Sunday, 11 March 2012

Belas Knap - Night of the Long Skulls

By Robert John Langdon

Archaeology has a history of treasure hunting and ignorance. This controversial view is best seen at a site I visited last weekend called Belas Knap in Gloucester.

Belas Knap - quite amazing how archaeologists have never seen it as a boat! 

It is one of the 'best preserved' Long Barrows in the country and that is the reason that I have left it so long to see!  I read 'best preserved' as 'completely remodelled' and to understand this statement you must know its history.


Excavations

1863 - 1865 Mr. Lauriston Winterbotham & Mr. Joseph C. Chamberlayne / Cham-Berlayne  Esq. (Land Owner) The first formal excavation of the barrow first took place between 1863 - 1864 and was carried out by Mr. L. Winterbotham. The work was continued in 1865 by  Joseph Chamberlayne who owned the land on which the barrow was located.   They initially discovered the remains of four skeletons including two skulls.  The remains of five children and one adult male skull were later found behind the false entrance a further 26 skeletons were discovered in the additional chambers. Animal bones were also discovered as was a small amount of pottery. Overall the exploration was conducted in the style of the time which was far less careful and detailed than would be the standard expected by modern archaeologists - this equates to a bunch of 'navvy' workmen with pickaxes and a grand plan to find buried treasure.  During the excavation it was also claimed that a circle of stones had been discovered within the mound along with a significant amount of ashes. It was this excavation that discovered the horns of the mound which, at some time in the past, had been filled in to conceal the false entrance.

Bellas Knap diagram shows the so called 'horns'



1890 Excavation and Restoration
Sadly, the original team left the site in a state of considerable disrepair and its initial restoration was carried out by Mrs Emma Dent of Sudeley Castle.  She employed a number of local men to rebuild the walls and it was during this time that Albert Potter of Winchcombe discovered a large horizontal stone supported by several uprights under which was a single skeleton that had been placed in a seated position with its elbows resting on its knees. The restoration carried out by Mrs Dent was meticulous and later archaeologists commented that it was difficult to distinguish between the original construction and the restorations - except it was different stone  of a different size.


The 'so called False' entrance


1928 - 1930 Sir James Berry & Mr. Wilfred James Hemp 
The excavation that took place between 1928 - 1930 re-examined the findings of the original study carried out in 1863.  From the report written by Wilfred Hemp it's clear to see that he was deeply upset by the poor records kept by Winterbotham and Chamberlayne and refers to the tomb as having been "violated".  Hemp was unable to rediscover the stone circle or the ashes.  However, he did discover the true shape and contour of the barrow which contributed significantly to the quality of its final restoration.  it was also during this excavation that the idea was put forward that the long barrow had actually been constructed to enclose and incorporate several pre-existing but smaller barrows from an earlier period - which can only be guess work as little of the original remained.


East side of Belas Knap showing the moat that surrounds the Long Barrow


So, its a well known tale of treasure hunting and restoring of an object that they had no blue print, just an idea of how it should have looked, based on a burial mound.  Therefore, you can see why I left it so long to visit.  But to my surprise there is enough left to 'reconstruct' the reconstruction and allow us to new insight and proof of our hypothesis.  As we have described in 'The Stonehenge Enigma' Long Barrows are boats to the afterlife, this Long Barrow gives us a clear indication of how the boats looked and designed with the 'galley' section to the rear of the boat, like canal long boats.

A view prior to the restoration showing the scale of destruction by treasure hunter s/archaeologists

A ditch is built around the construction, which would have filled with water, as at the time of construction the groundwater levels were higher than today.  As in the West Kennet Long Barrow the rear entrance would have housed chambers for the dead to be laid out - this is of the same design but the destruction, has lead later archaeologists to reconstruct these chambers to the side rather than through the centre as West Kennet. In the centre of this chamber there would have been, it seems, a stone circle as shown on the diagram and the bodies of the dead.




But the most interesting find from the site was its skulls for the Victorians who were great 'cranial' observers noticed that:

"Craniologists of the time used a ratio based on length and width measurements, known as the cranial index, to divide skulls into two basic types: 'dolichocephalic', long and narrow in shape, and 'brachycephalic', broad and round in shape. Based on his observations at sites like Belas Knap, Thurnam established his famous axiom, 'long barrows, long skulls; round barrows, round skulls'. The long skulls were found in long barrows and never in association with metallic artefacts, while round skulls were found in round barrows sometimes with metalwork"

British Archaeology Mag 2002: www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba63/feat3.shtm


Long Skulls with distinct eye ridges are Cro-Magnon


So we have this new correlation between Long Barrows and Cro-Magnon's and Round Barrows and WHO?

Well the dating of Long Barrows and Round Barrows has always been close in Archaeological estimates - the Long Barrow only goes back to 4000BC and the Round Barrow starts at 2500BC - just 1500 years and both in the Neolithic Period.

This left Victorian Archaeologists with a dilemma, for how was this possible, when it takes thousands if not tens of thousands of years to structurally alter human craniums?  

