavian 'law gathering' of a 'thing'


Things
‘Things’ use to be held at places in the British Isles called ‘Moot Hills’ or mons placiti (statue hill). The word ‘moot’ or ‘mote’ is from old English origin, deriving from the verb ‘to meet’ or ‘gather’.  There are still over one hundred Moot, Mote, Mount or Mute hills still visible in the British Isles today.  Others have local names such as Justice, Court or Judgement hill, many are known as Knol, Knock, Knowe or even Law.  But the more interesting ones, give us a clue to how the local peoples enacted 'the law' and moral judgements before the written word and courts of law, were introduced.  Town ‘cryers’ in medieval times would travel from village to village proclaiming a meeting, before then (as at ‘Bonfire Hill’) a ‘beacon’ on top of the hill would be light, no doubt at the end of the working day at twilight, for maximum visibility.  Sometimes linking to other beacons that also would be light when observed.

This hill or mound was historically used as an assembly or meeting place, alternatively, a 'moot hall' could also  be used as an assembly building, traditionally to decide local issues.  These were replaced by churches and town halls in recent times.  People of the town would settle local disputes, with all the members of the town or settlement, amongst other things, proclamations might be read; decisions might be taken and leaders and representatives elected.  Although some moot hills were naturally occurring features others had been created as purpose built mounds for this reason. 


Some known ancient moot hill sites were surrounded by water, such as Mugdock, Mound Wood and Court Hill; others probably were in the distant past when the Mesolithic/Neolithic Waters would have been much higher than today, as we have already proven in the first book of this series ‘The Stonehenge Enigma’.  Such inaccessibility would require the use of a boat, this clearly has implications for the Atlantean in the Mesolithic Period, as if you did not have a boat, you did not have a vote or a voice in your society.  The description and use of these meeting places brings the largest man made mount in Europe into mind, Silbury Hill, even bigger than the known ‘thingmote’ in Dublin which was 40 foot high and 240 foot in circumference.

When Atlantis finally sank in 4300BC, the remaining Atlanteans would have needed a central meeting place to continue to conduct the business of government, as they would have done probably on ‘moot hills’ all over Atlantis in the past.  We believe that a representative of the 'local' moot hill would have been sent to a meeting of a greater council (a kind of parliament) that represented this entire civilisation and society.  We have shown that Avebury was created early in the Mesolithic in our book ‘the Stonehenge Enigma’, we also showed that these monuments were ‘updated’ at about 4300BC. The loss of the last part of Atlantis (Doggerland) now correlates exactly with this change in design confirming our original hypothesis.   This forced the ‘capital’ of the kingdom and its parliament to move from Doggerland to Avebury.  It was during this time, the hill at Silbury was started, and became the meeting point for this civilisation, to resolve most issues.  As we have seen beacons on these types of structures were commonplace and some still bare the name such as ‘beacon hill’ in Sussex, England.

Silbury 'moot hill' used as a harbour for the trek to Avebury
In ‘The Stonehenge Enigma’ we showed that Silbury Hill was a beaconed hill and had a fire at the top of its peak to attracted ships to the harbour, that lay below.  I believe that for 'general matters' the people would gather on this hill (like a lower court) to hear speakers and judge matters of importance, but we also feel that the Sanctuary and the known processional stones to Avebury had also a similar function – for this kind of processional walkway of representatives still occurs today in the British parliament, and is lead by the 'speaker of the house' who takes the 'peoples representatives' from one meeting place (the upper house) to another (the lower house) known as the house of commons.  

The 98 gigantic stones in the other circle of Avebury (higher court) were added in the post 4300BC sinking of Atlantis, be believe this is the number of Atlantean communities that were made up from local groups – it is probable that each group would be responsible for moving their individual stone, no doubt each one trying to 'out do' the other and hence the size and shape of stone we find at Avebury.  This was the heart of democracy in the 'post Atlantis period' – this suggests that a similar system may have existed in the round concentric rings of the city of Atlantis, prior to the final flood.   

The two inner rings at Avebury would have represented the original stone circles 'prior' to it becoming a ‘parliament’ or meeting place for the Atlanteans.  The stones circles represent the Sun and the Moon (30 and 28) and the days within their cycles, but may have probably been used, when voting, to gather the delegates for the count (like the later day 'division' in parliament), to see if the motion or the election of a king was carried or rejected. Or it could be used by the two of the biggest groups of representatives, the 'Noblemen' (kings and royalty) and the 'Clergy' (Druids, Wise men) each with many representatives (block vote?) – this will give us exactly one hundred representative areas.  


So what exactly did they judge and who were represented?

The concept of the ‘Thing’ is shown in the histories of England, Wales, Ireland, Scotland, Iceland, Demark, Germany, Slavic  and Scandinavian counties.  Made up by free people in Medieval society, and presided over by the ‘lawspeakers’ In Scandinavian countries is called a ‘thingstead’ in Anglo-Saxon a folkmoot or folkmote and in Slavic countries it’s called a ‘Viche’.  In the pre-Christian clan-cultures of Scandinavia the members of a clan were obliged to avenge ‘injuries and death’ by others.  A balanced structure was necessary to reduce tribal feuds and avoid social disorder.  The thing was the assembly of the free people of a country, province or a ‘hundred’.

