Friday, 27 April 2012

Echoes of Atlantis

By Robert John Langdon

During my research of my THIRD book 'Echoes of Atlantis' which looks at what happened to the Cro-Magnon's of Doggerland/Atlantis after their homeland was flooded in 4300BC, I came across this burial mound in Orkney called 'Maeshowe'.  Today I found inside the New Scientist probably the best illustration of this monument to date, which I wanted to share with you.

Crown Copyright, reproduced courtesy of historic Scotland - archaeologists still believe that this construction was made by a 'primitive' civilisation, that lived in caves and mud huts covered in just fur skin - do you?
Clearly the 'signature' of the builders can be seen in both this burial mound in Scotland and the Great Pyramid of Giza, which would have been probably construct about 1,000 years later in Stone, hence the higher level of finishing.

Great Pyramid Gaza
The chances of ANY two civilisations following the same 'concepts' in their buildings are astronomical, which can be shown today, as NOBODY buries bodies in pyramids or mounds any more, remembering that there are over 200 countries/societies  in this world.  So this design and construction technique was unique to a single civilisation as you can see from these illustrations.

1861 Maeshowe excavation drawing
Great Pyramid Inner Chamber - note the roof

Chamber connection Maeshowe
Great Pyramid chamber connection

This is not the only link we have with the Cro-Magnon/Atlanteans and the Pharaohs in Egypt.  National Geographic have taken samples of 'King Tut' and analysed his DNA (but failed to publish the data as it was seen to be 'politically incorrect').  They found to their astonishment that king tut had Haplogroup R1b1a2 which is a CELTIC - don't take my word for this watch this from the states.


So researchers throughout the world are working on revealing the past mistakes in our history and coming to the same conclusions without delving into the detail, we have achieved in my trilogy, to revel where these people came from and how they looked and acted.  For example the landmass seen on this video could not physically exist, the landmass we have shown to be Doggerland/Atlantis, geologists now admit did exist at the time Plato wrote about his dialogues (9500BC).

Before we move away from Maeshowe, I would like to show you why the 'Victorian Archaeologists' destroyed most of the Barrows that existed in the British landscape looking for 'hidden treasure'.  This is a Burial mound.

Maeshowe - Orkneys

Notice that it is round like a round barrow, but it is much bigger and surrounded by a walled moat.  The reason it is surrounded by a walled moat is because it was supposed to represent the 'afterlife' and it is than an 'island' were the dead person would live.  When it was constructed the area within the wall would have flooded to make it more of a lake with a island.

Round Barrows near Stonehenge

These are round barrows that were built some 3-4,000 years later as 'Navigation Markers' - like miles stones, helping foot travellers to get to their destination.  The original barrows would have had Standing stones placed on the top, to increase viability over a distance. They are much smaller and have a hint of a moat around the base.  The two are totally different for NOT ONE SINGLE BURIAL was ever found at the base of a round barrow - some have been found added to the sides at a later date, as you may do with ancient markers in the landscape.

Finally, both the burial mound at Maestowe and The Great Pyramid at Giza are not 'Neolithic' or built in the 3rd Millennium BC.  As we have seen with St Michaels Mount in Carnac.



This artefact has been carbon dated back to the 6th millennium BC in the middle of the Cro-Magnon  Doggerland/Atlantis empire that lasted between 12,000 - 4,300 BC.  Echoes of Atlantis is due to be published in June 2014 - but well worth the wait!!





RJL

(by Robert John Langdon)

113 comments:

  1. Robert

    You post my not be frequent, but they are sure worth the wait. How does Stonehenge fit into this timeline?

    Dr Stuart Love

    ReplyDelete
  2. Stuart

    Maestowe came first, it is located in the North West area of Doggerland/Atlantis which survived the flooding, so its very old.

    The Gaza Great Pyramid was made either 12,500 BC or 6500 BC as it is aligned with the 'magnetic pole' which is logical as you can measure the exact location with a magnetic device (pin or carbon floating in water). So I would go for the later, although the former is quite possible.

    What is interesting and missed on the post - but not the book, is that some of the stone slabs are 30 tonnes in weight, so the use of A frames and levers will be well known by construction date.

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  3. The monument is Maeshowe not Maestowe . Typologically it is similar to passage graves found in Atlantic Europe rather than the Great pyramid .There is a surrounding ditch and bank but it is not walled .There is no certain date for Maeshowe and the build date can only be inferred from association with similar monuments , you have no grounds to suggest that it was not built in the 3rd millennium .
    There is no evidence to suggest that any of the Winterbourne Stoke barrows had standing stones “placed on top “ and it is nonsense to suggest that “ NOT ONE SINGLE BURIAL was ever found at the base of a round barrow “ most had primary burials some with accompanying ceramics helping to date the internment(s) by association .
    There is no detail about the “artefact “ dated from the 6th millennium from St Michaels mount tumulus , this is probably the charcoal which was RC dated in the late 50 ‘s and has long been discredited , there was even concern about it at the time .

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anon

    The term 'walled moat' is not a reference to a wall of brick or stone, but a raised mound. The date was given by Colin Barras in the New Scientist article 'Jewel in the Mud' where the picture originates - which as the blog suggests I agree is incorrect.

    It would be impossible to find a barrow not vandalised by Victorian 'archaeologists' in search for buried treasure so what you find on site today is not the original structure.

    "helping to date the internment(s) by association" is the kind of rubbish that taints archaeology today as its based on opinion rather than proof. Its like dating St Paul's by the tin cans found in the bins today - they too are a part of the monument by association.

    The 'attempt' to discredit the Radio Carbon dating of the charcoal at the base of St Micheals mount has indeed long been discredit as anyone with an 'open mind' (or intelligence) will realise that the builders of the mount finding 3,000 year old wood (why didn't it rot?) and burning it, is less likely than a UFO building the monument.

    Thank you for the spelling correction - which I shall amend.

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  5. Maeshowe has bank and ditch not a walled moat . There are plenty of round barrows not "vandalised" by antiquarians .Your analogy of undisturbed internments with grave goods and the contents of bins at St Pauls is rubbish .Regardless it is still nonsense to suggest that “ NOT ONE SINGLE BURIAL was ever found at the base of a round barrow “ .
    An open mind and intelligence are hardly the same . Look at the details from the assay at the time they didn't believe it even then .RC dating has improved greatly since then and our understanding of the build of the monument is nothing like that date .

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anon

    Take another look at the photograph - look at the shadows, its the best empirical evidence you will find. The ditch in the centre is raised at the edge to contain the water, no other interpretation is feasible.

    You have no idea what barrows have been vandalised as their is no way you can date the soil within the barrow using current methods - Belas Knap is a fine example - http://robertjohnlangdon.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/belas-knap-night-of-long-skulls.html shows the extent known excavations have changed the original monument - but without the details of old excavations (and the smaller barrows were not excavated, just plundered and refilled) you would have no way of knowing the true original state of the monument.

    Rubbish... very funny!! Name me one round barrow with a burial at the 'centre' of the monument - as a clue don't go for Silbury, lots of 'enlightened' archaeologists like yourself strangely failed on that one!!

    I have found that open mindedness and intelligence are complementary and the opposite to closed mindedness and stupidity. Hence fundamentalists are closed minded and dangerous, this retarded condition can be not only seen in religion but sadly, within science too.

    They didn't 'believe' the post holes in the car park at Stonehenge was anything but Neolithic like the Monument (closed minded!), yet this 'understanding' was shown to be false by carbon dating placing them in the Mesolithic - dangerous fundamentalism.

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  7. Rather than look at pics why not visit or ask someone who has , it is a common feature a ditch and bank not a “ walled moat “
    Belas Knap is a Long Barrow . Silbury is not a round barrow .
    Your comments was “NOT ONE SINGLE BURIAL was ever found at the base of a round barrow “ and “It would be impossible to find a barrow not vandalised by Victorian 'archaeologists' “ are simply untrue , from Colt Hoare until recent excavations at round barrows primary internments have been excavated and those countless examples in the latter category have not always been previously dug by anyone . If you do not accept this do you need some references ?
    A round barrow with a burial at the centre of the monument ? one of many .Pitnacree

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geo - I thought it was you, lack of spaces in your paragraphs.

      Hope your visit was 'beneficial' - no doubt you instantly understood the reference to islands and the afterlife as I pointed out in the blog.

      I have seen too many round barrows in my research with large holes in the top to understand that they have been vandalised, To quote from 'The Early Barrow Diggers' "barrow digging gained impetus during the 1840's and in many areas where tumuli proliferated the barrow openers likewise increased. The year 1840-70 can justifiably be called the 'boom years' when the subject almost approached the proportions of a field sport..... in Wiltshire 'no inconsiderable number' had been dug into 'under the hands of pseudo-antiquaries'. Yet you name Colt Hoare (who died two years before the mass destruction) until recently for your evidence of systematic excavation - your history is flawed and assessment a nonsense.