Well, archaeologists simply invent a war or a cultural invasion - why not, these are 'primitive savages' aren't they? - So job done, two different civilisation and two shown by two different skulls and two different building techniques.  UNFORTUNATELY, someone invented DNA linkages and found out that 80% of the population in Britain is 'Haplogroup' linked to Cro-Magnon man (the long heads).

Now if the original thery was right then the Cro-Magnon's (us) either had to run away somewhere and hide for a few thousand years (although cro-magnon's were 6'3" and the 'round heads 5' 4"), then came back when they went away (leaving no trace of these round heads) or the dates of Long Barrows are completely WRONG!!

The fact is that Cro-Magnon's existed 25,000 years ago and over these many years of adapting and cross breeding with other non-Cro-Magnon humans, changed their structure to what we see around us today is a clue that these Long Barrows are far older that current estimations.  Moreover, modern scientists have found that in the 'Neolithic Revolution' we shrank!!  The new agricultural diet and dairy products caused a massive change in our bodies and hence the smaller round heads are NOT invading forces - their US adapting to farming, which took many thousands of years, not 1500 years.

This means the original Cro-Magnon's found in Long Barrows are MESOLITHIC prior to the Neolithic farming revolution, and where have you heard it before - in my book 'The Stonehenge Enigma' that dates these sites by the post Ice Age ground water levels at 8500BC - 5000BC. Yet again more empirical evidence to support my hypothesis.




   RJL


(by Robert John Langdon)





56 comments:

  1. Thanks for another fascinating post.

    I confess giving up on phrenology many years ago as it seems to be a pseudo-science and the Victorians, despite best efforts, had been unable to establish meaningful differences bases on skull types.

    Still we have these puzzles about long skulls in long barrows, and why so few people were buried inside the barrows anyway. Maybe they were built by a tribe of long skulls, or maybe long skull people in the tribe were considered special for some long-forgotten innate ability that might qualify them to be shamans, say. Almost certainly the Victorians were not looking for this kind of link. Many other stories are also possible - a "Cro-Magnon" aristocracy being another.

    I thought you might be interested in a memory snippet. I recall that the long barrow skulls are a subset of dolichocephalic called kumbocephalic, which someone translated as "boat-shaped". So boat shaped skulls in boat shaped barrows. I tried to find a proper link without success, but perhaps with your interest in boats you already have the evidence on file instead of relying on the detritus in my round-head brain.

    It is also interesting that the chronology in Denmark seems to be the other way around - first round heads and then long heads - but again I am relying on my memory.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chris

      Thanks for your comments.

      I have not looked 'in depth' at other European sites yet, but work on going, so Denmark is to be reviewed. The boat shaped head connection, I have heard about, but concluded that the civilisation would have been branded 'the boat people' and hence all artefacts such as skulls accordingly.

      What I did not add in the article and is relevant to yourself, as we have been discussing 'the red lady' elsewhere, is the reason (and with myself, there is a reason for everything!!) the carbon dating was so far out. I think its because of contamination - in the Guardian Friday was an article about hundreds of cases will be dismissed as the lab doing the DNA testing was found to be using incorrect procedures.

      This rang a bell in my head about RC dating knowing that similar quarantine procedures is necessary on archaeological finds, to avoid contamination, which clearly would not the case in the 1960. Sadly this will mean the skulls found in this site could not be RC dated now because too many people have held and contaminated the samples.

      This may also be the reason Long Barrow RC dates are so 'recent' as we have found with the red lady as contamination seems to half the true date.

      RJL

      Delete
  2. Afterthought. There are instances of ethnic groups which have kept themselves separate over hundreds of years - Jews and Gypsies, to name but two, and why not include the Royal Families of Europe. It could be that Cro-magnons thought of themselves this way - after all with 20% more brain it might even have seemed sensible to them.

    If the Cro-Magnons were giants, as you say, and aristocrats as I suggest, then all this speculation might explain why we short round-heads took a delight in the giant-killing. And extrapolating, why GOM reports that the bluestones were moved to Stonehenge by the Giants - or Cro-Magnons.

    Time for some air!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chris

      I think you are quite correct in your analysis.

      There are groups of Cro-Magnon's that I believe did travel the world at the end of Doggerland - the classic is the royal blood line of the Pharaohs is now known to be northern European and therefore Cro-Magnon - this would explain the red hair found on some mummies and priests.

      Also in the bible we have the story of David and Goliath which my next book go into sum depth for theses giants suffer from polydactylism (6 fingers) and appear throughout history including in our own Royal family - six fingered Anne Boleyn who had quite a distinctive red haired queen.

      Perhaps she should have said "I have a heart of a king and the bloodline of a Cro-Magnon".

      RJL

      Delete
  3. Fully agree with you on contamination. Many RC samples were handled casually and even kept in shoe-boxes for years. The interesting aspect of the Oxford dating seems not that they discovered a new dating technology using C13 but they seem to have figured out how to limit the contamination effect. Still looking for a proper description, but I am thinking many dates should need revision and archaeologists need to behave even more like forensic police. Much of the dating evidence we have would not stand up in a court of law.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Robert you write,

    ' There are groups of Cro-Magnon's that I believe did travel the world at the end of Doggerland - the classic is the royal blood line of the Pharaohs is now known to be northern European and therefore Cro-Magnon'


    Isn't it more likely the 'Pharaohs blood line' migrated from Africa to Northern Europe? As has been the most accepted direction for the flow of human migration?