The Hundreds
A hundred is a geographic division formerly used in England, Wales, Denmark, Germany (Southern Schleswig), Sweden, Finland, Estonia and Norway, which historically was used to divide a larger region into smaller administrative divisions.  Alternative names include wapentake, herred (Danish, Norwegian bokmål), herad (Norwegian nynorsk),  hérað (Icelandic),  härad(Swedish),  Harde  (German) kihlakunta (Finnish) and kihelkond  (Estonian).
The name "hundred" is derived from the number one hundred. It may once have referred to an area liable to provide for a hundred men under arms, or containing roughly a hundred homesteads. It was a traditional Germanic system described as early as AD 98 by Tacitus (the centeni).

Other names of this kind of assembly
In the 7th Century there was an assembly by the name of ‘Witenagemot’ from the old English of ‘meeting of the Wise Men’ and was a political institution of the Anglo-Saxons.  Felix Liebermann, who has studied this version of English ‘assembles’ notes that: “No man can make himself king, but the people has the choice as king whom they please; but after he is consecrated as king, he then has dominion over the people, and they cannot shake his yoke off their necks.”   In the ‘election’ of tradition to having a role in the King, it is often held that the Witenagemots had the power to depose an unpopular king.  However, there are only two occasions where this probably happened, in 757 and 774 with Sigeberht of Wessex and Alhred of Northumbria.

The  ‘Landsgemeinde’ is the oldest form of direct democracy, it is still practised in some level in Switzerland today.  Eligible citizens meet on a certain day in  the open air to decide laws and expenditures by the council.  Everyone can debate a question.  In the past voting was accomplished by those in favour showing their ceremonial sword to prove you was a ‘freeman’.  This unique process may give us a clue to the strange findings of polished stone ‘axes’ and ‘maces’, these artefacts have for many years been ‘unexplained’ as they show no signs of wear or function.  Is it possible that the person elected to the ‘assembly’ is issues with this item which allows them to vote on issues and does this again show why some of these items are made of precious stones such as jade.

A  wapentake is a term derived from the Old Norse vápnatak,  the rough equivalent of an Anglo-Saxon hundred. The word denotes an administrative meeting place, typically a crossroads or a ford in a river. The origin of the word is not known. Folk etymology has it that voting would be denoted or conducted by the show of weapons, or alternately voting was done only by citizens, who were the only ones who could possess weapons, an idea perhaps suggested by references in The Germania  of Tacitus or current practice in the Swiss canton of Appenzell  Innerrhoden.  According to other authorities  weapons were not flourished at a Norse þing and "weapon taking" or vopnatak was the end of an assembly, when one was allowed to take weapons up again, providing another possible origin of the wapentake.

Conclusion
This shows the reason for the 98 stones and two circles at Avebury, it was a meeting point for an organised and cultured civilisation, who would have sailed from the ‘bones’ of Atlantis in Germany, Denmark, Scandinavian countries and the rest of the British Isles to head to Wessex, by ship or boat, following the known trade routes used for thousands of years, around the dogger sandbank that was once Atlantis, probably following the lite beacons on the coast of Britain and down the Thames and then the Kennet to the ‘great fire’ on top of Sibury hill.  For it was here the nation’s leaders would gather together for debate, create laws or to 'crown kings' – for this was NOT  the band of random Mesolithic hunter gathers, archaeologists would have you believe, this was the 'first' advanced and ‘cultured’ civilisation known to humanity.  These where the legendary 'Atlanteans' and it shows that their laws, philosophies and actions still echo in today’s European societies and even those throughout the world. 

RJL

(by Robert John Langdon)

53 comments:

  1. Really interesting post Robert. You reminded me of Dunbar's number: the likely size of social groups given the way our brains work and looking at the anthropological evidence. He postulates 30-50 for a band, up to 150 for a group (say a neolithic village), and a few thousand for a tribe. It seems that 100 is a good indicator for the number of meaningful social relationships we can maintain as individuals although this is related to the size of our brains, and with your Cro-Magnons having bigger brains......

    So if you are right and the 98 stones equate to the number of bands participating in the Avebury gatherings, the total population represented in the "tribe" would be around 5000. Assuming some people stayed home, there would still have been several hundred able-bodied around for monument building and they could and did achieve a lot.

    A hundred (approximately) is a good organizing number - think of the Roman Centurion - and I agree with you that this pre-dates Anglo-Saxon culture and is revealed in many places.

    It also strikes me that these meeting places might explain a lot of deposition evidence as oaths were sworn and deals made between various bands.

    Thanks again for a very stimulating set of possible connections - although doubtless it is highly speculative.

    Prior to Avebury the causeway camps like Windmill Hill seem to have been meeting places for bands of semi-nomadic herders, and so the evolution of Avebury as a "moot" seems logical.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Chris

    Yes it seems Windmill Hill pre-dates Avebury - It was an island just after the last ice age, before the waters subsided revealing the Avebury site some 1000 - 1500 years later, if my estimations on the drop in groundwater levels are correct.

    The concentric circles and the link to Plato's city of Atlantis is compelling, although I do not considered it as Atlantis, but do we not by nature replicate what we are familiar with?

    I haven't looked at Dunbar's before - so thanks for the information.