      As for Pitnacree: "This barrow, topped with tall thin conifers, is very visible from the road. The barrow was excavated in 1964, and found to be the final stage in a series of monuments. At its heart were four cremations (dated to c.2860 BC) in a rectangular stone enclosure, and two ramped stone or wooden post holes. The cremations and holes were inside a penannular ring-cairn, over which the turf and stone barrow were built. On top of the barrow is a standing stone, under which a fifth cremation was found (dated to c.2270 BC)."

      The first thing that strikes me is that it has a standing stone on top of the barrow - which you implied was incorrect??

      Secondly, its not a round barrow as has a rectangular stone enclosure, this is a later addition to the traditional round barrow. And the fact the remains were cremated again shows a later date than the original barrow (if it ever was one!!) for they would have been buried.

      All you have shown Geo is that you 'archaeologists' do not have coherent view of history. Its full of unknowns and contradictions as you make up loose ideas because the reality is you just don't know who built these monuments and the reason for there construction. Consequently, all you have available is denial and false observations.

      Buy the book in June and get an education, so when you go back to Maeshowe one day you will know what the hell it is and who built it.

      Delete
  8. The misspelling of Maeshowe doesn’t matter , but the repetition indicates a worrying previous ignorance of the monument .
    Pitnacree was chosen simply because it was so exceptional in having a standing stone atop . Pitnacree is a round barrow , read the excavation report which might give a clue in the title “The excavation of a Neolithic Round Barrow at Pitnacree “ then tell me it isn’t . Similarly if you had read it you might have understood that the primary cremations and teeth were on the old land surface as was the horseshoe shaped bank of stone . Why do cremation deposits indicate that they post date the barrow ? Don’t you understand the cremations were placed on the original land surface then covered by the barrow ?
    You seem to misunderstand then twist comments i.e. I said “There is no evidence to suggest that any of the Winterbourne Stoke barrows had standing stones placed on top .That is quite different from “implying it is incorrect “ , nevertheless standing stones on top of round barrows is not typical practice .
    In response to your ““It would be impossible to find a barrow not vandalised by Victorian 'archaeologists' “ I said “There are plenty of round barrows not "vandalised" by antiquarians .” and in reponse to your ““NOT ONE SINGLE BURIAL was ever found at the base of a round barrow “ I pointed this as nonsensical “from Colt Hoare until recent excavations at round barrows primary internments have been excavated ,and those countless examples in the latter category have not always been previously dug by anyone .” and asked if you wanted references .You didn’t but considered the history flawed and assesment nonsense . Simply your two statements about central burials and the impossibility of finding a round barrow not vandalised by Victorian antiquarians are wrong and can be shown to be rather than face this you resort to bluff and bluster . Rather than make these blustery comments with nothing to support them why not accept that much of what you have said is simply wrong .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geo

      Your right the misspelling of the monument doesn't matter - so why make a fuss? Or is this a sign of something more worrying within your personality?

      Pitnacree is a burial site, as it has been modified, you have no idea if it was an original round barrow. The details of horseshoe banks have no interest to me as the cremation shows that it was later than the Neolithic and of absolute no interest to my book or hypothesis.

      The question is do round barrows have burials inside them? Perhaps I should qualify the fact that I am talking about Neolithic Barrows as the book is about the period 50,000BC to 3,000BC - not later heaps of earth containing cremations, which I'm sure you are aware from my comments and dates in the blog.

      Therefore I will simplify things for you - clearly you must have extensive knowledge of excavations of the Winterborne Stoke Barrows, as 'you know' they did not have standing stones at the top or were vandalised. Each one consequently must have a burial within the centre - so give us an academic references to excavations these burials?

      If not you have to either admit that the Barrows were vandlised and consequent do not know if stones were on the top or that burials are not found at the base of round barrows which qualifies my claim that 'not one single body has been found in a round barrow' as if they were burial mounds, where are the neolithic bodies?

      I like to point out that I am the one quoting references to my comments, you are the one how is resorting 'Bluff and Bluster'.

      RJL

      Delete
    2. Futhermore Geo

      The only information I have found about Pitnacree is what is printed here, a few unhelpful photographs and an interesting line from the CBA "The round barrow at Pitnacree (Perthshire) is just one of a number, some of "great size", that closely hug the floodplain and alluvial gravels of the river Tay."

      Which shows by the reference 'great size' - as you pointed out when I mentioned 'Silbury hill' its not a standard round barrow, its like Maeshowe a burial mound with an internal construction.

      What is more interesting is the article called:

      Great monuments Great rivers

      "Jim Leary and David Field have worked at several of Wiltshire's great neolithic monuments, not least Silbury Hill and the henge at Marden. Noting that these are sited by springs and streams, they here take a wider view of the religious significance of fresh water in Britain some 5,000 years ago"

      Which shows that 'some' open minded archaeologists have recognised that my hypothesis is relevant and are finding that water levels were higher in the past.

      RJL

      Delete
  9. Looks like a face on your picture of Maeshowe - eyes, nose, open mouth. Is this an Atlantean gazing in wonder towards the stars?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting notion. The more I look the clearer the image becomes.

      Delete
  10. There seems to an avoidance of uncomfortable mention of factual errors .
    “NOT ONE SINGLE BURIAL was ever found at the base of a round barrow “
    Here is a very small sample of the countless examples that clearly refute that statement .
    Hemp Knoll : http://www.pastscape.org.uk/hob.aspx?hob_id=215555
    Fan Foel : http://www.cambria.org.uk/projects/fanfoelinterimreport.pdf
    Beacon Hill : http://www.bhsm.org.uk/M040203.html
    Overton Hill : http://www.biab.ac.uk/contents/42679
    One from your pic of the Winterbourne Stoke group . King barrow : aka Colt Hoare’s Barrow 16 , Goddard and Grinsell’s Winterbourne Stoke 5 had a primary inhumation in a coffin with rich grave goods hence the presumptive “King “ .
    “It would be impossible to find a barrow not vandalised by Victorian 'archaeologists'
    Once again countless examples , see the above , but Google “Garwood Neolithic enclosures “ (the wrap is too long to post ) and you will find a list of round barrows in the west Midlands both vandalised and untouched/unknown by antiquarians .One example in each category would have been enough to make a nonsense of these statements .
    “The original barrows would have had Standing stones placed on the top “ This was in relation to the Winterbourne Stoke barrows . There is no evidence ?
    Colt -Hoare for all his faults would have mentioned any standing stones and there would have been possible earlier confirmation .
    “The question is do round barrows have burials inside them? The answer is yes ,read the literature and see above .
    Please provide references and actual quotes to refute the above .

    ReplyDelete
  11. Geo

    Lets go through it one at a time shall we -

    Hemp Knoll is a 'bowl barrow' - like Maeshowe an island surround by water for a burial - well done. The pits would have been added later when the water disappeared. But its NOT a round barrow!

    Fan Foel - Another cremation, the original people that built the barrows buried their dead - cremation 'A TOTALLY DIFFERENT PROCESS AND CIVILISATION' is much later.

    Beacon Hill - is middle bronze age cremation.

    Overton Hill - Cremation again

    Are you sure your not Kostas in disguise?

    You really don't understand prehistoric past civilisations and their monuments. The 'leap' in psychology to move from burial to cremations is huge, the only civilisation that does both is US - if you look at our religious beliefs and funeral practices you can see the cultural differences - or are you suggesting a multicultural Neolithic in Britain? - If so the DNA haplogroup maps would not support that hypothesis.

    The King Barrow - http://www.pastscape.org.uk/hob.aspx?hob_id=870392&sort=4&search=all&criteria=stonehenge&rational=q&recordsperpage=10 - Bronze age cremation with a wooden coffin, shown again later interference.

    from English heritage web site:

    "Very few of the barrows have been excavated, although unspecified barrows in this group were opened in 1649 and found to contain "coales and pieces of goates hornes and staffes horns", while another contained "a bugle-horn tipt with silver at both end" - all opened in 1649 found 'bugger all'

    As for "Colt-Hoare for all his faults would have mentioned any standing stones and there would have been possible earlier confirmation" English heritage writes in the description section "It seems likely therefore that the pot either indicates; an IA distrubance of the barrow unrecognised by Colt Hoare" - consequently, a depression in the top of the barrow that originally took a standing stone, would not have been noticed.

    Open your mind and look around you. Go to your local cemetery and take a walk, look at the dates of the grave stones and ask yourself are they contemporary to the date of the churches construction - an archaeologist would say YES as the evidence is in the ground, a historian would say no, its just the last date someone was in that plot of land. Things change in history, things are added and taken away - the open minded person seeks to look at not only the archaeological but the cultural influences to distinguish diffident civilisations, the mathematician looks at the numbers and probability, the fool looks at what he sees today.

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  12. There are so many errors to deal with I'll have to split this into two posts .From your post quoting Leary and Field .
    Silbury is a 40 m high and 167 m in diameter mound whereas Pitnacree is a round barrow 2.8m high and 27 m in diameter , a “great size “ is a bit of an exaggeration there are many much bigger and it is not dissimilar in diameter to those at Winterbourne Stoke . Maes Howe is a passage grave /chambered cairn .The recognition of water as having an important association with some monuments e.g. particularly cursus , henges , has long been noted ,well before any publication of your hypothesis , whatever that may be .David Field had mentioned a similar connection to round barrows thirteen years ago .I doubt that Field and Leary have any need or recognition of your hypothesis even if they had ever encountered it .