    It makes sense. As a particular region warms up and the ice melts making more available land for human habitation, humans moved in to occupy it!

    Once again your obsessive desire is skewing the flow of your logic backwards.

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  5. Kostas

    That Haplogroup (R1A1) group mutation does not originate in Africa. This can also be seen in blood types - African Hunter Gatherers are type O rhesus positive (99%) - Cro-Magnon's are rhesus negative AB due to the same mutation I suspect, in about 45,000BCE in Eastern Europe (Caspian Sea), were you will find rock paintings of hunters using papyrus boats for the first time.

    National Geographic genographic project has more information and must be suffering the same 'skewing logic' you seem to 'pontificate' on this blog site.

    You will be 'amused' to know the Greek aristocracy are also linked - Queen Cleopatra has Cro-Magnon blood, as she was part of the 'in breeding' Ptolemaic family.

    Get yourself checked out Kostas, you too could be 'one of us'!!

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  6. Robert,

    Africa is a large continent! There are many people in it! Sub-Saharan Africa is different from Egypt, for example. As for the Ptolemy Dynasty in Egypt with Cleopatra the last in that line, not Northern European at all! Rather, Greek Macedonians of Alexander's ancestry!

    But rest assured! I have always felt 'one of you'! It is the 'human race', as compared to Cro-Magnons or 'extraterrestrials' that some believe are responsible for civilization on earth! Nonsense!

    What binds us (or should bind all of us) together is our 'common humanity'. What often has divided us is an overemphasis on 'blood lines'! Hitler would be proud of you and your Cro-Magnon Aryan Race advocacy.

    Eugenics is a weakness, Robert! Not a strength!

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kostas

      Master of the understatement!

      Sadly, as always, lots of words with little substance. A word of advice though, if you have nothing to say - say nothing.

      You remind me, too much, of my ex-Greek wife who talk a lot and said nothing of interest. Moreover, she (like you) just had to have the last word in every conversation!

      RJL

      Delete
  7. Robert,

    Sorry about your Greek ex. I had one of those myself! But don't take your angst out on me!

    I am sure you were always right and she was always wrong!

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  8. Very interesting point Robert on the R1A1. Do you want to elaborate on 43k BCE genetic change?

    I am still married to my first wife who is not Greek, so I cannot comment on Greek wives. I did spend a long time in Greece when it was ruled by the military and in those days attractive Greek women were locked away. Had I flirted with one I might have had my throat cut. I did notice the males were very uninterested in all the history I kept tripping over - the evidence - more concerned with alcohol, olives, and fish. Seemed quite civilized at the time, although there were no banks, no cash money - how history repeats itself.

    The Greek women I did meet were older, dressed head-to-foot in black, and armed with birch twigs for beating foreigners showing naked flesh and otherwise used presumably for sweeping up. So I admire you both for having selected Greek wives and think it was likely wise to move on before they got old and started on the birching.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Kostas, I made a mistake above. It was not the foreigners they used to sweep up, they did this themselves with the birch brooms. I know you take my remarks in earnest, so I wanted to make this clarification.

    Looking forward to more inputs on R1A1.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Chris

    With regard to Greek wife - lets let sleeping dogs lay ;-)

    The cross mutation between Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens in 45k BCE is the basis for the new book and many tens of thousands of words of key evidence - but the Cro-Magnon offspring is the key aspect.

    The question is were did it happen - this is linked to the change of 'tool kits' from the traditional Neanderthal 'large and bulky' style to the small and intricate style of the 'mutations' with much more delicate hands and six fingers (don't wont to give too much of the book away, before publication in June), but from the cave and cliff paintings (you need delicate hands to paint), the Caspian Sea stands out as the best prospect to be 'the cradle of modern man'.

    The migration patterns of the 'wave' that DNA maps show entered Europe, can be seen via the waterways and hence all palaeolithic sites are either on or by the waterways, like Stonehenge, Avebury etc and so are the early European Mesolithic villages in France, Germany, Denmark and Scandinavia - which become later trading points.

    The rivers (initially)took them to the South of France and Northern Spain and finally, after the Ice had melted in Northern Europe, through the same river ways to the Rhine and north to Doggerland, following the herds that needed pasture rather than forest that overtook central Europe.

    The Long Barrows you see in this blog are of interest as Long Barrows are only found in the location of the Northern Ice Cap (and the answer is NO Kostas, their made by Cro_Magnon's) for the pastures would have taken over from the tundra after the Ice had swamped the land, leaving a perfect 'wet' environment for a boat civilisation following the livestock - hence the end of Neanderthals who did not swim, make boats or climb trees - a further proof of Darwinian 'survival of the fittest' principle by mutation.

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ah, so you think Cro-Magnon is an off-shoot of Neanderthal - it makes some kind of sense and I look forward to your book. I hope it is available for Ibooks so I can read it on my next iPad.