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  3. From memory Plato said the ideal size of a democracy was 5040 because everybody would know each other. This seems to fit.

    You are much better read than me so I look forward to you comment.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The Greeks did love their mathematics and the number 5040 is an interesting factorial. I would place more faith in modern DNA genetics who estimate the Cro-Magnon culture to be around the 10K mark at the end of the last ice age - this would have stayed about the same population at the end of Atlantis in 4300BC. This is because they had a tenancy for eugenics (not breeding outside their society) that created a higher infant mortality rate than other prehistoric societies and would keep the population constant.

    That would give each 'region' a population of about 1000 which is sustainable for a non-agricultural society.

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  5. Robert

    You said the base was 'square' in a reply to the previous post on Doggerland - do you mean round?

    Dr Stuart Love

    ReplyDelete
  6. Stuart

    The latest research on Silbury was based on existing archaeological information that was re-examined. No new trenches were permitted to be dug so they looked at the existing tunnels that had already been excavated.

    This link shows were they looked:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wiltshire/6645367.stm

    Its an old tunnel made in 1968 that cut across from the base to the middle. There are two other tunnels - one that went straight down from the centre in 1776 and another in 1849 into the side again then around the centre looking for archaeological 'fools gold'.

    So the two segments the archaeologists had to work with is a shaft 2m wide across the base and up from the centre to the roof. With its thy found segments for construction (on the vertical shaft) and a single layer and base construction on the horizontal.

    Form this evidence they come to the conclusion of a layered 'circulator' structure - but the circular was only seen at the top of the structure. We know in history structures do change, we do it all the time with houses and venues.

    I believe the 'signature' structure for this civilisation is the 'step pyramid' as you will see from my last book in the trilogy 'Echoes of Atlantis' as it is found throughout the world. At Silbury I believe it started as a square base and in the Neolithic - about 2500BC they altered it to a round mound by adding chalk at the base and rounding off the sides. This is based on radio carbon dating that will be contained in that book.

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  7. Robert you write,

    'At Silbury I believe it started as a square base'

    So your assertion in your argument with me in another thread about 'square layers' making up Silbury Hill was sheer speculation passed as established fact to muddle our discussion!

    That is very naughty, Robert! You must not confuse 'fact with fiction'. No wonder you chose not to respond to me and instead end the debate in that threat. What else are you pissing as fact when it is nothing more than fiction?

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  8. Kostas

    The FACTS are that on a narrow excavation of 2m one down one across archaeologists have found layers - this has been confirmed with sample holes drilled into the mount at various locations.

    The conclusion (which is not a fact but speculation) is that the construction is made in round layers in 3 phases. BUT the only way you could find if the layers were 'round' is if you excavated in many places around the edge find their exact location and GPS map them - this has not been the case.

    The archaeologists are 'restricted' by a view that this was a 'one off' and if its round today, it must have been round yesterday.

    I do not support this theory. My analysis of this 'culture' leads me to believe they would have built it square (as I have evidence of at least 17 other sites created in the same fashion, which I will publish next year with the final part of the Trilogy 'Echoes of Atlantis') and the round state we see today is due to later peoples adapting the structure - which over a 6000 period, is both probable and common place - it is also supported by the Carbon dating evidence of the picks used to 'round off' the monument dated at 1500BC some 2800 years after I believe it was built. This date relates to the sinking of Doggerland and the reason for its construction.

    Unlike others, I present facts in published books, which are open to challenge, not just ideas, which can't be proven.

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  9. Robert,

    Right! As I said, your Silbury “square layers” was speculation on your part.

    But why pass it as FACT? That I find objectionable!

    You write, 'I have evidence of at least 17 other sites created in the same [square] fashion' .

    What other sites? Try not to be ambiguous on key points in your argument. Do you mean other sites like the Mayan and Egyptian pyramids? If so say so! Don't play with impressions! We must at the very least be clear about our arguments.

    No room for ambiguity here since this only entrenches misguided believes.

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  10. Kostas

    You'll have to wait until next year!! I have already told you about the use of Avebury and its date prior to this years publication, I will not repeat the same mistake.

    The FACT is that Silbury Hill was made in layers - whether it was either Square or Round is a question of aesthetics and debate in future publications.

    The more important aspect is what it was, who built it and when was it built?

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  11. Robert,

    Whether the Silbury layers are square or round is more than 'aesthetics'!!! Round layers could be laid by Nature, whereas hard to see how square layers could! All the facts on the ground at Silbury Hill point to 'natural agency'.

    I see you are preparing more 'made up stories' to entertain us!

    Gullible beware!

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kostas

      Name us one round structure made of loose chalk layers made by 'Nature' with the appropriate evidence?

      RJL

      Delete
    2. All the 'facts on the ground' !!!

      Excavated by archeologists as you have reported! Every one of these can be explained as the deposition of layers of chalk, soil, deer antlers and other debris naturally carried by meltwater streams draining all around into a circular retaining basin in the ice cover. When all the ice melted, the round conical Hill inside the basin remained!