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anon

    I have never studied Pitnacree - as stated, and the references to it are 'thin', what was interesting is the quotes of 'great size' - if you suggesting that archaeologists exaggerate or are not accurate with their observation - I would agree!!

    Lots of people have mentioned connections, but until the publication of my hypothesis in 2010 I know of no-one that has put forward that the monuments of the Mesolithic and Neolithic were as a consequence of the raised water levels that occurred in Britain due to the last ice age.

    One is an observation the other is a hypotheses with proven evidence which is contained within the book.

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  14. Your original blog post has a pic of the Winterbourne Stoke barrow cemetery and correctly describes it “These are round barrows “ This is true , (although there is a long barrow which does not fit into the category )but among these barrows are bell, disc ,saucer and bowl barrows .You seem unaware that that term round barrow encompasses these other types .
    Once again you have avoided the refutation of your comment with bluster and resorting to rudeness .
    “NOT ONE SINGLE BURIAL was ever found at the base of a round barrow “
    Inhumations and cremations are found as primary central burials in round barrows and cultures with the same DNA have practiced both at the same time ,as we do , and changed from one to the other .Burial practice is not a matter of genetics but culture .
    The King Barrow in your pic contained a central primary inhumation with a wooden coffin this was not as you are trying to suggest a later insertion of a cremation .
    “It would be impossible to find a barrow not vandalised by Victorian 'archaeologists”
    seems to have been avoided entirely . Still no evidence for “The original barrows would have had Standing stones placed on the top “

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon

      More aware than most as I have condenseness the 13 types of barrow into just 5 true categories in my last book 'The Stonehenge Enigma'.

      During the Mesolithic and early/middle Neolithic period bodies were buried either as bones or whole body. Cremations is a late Neolithic/Bronze age ceremony, these people did not build the original round barrows or long barrows. If they did ALL round barrows would have bodies and they do not, as Neolithic Round Barrows were used for foot navigation and not to bury the dead - these cremations were added 1000 years later by their ancestors as I have already pointed out in previous replies.

      If you need to find out the facts you need to go back and read the words in my replies to your comments not the spaces between the lines.

      RJL

      Delete
    2. Geo

      If I remember correctly the DNA from the Neolithic Farming Revolution is completely different to the Cro-magnons that Robert is suggesting who built the Long and Round Barrows and more interesting our very own.

      I personally can't wait for the book and find why this paradox is possible. As for vandalisation, he did give reference to both a book and the English Heritage site that seems to support his observations.

      Dr Stuart Love

      Delete
    3. Sorry Stuart I had missed your post (30 April )about vandalisation . The original comment was “It would be impossible to find a barrow not vandalised by Victorian 'archaeologists' “ . Clearly all that is needed to refute this statement is to mention a barrow that was never vandalsised or excavated by Victorian archaeologists . Over many posts I have mentioned examples of these ,Pitnacree being an obvious example but I also gave the Paul Garwood web page which listed all the round barrows in the West Midlands and their history .Did you look at that ? Yes there was a reference and we all know that many barrows were “vandalised “ and excavated by antiquarians but that does mean that all were , as the statement wrongfully implies .

      Delete
  15. It was due to archaeologists that some of us who have read the excavation report have an understanding of Pitnacree,the excavators did not exaggerate they simply described and I sure were accurate in their observations about what they discovered .
    I can't think of one archaeologist who has suggested that prehistoric monuments were a result of raised water levels .

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anon

    Great you have an understanding of Pitnacree so who are the builders, when was it built, why did they build it, what did they look like, what language did they speak, what haplogroup are they, what was their philosophy and religion and the big question WHAT DID THEY CREMATE RATHER THAN BURY THEIR DEAD??? If you cant answer these question, then what you know amounts to nothing!

    As for: "I can't think of one archaeologist who has suggested that prehistoric monuments were a result of raised water levels" They are not as a 'result' - raised water levels never constructed them (although the famous geologist Kostas would disagree :-)) but they were as a 'consequence' of the raised water levels and therefore explains there current positioning within the landscape which archaeologists just guess at or completely ignore.

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. or Even

      WHY DID THEY CREMATE RATHER THAN BURY THEIR DEAD???

      Delete
  17. Are you now saying that you were aware that saucer , bowl ,bell and disc barrows are all round barrows ?
    Round barrows were built in the Neolithic but were far more common in the BA .
    In both periods there were cremations and inhumations .A movement from communality to individualism is more likely but this too has problems .It is not nearly as simplistic as you are making it .In the EN long barrows of southern England there were few cremations but in the same period there were cremations in court tombs , portal tombs and in common in monuments in Scotland and Europe .
    There were cremations in the European Mesolithic and closer to home .http://heritagecouncil.ie/unpublished_excavations/section3.html .
    However this has nothing to do with your original comment “NOT ONE SINGLE BURIAL was ever found at the base of a round barrow “ do you still stand by this ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon

      NO!

      Bowl and bell barrows COULD have been round barrows that have subsequently (through Victorian 'archaeology' no doubt) be the remnants of an original Round Barrow or poor versions of BA copies.

      Larger barrows like Maeshowe with walled edges to keep in the water would be burial mounds, but they would have stone cairn in the barrow.

      As the original round barrows would carry their own oral mythology about the revered ancestors, so they would have wish to be buried with them, either but digging cremation pots into original round barrows or making their own 'poor' versions.

      Disc/pond barrows are early dew ponds for drinking, which are essential when travelling alone the barrow pathways.

      Both periods DID NOT have cremations see http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba60/feat3.shtml and the fact you consider them younger than they originally are is confusing you - Long Barrows were built from 9000BC to 4000BC, Round Barrows 4000BC - 3000BC then the Neolithic farmers took over as Dr Stuart suggested.

      As DNA and as indicated in my Belas Knap post these are two distinctive peoples - pre and post agriculture as seen from Victorian cranium studies.

      And that is why NOT ONE SINGLE BURIAL (as in a skeleton)is found in an 'undisturbed' Round barrow as they were NOT built for burials but Neolithic pathway milestones (and that's where the Romans got the mile stone idea from history)- if they were burial mounds EVERY ROUND BARROW would have a skeleton at the bottom - and they do not.

      Hence, some have cremations added at a later date as around Stonehenge which are Neolithic but the finds are Bronze Age, confusing archaeologists no-end!

      RJL

      Delete
  18. A total avoidance of the many awkward mistaken comments but at least this means less of the blustery rudeness that adds nothing to the discussion .
    Pinacree ; the excavation provided us with a greater understanding of the monument possibly something thing you have no interest in , one point was that the standing stone was a secondary feature covering a cremation which was dated . A good example of us now actually knowing something about the monument rather than making wild speculative statements .
    The majority of the questions you have asked cannot be answered and are unlikely to ever be answered although there are plenty of speculators willing to attempt it , realistically we can only guess at the cosmology and language from those have left no written records . With our present technology I don’t believe we can retrieve either the mtDNA or Y chromosome of the bone from this particular site , but that doesn’t mean we won’t manage to do so for similar monuments in the area in the future .

    ReplyDelete
  19. Geo

    And hence the difference between us - The next Book due out in June not only looks at Who these people are - and we follow them back 50,000 years to their origin in northern Africa to they final home in Doggerland.

    We know their Stature, their Language, the colour of their Eyes and Hair, we know WHAT they built, we know WHY they built them and in my final book out in 2014 I will even tell you what happened to them and why (Stuart!) we still have their haplogroup in our veins although we were not the people how turned to agriculture after they left Britain in about 3000BC - 2500BC.

    All based on Archaeological. Anthropological, Genetic and some historic reference evidence.

    Time Team - Eat your heart out!!

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  20. Robert,

    Since you have evoked my name you have solicited my response too. Reluctantly!

    You purposely misrepresented my views. We do agree, however, that the water levels following the great meltdown of the glaciers were significantly raised as a consequence. But I ask you, wont these vast waterways freeze solid during the deep freeze period that soon followed the great melt?

    Whereas you use the evidence to invent your prehistoric 'boat people' civilization I argue the frozen waterways enabled these monuments to be created through 'natural agency'.

    Truth is a stubborn thing! And I am very patient! I can wait. In the meantime you can sell many more books. Have no problem with that. Your readers deserve all that they give you!

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kostas my friend.

      Just when you think it can't get worse........

      Delete
  21. Ignoring the fantasy of round barrows being “Neolithic pathway stones “ I’ll not bother asking for the evidence or even the name of another fantasist who may subscribe to the idea .
    There have been some more splendid mistaken comments
    “Disc/pond barrows are early dew ponds for drinking “ Why would they have cremations in a dew pond ? e.g. in the disc barrows at Oakley Down barrow cemetery .
    “Both periods DID NOT have cremations “ You conveniently ignored the evidence for a Mesolithic cremation never mind all the non Wessex Neolithic cremations from passage graves , portal tombs , court tombs etc .
    “Long Barrows were built from 9000BC to 4000BC “ The earliest European monuments that are similar to Long barrows date from the 5 th millennium .
    “Round Barrows 4000BC - 3000BC “ Forgotten about Anglo Saxon round barrows ?
    http://www.derbyshireheritage.co.uk/Menu/Ancient/burialsites/Stand-low.php
    and the fact that round barrows were a Bronze Age staple or just not sure about the dates of the Bronze Age .
    The Carrowmore monuments are unlikely to be as old as suggested by Burrenholt but they did have cremations .
    This is an example of mixed cremation and inhumation that may of interest ...http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata/arch-352-1/dissemination/pdf/vol_129/129_189_201.pdf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geo.

      I'll go slowly as you have difficulty in joining the dots it seems, so I'll take it one item at a time.

      Disc/Pond built in the Neolithic about 4000BC when water levels were higher (that's what made them fill up with water, its called the ground water table) then the water fell over the Mesolithic/Neolithic period so they dried up as they are today, the fact the BA people placed cremations in the pond is evidence of the fall in water levels, for in the BA period they were dry and like you, had no idea what they were for, all they knew is that their ancestors used them and so were important.

      RJL

      Delete
    2. Part II

      There were no human cremations in the Mesolithic or Early Neolithic until about 3000BC - if they are some registered they will either be animal or incorrectly dated (Modern DNA in the RC evidence) or plan bad archaeology.

      You list them I disprove them as previous posts.

      RJL

      Delete
    3. Part III

      You can't date a Long Barrow unless you get lucky all you can do is date the last time someone left a deposit of bones and like the cemetery analogy, which clearly you didn't understand - dating by the oldest found is flawed.

      Never the less, we did get lucky at St Michael mount in carnac which was dated to the 6th Millenium BC which matches the migration plan west to new trade routes in the Mediterranean - the older Long Barrows are in Central Britain on the Bristol Channel to Thames route through Britain and the River Danube in Germany with similar results.

      RJL

      Delete
    4. Part IV

      Anglo Saxon barrows? - what has that to do with Prehistory?

      No wonder you are so confused!! Turn the page reverend.

      Then its a ramble about cremations - watch my lips - IF ITS A CREMATION ITS NOT THE CIVILISATION WHO BUILT THE LB OR ORIGINAL RB - AS IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A DIFFERENT CULTURE.

      Even you archaeologists call these people the 'megalithic culture' - at least with them i'm not knocking my head against a brick wall!

      RJL

      Delete
  22. Anon

    From Wikipedia

    In Europe, there are traces of cremation dating to the Early Bronze Age (c. 2000 B.C.) in the Pannonian Plain and along the middle Danube. The custom becomes dominant throughout Bronze Age Europe with the Urnfield culture (from ca. 1300 B.C.). In the Iron Age, inhumation becomes again more common, but cremation persisted in the Villanovan culture and elsewhere. Homer's account of Patroclus' burial describes cremation with subsequent burial in a tumulus similar to Urnfield burials, qualifying as the earliest description of cremation rites. This is mostly an anachronism, as during Mycenaean times burial was generally preferred, and Homer may have been reflecting more common use of cremation in the period in which the Iliad was written centuries later.

    It seems Robert is correct about them being Bronze age.

    Dr Stuart Love

    ReplyDelete
  23. Stuart , I suggest that you dig a bit deeper than Wikipedia for the dating of early cremations ,simply showing that they took place in the BA does not mean they did not take place earlier .I have supplied a link to a Mesolithic date for cremation in Ireland but more generally they are also found in the Neolithic as I have mentioned e.g. Pitnacree ,portal tombs ,court tombs ,passage graves all had cremations dating to the Neolithic.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Anglo Saxon round barrows have little to do with prehistory ,I never said they did , but they exist and were mentioned to show your dates for round barrows 4000 -3000 BC is yet another mistaken fantasy .Similarly your thinking on disc barrows ,just by you saying this nonsense doesn't amake it true ,you need evidence to support these fairy stories .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geo

      I have made plain that I am talking about the 'original' Round Barrows built by the same people who constructed the Long Barrows.

      Clearly later in history peoples will duplicate such constructions - but they are not made for the same 'original' purpose. The blog which you commented upon was showing an example of construction techniques that was used a short time later by the same civilisation to construct Giza - this is a direct link.

      There is no link between Anglo-Saxon burial mounds and either Long Barrows or Neolithic (original) Round Barrows - so to show you that i'm not linking the latter burial mounds I classified the dates of interest as 4000BC to 3000BC +/- 500 years as a majority of these barrows we see on the hillsides today (NOT ALL) were constructed during this period.

      This can be shown from the findings the Victorians undertook when they took up the sport of 'barrow digging' between 1840 and 1870, for they found 'most' the barrows to be empty. Although this wide spread destruction was not welcomed by archaeologists, we have learnt a valuable fact which if placed in context tells us about why they built these structures. For if these barrows were for burials why are they not all with skeletons?

      This is a question you have refused to answer for obvious reasons.

      As Stuart quite RIGHTLY points out most archaeologists and geneticists accept that cremations was a separate civilisation that took hold around 2000BC +/- 250 years - Again you do not! If you are correct should you not correct Wikipedia? and if you don't what does that tell us about your sources?

      RJL

      Delete
  25. We are getting somewhere , two of the mistaken comments have been amended ,first . “NOT ONE SINGLE BURIAL was ever found at the base of a round barrow “ has become “NOT ONE SINGLE BURIAL (as in a skeleton)is found in an 'undisturbed' Round barrow “ If the barrow has been undisturbed then you wouldn’t know what it contained , very convenient .
    Now we have “I have made plain that I am talking about the 'original' Round Barrows built by the same people who constructed the Long Barrows.” A further refinement which was hardly plain in the original statement shown to be wrong and doggedly supported until now . Second “Round Barrows 4000BC - 3000BC “ has been amended to “4000BC to 3000BC +/- 500 years “ which effectively doubles the original mistaken estimate , broad minded indeed .
    A new comment is a bit garbled “cremations was a separate civilisation that took hold around 2000BC +/- 250 years –“ whatever the intention it appears to ignore the evidence that cremations are found much earlier in Britain and Europe ,and still no comment on the intriguing Mesolithic cremation , it is telling that the only time you make a reference to RC dating it has to be one from it’s infancy and even then the comment from the lab was unsure i.e. ““But Gsy-90 is very extraordinary, and can only be explained
    by the use of sub-fossil wood from a peat-bog for some ritual fire.
    Compare with date Sa-96 from central funeral vault of same monument,
    a date rather older than could be expected: 5840 ± 300 .”
    There is little evidence for dew ponds in prehistory but more importantly they are found on hill tops , the disc barrows at Oakley Down are on the low ground overlooked by downs a hundred metres and more higher , not ideal spot for a dew pond ,but once again this is a fantasy only believed by yourself . Where is the support for your claim or even better some evidence alternatively there is plenty support and evidence for the conclusion that the Oakley disc barrows are just that , disc barrows with burials . The number of mistaken comments multiplies and it is easy to forget some of the whoppers and no doubt they in turn will eventually be amended but “Long Barrows were built from 9000BC to 4000BC “ is up there with some of the best .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I missed one!

      'undisturbed' is NOT unexcavated. But it includes not dug up at a later date to place a cremation within.

      Delete
  26. Geo

    Your pedantic nature is showing through again.

    Now we have established that we are looking at Neolithic Round barrows and the fact that cremations are Bronze Age (just checked Wikipedia, not been changed yet?), we are looking for a skeleton - just trying to make it simple so you understand.

    Unlike yourself I do not claim the exact date this civilisation moved from boats to the land - I would guess in normal civilisations this is a 'process' over many years - for the sake of bring in evidence dated 2999BC, it would be foolish not to give possible variation as do the RC laboratories - have you also written to them with the same accusation?

    As for fossilised (stone) or peat bog (wet) ritual fires - who the fantastist now?

    Dew Ponds - The mystery of dew ponds has drawn the interest of many historians and scientists, but until recent times there has been little agreement on their early origins. It was widely believed that the technique for building dew ponds has been understood from the earliest times, as Kipling tells us in Puck of Pook's Hill.The two Chanctonbury Hill dew ponds were dated, from flint tools excavated nearby and similarity to other dated earthworks, to the neolithic period. - Also Wikipedia

    Boy you've got your work cut out this afternoon changing all those Wikipedia articles - hope your sources stand up to scrutiny - lol

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  27. I think Anon/Geo, you've been nailed mate!

    Einstein

    ReplyDelete
  28. Point out what I have I said i.e. quotes and how this might disagree with wikipedia what says . All along I have been saying that cremations were older than EBA and mentioning examples which you blithely ignore did I ever say that creamtions were not to be found in the BA .
    Where in the wikipedia article does it say that disc barrows were dew ponds which you maintain ?
    Still no comment on the mistaken comments and amendments I see .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "There is little evidence for dew ponds in prehistory but more importantly they are found on hill tops"

      As the Wikipedia has shown they are Neolithic in Origin - SO YOU'RE WRONG AGAIN!

      Read the book, get an education and you will not need to ask daft questions as 'they are found on hills' have you never been to the lake district or Scotland, the lakes are on hills - or is that an optical illusion.

      The science you are looking for is called 'hydrogeology' is shows how the ground water works - its a qualification that should be compulsory for every archaeologist, then such poorly considered questions would never be asked.

      RJL

      Delete
    2. Furthermore

      http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/book/export/html/2531

      Shows one of your Bronze age burials, notice the position of the grave - not quite the centre!

      If you are going to bury someone and place the barrow over the top - bit careless you don't put them in the centre isn't it?

      The answer comes within the report that shows that it was opened again after the initial grave and more added. So. isn't it more likely that they dug into an existing Neolithic Barrow and placed the first grave as close to the centre as they could have managed??

      Or are you being a 'Brian' and telling us that they are a lazy and careless society!

      RJL

      Delete
  29. Einstein , could you clarify ?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Robert/Geo,

    How can you distinguish between charred human remains from cremation than those from forest fires? And couldn't both be found in pits, along with debris and artifacts? Whether trapped in pits by water streams, or placed in pits by grieving relatives? But if placed in pits by grieving relatives, wont you expect the remains will be protected by some built stone enclosure with a top stone? Or is it that prehistoric people could built using megaliths but could not built using small stones!

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kostas

      The problem with cremations is that the ash in itself can not be identified (although new methods are currently being developed using chemical analysis - but these had not been used in past archaeological analysis), remains of unburned bone is necessary. If enough bone is left then it can be identified, but in a majority of prehstoric cremations, not much bone are left and identifying human bone from animals bone fragment is almost impossible.

      The truth is that if an archaeologist find ashes in a pottery urn they then accept it as a human cremation, even though the amount of bone or burnt substance is minimal.

      Hence my comment about animals, it maybe Geo is correct that charred remains may have been found in the Mesolithic, but it would be almost impossible to prove they are human - it could have been the pet dog that died in a fire!

      RJL

      Delete
  31. Robert,

    Thanks for clarifying this cremation issue. I agree! I have always been skeptical about this and have felt, as you do, there is a 'rush to judgment' by proponents of 'human agency'. All evidence in their eyes is interpreted to confirm their believes. Like 'true believers' of every kind!

    You write,
    “ … it would be almost impossible to prove they [charred remains] are human - it could have been the pet dog that died in a fire!”

    … or people that burned in a forest fire and latter deposited in 'grave site' pits by meltwater streams!

    When it comes to prehistory we must only consider the 'raw facts on the ground' and not interpretations and elaborate narratives of these. Like 'lost civilizations'!

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kostas

      Like yourself I'm a student of Quantum Mechanics - so I'm open minded about everything.

      RJL

      Delete
  32. One "raw fact on the ground" or rather NOT on the ground is that there are a lot of bodies missing from mesolithic and neolithic periods. Relatively few have been found interred and, as Robert says, some barrows have no remains apparently. What happened to the thousands of people who did not end up inside a monument? Perhaps Robert's book explains this - it is a mystery to me. Common sense would suggest that the majority of people were cremated and their ashes given to the winds or the waters - also in the mesolithic. Interment of the bones was reserved for a special group - in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chris

      I think I did this in my last book - could be wrong as I wrote all three books together!

      Long Barrows would be the traditional route, the problems would be that later generations would clean out the old bones to be replaced with the new generation. This practice can be seen even today with our own cemeteries.

      An interesting alternative to this (as this civilisation were boat people) would be as Viking mythology indicates, they burnt their bodies within boats on the water, which would scatter the bones and the water would rot the remains.

      Now was that prior to the Long Barrow burials or after.... I'm not sure, still working on that piece of research.

      RJL

      Delete
  33. Chris you write,

    ' … there are a lot of bodies missing from mesolithic and neolithic periods'

    There may be sensible explanations for this! We do not need more 'made up stories' to explain all this.

    In a scientific study to come out of the University of Manchester the Mesolithic population of the UK was estimated to be about 2500. So the meager population will explain the few human remains found.

    Also, if Salisbury Plain was inundated by water (as Robert believes) or was covered by an ice sheet (as I argue) few human remains would naturally be found. As most (in the case of an ice cover) would have washed into the sea. As would the glacier erratics Brian has been seeking to find in stone walls and museum basements.

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kostas

      Although the Mesolithic started with a very small number as you suggest I believe that Genetics have estimated about 50K+ was living in Northern Europe at the start of the Neolithic.

      This is not reflected in the number of skeletons were have found to date, in fact I think we have more Palaeolithic bodies than Mesolithic in this area, remembering that Doggerland would have been the major landmass during this period and therefore the dead maybe under this part of northern Europe.

      RJL

      Delete
  34. If the cremated remains are too small then it would too difficult to differentiate between animals and humans but cremated remains are not always that small 5- 10 mm is common for a cremation sufficient to determine whether long bone ,skull etc. from these age and sex and pathology can be determined . Animals remains are found in association with human burials in some cases .

    ReplyDelete
  35. Looks like this has to be split into two .If it was a case of dealing with every contentious comment that might involve discussion it would take a very long exasperating time simply because they are so common , that is why I have stuck only to those comments that are falsifiable in a Popperian sense , slowly but surely they will sorted out , the amendments are a start .
    About Pitnacree “, its not a round barrow “ it clearly is look at the excavation report ,you later commented “The only information I have found about Pitnacree is what is printed here “ By your own admission you know next to nothing about the monument then manage too make a mistaken proclamation with no evidence to support it . Furthermore Pitnacree was Neolithic round barrow with primary cremation .

    ““NOT ONE SINGLE BURIAL was ever found at the base of a round barrow “
    No evidence provided to support this plus a mass of evidence if you would read the literature to see how wrong the statement is . This was later amended to “NOT ONE SINGLE BURIAL (as in a skeleton)is found in an 'undisturbed' Round barrow “ but with no supporting evidence ,the undisturbed apparently means with no secondary internments , as it is quite simple to differentiate between the two this should be unnecessary but even so there are still countless examples that fit the bill .
    Even in the Winterbourne Stoke area G 5, G37, G54 and G56 all had primary inhumations
    http://www.ancientmonuments.info/en21097-round-barrow-350m-east-of-callis-wold-farm Another Neolithic primary inhumation in a round barrow .
    Neolithic inhumation in a round barrow : http://www.stone-circles.org.uk/stone/dugglebyhowe.htm
    Norton Bavant 06 excavated by Wessex Archaeology in 1987 found a primary inhumation of an elderly male in a round barrow etc.

    “The original barrows (Winterbourne Stoke ) would have had Standing stones placed on the top .” No evidence again , it’s difficult to prove a negative but no-one else with any credibility will support your claim . All that is needed for a milestone is stone not a group of barrows ,ever see a group of milestones ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geo

      I gave you a very clear example from wessex archaeology of a Neolithic Barrow with a later grave - I'm not going over old ground with the same explainations it's boring!

      Go back and read the posts.

      And yes you did get multiple milestones which accumulate over the years - we are talking about track markers over 1000 years, you will get intersections you will get villagers wanting to divert potential trade to their village away from the main trackways and you will get idiots at an even later date thinking they are ancient burial mounts and burying a relative in a copy.

      This all goes to confuse simplistic archaeologists who classify all lumps in the ground by the same category, due to ignorance.

      RJL

      Delete
    2. Move on Geo, remember I got it wrong about the Quantum World!!

      Einstein.

      Delete
    3. "Nailed " and "move on " .Sounds like RJL when confronted with awkward questions i.e. no evidence .

      Delete
    4. A total avoidance of the awkward questions .In what way does the example of a Neolithic barrow with a later insertion ,a very common practice , answer any of the questions or get you off the hook with these multiple erroneous comments .

      Delete
    5. Geo

      You don't ask awkward questions you ask nonsensical questions or you repeat yourself when the question has been answered.

      You seemed to miss the point of the example - we know it was inserted later, if its a burial mound as you insist, where is the original body? It should be at the centre - but its not!!!

      Because ALL of the Neolithic Barrows have later insertions - hence the claim "NOT ONE SINGLE BURIAL was ever found at the base of a round barrow - some have been found added to the sides at a later date, as you may do with ancient markers in the landscape."

      And that is also why you never answered the question - where are all the burials from the thousands of round barrows that were vandalised by the Victorian 'archaeologists' ?

      For the barrows which we are talking about is to do with the blog and and books are looking at PREHISTORIC BRITAIN during the Mesolithic and Neolithic - I'm not interested in BA onwards for the civilisation in question had left!!

      RJL

      Delete
  36. PT 2. “It would be impossible to find a barrow not vandalised by Victorian 'archaeologists' .Once again no evidence and refuted by the huge amounts of barrows that clearly have not been dug into at any period , and of course Colt-Hoare and Cunnington were Georgian .

    When confronted with a list of primary burials “Hemp Knoll is a 'bowl barrow'…. NOT a round barrow! “ Bowl barrows are a class of round barrow . Others that had cremations were discounted , you don’t seem to appreciate cremations are burials too and they didn’t start in BA as you seem to believe see http://www.qub.ac.uk/sites/INSTARPeopleofPrehistoricIreland/Burials/
    For examples and dates of Neolithic cremations and what constitutes a burial .There have been other mentions of Neolithic cremations but ignored .

    “Long Barrows were built from 9000BC to 4000BC “ Where is the evidence for a an 11,000 year old Long barrow ?

    “Round Barrows 4000BC - 3000BC “ which was amended to “4000BC to 3000BC +/- 500 years “ a generous doubling but would still ignore those Bronze Age burials in round barrows . See http://www.damerhamarchaeology.org/damerham/glossary/round_barrows for a mention of dates that could be found many times over .

    “most archaeologists and geneticists accept that cremations was a separate civilisation that took hold around 2000BC +/- 250 years “ Apart from cremations not being a civilisation name the archaeologists who believe that , also geneticists too ,although funerary customs have nothing to do with genetics .
    Another example of cremation from a period much earlier than 2250 BC .
    http://www.megalithics.com/ireland/creggan/cregmain.htm

    “Disc/pond barrows are early dew ponds for drinking “ No evidence from a reliable source even the wikipedia entry points out that Maud Cunnington saw the evidence for the Chanctonbury hopefuls due to a an association with nearby flint finds which is hardly diagnostic as “ such positive interpretations of the available evidence as no more than “flights of fancy”. There is no suggestion that there might be a connection with disc barrows at all .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geo

      See previous comments about classifications of barrow.

      The evidence of 11,000 year old barrows can be found in my new book 'Dawn of the Lost Civilisation' out soon price £14.99.

      And I look forward to the corrections in Wikipedia very soon.

      RJL

      Delete
  37. Anon you write,

    'Animals remains are found in association with human burials in some cases .'


    Don't you find it rather bizarre that animal remains be found along with human remains? Or that human remains be in jumbled groups of disarticulated skeletons? With often just the long bones present, severed heads with holes and broken bones? All these 'facts in the ground' are consistent with meltwater stream deposits. These remains (whether human or animal) have been deposited (buried) by meltwater streams carrying skeletons and other debris (including pine charcoal) from higher elevations.

    We do not need to 'make up stories' to explain these 'facts in the ground'!

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  38. I appreciate the links posted by "anonymous" and will be looking them up. Thanks for this.

    It would be handy to have a link to the Manchester University research on mesolithic population size. This is a key data point for any genetics research. 5k in northern europe seems a huge underestimation and I would like to know how they arrive at this number.

    Kostas. The biggest made up story here is the one about meltwater stream deposits. As usual you are short on facts and long on imagination.

    ReplyDelete
  39. “Hemp Knoll is a 'bowl barrow' - …..But its NOT a round barrow! “
    “Long Barrows were built from 9000BC to 4000BC, Round Barrows 4000BC - 3000BC “
    Seeing you seem to rely on Wikipedia for info ,no bad thing in itself but it isn’t always 100% and can be superficial missing out on detail .Have a look at the entry for “Round barrow “ and note the description of bowl barrow and how round barrows are not confined to that period . Fwiw you have yet to list the comments that I have made that contradict anything in Wikipedia .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geo

      Your rambling again.

      I like Wikipedia as it upsets the academics who believe you have a monopoly on intellectual property. The next blog I had you in mind as it shows just how absurd archaeologist can get with their closed minded interpretations of the truth.

      So either go back and reply to the comments I've already made or call for the nurse and ask for your medication.

      RJL

      Delete
  40. Wikipedia a very useful resource.
    Resorting to cheap jibes and no content seems to be your, open minded ? stock response in order to avoid responding to two pages of your nonsensical comments .I realise that you can't respond to them with a sensible argument but the yah boo response is even worse than admitting error .
    Seeing as you are incapable of responding to awkward questions why not provide quotes from me and refute these with evidence based arguments .

    ReplyDelete
  41. Geo

    I'm the one 'opened minded' enough to state my case in public via both web and printed book.

    If you have a sensible question I will answered it in full as you can see from all my replies to everyone not just you. But if you respond with the same question time and again, you get no response or a comment to refer to my previous comment.

    I love awkward questions, I spent my life studying the most complicated subjects known to man in Philosophy and Quantum Mechanics, were you are never right or wrong with an opinion - but don't repeat it as it does get boring to read.

    The word that does spring to mind is 'transference'.

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  42. Chris,

    Perhaps you can explain to us why animal remains are found along human remains.

    Robert,

    Since you and Brian and Geo and Chris and all others have been asking me to provide 'rational plausibility' to my 'working hypothesis' (namely, megaliths could have been carried to Stonehenge on the surface of a local ice cover through 'natural agency') I have prepared a preliminary analysis based on sound Physics showing how megaliths could be moved on an ice surface acted on only by natural forces. As an engineer this should be of interest to you.

    The link to this short paper is given below:

    http://thefacultypublishinggroup.com/Archeology/Stonehenge%20Problem%20B.pdf

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kostas

      You wasted a lot of time working out the maths of moving a 3 tonne stone over ice!

      Sadly, it was ultimately wasted as the calculations did not show how the holes were drilled and the formula for the spacing, which memory serves correct is erratic and unless you can come up with a new form of 'chaos theory' will show that not possible using water only.

      The mechanism of moving the original bluestone from stones to Stonehenge (actually they were first moved from Wales to Ireland) don't tell Brian as he will need to discover two move glaciers.

      But on a more practical level they needed 8 poles and 16 men - two per pole. As I know you like the maths of this 'advanced technology' which acts like a 'pulley ratio' for weight reduction of 8:1 and can be found at:

      http://www.skidmore.edu/~pdwyer/portfolio/writing/cunningham.htm

      Each man must lift just 62.5KG each - and these were cro-mangnons weighing 150KG - they could of walked it from Ireland if desired - but the boat 50m away may have taken them 10 minutes!!

      RJL

      Delete
  43. It is not simply one question that you are avoiding it is a slew of comments that you have made that are clearly wrong with a concomitant inability to respond to their refutations . Even in my last post you avoided a new problem , check the wiki entry on round barrows “ and face up to the fact that your favourite resource contradicts your comments , or show where I have contradicted wiki .Yet again you responded with obfuscation and nothing about the subject .
    A life time study should produce at least Phd plus something new to add to the understanding of the subject and some recognition from peer review , please enlighten us . Maybe somewhere in an Everettonian “world “ your comments will be correct but not in this one . “were you are never right or wrong with an opinion “ that would suit you , sadly it is a yet another superficial reading of pop science.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Geo

    You're not making any sense sadly.

    Your last post is shear gibberish - what is your question, if you have one?

    It seems like plain rhetoric from the school of Kostas - at least I could understand his ramblings.

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  45. You mean you don't understand . Hardly surprising . Just ask what sentence is too difficult and I'll rephrase in simpler terms for you .
    Did you notice any question marks , that means there were no questions .
    Btw it's sheer .

    ReplyDelete
  46. Geo

    "It is not simply one question that you are avoiding it is a slew of comments that you have made that are clearly wrong with a concomitant inability to respond to their refutations ."

    This one's a corker - could you translate?

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  47. You asked if I had a question . I didn't . What I had noted over two pages was a list of comments that you had made (two with amendments) that were clearly wrong and or had no supporting evidence . After each of your comments I had responded with a comment or a link . You didn't respond or were capable of refuting any of them , this inability being directly linked to the same problem that caused you to write the
    Mistaken stuff in the first place .

    BTW if you are Sherlock ,which I think is possible , then if you had "studied " any philosophy for a short period never mind a lifetime you would have known that Sherlock despite his claims did not deduct .

    ReplyDelete
  48. Geo

    I'll take your word on that one!

    Now we know that Round Barrows of Neolithic origin, were in fact empty as shown by MY example from Wessex arcaheology.

    Therefore, the rest of the argument is now 'immaterial' as finding just one empty barrow proves the point - because you don't built a barrow over 'nothing' useless is NOT a burial mound - Hence my reference to Silbury Hill as it had the same expectations and a similar result.

    So, if it is not a burial mound, what is it?

    You claim my hypothesis (and Alfred Watsons) is incorrect - so Sherlock, let us know your educated guess?

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  49. Robert,

    The mathematical analysis in my note ( http://thefacultypublishinggroup.com/Archeology/Stonehenge%20Problem%20B.pdf ) sought only to show how Nature could move megaliths on an ice surface. No need for 'human transport' and no need for 'glacier transport'. And certainly no need for 'boat transport'. Just a flat smooth ice surface and a 60 mph wind intermittently blowing from the W/NW over many years. Over time, such natural forces would bring the bluestones to Stonehenge!

    Nothing more and nothing less. This was the main contentious issue raised over and over again by Brian, you and others to reject my 'natural agency' Stonehenge theory. Reject at your peril, as this now has been scientifically proven beyond any doubt!

    As for “...the calculations did not show how the holes were drilled “ the calculations never aimed at showing any such nonsense. The meltwater retaining basins in the ice cover were not “drilled” by any such mechanism analyzed in my study. Rather, these basins were formed when the ice began to melt with warmer temperatures. At places on the ice surface where there were megaliths the ice would melt faster thus forming the 'ice holes'. It's the real reason why we find coves of megaliths in the middle of barrows where meltwater retaining basins once existed.

    Chris:

    Do you find the bickering between Geo and Robert less bothersome now that they are both arguing over whose 'human agency' views are true?

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sadly never the ice nor the snow/ice would be flat - therefore your winds would need to be in excess of 200mph and the blocks in a standing position.

      back to the old drawing board Kostas

      RJL

      Delete
  50. Robert,

    What you think is not what I argue nor wish to argue!

    A frozen lake or waterway would have a flat smooth ice surface! Don't you think so Watson?

    I sense desperation in your short choppy replies! Your 'lost civilization' is truly lost as it never existed!

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your be better off designing a new toboggan run for the British winter Olympics during the next ice age - we could call it the 'Kosta run'?

      Actually, it does remind me of the film 'dr stranglove' where the pilot 'rodeod' the atomic bomb from the aeroplane. Do you think that stone age men used the bluestones as a free ride to Stonehenge?

      The rocks are too narrow for wind resistance and the ice would be rippled and broken with other debris - its not an ice rink!

      Need a cup of tea, you and geo are making metaphysics look quite real and sensible.

      RJL

      Delete
  51. One example of an empty Neolithic barrow does not mean that all Neolithic barrows are devoid of burials .This is clearly refuted by examples I have provided previously .e.g. Pitnacree , http://www.ancientmonuments.info/en21097-round-barrow-350m-east-of-callis-wold-farm ,
    http://www.stone-circles.org.uk/stone/dugglebyhowe.htm
    I have no idea what your hypothesis may be ,certainly the comments that you have made about round barrows are wrong .
    Alfred Watkins , ley line/route markers etc . ? as an explanation for round barrows , incredibly unlikely ,if you want to mark a route there is no need to go to the huge amount of work like building Silbury which is not the same type of monument as Pitnacree as shown in the comparative dimensions from a while ago and why such a common denominator as primary burials , which like it or not are a common factor in round barrows , Neolithic or otherwise . Watkins didn’t differentiate between periods or monument types so an Iron Age hill fort , a natural feature ,an 18 th C church ,a standing stone , straight stretches of track ,even ponds constituted “markers , why bother building a barrow when some of the simpler versions will do . The basic premise of the “old straight track “ i.e. straight lines of navigation across the country doesn’t make sense either , anyone who knows about walking other than across Hackney Marshes knows that a straight line is not the quickest and is unlikely to be held , things tend to get in the way .
    Aren't you Sherlock ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geo

      Just one empty barrow DOES mean that they were NOT built for burials - otherwise your proposing that they built this barrow and forgot the body - absolute nonsense.

      Pitnacee is a confusion of burials and dates - I chose the wessex example so archaeologist like you could not try to confuse the issue. Listing more references of confused burials does not reinforce your case, it shows that your arguments are based on flawed logic.

      I recognised the work of Watkins, AFTER the findings of my research as I had not read his 'original works' or recognise that is ideas had been hi-jacked by people who didn't understand his research. What Watkins did recognise and critics like you miss represent, is the fact that original sites are reused in a different format in later history - as we have seen here with Neolithic barrows.

      On the basis of your evidence and logic over the Neolithic barrows, I am Sherlock my dear Watson.

      RJL

      Delete
  52. It’s no good calling excavations “confused “ because they don’t fit in with your view , try to learn from new information and not be constrained by an agenda .
    It’s a very simple logic that you have failed to grasp ,possibly allied with the Sherlock deducts mistake .
    There are round barrows that have primary burials this refutes your statement “NOT ONE SINGLE BURIAL (as in a skeleton)is found in an 'undisturbed' Round barrow “ . Now show me the comment that I made that you can refute concerning round barrows , rather than making things up instead of using quotes ,where did I say they built the barrow and forgot the body ?
    Why do keep referring to me as an archaeologist ?
    Watkins encouraged a lot of people to get out and wander the countryside and have an interest in history /prehistory earned the OS and fortune but like you his imagination exceeded his understanding .

    ReplyDelete
  53. Geo

    This is like extracting your own teeth - I thought Kostas was hard work, you're worse.

    You do not seem to be able to comprehend the fact we have found a barrow without an 'expected' body.

    THEREFORE ITS NOT A BURIAL MOUNT!!

    We'll try to keep it simple for you - explain why this barrow did not have a body in it??

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  54. I note once again a failure for you to provide a refutable quote , instead more bluster and caps .
    There are round barrows without bodies and there are round barrows with bodies the existence of the latter shows that your statement "“NOT ONE SINGLE BURIAL (as in a skeleton)is found in an 'undisturbed' Round barrow “ is false , you seem incapable of seeing this . Wouldn't it be much simpler to find a refutable quote about round barrows that I have made instead of the caps , bluster and avoidance of the problems pointed out about many of your statements .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geo

      More rhetoric and no substance again.

      So why would you build a barrow without a body?? Key question you have refused to answer still!!

      If you ever answer this question I will be able to justify my statement.

      RJL

      Delete
  55. Robert,

    What my analysis shows, based on sound physics, is a 3000 kg megalith on the surface of a frozen waterway can be moved by a 60 mph wind. A 60 mph wind will exert a force of 660 N PER SQUARE METER! While any force acting on the megalith greater than 540 N has the capability of moving the megalith. Are you suggesting the bluestones do not have a square meter of surface to them? And as long as such a megalith can be moved by such natural forces even for just a very short distance at a time, over long periods of time (years perhaps) this will make it possible for the megalith to have been moved all the way to Stonehenge naturally! No prehistoric men in furs riding anything but your flaky imagination!

    Robert, don't get lost in your 'lost civilization'! It never existed!

    But I do agree with you a single round barrow with no burial inside is enough to disprove barrows were built for that purpose.

    But I also agree with Geo! It does not make sense such round barrows were built as “milestones” to help direct pedestrian or boat traffic.

    So the real question is “why would prehistoric people exert so much time and resources to built huge dirt mounts of no practical use”?

    The only logical answer is these mounts were not built by prehistoric people!

    Where are you now Chris Johnson?

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kostas

      Bluestones are four tonnes not three.

      The square area of the end of the bluestone is about 30cm.

      So back to the drawing board Dr Stangelove

      RJL

      Delete
  56. Two pages outlining a few of your erroneous comments followed by refutations is hardly rhetoric . Once again you have not come up with a comment that I have made that you can refute , all you seem capable of doing is bluster and asking a question . Not once in all these replies have you quoted me and refuted the comment or faced up to the refutations .
    Unlike you , if I had to come up with an explanation for a round barrow without a body I would preface the thought with a " possibly " and avoid caps ,it would only be idle conjecture hardly of interest to anyone and it certainly wouldn't be easily refuted as your utterances . What is more important are the facts , e.g. round barrows do contain primary burials , your idle conjecture posed as fact “NOT ONE SINGLE BURIAL (as in a skeleton)is found in an 'undisturbed' Round barrow “ has simply been refuted yet you continue to avoid facing up to this hiding behind a wall of bluster . I doubt if many actually read this but there is a distinct lack of support pointing out how you may have a case .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geo

      So you don't have an answer - what a surprise, just more dull rhetoric.

      If you do come up with an idea - do let us know.

      As clearly anyone with a hint of intelligence understands that neolithic round barrows were not burial mounds. Hence my statement (not one single burial has been found in a neolithic round barrow) which by default - as you can not explain the reason for empty barrow is true.

      RJL

      Delete
  57. My time is spent clearing up your mistakes , maybe when you face up to them I’ll say something about “ideas “ , but lets get the basics right first .
    At one point I thought you had made some movement .
    Just as Round Barrows 4000BC - 3000BC was amended to to “4000BC to 3000BC +/- 500 years “ a revision amounting to a doubling of the original estimate and “““NOT ONE SINGLE BURIAL was ever found at the base of a round barrow “ became “ “NOT ONE SINGLE BURIAL (as in a skeleton)is found in an 'undisturbed' Round barrow “ but now “ (not one single burial has been found in a neolithic round barrow) “ back to square one although getting rid of the caps is an improvement .
    How many mentions of primary Neolithic burials found in round barrows do you need to be confronted with before seeing that statement is untrue ? here’s another couple http://www.stone-circles.org.uk/stone/woldnewton.htm , http://www.friendsofcopthill.org.uk/Schedule.html It only takes one example for it to be wrong . The fact is that some round barrows have burials in them and some don’t , if you can’t accept that then your understanding of the monument is at the very least diminished , and as always that statement is just wrong .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geo

      Diversion and constantly repeating a dead argument does not turn your flawed logic into a creatable fact.

      As you see from the new post archaeologists (professional and amateur) have made a right 'pigs ear' of interpreting the past as they have this strange dogmatic concept of our ancestors (watching too much flitstones in their childhood I think!).

      We can look back and laugh at these 'academics' attempting to understand the past and feel sorry for their lack of judgement or rational thinking. In the same context, we can look back at your refusal to accept the obvious and mantain 'the party line' of archaeological dogma, with similar folly.

      I have nothing further to say on this subject as the facts are clear for all to see.

      RJL

      Delete
    2. “I have nothing further to say on this subject as the facts are clear for all to see. “ Quite .
      The facts of many burials found in Neolithic barrows , provided by examples and ignored (they won’t go away ) , which contradict your“““NOT ONE SINGLE BURIAL was ever found at the base of a round barrow “ have been clear for all to see many posts ago . Whilst from you there has been no evidence , it would be quite difficult to prove such a negative , or even a quote from anyone who knows about the subject supporting your claim .
      I keep asking for you to simply quote a comment that I have made and provide a refutation but are clearly incapable .
      Rather than general comments I prefer to stick to what people actually say and have not forgotten the other splendid errors .
      “The original barrows (Winterbourne Stoke ) would have had Standing stones placed on the top .” , maybe you can provide some evidence or a comment from any reputable source that will support this idea . Once again if you had simply prefaced it with “I believe “ ,or a “possibly “ it would have just been ignored as another “idea” but you made it a statement of fact . You have failed as others have pointed out to you to learn just because you believe something it doesn’t make it true .

      Delete
    3. “The original barrows (Winterbourne Stoke ) would have had Standing stones placed on the top .” , maybe you can provide some evidence or a comment from any reputable source.

      You did Anon/Geo Cur. Looking at the dialogue between both of you, Robert has never named Winterborne Stoke, just Neolithic Barrows.

      Roberts original reply contained a quote:
      "As for Pitnacree: "This barrow, topped with tall thin conifers, is very visible from the road. The barrow was excavated in 1964, and found to be the final stage in a series of monuments. At its heart were four cremations (dated to c.2860 BC) in a rectangular stone enclosure, and two ramped stone or wooden post holes. The cremations and holes were inside a penannular ring-cairn, over which the turf and stone barrow were built. On top of the barrow is a standing stone, under which a fifth cremation was found (dated to c.2270 BC)."

      On top of the barrow is a standing stone, if you are arguing that cremations in barrows are common place, as in Pitnacree, you have to accept so are the standing stones.

      Dr Stuart Love

      Delete
  58. Robert,

    You just don't get it! Or don't want to understand!

    Sure some bluestones may be 4 tons while others may be 2 tons. And maybe some ends of bluestones are 30 cm sq. while their sides may be 3 sq m. But then some winds are 100 mph and in some places even 200 mph. Not 60 mph I've used in my calculations. And if we are considering conditions 10,000 years ago, the winds may have been even stronger.

    We now have a mechanism that can explain how the stones got to Stonehenge naturally! All your objections are variations of a truth that now can no longer be denied by you or anyone else. Namely, megaliths on a flat ice surface (your frozen waterways!) can be moved over time hundreds of miles by natural forces.

    Isn't this exciting news Robert? Oh! You are not pleased! You'd rather have your fantasy people carrying megaliths in boats!

    Truth is mightier than fiction! Yield or perish in its wake!

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kostas

      So we now have 200mph winds - well at least that is more accurate from your formula.

      The only planet with that kind of wind is Jupiter, I believe and its has a gaseous atmosphere. don't you even consider that it has too many impossibles to be probable?

      RJL

      Delete
  59. Robert,

    You're still being stubborn as an 'intellectual mule'!

    Just a few years ago we had hurricanes over the Atlantic with winds of 200 mph. And lets not forget the many tornadoes that have ripped through several states this year ripping entire houses to shreds and moving cars hundreds of meters away.

    But again that's not the point. What we now have is a mechanism that can explain how the stones got to Stonehenge by natural agency over extended periods of time.

    Your 'boat transport' theory is sinking! Abandon ship before it is too late!

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kostas

      Sadly for you I can add up!

      Tornadoes picking up the stones from Preseli and depositing them in a circle in the floor due to wind speed and gravity 'therefore' k * o * s * t = as.

      Where k = kostas idea, o is for orbit of the stones in the air, s = the number of stones collected, t = tornadoes strength in mph * as = absolutely stupid concept - your a genius!!

      Or is it more hot 'hurricane force' air?

      RJL

      Delete
  60. Robert,

    Your last comment demonstrates not only you are intellectually stubborn but intentionally stupid.

    Go argue with Geo! Chris wont mind your mindless bickering!

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kostas

      I don't understand it? You bemoan when no-one takes your 'ice toboggan' seriously, but you label my modified version of your own hypothesis as 'stupid'?

      As both hypothesis are constructed by 'rational plausibility' you should happy accept that Stonehenge was fully constructed 'naturally' by a tornado picking them up the stones from Preseli and dropping them off their existing location using the 'power of the vortex'....lol

      RJL

      Delete
  61. Robert,

    I used tornadoes only to demonstrate the power of Nature. Not the 'laying of stones'. You instead used them to demonstrate your 'intentional stupidity'. I know you understand! As I also know why you don't want to understand!

    Twisting my words are tornadoes twisting your mind into black logical holes. No 'light of reason' can escape the 'power of the vertex' in your vacuous prehistoric mind!

    Hard to be polite with you Robert! But I am trying … why don't you try being intellectually honest for a change!
    Not effective enough deceiving your readership?

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  62. A 4 ton megalith on a flat smooth ice surface (no inclination) can be naturally moved by a force of 718 N applied to it. A wind of 60 mph will exert a force of 718 N on 1.06 square meter of surface area of the megalith. Clearly, a 4 ton megalith is within 'rational plausibility' of being moved (a little at a time) by Nature.

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  63. Kostas

    If 60 mph winds can move stones 200 miles, why don't the same winds blow the stones away or at least over today, as greater winds have passed through this area in recent years?

    Dr Stuart Love

    ReplyDelete
  64. Some more examples refuting the “ not one single burial “ nonsense .The second has some dates http://www.pastscape.org.uk/hob.aspx?hob_id=59616
    ttps://ubp.buckscc.gov.uk/HBSMRGateway/AssocDocs/AssocDoc465.pdf .
    Not only do we find that much of the comments re. barrows to be wrong but it looks like you disagree with yourself .
    11 March “the Long Barrow only goes back to 4000BC and the Round Barrow starts at 2500BC “ A few weeks later it became .
    “Long Barrows were built from 9000BC to 4000BC, Round Barrows 4000BC - 3000BC “
    Along with the other statements never be supported with evidence the
    11, 000 year old barrow hasn’t even had a blustery comment .Maybe best to ignore these embarrassing gaffes and they will go away .

    ReplyDelete
  65. Because of Stuart's earlier comment I ahd a look at the Belas Knap , oh dear it doesn't get better .

    “This means the original Cro-Magnon's found in Long Barrows are MESOLITHIC .”
    There is no evidence for this comment ,whereas Rick Schulting dated both the long and round skulls and found that they were both from 4000-3700 bc .

    “(although cro-magnon's were 6'3" and the 'round heads 5' 4")”
    This old chestnut about Cro –Magnon was shown to be wrong long ago ,mostly derived from another Atlantean Robert E. Howard’in the 1920’s ,and later Jean M. Auel both literally fantasy writers . See
    http://dienekes.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/stature-of-prehistoric-europeans.html
    http://archaeology.about.com/od/earlymansites/a/cro_magnon.htm

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “This means the original Cro-Magnon's found in Long Barrows are MESOLITHIC .”

      Hurrah, the light has finally come on!!

      What you failed archaeologists did not recognise in the past is that the cro-magnons did not go away - genetics show that 80% of North European have cro-magnon haplogroup R1.

      History has changed old man, catch up!!

      RJL

      Delete
  66. stuart love,

    read my comments more carefully! a megalith on a flat smooth ICE SURFACE can be moved by a 60 mph wind. over time to some 250 miles distance. no such ice surface exist now at salisbury plain. but it did exist I claim when robert's waterways froze solid for some 1000 years some 10,000 years ago. according to the greenland ice core evidence.

    but at least you are thinking …

    kostas

    ReplyDelete
  67. Stuart , look at the blog with the pic , underneath was this comment “These are round barrows that were built some 3-4,000 years later as 'Navigation Markers' - like miles stones, helping foot travellers to get to their destination. The original barrows would have had Standing stones placed on the top “
    The barrows in the pic are those at Winterbourne Stoke that is why I named them .
    There is no evidence for standing stones having being on top of any them ,the comment was yet another example of a belief quoted as fact .
    I have mentioned some examples of Neolithic primary cremations in round barrows e.g. Pitnacree and other monuments refuting the comments like “Both periods DID NOT have cremations “ and the mistaken belief that cremations did not take place in the Neolithic .
    There are examples of standing stones on barrows , I have been the only one to actually to refer to one ,but they are uncommon and there no evidence to suggest they were commonplace .

    ReplyDelete
  68. Geo

    Sadly, it seems the light has gone out again - no surprise!

    Message deleted!!

    Your comments are complete nonsense and out of context here - if you wish to make comments about other blogs do it on the comments that are relevant. Your mind clearly wonders and trying to keep track with comments made 6 weeks ago here is impractical as it has over 100 comments - the way blogs work, I know its a bit advanced for you, you should keep your comments linked by REPLYING to other comments as you do have the tendency to ramble, about various subjects.

    Gentlemen time to move on!!

    RJL

    ReplyDelete