    On tools, I was really impressed in Dordogne to see the massive and beautiful spear heads. Very impressive compared to the beautiful but tiny mesolithic arrow heads I am used to picking up in the field. Anything to do with the difference between big game hunting and chasing deer/water birds do you think?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chris

      I take it your talking about the antler spears - otherwise I missed something - sign of 'constructive multi-dimensional thinking'. Dr Bronowski always said that man was unique not because he could think of science or art, but both - the antlers are an example of that philosophy.

      The microlith is the 'signature' of the cro-magnon as it represents his advanced intelligence. As an archer, I understand the need for aerodynamics to aim true and straight - these 'composite' arrows are razor sharp - spears do not kill animals quickly - blood loss is the key to hunting, so Neanderthals needed lots of men and spears to hit the target and by luck sometimes the main artery, that will slow down and kill the animal - lions go for the jugular on the neck, with their razor sharp teeth and cro-magnon's watched and respected their adversaries and learned.

      The microlith spears are made to cut the animal at the point of his exposed arteries - the neck, bring a kill within minutes rather than hours. The balance is precise and allows the arrow to spin giving it true fight - like a dart. The biconvex bow he constructed from two-woods, allowed him to shoot with accuracy up to 500m (far greater than any Agincourt bowmen) and the bow was fitted with a 'silencer' that allowed him another chance if he missed the target.

      I will be selling the book on the new web site via ibook downloads.

      RJL

      Delete
    2. I was actually thinking of the massive flint weapons I saw 20 years ago in the museum at Les Eyzies in Dordogne. They were up to a foot in length, must have weighed a substantial amount and looked very sharp and deadly. My thought at the time is that they would have been used to thrust into very large animals (Mammoth?) or perhaps attached to a throwing spear. It would have taken a strong man to use it, or maybe they had some kind of catapult for use when the beast came into range.

      Thanks for your explanation on the microliths - I had not seen this possibility. They would have had to shoot from distance to bring down a red deer and be incredibly accurate. This is difficult enough to do with a rifle. Perhaps they preferred to lure them to a killing zone (circle of stone or wood?) - just speculating.

      Delete
    3. Chris

      No I've not seen these objects - I need to visit the museum at Les Eyzies ASAP - thanks for the info.

      Perhaps they're Neanderthal if they are of large statute? but who knows early harpoons for whales, they don't sound like a 'subtle' weapon.

      RJL

      Delete
  12. Robert,

    Where is the evidence for this great prehistoric civilization of cro-magnons? Can't make this stuff up! We need irrefutable records for the existence of such civilization left behind by the people themselves. Not 'made up stories' by 'fictional archeologists'.

    deception: dressing lies with truths

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kostas

      Did you not read the blog connected to the comments section - or are you just looking for an argument and skipped the top of the page?

      The builders of Long Barrows are Cro-Magnon's - now you need to ask yourself, what kind of organisation and structure is needed to put not just one barrow, but thousands of barrows on hillsides throughout Europe?

      And within those thoughts - so long they are well pondered, will be the answer to your question.

      RJL

      Delete
  13. Robert,

    Thank you for clarifying what I have always suspected!

    1) Long Barrows are built by men.
    2) To built all the Long Barrows, you need a skilled, organized and motivated civilization.
    3) Long Barrows exist.
    Therefore,
    4) The prehistoric civilization that built them existed.

    Circular reasoning! End of the story!

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  14. Chris,

    Instead of denigrating old Greek women (a new low even for you) why don't you respond responsibly to my question. Let me repeat it.

    “Based on the Laws of Nature (and not men), is it 'rationally plausible' Robert's vast waterways covering Salisbury Plain were frozen during the big freeze around 8500BC?”


    As for R1A1, I have nothing to say. Robert can argue all he wants about cro-magnons and he may be right. But lacking evidence of their supposed civilization, they could just as convincingly be wizards.

    Eureka! Cro-magnons moved megaliths with their minds!

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  15. I am pondering the several interesting things Robert told me yesterday and I have work to do. I don't have time to go into your question, Kostas. At first sight it is far from simple:
    1) definition of laws, and the subset you wish me to pay attention to
    2) detailed understanding of Robert's theory and the big freeze
    So I'll be saying "Don't know" for now.
    Pity you don't like my sense of humor. Not taking myself too seriously helps my day go around - you should try it sometime.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Chris,

    It's not 'truth' I am asking you to confirm. Just 'rational plausibility'. Since in the past you denied my hypothesis as being plausible. Your reluctance to even agree to so little says so much! Simple truth has a way of making things complicated for people that cannot accept it as true.

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  17. Chris,

    Here is a quote that appeared in Brian's blog with relevance to our discussion re: frozen waterways.

    Fitch and Gaffney 2011: "With the onset of the Younger Dryas (10,800-10,000 BP) Britain experienced climate deterioration. The GISP-2 ice-core data suggests a rapid fall in mean temperatures of up to 7 degrees C (Barton 1999; Atkinson et al 1987). This cold, wet climate would have led to significant snow falls which fed localised glaciers in Scotland and north Wales (Alley et al 1993). There is limited evidence of human activity for this period, and it is possible that Britain was abandoned for a period around this time (circa 10,500BP)."