      This would also explain why there are soils found in Silbury Hill from at least four different areas OUTSIDE the immediate area -- as you have reported in one of your posts! It would also explain why at the base of Silbury Hill there was initially a ditch and embankment, as was reported by EH archeologist Dr Leach. It will also explain why among the dirt in the Hill freshwater shells are found, along with pieces of pine, birch and other charcoal as these likely originated from forest fires in higher elevations carried downstream. I can go on …

      Any bits of evidence YOU have to convince us Silbury Hill was build by men? Or that it was a Moot Hill with huge bonfires lit on top for marine navigation? Any charcoal evidence found at the top of the Hill like charred remains of fire hearth rocks and chalk and soil?

      Where is YOUR evidence for all your 'made up stories'? Any records anywhere? Besides pointing to other cultures and taking from their history? The evidence for Silbury Hill must be found at Silbury Hill and not at Mayan and Egyptian pyramids made by people with indisputable evidence of their culture and history.

      Kostas

      Delete
    3. Kostas

      The Archaeologists did not report anything to do with water deposits with the chalk layers.

      The chalk layers are in small lumps - chalk naturally runs in solid layers, if water disturbed the layer it would settle either as power or sand like similar to white alluvium, as we see in rivers.

      Moreover, the chalk lumps would be mixed with other 'melt water' material like stones, soil and sand.

      Pure nonsense!

      As I have stated many times before, you have no empirical evidence just an unsupported 'idea'.

      Let me know if you find something more tangible.

      RJL

      Delete
  12. Robert and Kostas, please sort this out. Robert has some interesting ideas and a new narrative. I hope other people can chip-in without feeling they will get harassed for barefoot ideas, preferably fact based.

    Kostas, you are "dominating the rap, Jack" and I think we are both old enough to know what that means - otherwise take a break, light up, and listen to some Grateful Dead. "Don't dominate the rap, Jack, unless you have something new to say".

    So Kostas, my cyber friend, "and the empirical evidence is..."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chris my fickle friend,

      Why don't you tell us what your 'fact based explanations' are about Silbury Hill?

      Can't wait …

      Kostas

      Delete
  13. Robert,

    The archeologists did not report any natural deposits because they were not looking for natural deposits. Had already formed the firm and unquestioned conclusion the Hill was man made.

    It's hard to see the sunrise if you keep looking towards the west!

    As for the chalk lumps would be mixed with other 'melt water' material like stones, soil and sand that's exactly what we have with the Stonehenge Layer! But there could be variations depending on whether the deposits were mixed in and whether each new layer was deposited on top of existing layers (as we see in river embankments) and was mainly of soil or chalk, etc. Certainly, a meltwater stream coming down from the mountains will carry more soil than one coming from the chalk hills in the area.

    Why don't you present us YOUR evidence that uncontroversially prove Silbury Hill was man made?

    But please, enough of taking from other cultures!

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  14. Kostas

    That is a rather 'contemptuous' statement - if there was water deposits in the layer they would have found it. If they found something they could not identify or were unsure then you may have a point - but they didn't.

    I have never questioned anything found by archaeologists, only their interpretation of how that fits our history. Hence I accept man-made layers as found by these archaeologist, but as they only had 2 to 3 points in the structure to view these layers I can question the shape of the layer, quite legitimately. Hence all my hypothesis are based on scientific facts!

    Clearly, your are based on unsubstantiated 'ideas'.

    I will only carry on this conversation if you find real qualified evidence.

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  15. Robert,

    So you can't point to any evidence that proves Silbury Hill is man made! Other than saying the Archeologists say so!

    That's quite a turn around Robert coming from you!

    The simple truth is that a mount like that can also be made by Nature. How the layers look or what's in them is besides the point. Nothing in the 'facts in the ground' prove Silbury Hill could only have been made by man.

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  16. Dear Kostas,
    Did you hear of wikipedia? There is a decent well edited article there with lots of links to evidence for human agency in the building of Silbury and the other remains around Avebury.

    When you believe that Silbury is the result of natural forces you are likely the only person in the world who believes this. You might even be right, but the onus is on you to come up with some evidence, even a tiny bit of evidence would help. There are open minds all around.

    I suppose we could also debate that the earth is flat, or that the moon is made of green cheese. You would be the first to demand that such a person advance some evidence.

    This is also my last word on this subject (I hope).

    ReplyDelete
  17. Chris,

    All the articles I read on Silbury Hill and all other prehistoric sites (including Stonehenge) assume 'human agency'. I have yet to read an article that makes the case for 'human agency', however. Yet, in my humble opinion, this is the key question that no one is asking – except me!

    But if you know of any such articles or discussions, please send me the links and references. I am very interested in considering what arguments support this presupposition that Brian calls 'self-evident'. Self-evident is an assumption we don't question. It's what underlies religious zeal as well as logical theories.

    Certainly, a 'catch all' reasoning like 'intentionality' of people whose intentions we know nothing about can be used to explain anything -- through 'made up stories' that add to the narrative but not to the truth.

    If we are to be intellectually honest with our understanding of these prehistoric sites, we need to deeply question our premises. Don't you think? Don't you want to know the Truth? And what evidence supports the 'human agency' hypothesis excluding all other sensible and more natural explanations?

    You, and others, keep asking me for 'evidence' for my 'natural agency' hypothesis. And I keep providing many examples of how my 'working hypothesis' is able to explain the 'facts on the ground' in the most minute detail. The 'evidence' for any hypothesis is in the explanations it enables for the evidence. In a simple, sensible and consistent theory. I have done that! Repeatedly!