    (http://brian-mountainman.blogspot.com/2012/02/pembrokeshires-last-glacier.html , Brian John's comment on 11 February 2012 22:16)

    Just 2 degrees drop in the global mean temperature is enough to engulf the Northern Hemisphere in ice. Here we have 7 degrees rapid drop of global mean temperatures.

    Still feel my hypothesis of a local ice cover of Salisbury Plain (Robert's frozen waterways?) lacks 'rational plausibility'? But the quote above should raise new concerns about Robert's boat people civilization thriving in the UK at that time!

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kostas

      This claim has already been discussed and dismissed elsewhere!

      The date you give coincides with the date for Star Carr in Yorkshire which had a thriving community and have found 'paddles' RCD's for this period showing that the waters of Eastern England were far from frozen as suggested by the Ice Core Data.

      As for the 'limited human activity', as the population was only about 5,000 to 10,000 it would be no surprise that pockets of land would be (and still are with a population of 60 Million) not habitable at any point in prehistory.

      But the real fundamental flaw in your logic is that you claim that 'Britain was abandoned' but yet 'someone' pushed these stones on the holes made by your ice 'waterfalls'. So you need to have a melt after the ice age for the rivers, a freeze to allow these ice rivers, a melt to make the Stonehenge holes, then another freeze as you need to move the stones to the holes with humans (who abandoned Britain - but came back just to push the stones), followed by another melt - all not effecting Star Carr just 600 miles away and only showing as one 'mini ice age' on ice core data.

      And this is the sum total of your 'empirical evidence'?

      What absolute nonsense.

      RJL

      Delete
  18. I am sure Robert knows a lot more than I do about climate conditions pertaining around Avebury/Stonehenge in the Younger Dryas and especially 8500BC which seems to be a key date in your theory for some reason unknown to me. Perhaps you better ask him.

    My own knowledge is limited and perhaps out of date. In my mental model the average summer daytime temperature in southern england would have been around 10-12 C at the coldest period of the Younger Dryas (1000 years earlier than your date, warmer in 8500 BC). It was cold enough in Scotland for the glaciers to grow again, but in Wiltshire the picture would have been one of hard winters and spring thaws but not on the scale to carve meltwater valleys because there are none. It is likely that water table would have been very high at the end of the period which I suppose is one of the baselines for Robert's theory of big rivers and why he has some plausibility.

    I think the onus is on you, Kostas, to educate me about the climatic conditions surrounding your theory, and I would feel more comfortable when you can cite recent academic research to support your view and evidence on the ground.. There is a huge amount of research available especially now climate research is high on the agenda but I have neither the time nor the inclination to study it. I would love to learn more when you do the serious work.

    When your theory rests on a hypothesis that there were ice sheets in Wiltshire in 8500BC then you have to prove it. You might start by defining an "ice sheet" - I have my garden pond in my mind, or perhaps our local lake that freezes in winter so we can go skating. Glaciologists also talk about ice sheets too but I am never quite sure what they mean beyond permanent ice cover - which as I said, does not apply to Wiltshire. What do you mean?

    As you embark on your mission, I give you a word of warning or perhaps encouragement. Relying on Greenland Ice Cores is not going to convince - the research being done all over the world is producing many local anomalies and seeing nobody is sure why the Younger Dryas happened even; everybody is fishing in the dark and so you might as well join them, but you will need more evidence than you have produced to date.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Robert, your post crossed mine. Nothing much to add other than there is plenty of modern day evidence for people living in conditions similar to the Younger Dryas as I imagine it. The notion that Britain was abandoned is simplistic.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Robert,

    The quote in my last post is not mine, but came from a scientific article by Fitch and Gaffney 2011 that Brian had posted in his blog. My only purpose for referencing it is to demonstrate to our friend Chris there is ample “rational plausibility” for my working hypothesis of a local ice cover of Salisbury Plain found in the scientific literature.

    But I think you are beginning to 'get it'! Yes, first there was the rapid meltdown of the glaciers (forming vast waterways), soon followed by freezing temperatures during the Younger Dryas (10,800-10,000 BP), followed by a sustained period of warming temperatures (up to the present) which of course would have melted the ice once again.

    I believe the 'local ice sheet' covering Salisbury Plain occurred during the Younger Dryas. While the melting of this ice cover happened sometime latter when the weather got warm again. The forming of the 'ice holes' in the ice cover of course happened during this warmer period and after the Younger Dryas.

    We agree the dates given in the literature can be questioned and can change by new dating techniques, as they have! My theory does not depend so much on the exact dates, however, as on the conditions of the landscape, whenever that occurred.

    As for the population of the UK during the Mesolithic, I also believe there were people around when the weather got warmer and the ice began to melt again after the Younger Dryas. But whereas my theory is viable with just a small local population, hard to argue your great civilization of boat people could have existed with just 5000 of them in the entire UK all struggling to survive.

    What absolute nonsense.

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  21. Kostas

    Read my comments again - slowly and carefully - you are an ice short - meet your criteria you need 3 ice ages NOT 2 but your in-depth analysis of your OWN hypothesis would have revealed that - doesn't it?

    Moreover, you have NOT indicated how this process was repeated for phase II (Sarsens) and phase III (the horseshoe) so that's nine ice ages - eight after the last maxium - which are not on the ice cores.

    Furthermore, 'I also believe there were people around when the weather got warmer' well thats no good to your 'idea' they need to be there to push around the stones - on three occasions.

    In conclusion - absolute nonsense, of such simplistic nature, I no longer am willing to discuss such rubbish.

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  22. Robert and Chris,

    The scientific studies I have referenced had only one objective in mind. Showing 'rational plausibility' for the existence of an ice cover of Salisbury Plain. It wasn't my indention of 'proving' such ice cover. There is certainly much discussion and much uncertainty about all of this among scientists that research all of that. But whereas glacier advance to an area leaves behind much evidence, 'local ice sheets' do not. Since these form in place and melt in place without any ice flow. That is what I believe we have with Salisbury Plain. No evidence of glacier advance into Salisbury Plain. Yet Salisbury Plain may nonetheless had been covered by ice.

    So my 'working hypothesis' that Salisbury Plain was covered by ice cannot be ruled out. But the explanations this hypothesis provides for all the many details of the 'facts on the ground' at Stonehenge and elsewhere makes a convincing case for such ice cover. As is often so with any hypothesis, its 'proof' is in the explanations it enables for the evidence.

    Robert, how does your theory explain why Stonehenge and so many of the other prehistoric monuments were left incomplete, for example?

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kostas

      Name one complete prehistoric site - you can even choose Roman sites in any country?

      RJL

      Delete
  23. Robert

    Are you suggesting that Kostas is a ice age short of a theory?

    LOL !!

    ReplyDelete
  24. Robert you write,

    'Name one complete prehistoric site'

    First, that wasn't my question. I asked for your explanation why prehistoric sites are incomplete. I have an explanation. Do you?

    Second, if you agree there are no complete (and not just ruinous) prehistoric sites (I can't say that for sure since I don't know) that fits my theory of 'natural agency' and contradicts your 'human agency' theory.

    Third, if your advanced prehistoric civilization was able to built boats and circumnavigate the globe and move megaliths and built with megaliths using dug up foundations, lintels and other advanced building methods, why didn't they complete monuments they spend so much time and human resources building (or not!)?

    Every which way we look at this Robert, all reasoning leads back to my hypothesis!

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kostas

      The premise of your argument like your 'ideas' are fundamentally flawed.

      How do you distinguish between incomplete and ruined?

      Are the pyramids, incomplete or ruined - no one alive has ever seen them complete and there is no written evidence that the outer marble exterior as seen at the top of the pyramid was ever completed without gaps. These monuments were constructed by a civilisation that used boats to build their monuments - so how does that fit the 'natural agency' idea?

      More complete nonsense.

      RJL

      Delete
  25. Anon,

    Robert's theory is an ice age too many since his boat waterways were frozen!

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  26. Kostas, you would be expelled from Socrates school for the quality of your reasoning. "I have an idea that is not proven, maybe not true, but which I nevertheless advance as a refutation of other theories that are based on facts". Do us all a favour mate and return to your drawing board.

    Your sophistry is lame. I was hoping to learn something from you about the context in the Younger Dryas in Wiltshire. Disappointed.

    And while you are on the subject of nature and humankind. Which is more likely to make something that is complete? Answer: Nature, as I observe every day. People make things that are incomplete and so, by your own logic, people built all the incomplete ancient monuments. Whoopee! Maybe Socrates will give me a grape.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Robert you write,

    'How do you distinguish between incomplete and ruined?'


    So you have problems seeing the difference between incomplete monuments and ruined monuments! Interesting!

    Yet you are able to reconstruct a whole prehistoric civilization that was able to circumnavigate the world from a small wooden plank with a suspect clean notch cut into it!

    Let me help you a bit here. If we have foundations that are complete all around but some sections of the walls are missing we can be rather certain the building was competed. If we have historical records and descriptions of the monument by people that have seen it complete, or have names of the architects or rulers that build it we will also know the monument was completed. Prime examples: the Greek Parthenon; the Roman Colosseum; the Great Pyramids.

    In the case of Stonehenge, we have a whole quarter (the SW quarter) that is missing. But furthermore, there are no pits found in that section suggesting the stones were at one time there but have later been removed. Thus, Stonehenge was never completed and not simply ruined.

    You write,

    'These monuments were constructed by a civilisation that used boats to build their monuments - so how does that fit the 'natural agency' idea?'


    True! It doesn't! And that's the problem with your 'dreamboat theory'.

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kostas

      Who says its incomplete - you?

      Do you have a plan of works or is this another example of your flawed 'plausible reasoning' rubbish.

      Save you pennies and buy my book 'Dawn of the Lost Civilisation' out June 2012 £14.99 and get yourself an education. It contains diagrams and illustrations of the 'Stonehenge Temple' and guess what - it those 'missing' stone holes were not missing at all as it was a temple to the moon god, as its a memorial to the dead of Atlantis and is therefore in the shape of a crescent moon, which represents the afterlife.