    If I had 'photos' of the prehistoric landscape of Salisbury Plain covered in ice with meltwater retaining basins here and there, I would provide that. But then we would not be talking about 'hypothesis' but about 'fact'.

    Asking for such 'photo finish' evidence in defense of my theory is a defensive through-back position in an argument when my arguments cannot be directly assailed.

    If you like to examine specific details of the 'facts on the ground' and compare my explanations of these with established explanations, that would be very productive.

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "A hypothesis (from Greek ὑπόθεσις; plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. The term derives from the Greek, ὑποτιθέναι – hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose". For a hypothesis to be put forward as a 'scientific hypothesis', the scientific method requires that one can test it."

      As you have no evidence, you can't test your 'Hypothesis' therefore by definition you have not a hypothesis but an 'idea'.

      RJL

      Delete
    2. Ah Robert!

      ... there you go again telling me the true meaning of words in my own native language! Trust me when I tell you I know deeply and originally what the word 'hypothesis' means! And it is very different from 'idea'! Another Greek word!

      Why don't we put forth 'side by side' our explanations of specific 'facts on the ground'! You using your 'human agency' hypothesis and me using my 'natural agency' hypothesis. And compare them for simplicity, sensibility and consistency.

      Consider it a challenge! Put up or shut up! But if your intent is to stir up controversy for greater site traffic, you don't need to resort to such silly tactics. The subject matter and my 'unique' view is more controversy than you can handle!

      Kostas

      Delete
  18. Kostas,
    I agree we need to keep on questioning our premises. Recently I made a mistake myself by relying on 2002 consensus for dating the red lady. Science is moving on. Fortunately I was able to correct my mistake by doing further research and listening to others.

    The fascinating aspect of pre-history is that it is pre-. Almost all facts are open to challenge. Most of us are trying to find a narrative that makes sense, figure out what to check next, and are flexible enough to modify when new "data" occurs.

    However in the case of your theory I am not able to take it seriously. It does not fit my criteria for "rational plausibility". For one thing there are no basins around stonehenge or avebury so your theory falls apart at the beginning. Secondly you give zero evidence for such phenomena having happened naturally elsewhere. The onus is on you to put up or shut up. And yes, I did read most of your web site. The "sensible theory" is human agency and not your nonsense.

    This kind of controversy is not good for Robert's site. It looks like a guy with "rational plausibility" arguing with a nut-case - you being the nut-case. Should it carry on much longer I will be deleting the site from my bookmarks. I am beginning to think you are a cyber-troll, devoted to disrupting the serious intent of others. You are smarter than most, and you know your stuff, but I am not surprised that others have blocked your contributions.

    The clock is ticking, Kostas. Either eat some humble pie or come up with some evidence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you pointing out that Kostas is the 'nut-case' in this argument ;-)

      RJL

      Delete
  19. Chris,

    For a moment I thought we had the beginnings of an honest well-reasoned discussion! Still I am hopeful we can … but name calling will not take us any closer to the truth. And that is all that matters. Don't you agree?

    You write, 'I agree we need to keep on questioning our premises … Almost all facts are open to challenge.'

    The most fundamental of all premises in this case is 'human agency'. Are you able to question that premise? If so, that's what I am doing. If not, then acknowledge your Belief on 'human agency' but not the Fact of 'human agency'. Only objective reason can determine what is true for everyone.

    You write, ' Most of us are trying to find a narrative that makes sense'

    I too am interested on explanations that 'make sense'. But if the underlying assumptions of a narrative are already false, anything built on that foundation cannot be true. Most of what I have read on prehistoric monuments don't make sense to me. And no amount of verbal abuse and name calling can change that. Only well reasoned explanations that are sensible and consistent can. Provide me with some!

    You write, 'However in the case of your theory I am not able to take it seriously. It does not fit my criteria for "rational plausibility".'

    Of course if you don't take my theory seriously you wont see the truth in it. It's a self-fulfilling filter. As for “rational plausibility” why don't you try me! What exactly are you looking for? Falsifiability? I have exchanged with Geo Cur extensively on this.

    If you believe in the "rational plausibility" of Robert's waterways at the time when Stonehenge was made, how improbable is it that these waterways (supposedly carrying boats loaded with bluestones ) may have in fact been frozen at the time? We know from scientific records a deep freeze occured lasting some 2000 years some 10,000 years ago.

    Does an ice cover of Salisbury Plain at the time lack “rational plausibility”? Does water freeze? Is it something else you are looking for? What? Please tell! But please refrain from blanket accusations and abuse. Such personal attacks only reflect weakness in your arguments.

    You write, 'For one thing there are no basins around stonehenge or avebury so your theory falls apart at the beginning.'

    This statement reflect total misunderstanding of my theory! No wonder it does not make sense to you. The 'meltwater retaining basins' existed in the ice while the area was covered by a local ice sheet some 10K years ago (think of it as Robert's frozen waterways!). When all the ice melted, these basins will also melt away.

    You write, 'Secondly you give zero evidence for such phenomena having happened naturally elsewhere.'