      RJL

      Delete
  28. Robert,

    So not a Neolithic SPA as you once claimed? Instead we have a

    'Stonehenge Temple' and guess what - it those 'missing' stone holes were not missing at all as it was a temple to the moon god, as its a memorial to the dead of Atlantis and is therefore in the shape of a crescent moon, which represents the afterlife


    More 'made up stories'! Good for your book sales, bad for truth. Or truth does not matter in matters of Stonehenge?

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kostas

      Read the book get an education.

      Phase I 8500BC was a spa - 4000 years later a memorial, thats why its called Phase II.

      Keep up - neddy!

      RJL

      Delete
  29. Chris,

    Sorry I have upset you! Not my intention. But truth sometimes has that effect on 'true believers' in a false theory. The shriek in your comment is evidence of the strength of my arguments.

    'Completeness' is a 'human category'. It requires 'human intent'. Nature could care less about that! Anything Nature does is neither complete nor incomplete. It simply is! But when you argue for the mobilization of a 'great civilization' to a common public task, there is purpose and intention. The task is complete if the intended purpose is realized.

    You could still 'learn something' from me. But only if you have not already decided what that should be!

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  30. Kostas, you do not upset me. In turns I feel either concerned for you, amused, or frustrated. Please do not apologize.

    "Anything that nature does is neither complete nor incomplete. It simply is." = pure sophistry. Nice words signifying nothing.

    I never argued anything about mobilization of great civilizations, so here you are off into your fantasy world.

    Maybe I can learn from you and I have no idea what that might be after several months of listening. My mind is open for some facts and evidence - the rational half of rational plausibility, So far you have contributed nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Chris,

    You may not yourself have argued for the mobilization of a great civilization to build Stonehenge but Robert has. And you do agree with him, don't you, that Stonehenge was build by prehistoric people?

    For that to happen you need a great civilization with knowledge and skills to move megaliths and build with megaliths. You need social organization and a belief system to commit to great public projects that would consume vast resources and much human effort and time. You need 'intent' which can only be fulfilled if the building project is completed.

    Stonehenge was never completed. Many of the other prehistoric sites were never completed. Even Brian agrees with this and had long discussions in his blog about just this.

    This is a self-contradiction of the purported existence of a great prehistoric civilization with the skills and intent to built Stonehenge. Or prehistoric people just committed scarce resources towards futile tasks they never intended to complete, over and over again!

    Can you please help Robert understand the difference between “incomplete” and “ruined”? He seems to be a little confused about that. And that is leading him astray to a fantasy world of his own making.

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kostas

      Give us the benefit of your 'knowledge' and list me all the well known prehistoric buildings by category, 'Ruined' and 'Incomplete' with EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE to support your listing for each site.

      Or are you just talking nonsense again?

      RJL

      Delete
  32. Robert,

    You are presupposing the distinction between “ruined” and “incomplete” in your very question to me!

    That being the case, I am satisfied with that!

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  33. Kostas

    Yes, as in a 'ruined' ice sculpture theory and the 'incomplete' flawed logic, of which you have attempted to argue its (non existent) merits, over the past weeks.

    No more of this unqualified nonsense Kostas!!

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  34. Robert you ask,

    “… list me all the well known prehistoric buildings by category, 'Ruined' and 'Incomplete'”


    Since you asked for it ...

    A building is “ruined” if it was once complete and latter partially or wholly destroyed.

    A building is “incomplete” if it was never finished as to its original purpose and design, whether by intent or circumstance.

    In either case, we need 'human agency' to talk about a 'building'. Otherwise these categories do not apply.

    I believe in 'natural agency' ! Therefore these categories do not apply.

    But since you believe in 'human agency' perhaps you can list which prehistoric 'buildings' are 'ruins' and which are 'incomplete'. The list need not be extensive. One of each will suffice to draw a clear distinction between these two categories and what you mean by them.

    Of course, you can always 'make up stories' to make the incomplete complete!

    Crescent Temples! Get real! Where do you come up with fantasies like that! Hollywood or Harry Potter?

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  35. Was Stonehenge built by a great civilization or the "Lord of the Flies"? It seems a long way from Belas Knap.

    There is a good "ice sheet" definition on www.nsidc.org/cryoshpere/glaciers/questions/types.html
    At least this is way glaciologists see it, and it does not sound anything like conditions on Salisbury Plain in the Younger Dryas. There is a good discussion early Jan 2011 on Brian's site which describes the kind of seasonal snow cover that was in my mind when I wrote my post a few days ago.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Chris,

    Checked out the link in your last post. The article is talking about various types of glaciers. I concede Salisbury Plain may not have been glaciated in the manner described in the article. So no 'ice sheets' covering more than 50,000 sq kilometers like in Antarctica. In this assessment I am in line with most all other people except Brian.

    Though the non glaciation of Salisbury Plain during the last Ice Age is a big problem for Brian's 'glacier transport' theory, it has no bearing on mine! What I have been arguing all along is for a 'local ice sheet' covering Salisbury Plain. Think of a 'local ice sheet' a solidly frozen river or lake or sea channel. These are different from glaciers in that the ice sheet forms in place and melts in place without any ice flow or massive glacier advancement into an area that would leave behind ample evidence for glaciation of the area. Non exists in Salisbury Plain and that has been and continues to be Brian's Achilles Heel.