    Do rivers and lakes and other waterways (like Bristol Channel) exist? Can these freeze when the temperature drops far enough below freezing for a sustained period of time? What phenomena I am claiming happened does not naturally happen? But if you are looking for photos of prehistoric Salisbury Plain covered in ice, such direct evidence I confess I do not have. Perhaps Robert may provide us with photos of his waterways! Or archeologists can provide us with snap shots of prehistoric people dragging sarsens on the ground. Or the same criteria do not apply to narratives that suit you! Confess it's all Belief and I will not dispute you!

    You write, '...you being the nut-case....'

    Now you are getting emotional and personal! Not a good sign for a rational discussion. I will not take such comments personally, however! They are ' disrupting the serious intent of others'.

    You write, 'The clock is ticking, Kostas.'

    Chris, there is no expiration date on Truth!

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  20. There is no definite proof that electricity works, he said while switching on his lights. And indeed there may be a better explanation than those currently taught in school.

    I'll be digging further into Robert's theory about waterways in the coming weeks. For now he is teaching me stuff I did not know and stimulating my brain. On a rare occasion I tell him stuff he did not know - which is what dialogue is all about. I suspect neither he or I care whether I buy into his theories completely or partially or not at all.

    You see truth as an absolute. I do not. We live in a time of uncertainty. Only religious fanatics see the truth, the rest of us are indeed content to make up stories that fit the facts as we perceive them. I will know the truth of the afterlife after I am dead and not before.

    Come up with some evidence, Kostas. Your postulation: "look at the Bristol Channel and, lo and behold, you will see the revelation that Stonehenge and Avebury are the result of natural forces" - this just does not work for me.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Chris,

    I do not recognize anything of what I actually said reading your response to what you thought I said!

    Clearly we are not communicating! Let me try again, with very specific points and ask your specific response:

    Concerning “rational plausibility”:

    1)Do you think it is not plausible vast waterways (lakes, rivers, channels etc.) formed after the rapid meltdown of the glaciers?

    2)Do you think it is not plausible these waterways froze solid during the 'deep freeze' that quickly followed the rapid meltdown around 8500BC?

    3)Do you think it is not plausible such local ice sheet may have covered Salisbury Plain?

    4)Do you think it is not plausible ice holes and meltwater retaining basins formed in the local ice cover of Salisbury Plain when the ice started melting again?

    5)Do you think it is not plausible erratics were entrained on the surface of such local ice cover and slowly transported by natural forces (gravity!) near the ice holes?

    6)Do you think it is not plausible local prehistoric people may have pushed these sarsens over the circular ice rim and 'dropped the stones from above'? (rather than dragging them on the ground!)

    7)Do you think it is not plausible many (not all) of the sarsens 'dropped from above' would stick and embed into the muddy chalk bedrock below and thus be 'cemented' in place to stay erect for millenniums, forming the circular concentric design we see at such places?

    This is just one plausible 'natural agency' scenario. There may be others. But this possibility should at least give 'rational credibility' to question the 'human agency' assumption! No open and honest debate on Stonehenge can be complete excluding the 'natural agency' hypothesis. So instead of verbal indignations and blanket accusations, lets have a well reasoned and mutually respectful debate!

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kostas

      I'm happy up to number 4 - sadly your premise with 'ice holes' is general rather than specific as you are asking melt water to cut 30 holes of unequal length and distance in a perfect circle. Which clearly is a contradiction perfect circle of imperfect holes, which if cut by water, by its very nature would be round not irregular or flat.

      Show us evidence of 'ice holes' elsewhere in the world and we can move on to number 5.

      Also you forgot the perfect ditch circle with the imperfect and irregular ditch depths including walkways - why did they not end up as 30 holes like the Sarsen circle - a lack of 'natural' consistency?

      RJL

      Delete
  22. Robert,

    Glad to address your objections re: the formation of ice holes / retaining basins in the ice cover. We may finally be having a productive discussion!

    Brian has posted an example (currently happening in the glaciers in Peru) of not only the circular ice holes/retaining basin but also the 'meltwater channel' (the Avenue) from it. Check the following link:

    http://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2011/11/now-for-something-very-strange.html

    In the photo you will also notice two smaller circular ice holes near by!

    How such ice holes may form may be debated. That they do form is beyond question. Perhaps also they may form in several different ways. One mechanism I suggested may be especially relevant to Salisbury Plain is this:

    When the ice cover started to melt, at places where there was a huge erratic or perhaps a cove of smaller erratics the stones may have helped accelerate the process of melting and the ice started to melt at such places more rapidly first. With the expanding pool of meltwater forming at the base of these stones, the melting expanded radially forming eventually circular holes which grow radially to even larger circular meltwater retaining basin.

    Certainly there would be many such ice holes formed this way in the ice cover landscape. It is also very relevant and interesting that in many henges and stone circles we have a cove of stones or a huge stone existing in the middle of them.

    These stones in the middle I argue started the melting process for the ice holes to form that finally resulted in these stone circles and henges. For Stonehenge, that initial key stone that may have started this process is the Altar Stone in my view.

    The mechanism I am suggesting is responsible for the formation of these ice retaining basins explains why there are stone erratics in the middle of henges and stone circles. Know of any other explanation for these? Human intentions you say? What is the evidence? More made up stories!

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kostas

      I have no problem that ice make melted circles - if a large Stonehenge dent was in the ground and you told me its due to melt water - no problem. Its the individual holes within the 'round dent' that's the problem or the round ditch cutting, moving the soil one way as at Avebury or both ways as Stonehenge - you need to address this point before moving on to Alter stones!

      RJL

      Delete
  23. Robert,

    Not sure I know exactly what 'individual holes within' your are referring to. Do you mean the Aubrey holes and the like? If that's what you are referring to there is a simple and sensible explanation for them consistent with my overall theory.

    Consider meltwater falls cascading all around down the circular ice rim of a basin. Clearly these waterfalls at times will form individual narrow water jets falling and each forming a hole in the chalk bedrock where they fall. And as the basin rim expands radially outward, a new 'circle of holes' will form (depending of course on the size and torrent of the meltwater streams at any particular such episode).

    The same mechanism would explain why the outer circle ditch is 'segmented' to various depths and widths. All these in my view reflect the characteristics of the meltwater streams cascading down over the circular ice rim. And if on the outside of the ditch so formed we have the ground covered by ice while on the inside of the ditch we have water splatter and turbulence, the soil embankment so formed will be on the inside of the ditch. But of course variations to this will exist at places depending on particular circumstances and features. If, for example, the ice retreats further the embankment now that may occur by the simple deposition of soil will be on the 'outside' of the previously formed ditch.

    I can go on and explain in this fashion the Avenue side gullies and embankments, as well as the parallel stripes formed by the resulting water stream flowing down the Avenue and draining into the Avon River. But we had that discussion before. So unless you want it repeated here I will refrain.

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kostas

      "will form individual narrow water jets falling and each forming a hole"

      Really, news to me. So you have 56 water jets from water falls. These will be perfectly round as would be the base as the 'nature' of water is even and constant, unlike made made holes that are random and sharp and inconsistent.

      The evidence of the holes show therefore 'man-made' as they are all diffident in depth size and structure. As for the 'same mechanism' would made the ditch - if it was the same surely it would make these holes you describe and not a ditch - let alone a ring of 56 holes then a ring of 30 holes then a crescent of 10 holes not in a circle this time - how does that work with the natural flow of water??

      Can you show us an example of this waterfall hole cutting elsewhere in the world, where it is shown to be cut by water? If not, lets forget this nonsense of an 'idea' and get back to reality.

      RJL

      Delete
  24. I get stuck on point 1 - there is no sign of rapid melting of glaciers around Stonehenge. Actually no sign of glaciers.

    "Rational plausibility" implies taking the view of subject experts seriously. I am not a glaciologist or geomorphologist or even a geographer. You have been discussing with people who are experts and failed to convince them in the slightest - this is good enough for me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chris,

      When glaciers melt meltwater flows every which way down!

      We do not need glaciers at Salisbury Plain to have meltwater waterways at Salisbury Plain. Or you need to ask 'experts' to tell you that!

      The more you deny your own 'senses' and rely on 'experts' instead, the more you become 'senseless'. We all have the responsibility to 'think for ourselves'. It's what makes us human!

      You write,
      ' You have been discussing with people who are experts and failed to convince them in the slightest'

      I could also be Galileo talking with the Pope!

      Kostas

      Delete
  25. Robert,

    Let me try one more time to explain the obvious!

    From your 'made up stories' and your 'photoshop photos' I know you have an active imagination. So try to imagine this.

    We have a narrow jet-stream of meltwater falling over an ice rim from say 20 meters high down onto a chalk bedrock below.

    Question: Will the force of this water pounding continuously the chalk bedrock carve a 'pot hole' where it falls? And would the 'pot hole' be wider and deeper depending on the size, volume, force and duration of the water flow?

    Now imagine having many such (56?) water falls falling over a circular ice rim. Each carving a 'pot hole' in the chalk bedrock where it falls. And each such 'pot hole' varying some in size and position around the circle (or arc) of 'pot holes' carved. And as the basin grows and the ice rim widens over time, a new concentric circle or arc of holes will be carved into the bedrock with characteristics reflecting the particulars of each such episode.

    You write,
    'The evidence of the holes show therefore 'man-made' as they are all diffident in depth size and structure.'

    Of course! But this is not by the design of men, but by the design of Nature!

    If the characteristics of the waterfalls cascading down the ice rim change (and of course you would naturally expect them to change over time, as several narrow streams combine to form wider water falls) the water pounding below on the chalk will carve wider and more varied ditch segments. What we know is the case.

    Have I made myself clear? Or you need more help understanding this.

    Kostas

    (PS. Have you noticed your hits count rise? You devil you! I know what you are doing!)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kostas

      Sadly, lots of words with no substance, logic or evidence.

      RJL

      Delete
    2. Robert,

      Sadly, you have no argument that can stand the scrutiny of sensible reason. And so you resort to blanket denials and accusations. But blanket denials and accusations do not an argument make.

      Lets move on to more fantasy and 'made up stories' …

      Kostas

      Delete
  26. Galileo got into trouble for finding evidence and for having believers- I think you are safe Kostas. It would be a shame to lose you to the Inquisition.

    Galileo may have stayed out of trouble had he compromised with the Church and talked about a theory only. By insisting on his absolute "Truth" he made compromise impossible, and as we know it turns out he was wrong, as was the Church. Dogmatism is unattractive in both science and religion.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Chris,

    My comment on the Pope and Galileo was to only exemplify what you also agree in your comment , 'Dogmatism is unattractive in both science and religion.'

    The Dogma in the case of Stonehenge and other prehistoric sites is these are “man-made”. As I have sought to argue many times in the past, this is a belief! A 'self-evident' belief as Brian argues! But none the less an assumption we make and through which we interpret and explain all the evidence. Thus we are lead to 'make up stories' to explain the 'facts on the ground'. That's what archeologists are doing. That's what Robert is doing by inventing advanced lost civilizations.

    But these 'made up stories' change with every new evidence we consider. We rely exclusively on 'human intentions'. But we have no records to know anything about the intentions of prehistoric people. So we simply project our intentions onto this historical darkness. We ascribe to prehistoric people skills and capabilities we think they had. And an understanding of Nature we have.

    Such Dogma, dear Chris, cannot be 'enlightened from within'. Only through 'heretics' like me (and Rushdie) can the minds of closed minded 'true believers' open up. Sometimes at great personal peril, however.

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kostas

      Your not the same league as Rushdie, more David Ike

      RJL

      Delete
    2. Never said I was! The comment was about 'heretics' and not about me!

      Delete
  28. I tried to read Rushdie a few years ago, finished chapter 1 and never started chapter 2. The book went to landfill. I fear Kostas and Rushdie do have something in common, at least for me.

    I am worried about the "personal peril" you are feeling Kostas. Hopefully you wrote your "Rushdie" post while "tired and emotional" as the saying goes - in common parlance, "pissed as a newt". Surely the men in white coats are not knocking at your door! The perspective for people in UK who compare themselves with Napoleon, Galileo, or Rushdie is not likely to enlarge their spirit. Saying "I never did" won't help.

    I recommend NOT conducting experiments in your garden with metres high chalk blocks and pouring water on them from a 20 metre elevation to see if you can re-create rectangular holes. You might end up somewhere with no internet access. Please stay with us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. lol - very amusing!

      Its just gentle humour Kostas.

      RJL

      Delete
  29. Chris,

    Your lighthearted comments would be better received were you able to substantively address my arguments. Instead, your comments are nothing more than a clumsy attempt to mask your failure with personal smears. So typical! So disappointing! So belying of your 'open mindedness'!

    When you are ready to engage in a serious and respectful honest debate, be certain I will respond. For now, enjoy the school boy antics with your classmates!

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  30. I thought my post of March 5 was substantive, although short. I can make it even shorter: no evidence for glaciers around Stonehenge. See?

    Meltwater channels running over chalk would leave a very different impression on the landscape than do the Kennet or the Avon. No such evidence, ergo no meltwaters.

    Robert's theory makes more sense as a starting principle. There was a lot more water around after the ice age which found its way through the porous chalk to cause a high water table and navigable rivers.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Chris,

    An even shorter response!

    If you believe in Robert's waterways inundating Salisbury Plain, then think of my 'ice cover' as Robert's waterways frozen over! Not plausible enough? You do believe that water can freeze, don't you Chris?

    We know from scientific evidence around 8500BC temperatures plunged to a 'big freeze' that lasted some 1000 years.

    That's just one possible scenario. There are others.

    As to your point about water hoses carving 'square holes' in my backyard, the Aubrey holes are anything but square! Check them out before you commit to nonsense!

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  32. Kostas, it is difficult to work together on your problem when you misquote me. I will take it all in the light hearted spirit you intended. Let me know what shapes you create in your backyard experiment - circular would perhaps be best to convince the dogmatists in the archaeologic world of a link with the Aubrey holes. Using a hose might be a bit of cheat because I don't think the ancients had hoses - better to rely on natural forces. Good luck with it all!

    ReplyDelete
  33. Chris,

    The 'backyard experiment' with 'water hoses' carving 'square holes' in chalk blocks was your original idea! I wont dream of denying you that credit!

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  34. The plan you use above from http://www.avebury-web.co.uk is not a good or accurate one.

    The number of stones in the outer circle may number 100 or more, not 98.

    Stukeley showed 30 stones in both the northern and southern inner circles.

    Stukeley also shows inner inner circles of 12 stones within these. He had good evidence for these in the northern inner circle but far less in the southern. Smith found two more stones in this area in the 1800s, which will still be under the ground.

    Martin Papworth's 2003 geophysical survey shows 18 definite buried stones still existing in the eastern, most impoverished, sector. There may be two more in the private land south of the eastern entrance. There may be still more stones in the northern sector, no modern survey has been done.

    Smith shows 2 stones buried in the northern inner circle.

    This there may be at least as many as 22 stones that could be re-erected, possibly more.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Anon

    Its a interesting observation - do you have a reference to check or is this just observation?

    Sadly, Stukeley may be famous as he was one of the first but his sketches have the tenacity to exaggerate such as all the stones in the 'avenues' that did not exist even in his times.

    There is a Stukeley print at: http://saturniancosmology.org/gim.php one has 33 the other 28.

    Buried stones are not an indication of the original size and it seems no-one has done an conclusive study - so we can conjecture.

    The numbers 30 and 28 would make sense at indicated in the blog sun/moon, but happy to hear from people how have a connection for either 105, 27, 29 or 33 - which are the other alternatives.

    RJL

    ReplyDelete