    For a 'local ice sheet' to form (of the type I am suggesting existed in Salisbury Plain) we need two things. 1) A vast body of water (Robert's waterways that you think are 'rationally plausible') and 2) a sustained period of freezing temperatures which the scientific evidence tells us existed around 8500 BC. Since it is plausible both such conditions existed at Salisbury Plain, we can't but allow such 'local ice sheet' covering Salisbury Plain to also be 'rationally plausible'.

    This is one scenario for the existence of a 'local ice sheet'. There are others. But what is undeniable is that if we reasonably hypothesize a 'local ice cover' of Salisbury Plain, than we are able to explain sensibly and consistently all the details in the 'facts on the ground' at all prehistoric sites. And as I have been arguing in the past, the 'proof' of any hypothesis is in the explanations it provides for the evidence.

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  37. Give it up Kostas. Postulating a Kostas Glaciation on Salisbury Plain in 8500 BC is not going to get you into the history books. A recent glaciation that did not leave traces did not move stones, and a local glaciation event does not explain why stones moved a couple of hundred miles from West Wales.

    The glaciation theory does not rest on the last Ice Age - the one we are still in. Aubrey Burl hypothesized that a glaciation event in the Pliocene could have moved the stones millions of years ago. After all, the "Bluestones" formed 450 million years ago. Check his article:
    http://www.historybookshop.com/articles/commentary/stonehenge-myth-ht.asp

    This discussion is beginning to resemble a Tom Stoppard or Samuel Beckett play in which an aging amateur archaeologist in the early stages of senile dementia tries to solve the mysteries of Stonehenge. I personally would prefer the Stoppard version because there are likely to be more laughs. Nothing personal intended! Just my twisted sense of humor.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Chris,

    It's not up to me to give up on anything! Truth has its own agenda independent of any of us. And truth ultimately prevails. Those that resist it fall by it. Nothing personal here.

    This just is not about me. But about the truth of Stonehenge. And all views must be represented and seriously considered in any honest debate on Stonehenge. In these discussions I am the minority of one (as you and others pointed out) arguing for 'natural agency'.

    Since you seem to be a little confused about the nature of truth, I have prepared some questions below for self-study reflection. Contemplate on these. But in case you get stuck up, I am also providing the answers. Let me know of any 'eureka moments'!

    Question: How many humans are needed for truth to be true? Answer: none
    Question: How many humans are needed for truth to be known? Answer: one
    Question: How many humans are needed for truth to be realized? Answer: many
    Question: How many humans should know truth? Answer: all

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  39. Gentlemen

    At this point I think we should move on, as no new evidence is being presented or argued.

    Kostas, this banal rhetoric is somewhat tedious and monotonous - but for the sake of impartiality I have published it.

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  40. I agree.
    Thanks for the post which I found stimulating. It is a bit of shame more people with knowledge and serious opinions did not join but I think I understand why.

    The false entrance is really curious - are there a lot of examples like this? Sorry, we should discuss in a future post.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Robert,

    You asked for 'evidence' for the 'rational plausibility' of a 'local ice cover' of Salisbury Plain. I provided your waterways inundating Salisbury Plain and the indisputable ice-core evidence that is widely accepted as showing sustained freezing temperatures around 8500BC.

    You asked for 'ruined' monuments that were one time 'complete' , I provided Knossos.

    So why are you blocking the post?

    Are you now resorting to Brian-esque censorship of posts that question 'human agency'? My last post was the second you have blocked! Is this going to be a pattern? If you can't refute the argument, call it irrelevant and block it!

    Very disappointing!

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  42. Kostas

    I do not accept your 'rational plausibility' as evidence.

    You talk about the 'Younger Dryas' which is not evidence for ice cutting holes in the ground in non symmetrical shapes and sizes. Stonehenge was completed in three stages - even I the greatest 'heretic' of the archaeology world admit that!! - so you need at least three 'mini ice ages' for each stage, which does not exist in YOUR EVIDENCE of the Greenland ice cores - its complete nonsense.

    And Knossos is a RECONSTRUCTION and still half of it is missing and even the reconstruction is wrong, so you have no idea if it was completed or how it looked - but that's another matter.

    So come back with 'qualified evidence' or 'educated' questions and we talk more, come back with rhetoric in the form of 'rational plausibly' and half qualified rubbish, and your comments will find the delete button.

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  43. Robert you write,

    'Stonehenge was completed in three stages'

    Since you have asked repeatedly for 'evidence' of my hypothesis can I return the favor and ask you for 'evidence' of these 'three phases of Stonehenge'?

    And if these depend on the interpretation of the 'facts on the ground' based on 'human agency' and 'human agency' is questioned, wont these three phases of Stonehenge also be in question? And if these are in question, doesn't this then invalidate your argument that “three mini ice ages” are needed?

    I boldly declare and can debate the point there is absolutely NO NEED for these three mini ice ages.

    As to your statement 'you have no idea if it[Knossos] was completed or how it looked'. I admit I have no idea personally how it may have actually looked. But I am very certain it was complete and built by people.

    Some things in archeology can actually be known, Robert, and not just 'made up'!

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete