Monday, 28 May 2012

The Archaeological Paradox of the Jade Axes


Jade polished axes are the most beautiful and perplexing artefacts in the archaeological world.
Jade Axe found in the British Museum

 I don't believe that there is a better illustration of a highly sophisticated and technically accurate culture than the one that could have produced this artefact.  So why would the British Museum go and spoil it all, by informing us:

"Jadeite axes were entering Britain from the beginning of the Neolithic period, around 4,000 BC. One of the rare datable examples was placed as an offering besides a 6,000-year-old wooden trackway in Somerset."

So the British Museum, a pillar of the historical and archaeological establishment suggest that these most wondrous objects are Neolithic, made about the same time of Stonehenge, which has some logic as the monument like the axes are a testament to a great civilisation.

BUT HANG ON!  how do you date a piece of rock?

You can use Chlorine-36, this was used to date the cutting of the Welsh Bluestones of Stonehenge as 12,000BCE.  But they have not, why?  Is it because the Bluestone dating left egg of the Archaeologists faces as their date for Stonehenge Bluestone was just 9,000 years out!

So how were these artefacts dated?

Well, the one you saw was not dated, that's why its has a variation of two thousand years - and at best that's a guestimation based on other finds.

According to the CBA Issue 96, Sept 2007:

"The recent ban placed on the proposed export of the privately-owned jade axehead from Newton Peverell, Dorset (News, May/Jun) has brought these beautiful Neolithic objects into the public eye once more. Well over 100, in various shapes, sizes and shades of green, are known from Britain and Ireland. They have been the subject of speculation and study both here and abroad for over a century. Early suggestions that they came from China were soon replaced by claims that they were made from Alpine rock, and various attempts have been made by geologists over the years to find the sources.

To date, however, only two jade axeheads have come from firm British archaeological contexts: the Cairnholy fragment, from a deliberately-broken axehead, found on the paved floor of the tomb's "antechamber"; and a pristine, complete specimen, found in 1973 beside the Sweet Track in Somerset. This wooden trackway is dendro-dated to 3807/3806Bcand the axehead could have been deliberately deposited not long after its construction. As for the Cairnholy fragment, opinions as to when it was placed in the tomb differ but a date of around 3800Bcis quite plausible, given the early Carinated Bowl pot found in a primary deposit in the tomb's forecourt. Other specimens, found in Neolithic enclosures in southern England at Hambledon Hill, Dorset and High Peak, Devon were frustratingly unstratified."


Over 100 have been found and in the past the craftmanship was so great and unexpected they believed they come from China!!  (Interesting no-one explained how they got to Britain, via hunter gathers tribes that didn't sail boats). But the dating of these artefacts is bordering on fascicle - found BY the trackway dated 3800BCE and a tomb with a piece of pot dated 3800BCE.  I like the Neolithic Connection of certain sites with the admission that they were unstratified - Hambledon Hill has ALSO been carbon dated as Mesolithic - so why can't it be Mesolithic in date if it was 'unstratified'?

It's a joke!!! - So what is the truth about these axes?
 

Now, thanks to the pioneering work of Pierre Pétrequin (of the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique and the University of Besançon) and his wife Anne-Marie Pétrequin over the last 16 years, this has been achieved. Their research, which has morphed into a current three-year, million-Euro, international project funded by the French government, is revolutionising our understanding of every aspect of these objects, not just here, but across the whole of Europe

By 1979 a number of British jade axeheads had been analysed and found mostly to be jadeite, with omphacite also significantly represented; but where they came from remained uncertain. There the matter lay, with little fresh research being done for the next 25 years. But in France the Pétrequins were busy. In the 1990s, with Serge Cassen (CNRS Nantes), they initiated a Europe-wide database of all jade axeheads longer than 140mm, gathering information on mineral composition, shape, colour, finish, context and date. They also undertook challenging fieldwork high in the Italian Alps to look for primary raw material sources and evidence for their exploitation

Monte Viso
Most continental geologists and archaeologists believed Alpine jades had been gathered only from secondary sources in downslope river valleys and screes. The Pétrequins rejected this, and in 2003, after 12 hard seasons of exploration in the Italian Alps and the northern Apennines, they were proved right when they found high-altitude quarries – 1800–2450m od – at the south-east foot of Monte Viso, 60km south-west of Turin.

Then in November that year, they struck green gold again, in the vicinity of Monte Beigua, part of the Voltri massif, immediately to the north-west of Genoa. But this was to be a bittersweet discovery. In the summer of 2004 mineral collectors smashed three massive boulders that had been worked during the Neolithic and removed around 1500kg of the rock. To date, nothing appears to have been done to prevent this happening again.


The Pétrequins' fieldwork around Monte Viso in 2004 and 2005 – just published in English in the European Journal of Archaeology – revealed good evidence for rock extraction and working in several areas. Reliablyassociated charcoal samples have produced dates demonstrating that these sources were exploited from as early as 5200BC.

I love the last throw away line of this report "
The exploitation must have been seasonal." - yes we have found that this site is ancient in fact we found carbon dating of 5200BCE, but I can't possibly be that date, as it means we have history complete wrong!! BUT just think for a minute about this statement.  They are saying Mesolithic People found this site at 2000+ feet and did not take the Jade? So why be there in the first place - complete nonsense.

The Alps showing the network of rivers that would allow the transport of Jade  in the Mesolithic

So we have Jade dated at 5200BCE, Stonehenge dated at 8500BCE and St. Michael's Long Barrow in Carnac dated at 6300BCE all rejected as they do not fit the current conventions - complete rubbish!
Moreover, the report ALMOST reveals the truth when it says:
By around 4500BC if not slightly before, blocks of the exceptionally rare, pale green jadeites from Monte Viso and Monte Beigua were being transferred over 200km to the north-west fringe of the Alps, to be made into fine long axeheads. These then found their way – via southern France or the Paris Basin – to Brittany, where they were reground and repolished into a thinner, regionally-distinctive shape for burial in the famous massive Carnactumuli, alongside copies made from local fibrolite and imported Spanish beads of variscite (callais). These are the axeheads shown on the Breton menhirs and on the famous passage tomb at Gavrinis. The Alpine sources continued to be exploited into the first half of the third millennium, but the main period of production for very long-distance movement seems to have ended by 4000BC.

The first thing to observe is that the 4000 - 2000BCE for jade artefacts has suddenly become 4500BCE - something to do with the 5200BCE carbon dating?  And the fact that these objects are being transported all over Northern Europe and Spain, with no mention of the transport needed for such a trading venture - really can't see too many donkey rides from Italy to Ireland or Spain somehow. And the fact that this trade stopped by 4000BCE - but hang on wasn't the British Museum artefact dated 4000 - 2000BCE?  This is after the manufacturing finished, so where does the logic for that date come from?

The article contradicts itself at the end by stating:
"Most recently Pierre and Anne-Marie Pétrequin's Projet JADE has taken a Europe-wide approach, locating axehead sources high in the mountains of northern Italy. First quarried were the dark green eclogites on Monte Viso, by 5200BC. From the first half of the fifth millennium, the exceptionally rare, pale green jadeites from Monte Viso and Monte Beigua were being worked, as well as nephrite from the Swiss Wallis. In Brittany the imported axeheads were copied in local fibrolite, and in Britain and Ireland Yvan Pailler's work has shown that copies were made here in local rocks too."

Wait a moment Jade was first quarried by 5200BCE?  So doesn't make Jade Axes MESOLITHIC??

 
Later Neolithic Stone Axes from The British Museum - dated 4000BC

In conclusion, from this report, we find that at 5200BCE there was a society with such ability and organisational skills that it was able to locate, manufacture and transport Jade goods throughout Northern Europe over vast distances.  This was the finest and best quality tools in the history of the stone age, but this industry ended in 4000BCE and the axe tools returned to become primitive and of inferior quality.

This is clear EMPIRICAL evidence that in the MESOLITHIC (if not before) lived a civilisation which was so sophisticated it could locate, manufacture and trade throughout the ancient world.  Moreover, these facts are not correctly publicised by the establishment's institutions like the British Museum as they contradict the 'dumbing down' of our history, which is nothing short of either a conspiracy or sheer incompetence.

106 comments:

  1. Robert

    In what other countries do we find these polished Jade Axes?

    Dr Stuart Love

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stuart

      Good question which I never fully answered.

      These axes are found in England, Wales, Ireland, Scotland, France, Holland, Germany, Switzerland, Finland, Poland and Belgium.

      Coincidently, the same countries you find Long Barrows, which is no surprise as these structures are navigation markers these traders needed to navigate such distances.

      Moreover, Jade2 project has come up with Evidence that these Jade axes travelled all the way down to the Black Sea - although they have not announced any detail to date - but they do conclude that this trading route was over 3000km from the Atlantic Ocean to The Black Sea - a long way to walk and therefore we must conclude a sea faring nation.

      RJL

      Delete
    2. My answer is in this PDF
      Klaas Geertsma wrote it

      http://www.apanarcheo.nl/aurora%20jadeiet/jadeietbijlen%20engels.pdf

      Delete
    3. Have you looked at what is found in New Zealand - looks very similar see this link to begin your search.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_%28weapon%29

      Delete
    4. Anon

      Yes the similarities are too close to be a coincidence. My last book 'Avebury's Lost Stone Avenue' I had a chapter devoted to 'stone money' and how these types of object like Jade axes that were never used to chop trees down and 'Mere'in this case are used as early currency.

      The large Stones at Avebury are a mystery to archaeologists but the known use of stone money (as on the island of Yap) shows that it was used at Avebury but moreover, indicates a very sophisticated civilisation that had a 'credit economy' like ours today.

      Delete
  2. “Wait a moment Jade was first quarried by 5200BCE? So doesn't make Jade Axes MESOLITHIC?? “

    No . In many parts of Europe the Early Neolithic dates from before 5200 BC e.g. Koros culture .

    Stuart , other areas not mentioned where the axes are found are Malta ,Denmark , Slovenia, Brittany .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon

      This shows the inaccurate nature of the 'old' archaeological system which dates by artefacts.

      It was believed that at the time of artefact 'invention' each tribe did their own thing without influence form outside cultures as they evolved independently - this is complete nonsense as this blog clearly shows.

      Polished Jade axes were manufactured in the 5th millennium BC and one would imagine by the number that still exists, they were mass produced and so were exported to reached every Northern European country and those in the Black Sea within a century - not the 1400 years the article suggests.

      Consequently, Jade axes reached Britain at least by the 5th Millennium BC which FOR US (in Britain) is technical (if not Accurately) the Mesolithic period.

      RJL

      Delete
    2. "Polished Jade axes were manufactured in the 5th millennium BC and one would imagine by the number that still exists, they were mass produced"

      I would say the number that still exist is a better indicator that they are made of jadeite....one of the most durable materials known to man...but that would be too obvious.

      Delete
    3. Tabitha

      Jade axes were never made to be used as axes so durability is not important!

      These are highly polished pieces made for a different function - archaeologists would suggest 'ceremonial' - but that is too simplistic. 5th millennium was a time of trading between large societies throughout the region and known world, that being the case then some form of currency would be necessary as bartering is far too basic for advanced cultures.

      So what we have here is the first form of 'stone money' - this is in my new book and is the secret that surrounds Avebury and its colossal stones - google 'yap stones' for more information!!

      RJL

      Delete
  3. “You can use Chlorine-36, this was used to date the cutting of the Welsh Bluestones of Stonehenge as 12,000BCE. But they have not, why? Is it because the Bluestone dating left egg of the Archaeologists face as their date for Stonehenge Bluestone was just 9,000 years out! “

    The Chlorine -36 dating of the rock fragment from Stonehenge is not quite so simple , we don’t even know which type of rock it is nor whether it was from a monolith or even if it came from Wales , most importantly we don’t know the history of the rock ,whether had been buried , when it had been exposed etc which would have a major impact on the date . Furthermore it is simply a rock found near Stonehenge and there is nothing to associate it with the construction of the monument .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon

      We do know it was a bluestone (but not a spotted dolerite) and we know it was found at Stonehenge. If it is found to be from Wales rather than a rouge then the archaeologists are wrong, by about 9,000 years.

      Simple solution test on of the stones in the centre - so ask yourself the question, why don't they - this we seven years ago??

      Moreover, if you have the ability to also date the polished Jade Axes, why don't you?

      The solution is the the last paragraph of the blog. They've had a shock already, so they will not allow that to happen again, for if they find too many dates that show they 'perceived' history of the site is totally factitious - where is their credibility and consequently their jobs??

      RJL

      Delete
  4. “Consequently, Jade axes reached Britain at least by the 5th Millennium BC which FOR US (in Britain) is technical (if not Accurately) the Mesolithic period. “


    The 5th millennium saw the start of the Early Neolithic in Britain .
    The Early Neolithic date for rock extraction of 5200 BC does not necessarily indicate a date for the arrival of the axes in Britain . Furthermore the earlier extractions were of dark green eclogite and used locally whereas the British examples are mostly pale green which not only have been shown to have been extracted later but also the same type that were reshaped and repolished in the Morbihan area circa 4500 BC .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pointless playing silly games!!

      5200BC is the latest date (as previous fires may have been destroyed) the Jade was extracted - consequently, there is no guarantee it was not extracted earlier (as they have yet to C-36 the Stones) Again the Morbihan finds are dated on the inconclusive evidence "By around 4500BC if not slightly before" - based on what? charcoal fires again - if so, that is the latest date once again. The better source of dating is the Carnac erection date of St Michaels Mound (near where they were found) shows the site to be 6th Millennium BC not 4th.

      The 'main theme' of the blog is that the British Museum is deceiving the public - the axe was not 4000-2000BC, (as no axes were produced after 4000BC) unless you think it was hiding with some semi-fossilised wood underground for 3000 years?

      Moreover, a civilisation that produced such objects was greater in ability and skill than their Neolithic descendent. This is the important premise of the argument, the dates are just a secondary process to qualify the former.

      RJL

      Delete
  5. Bluestone in relation to Stonehenge simply means anything that is not sarsen .It no longer exists so we can’t know if it came from Wales . As shown above the date is meaningless and has nothing to add to our understanding of Stonehenge and little to the history of the fragment itself .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So why do they not test another from the centre of the monument if they are so sure??

      Why are they so scared?? Surely a true scientist retests a experiment if it gives a false result??

      Its a nonsense!

      RJL

      Delete
    2. Why not ask EH why they are not using the method on the extant orthostats ?
      There would be obvious problems , finding a stone that wasn't dressed or damaged , how can you tell if the particular stone had not been buried in till etc . The most important point in relation to what you have writtten is not that David Bowen's dating of the fragment was false, but it has added nothing to our understanding of the dating of Stonehenge .

      Delete
    3. English Heritage has no interest in dating Stonehenge. WHEN they are proven wrong about the dates, they will not only lose money 'pulping' all those expensive books of inaccuracies, but the chances of getting funding for future projects will be nil.

      You clearly do not understand the politics of archaeology my friend!! Its called money not science.

      As for adding to the dating of Stonehenge, as the blog suggests, Stonehenge is much older built by the same civilisation as the Jade tool makers clearly. The Car park shows 8th and 7th Millennium BCE carbon dating evidence, there is now 6th Millennium evidence BCE in the centre of the Monument and these Jade axes are concurrent.

      The evidence is growing annually and is compelling.

      RJL

      Delete
  6. 5200BC is the earliest date not the latest date .The axe does not date from the European or British Mesolithic everything points to the suggestion that the axes were arriving in Britain at the earliest circa 4000 BC as being correct .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As it is dated by charcoal fires that claim is unproven and could only be substantiated by c-36 dating.

      The likelihood of fires being present before that date that has yet to be discovered or that have been destroyed is high, because of their age and erosion.

      These artefacts are also linked to the same civilisation that built Long Barrows as the artefacts are found in the same countries - so as the earliest dating evidence of Long Barrows is 6th Millennium BCE then I would suggest again that is a more realistic date.

      The ONLY aspect we know is that they STOPPED in 4000BCE so the British Museum is WRONG to classify the artefact as 4000-2000BCE as it is MISLEADING the public and hence the blog!

      RJL

      Delete
  7. “yes we have found that this site is ancient in fact we found carbon dating of 5200BCE, but I can't possible be that date, as it means we have history complete wrong!! BUT just think for a minute about this statement. They are saying Mesolithic People found this site at 2000+ feet and did not take the Jade? So why be there in the first place - complete nonsense. “

    If you read the article .( the info was available years ago and not “just published in English in the European Journal of Archaeology” ) You will see the site is at 2000+metres not feet and there is no suggestion that there was no extraction , also there is no problem with the date , it was reliably dated and does not mean that the Petrequins or any anyone associated with the studies “have history completely wrong “

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Again you missed the point.

      Who on earth climbs 2000 feet let alone metres to a place just to 'live' when you have warmer, less exposed, greener supply of food and selection of animals at the bottom of the mountain - unless your a goat!!

      The original report stated extraction was at 4500BCE - it was latter amended to "Most recently Pierre and Anne-Marie Pétrequin's Projet JADE has taken a Europe-wide approach, locating axehead sources high in the mountains of northern Italy. First quarried were the dark green eclogites on Monte Viso, by 5200BC."

      When the carbon dating evidence was better known, it has since been even further expanded as they have found evidence of Polished Jade Axes in the Black sea (see JADE2 on google) from the original 200km it is now 3000km.

      The interesting line that answers your first point is the word BY in the sentence which recognises that this is NOT the earliest date of extract but the LATEST date.

      RJL

      Delete
  8. “These artefacts are also linked to the same civilisation that built Long Barrows as the artefacts are found in the same countries - so as the earliest dating evidence of Long Barrows is 6th Millennium . “
    A few days ago you were suggesting . “Long Barrows were built from 9000BC to 4000BC “ At least it is heading in the right direction .

    Read what the experts , Petrequin etc. have to say about it , they point out that the pale green jadeitite axes were those that were extracted later than the Early Neolithic 5200 BC date then subsequently reshaped and polished in Morbihan and by the time they arrived in Britain were quite old . We have a good date for the Sweet Track (3807 BC ) which may have been used for only 20 years , beside the axe were Carinated bowls also useful for dating . If you want to associate the axes with the dates for Long Barrow building in Britain then we still arrive at much the same date .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes archaeologists are heading in my direction - quite right!! But at this slow plodding rate I will be long dead before they say - 'he was right'.

      Sadly, if you wish to associate yourself with 'experts' that date by 'association' that's your choice - its a free world. But your just as guilty as those so called 'experts' that labelled the British Museum Jade Axe (found in Canterbury with 'associated finds') as 4000 - 2000 BCE, which this blog has now proven to be COMPLETELY WRONG and misleading.!!

      RJL

      Delete
  9. The British museum card is indeed misleading to mention 2000BC. The only "jadeite axe" in UK with origin on Mount Viso that we can date reliably is the Sweet Track deposit which would be 3800 BC for the deposition. I think this is at the end of the period in which these axes were exported. From what I understand this axe was likely quarried between 4500 and 4200 BC and presumably formed and polished not long after. There is a good paper published by University of Leiden in 2008 (Yvan Pailler) which shows distribution (Stuart).

    Whoever brought it to Britain, and the other 70 or so Mount Viso examples would have presumably crossed the sea, presumably in a boat. Lots of examples from Morbihan area dated in 4th millennium BC in Megalithic context which might be a source for the British axes. For some reason it seems the trade route stopped around 4000 BC, as Robert says, although British people continued to make these objects themselves using British materials.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chris

      So is Robert right to question the 3800 date which is 200 years after the trade route stopped?

      Dr Stuart Love

      Delete
    2. Robert is entitled to question anything and regularly does.

      Personally I think the Sweet Track dating is more reliable than anything else we have from the period and likely to be right. An improbable number of coincidences would be required for the date to be wrong, or some major defects in the techniques for dating that we rely on in all dating exercises. In asserting this date for Sweet Track, the contextual finds of mined flint and carinated bowl also point to a date after 4000 BC.

      Shortly after 4000 BC we see a wave of new influences in Britain - long barrows, causeway camps, jadeite axes, etc. I would call it the start of the British neolithic but Robert perhaps prefers to call it the end of the Mesolithic. I would not raise my eyebrows when the British Museum put "Early Neolithic" on their card.

      I don't know that anyone claims an exact date for the trade route stopping. We have not found axes from later mining at Mont Viso in Britain yet. After 4000 the Viso axes the trend is towards axes close to Mont Viso and not further afield. Actually in my opinion we do not know whether it is right to call it trade at all; the finds in Britain might have something to do with migration.

      Delete
    3. Chris

      Thanks for the information. I'm sure the dating of the track is correct. If it was made 4500 to 4200 BC, that's almost seven hundred years between creation and deposit. I have read that these objects could be used for currency, but I not aware of any coins dating to Henry IV still in circulation. So I do find the connection unlikely.

      Dr Stuart Love

      Delete
  10. The two quotes both , from you and made in the space of a few days , are self contradictory .You completely ignored this but managed to imagine it might be some sort of vindication , this exceeds Doyle’s belief in fairies .

    What has been shown to be wrong on the blog are your comments , usually capped .

    ReplyDelete
  11. My point is that you have made many erroneous comments on the blog .
    One comment “These artefacts are also linked to the same civilisation that built Long Barrows as the artefacts are found in the same countries - so as the earliest dating evidence of Long Barrows is 6th Millennium . “ Contradicts another you made recently, i.e. “Long Barrows were built from 9000BC to 4000BC “

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. These findings are linked to Long Barrows as the Jade Axes are found in the Long Barrows of Carnac, this now confirms that Long Barrows were in use in the 6th Millennium BCE and the Charcoal finds at Saint Michael dated 7th Millennium BCE now shows us this is not as you insisted 'fossil fuel'.

      As we have now moved back Long Barrows from the 4th Century to the 7th, it will not be long until my prediction is proven correct.

      RJL

      Delete
    2. Look at any contemporary assessment of the Mont St. Michel and you will find the dates are 5th millennium . Rick Schulting produced new dates a few years ago and they were 4700–4300 BC . Try here http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba121/feat4.shtml ,scroll down and you will find “As in Britain, cupmarks in Brittany are found on the capstones and orthostats of chambered tombs, and on free-standing stones. Among the earliest are the six cupmarks on the underside of the capstone covering the central chamber at the Tumulus de Saint-Michel at Carnac, a monument constructed around 4500BC. “
      The date that you keep suggesting from the early days of RC dating wouldn’t be accepted today but even at the time the lab had major reservations about it . It does not provide the build date for the monument , provide any evidence that shows otherwise .
      You have still failed to address the contradiction in the two statements made with a few a days of each other 1)” so as the earliest dating evidence of Long Barrows is 6th Millennium . “ 2) “Long Barrows were built from 9000BC to 4000BC “ .Nobody that knows anything about the these monuments suggests earlier dates ,. You don’t date Armorican Long barrows from extraction of rock in the Alps .

      Delete
    3. Geo

      That's my prediction which coincides with the 9th Millennium radiocarbon dates at Stonehenge. All I've seen recently is more and more evidence to support my hypothesis - and the Jade Axe distribution is a fundamental proof of an advance civilisation.

      As for dates - You academics once believed that Jade axes were copies of flat copper axeheads and therefore datable to the beaker period - whats that about 2000BC - hence the British Museum date!! and now we are at 5200 BCE and rising!! and this was in 2002!! by Petrequin et all. So we have moved this society back 3000 years in just 10 years - not long to wait before we hit the 9th Millennium.

      At least Petrequin was big enough to show he has made mistakes and quoted the academic nonsense - so listing other flawed academic rubbish is meaningless.

      Why don't you do something constructive like come up with an idea of how they got the rocks down the mountain and to Carnac?

      All you do is quote from other sources - do you have a mind of your own? Do you ever use it? Are you capable of an original thought?

      Perhaps not - go back to your books dear, don't want to strain-those few brain cells you have left!

      RJL

      Delete
    4. Simple question , could you address this self contradiction ?1)” so as the earliest dating evidence of Long Barrows is 6th Millennium . “ 2) “Long Barrows were built from 9000BC to 4000BC “
      You seem to have a problem understanding dates . Stonehenge does not date from the 9th C . It is conceivable that in the future there will be evidence of Mesolithic activity within the enclosure , that does not and will not mean the monument as we know it dates from that period ,but that is all conjecture ,we can all dream and come up with “original thoughts “ but I’m only interested in pointing out your mistakes not providing fuel for fantasy . The Sweet Track axe was not in all likelihood extracted circa 5200 BC but much later , this is the view of the experts .
      How to get the rocks down the mountain ? have you seen the site ? It is hardly difficult , a walk . Even to get to the summit which is a bit more difficult is only a scramble .

      Delete
    5. 1) Current archaeology shows Long Barrows were built AT LEAST in the 7th Millennium - as shown from the Carbon dating of St Michaels in Carnac - this is dating by 'association' and therefore not 'absolute dating'.

      I am stating as I have studied the topography and anthropology of the subject, which I believe to me more accurate method to study prehistory rather than just artefacts. That 'in time' archaeologists will find that Long Barrows were built between 9000BCE - 4000BCE as navigational aids for this lost civilisation.

      IS THAT CLEAR?

      The 9th Millennium radio carbon dates from the car park support this view as it shows the shoreline of the River Avon which was at this time some 30m higher than today as proven in my blog:

      http://robertjohnlangdon.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/irrefutable-proof-of-my-hypothesis.html

      See Chris's comments on the sweet track axe.

      Consequently, it would be beneficial to all - how you can justify using 'associated' dates bearing in mind the countless errors that have been made in the past using this method.

      If you do not believe so, please list the sites that were 'originally' dated by association that still has the same date??

      Clue - Stonehenge is not one!!

      RJL

      Delete
  12. Many monuments e.g. Long barrows are built over earlier features like middens , pits , post holes etc but we maintain the distinction and do not date the barrow to the earlier activity . The car park post holes and possibility of earlier features at Stonehenge like the “north barrow “predating the enclosure or oval mound nearer the centre are not the same as Stonehenge the monument . The Bowden date from the fragment and car park post holes do not date the monument anymore than Southwark Towers or London Bridge dates the Shard .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Long Barrows are the oldest monuments in prehistory - as you see from other replies here we have got them dated to the 7th Millennium BCE. Whats earlier than that?

      Stonehenge was constructed in the 5th Millennium but the original moat and bluestones were erected in the 9th Millennium BCE.

      So you See the Mount that has been dated the 7th Millennium and North and South Barrows dated 6th Millennium are all to do with the same monument but at different stages.

      The Bowden date which shows that the stones were brought by human transport as were the Jade Axes in the 5th Millennium - the interesting aspect shows that Prehistoric Man actually travelled thousands of miles by boat to trade these axes which makes the two hundred kilometres to Preseli a cake walk in comparison.

      RJL

      Delete
    2. There are no Long Barrows dated to the 7th millennium . Simply provide evidence , and not the discredited Mont St. Michel RC date . The use of the plural suggests that you believe that there are others . The same applies to the rest of the post , fantasy and no evidence .
      The Bowden date does not provide evidence of anything except an approximate date when a fragment of stone found near Stonehenge was exposed to the atmosphere .

      Delete
    3. Can you not read??

      From a comment above:

      Current archaeology shows Long Barrows were built AT LEAST in the 7th Millennium - as shown from the Carbon dating of St Michaels in Carnac - this is dating by 'association' and therefore not 'absolute dating'.

      I am stating as I have studied the topography and anthropology of the subject, which I believe to me more accurate method to study prehistory rather than just artefacts. That 'in time' archaeologists will find that Long Barrows were built between 9000BCE - 4000BCE as navigational aids for this lost civilisation.

      IS THAT CLEAR?

      The 9th Millennium radio carbon dates from the car park support this view as it shows the shoreline of the River Avon which was at this time some 30m higher than today as proven in my blog:

      http://robertjohnlangdon.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/irrefutable-proof-of-my-hypothesis.html

      See Chris's comments on the sweet track axe.

      Consequently, it would be beneficial to all - how you can justify using 'associated' dates bearing in mind the countless errors that have been made in the past using this method.

      As you mentioned the Bowen date - you must be one of the ageing rock collecting club.... if not its lodge master.

      The fact that the rock was at the Museum and collected by Atkinson - must mean it has a connection to Stonehenge - he never found it by walking over the monument and picking it up - so you have two options:

      1) Its from 'somewhere' and was moved to Stonehenge by hand/boat

      2) Glaciation movement and displacement

      3) It was already at Stonehenge a this piece was broken off a larger lump

      The latter would mean that Stonehenge was started in 12,000BCE - hard to prove!!

      We therefore have human transport or glaciation - so i'm all ears tells us how 400,000 years ago this rock was carved off and was hidden from the atmosphere for 399,986 years?? and I promise not to laugh :-)

      RJL

      Delete
  13. It’s 2000 metres and the reason that anyone went there was to get the material for the axes . Fwiw 2000 feet is perfectly comfortable for settlement (some Alpine meadows are much higher ) and 2000m saw transhumance and seasonal camps in the period . The 5200 BC date applies to the dark green jade . Later in the CBA article “By around 4500Bcif not slightly before, blocks of the exceptionally rare, pale green jadeites from Monte Viso and Monte Beigua were being transferred over 200km to the northwest fringe of the Alps, to be made into fine long axeheads.” Is applicable to what became the British axes .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually its 1800m to 2400m - lets all be pedantic!!

      Between foraging and farming - Leiden University 2008
      Chapter 22 Neolithic Alpine Axeheads, Petrequin et al.

      "From the end of the sixth millennium BC to the beginning of the Third, this exploration of mountain sources provided......."

      and this is qualified in the report

      "incidentally, as regards the radiocarbon dates that have been obtained from charcoal from the production sites, we must bear in mind that the sediments in which the charcoal occurred had been subject to water-washing and other erosion" - which means that there could be older than the 6th Millennium BCE but the evidence has been washed away.

      The sweet track Glastonbury-type axe was manufactured in 4500BCE and 4200BCE - Which is exactly between the dates I predicted the Sarsen Stones landed at the end of the Avenue for the final stage of the Stonehenge temple!

      But they do warn 'people' with too many isolationist ideas "It also shows that it is unwise to extrapolate, arbitrarily, from the chronology for ONE region to the rest of the world".

      But what bothers me is that YOU MISS THE POINT of the debate because you so preoccupied with unimportant trivial detail - THE BIG PICTURE HERE!!

      A society which predates the Neolithic Farmers had the organisational ability to scale a mountain over hundreds of years, extract rock and ship it to Carnac some 200Km away then process the rock into polished axe heads and ship it over 1000KM all the way to the Black Sea dropping bits off in Britain for good luck - CLEARLY THESE ARE NOT FUR COVERED HUNTER GATHERS but an well organised international civilisation.

      And your season holiday camp ideas just make it fascicle.

      RJL

      Delete
  14. Why evade the points and make a smokescreen about fur clad hunter gatherers , who suggested that were as daft as you ? Predictions about fanciful dates for Stonehenge Sarsens and Stonehenge temples is in the suspend disbelief category of hospitals and aliens and I don’t even want to go near that , I am only interested in the falsifiable and pointing out mistakes .
    The Sweet Track axe may have been quarried in the mid 5th millennium then shipped to Morbihan where it was reshaped and polished and by the time it arrived in Britain it was quite old .The earliest quarrying in the Early Neolithic was of dark green Jadeite and was used locally , it was the later quarrying of the pale green jadeite that was used in the axes found at Sweet Track etc . This is the assessment by the experts in the field who simply want to understand and do not have an agenda .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geo

      You need to get hold of a dose of reality!

      ALL these dates you keep quoting at me are 'ASSOCIATED' dates not 'FIXED' dates, if you have C-36 dates for these tools then you may have a point BUT YOU DON'T.

      As I have illustrated the warning given by the author of the report, which you failed to understand. Consequently, when future archaeologists go back to this site they will obtain more samples and better dating evidence. So OVERNIGHT, in the future, a new radiocarbon date will place these objects from the 6th Millennium to the 7th Millennium, then a few more visits it will go back from the 7th to the 8th - THAT IS THE NATURE OF ARCHAEOLOGY!!!

      WAKE UP NUMPTY AND SMELL THE COFFEE!!

      The entire history of archaeology is full of 'current' dates - I have illustrated such with the Axes just ten years ago 'perceived' as being 'Bronze Age'. If we were having this conversation then you will be telling me that I would be 'daft' to imagine these objects came before the Neolithic Farmers. Well low and behold they are now, but yet you are fooled to believe these dates are absolute - YOUR WRONG!!

      The only 'smokescreen' here is from you traditional 'rank' amateur archaeologists who do not recognise how foolish you are to claim 'Associated' dates as evidence of history and this 'poor science' has occurred ever since Stukeley found Roman pottery at the Stonehenge site and claimed it Roman - DO YOU PEOPLE NEVER LEARN FROM YOUR AND OTHERS MISTAKES??

      RJL

      Delete
  15. Stuart, you raise the point about the value of the "axes" and whether they were used as currency. By 5100 BC farmers were pushing down the Seine Valley and westwards, bringing with them a culture of clearance and living in long houses. They would have encountered a mesolithic culture of hunter gatherers - not unlike the situation in the west of America during the 18th and 19th century. I suppose there would have been an equally substantial interaction of cultures.

    In my view, the long barrow idea could even have been inspired by the long houses. The jadeite axes might even have been friendship gifts to the mesolithic peoples, ensuring a peaceful entry. Much as white men made friends with Native Americans with gifts of high value including beads, blankets, and iron tools. In return they received beaver skins and were able to move around unmolested and even build the first farms. The farmers might even have been secretly amused by the use the mesolithic people found for the axes, apparently burying them in the ground to make a link between heaven and earth.

    It seems that the Carnac people acquired objects made from distant parts - also from Iberia. They were capable of erecting monuments which, to my eyes, are even more impressive than Stonehenge - and they were doing it hundreds of years BEFORE similar activities started in Britain. Probably their culture migrated further West and they took their "axes" with them, perhaps under growing pressure from the farmers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chris

      Nice idea, and I'm sure some aspects of this cultural integration did happen in the Neolithic Farming communities, using axes from their ancestors as sacred tokens as they had no idea of what they had been used for in the past.

      Carnac and Stonehenge, I would agree were constructed by the same civilisation and if we didn't have the car park or mound carbon dating at Stonehenge I would be in complete agreement. But the fact is 'currently' and further carbon dating evidence at Carnac or of the Jade Axes found in the Long Barrows in Brittany may change this, Stonehenge is older than Carnac although (through my new book) they are both on the ancient shipping routes to the Mediterranean from Doggerland and so I suspect they are concurrent.

      I do like the idea of currency (not mine Geo so don't shoot!) as it shows the sophistication of such a society using bartering tools. Although a part of me is happy with this as a basic tool, when it broke, they took it back to Carnac to have it re-cut as I do with my old cricket bats - this may explain the diversity of shapes found.

      RJL

      Delete
  16. It is odd that you complain about association e.g. the Sweet track axe in a context with a well dated monument then at the same time make associations with monuments and artefacts that are separated by gulfs of time and space . It is not always the case that monuments become older with further investigation , some have been shown to be younger than believed .Nobody said that these dates are absolute they are simply the best we have to work on , as opposed to informed conjecture or even fantasies . Stick to facts ,actual quotes and avoid straw men , it just makes your case appear even weaker than caps and abuse .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's the point Geo - these are not FACTS even Kostas understands that truth is a 'perception' of reality.

      A date that can change is NOT a FACT its an estimation. Your comments show you are deluding yourself as all your assumptions are just estimations not facts.

      The Sweet Track date - FACT

      The Sweet Track Axe date - GUESTIMATION

      And not even a good one for as Stuart pointed out very well - you need to justify where it has been for 700 years before you can claim an association.

      As one of the rock collection club stated "you can't date St Paul's by the construction date of the shard" although its has the same 'association' London. But clearly, you would!!

      RJL

      Delete
  17. On a slightly different tack, I thought you might be interested that Arturo Issel thought that the Ligurians, living in the Po Valley near Mont Viso, were direct descendants of Cro-Magnon. The Roman writer Lucan describes them as "First among the long haired nations, on whose necks once flowed the auburn locks in pride supreme".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Chris

      I was unaware of the connection - I'll stick it in the book, benefits of the delay!

      RJL

      Delete
  18. Still no answer to the simple question , could you address this self contradiction ?1)” so as the earliest dating evidence of Long Barrows is 6th Millennium . “ 2) “Long Barrows were built from 9000BC to 4000BC “
    A few days on and it has become “Current archaeology shows Long Barrows were built AT LEAST in the 7th Millennium “
    Where is your evidence from current archaeology , not the discredited Mont St Michel date you keep peddling , current archaeology dealt with that 40 years ago , you used the plural i.e. “we have got them dated to the 7th Millennium BCE “ where are the other examples ? Judging by previous comments I am wary of the use of the term “ study “ , I think a look at Wiki and a read of few pop books would pass for what you describe as study . Finding a change from metres to feet as being pedantic and thinking the quarries at Monte Viso involved some dangerous ascent and living at 2000 feet might not be ideal are recent comments that suggest that the topography study could do with a bit more homework , I don’t even want to look at the hydrology . “Anthroplogy of the subject “ what does that mean ? Even Tim Ingold would admit he has little to add to our understanding of monuments . Both are useful adjuncts but if you want to know about prehistoric monuments there is one discipline that is more appropriate .
    The Bowden fragment was presumably found near Stonehenge , it tells us nothing about it’s history apart from the fact that it was exposed to the atmosphere 14,000 years ago . Use your imagination there are countless scenarios for it’s life story but none that help with dating Stonehenge or whether the rocks were glaciated or otherwise

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ARE YOU THICK??

      I've answered it already numpty!

      "1 & 2) Current archaeology shows Long Barrows were built AT LEAST in the 7th Millennium - as shown from the Carbon dating of St Michaels in Carnac - this is dating by 'association' and therefore not 'absolute dating'.

      I am stating as I have studied the topography and anthropology of the subject, which I believe to me more accurate method to study prehistory rather than just artefacts. That 'in time' archaeologists will find that Long Barrows were built between 9000BCE - 4000BCE as navigational aids for this lost civilisation.

      IS THAT CLEAR?

      The 9th Millennium radio carbon dates from the car park support this view as it shows the shoreline of the River Avon which was at this time some 30m higher than today as proven in my blog:

      http://robertjohnlangdon.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/irrefutable-proof-of-my-hypothesis.html

      See Chris's comments on the sweet track axe.

      Consequently, it would be beneficial to all - how you can justify using 'associated' dates bearing in mind the countless errors that have been made in the past using this method.

      If you do not believe so, please list the sites that were 'originally' dated by association that still has the same date??

      Clue - Stonehenge is not one!!
      "

      You've gone into 'waffle' mode again, which happens normally when you lost your case - repeat then waffle - and lets hope no-one notices.

      You need to answer the fundamental question of 'associated' dates NOT being FACT but an estimation. Until then YOUR OPINIONS ARE DISCREDITED!

      Statements as 'I don't want to look Hydrology' and 'use your imagination there are countless explanations' clearly shows your a person of limited intellect - you read, regurgitate what your perceive as facts and fail to engage the thing between your ears - YOU ADD NOTHING TO THE DISCUSSION OR DEBATE, all you do is state the bloody obvious!!

      Take a tip from Chris, he doesn't endorse my hypothesis, but he brings to the table new and UNKNOWN ideas - you on the other hand just argue and do not listen to counter arguments or answer questions to justify your beliefs - quite frankly my dear, your a waste of space - which probably answers my initial question.

      RJL

      Delete
  19. More bluster and abuse to avoid questions .
    You did not answer this question ,it is very simple .
    Could you address this self contradiction ?1)” so as the earliest dating evidence of Long Barrows is 6th Millennium . “ 2) “Long Barrows were built from 9000BC to 4000BC “
    In case you don’t understand what you have written 1) suggests that the 6th millennium is the earliest date for Long barrows 2) suggests that they were built 3 millenium earlier . This is a contradiction .How do you explain it ?
    Chris disagrees with your ideas , is there any one that actually agrees with them that knows anything about the subjects they cover . I am not here to discuss fantasies just point out where you make mistakes and providing evidence . You have no evidence for the fantasies like Long barrows were built in the 9th millennium or “Current archaeology shows Long Barrows were built AT LEAST in the 7th Millennium - as shown from the Carbon dating of St Michaels in Carnac “ . I have already provided the views of current archaeology , you provide a contrary view supporting that statement ,you can’t and won't so I assume there will be more bluster and caps .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Have you been hitting the Rhubarb wine again?

      WE'LL GO SLOWLY FOR YOU GRANDAD!!

      1) Current archaeological find dates are NOT ABSOLUTE DATES as they WILL change in the future as they have done over the last 400 years when new and more precise evidence is found.

      This is because they are 'ASSOCIATED' dates not absolute dates - i.e. dated by the relics within the structure. IF YOU HAD A DATE FOR THE CHALK THAT MAKES UP THE BASE OF THE LONG BARROW - THAT'S AN ABSOLUTE DATE - BUT YOU DON'T.

      YES I do believe that they were made in the 9th MILLENNIUM and that is based on ANTHROPOLOGICAL evidence which is detailed in my book 'DAWN OF THE LOST CIVILISATION' and TOPOGRAPHY evidence found in the book 'THE STONEHENGE ENIGMA'.

      THEREFORE THIS IS NOT A CONTRADICTION IT IS COMPLEMENTARY EVIDENCE - NUMPTY!!

      THIS IS THE THIRD TIME I'VE ANSWERED THE SAME QUESTION - NO MORE REPETITIVE QUESTIONS AS I'M GETTING BORED WITH YOU!!

      RJL

      Delete
    2. Where is the evidence from Current archaeology about Mont St Michel ?
      Anthropological type evidence for dating of monuments is something that RC dating cleared up , Roman Stonehenge etc .
      Not all Long Barrows are built on chalk ,regardless material from the old ground surface below the turf line of the monument can be dated .Many Long Barrows saw earlier activity on the site and these can provide a terminus post quem date .There is a consistency to these dates that coupled with the obviously later dates of deposits in the barrow which are also relatively consistent , provides a chronological when the barrow must have been built . We have known for years that this often points to a date circa 3800 BC for many barrows and more importantly the date of earliest deposition is quite close to the suggested build date . There are no finds from under the old ground surface at Long barrows that suggest anything like a build date in the 9 th millennium . Believing is not science ,evidence is what is needed .

      Delete
    3. The evidence for St Michael is in the carbon dating of wood within the mound dated at 7th Millennium.

      Anthropological evidence has now identified the species that created the 'megalithic culture' that made Carnac Stonehenge, long barrows and jade axes - Dawn of the Lost Civilisation.

      Long barrows built on earlier activity are not original but copies made of sand usually built at a later date like Bronze age round barrows.

      I AGREE that round barrows were built around 3800BCE to 3000BCE as it fits the hydrology of the landscape showing lower water levels and increased foot traffic.

      Last point you repeated yourself AGAIN see first answer.

      Any chance of getting you justifying your claim that 'associated' dates are absolute and could not be altered in the future when more and detail examination is available??

      RJL

      Delete
    4. Futhermore Geo

      Before you come back with that same old 'tired' quote that the sample was contaminated - this is a common excuse to such finds and it was used in the past at Stonehenge:

      http://robertjohnlangdon.blogspot.co.uk/2011_08_01_archive.html

      Only in 1975 when a 'student' informed EH they were wrong to give the car park pits an 'associated' date of Neolithic due to the proximity to Stonehenge site (does this sound like Sweet track??).

      Eventually, when they did carbon date only two of the three samples - to find they were IN FACT Mesolithic!! That's a FACTUAL date, just in case your still having difficulty in distinguishing.

      So was there lots of publicity to say they had got it wrong....NO! They suggested instead, that the samples were 'contaminated' and therefore wrong..... sound familiar GEO???

      It was only in 1988 when another pit was found and confirmed the previous two samples were correct that it was publicised - and then they had the audacity to suggest it was too far away to be connect to the site - lies, dam lies and stupidity of modern day archaeology which numpties like you perpetuate.

      You stick to the party line my old mate, but some of us don't have our head stuck up our....

      RJL

      Delete
    5. Great debate. Have a massive stock of popcorn for round 17! A subject very close to my heart. What many of you may not know is that Arabians were fashioning, wearing, using, but mostly 'sacrificing' green jade (nephrite) axes into lakes long before any of the Europeans - from any point of the compass. I would argue that 'Green Axe Culture', if indeed such a thing were to exist, may have migrated from Arabia, back into Africa (via SW Arabia c. 8000 BCE)and thence Northward to the Mediterranean coast of N. Africa. There is also the more certain migration of much of rudimentary Neolithic culture from the Fertile Crescent to the NW - and across mainland Europe. Both branches almost certainly carried 'Jade Technology' with them. Either way, 'Green Axe Culture' is often noted as being on the Vanguard of the advance of Neolithic Culture.

      For Britons c. 4500 - 3500 BCE, our most precious ritual object was almost certainly a green (coloured) axe. And every adult member of those many and diverse societies were already au fait with the axe as both potent symbol and awesome tool of power, influence and control. Both in this world - and the next.

      Delete
    6. Hello! Does anyone have pictures or link to originals found in Europe? Perhaps to jade or green-stone axe pedants?

      Delete
  20. As I said you would not be able to produce any evidence from current archaeology to support that claim . As also predicetd more bluster and straw men . If I have said anything you can refute then quote don't make stuff up ,you do enough of that with your fantasies . Two posts , no evidence other than "beliefs " supported by nobody .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Current archaeology is based on 'associated' evidence which as been shown (like yourself) to be fundamentally flawed!!

      It is clear as you have no intention of attempting to justify you claims by explaining why the process of dating by 'association' is and has been in the past effective. This is because either you do not have the ability or that it is impossible to do so.

      Either way it has shown your opinions lack any creditability. Like other topics you have commented upon the result is a case of ad nauseam.

      RJL

      Delete
    2. What claims ? Quote and refute .

      Delete
  21. Robert you write,

    “ … even Kostas understands that truth is a 'perception' of reality.”

    Don't presume you know what Kostas understands! For the record, your quoted statement is simply wrong!

    In my view, “perception is NOT truth”. Only objective reason can lead us to truth! Objective reason requires us to see without prejudice and dogma and ideology and even theory. Simply to be rooted in 'sensible reason'. It's a hard order to fullfill. But that's when 'geniuses' enter our lives.

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kostas

      I take it your 'Objective reason' deals with the classic interpretation of universal truths that dictate that an action is either right or wrong?

      Which is fine!

      However, how do you know that when you actioning this 'Objective Reason' your not dreaming?

      Sadly, you can't. There is a first step that allows this value to exist and that is 'perception of reality' which contains these values of 'objective reason'.

      In this context Geo's reality is dates from 'associated' artefacts. This is a 'perception of truth' as it can not be proven if the is an 'absolute' or a 'guestimation'.

      I hope that explains the term.

      RJL

      Delete
  22. Robert,

    Since 'objective reason' is a term I have used in my comment, I am the only one that can describe what I meant by it! What I meant by it? Simply, not 'subjective reasoning'.

    'Objective reasoning' is valid for all minds. Not just for the thinker alone. It is ultimately rooted in our collective 'senses'. What 'makes sense' for all minds. Arriving at it is another matter all together, however!

    “... how do you know that when you actioning this 'Objective Reason' your not dreaming?
    Simple! Others will nudge you to wake up! Thus the need for 'others'. But this is getting too philosophical!

    As for your dispute with Geo, I think there is ample reason to consider all dates with some degree of skepticism. Too much here interlinked and incestuous to be holy and above question.

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  23. Kostas

    On these points Kostas, we are in agreement.

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Current archaeology shows Long Barrows were built AT LEAST in the 7th Millennium - as shown from the Carbon dating of St Michaels in Carnac "
    Still waiting for for any evidence to support this , from current archaeology, not your belief .
    Or is this an example of using RC dating when it suits your case , despite the lab and everyone else realising it is wrong .
    I have no interest in going over your pseudo scientific errors/beliefs and silly but the fasifiable examples tend not to be centred on RC dating .eg. “NOT ONE SINGLE BURIAL was ever found at the base of a round barrow “ which get swept under the carpet with a flurry of bluster ,straw men and mild abuse .It's best to deal with them one at a time as they just get ignored under the verbiage .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geo

      To sum up - as you have the tenancy to ramble!

      You dismiss the carbon dating evidence for St Micael in Carnac although I have shown you 'ABSOLUTE' evidence that the same excuses have been used in the past, to find future evidence that proved that the archaeologists were in fact WRONG - just like you, my friend.

      You then try to deflect to a subject were you claim that Round Barrows are burial mounds - though you did admit that some of them do not have burials???

      If this was not supposed to be a 'serious science' your comments would be taken as fascicle or humorous - well you make me laugh :-)

      Carbon dates that don't count and graves without bodies - do you really think people take you seriously??

      RJL

      Delete
  25. We are talking about the date from Mont St Michel ,simply provide evidence that it is accepted by anyone except you .
    You can't and won't .
    Simple clear example “NOT ONE SINGLE BURIAL was ever found at the base of a round barrow “ has been shown to be wrong .Why not face up to the facts .I provide quotes and refutations for your numerous errors most of which have nothing to do with RC dating , all you do in reponse is introduce straw men . Quote and refute if you can .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon

      I accept Robert's dates on Long Barrows. Fortunately, I'm right to suggest that I am probably the only contributors who have read his last book. But that maybe incorrect, not sure. I suggest this, as the topographical diagrams are quite compelling and suggest that this monuments are much older than expected. Robert, your analysis of all these sites being the same level above current ground water levels,to me gives you the credibility and evidence as a mathematician for the probability of it being incorrect is beyond the scientific reasoning Anon is requesting. So, why do you not make it available on the blog?

      Dr Stuart Love

      Delete
    2. Geo

      I have allowed this comment - but one comment was just a repeat of this one and the third you start re-visiting astronomical alignments again - for the sake of continuation keep it relevant and to the subject of the blog - I hate people rambling!

      If you suggesting carbon dating is not relevant - that's your choice, your on a rocky boat on that one as it shows your lack of scientific discipline.

      As your keep repeating the questions, so I will in future keep repeating the answer "You then try to deflect to a subject were you claim that Round Barrows are burial mounds - though you did admit that some of them do not have burials???

      If this was not supposed to be a 'serious science' your comments would be taken as fascicle or humorous - well you make me laugh :-)

      Carbon dates that don't count and graves without bodies - do you really think people take you seriously??"


      RJL

      Delete
    3. Stuart

      Thank you for your support.

      We have sold over fifteen hundred books (The Stonehenge Enigma) since its launch last June of all those who have read the book like yourself - I have add just two complaints - and they were about spelling errors!!

      The only people who have questioned the hypothesis, some on this site some more famous archaeologists by private email - one of which I publicised last year on a blog - none of whom have read the book. The 'professional' archaeologist all refute my hypothesis by saying 'sea level was not that high in the Mesolithic' - very true, but the book never claimed sea level was that high, proving they never read or therefore understood the hypothesis.

      You see from the page count, as this site is advertised in the book for feedback if the reader needs clarification on any point or wishes to question any of the FORTY proofs of hypothesis.

      One of the proofs is the 'case study' sites (Stonehenge, Durrington Walls, Avebury and Old Sarum) have all been constructed at the same height above the water table level - which is almost a mathematical impossibility unless they were all built on the shorelines of a Mesolithic water level.

      The problem is that, as shown on previous blogs, some people's mathematics is not as 'accurate' as thy believe and the blog would turn into a maths paper of little attraction. But I will consider a full blog in the future.

      RJL

      Delete
  26. Slow down guys.

    Anon: to enjoy this blog you have to suspend disbelief for a moment and buy into Robert's chronology and version of events. He may not be right but then the official establishment has been wrong on many occasions. You are quite right to point out discrepancies between the establishment view and his and outline the contours of doubt - school children doing a project will value this and I take this seriously.

    Robert: I like to hear from Anon. There are few of us contributing to this subject and he has clearly been doing some reading and personal study. You make so many unexpected connections that you can be relaxed about your position - this is not meant in a patronizing way but with genuine respect. I much prefer Anon's remarks to specious sophistry.

    Talking of which, Kostas, I like Keats:

    "Beauty is truth, truth beauty,- that is all you know on earth, and all you need to know."

    The jadeite axes are beautiful I think and fashioned by man. What is your view? Auroch's fart?


    "

    ReplyDelete
  27. I asked for quotes to be refuted .You didn't provide any . Instead you make up stuff like "If you suggesting carbon dating is not relevant " .I have surely said enough for you to find something quotable , where did I suggest that ? .On the other hand you were supposed to provide evidence about current archaeology supporting the Mont St Michel date , you also avoided that .

    ReplyDelete
  28. GEO

    " These Tumuli have produced Radio-carbon dated goods from dates as far back as 6,850 BC. (4), which makes them a fundamental part of any prehistoric landscape at Carnac." .

    http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/francecarnac.htm

    That's just two within the hour.

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  29. Chris , I realise that you have to suspend disbelief when reading science fiction or archaeo fiction , my interest has simply been to point out errors ,which can spoil even the fictional .The establishment / experts /teachers/professionals have always made mistakes and always will ,they have been pointed out , accepted and we move on . This doesn't mean that they are always wrong .Those with a little knowledge are far more frequently wrong . Docs and pilots make mistakes but I know who I want to use when ill or flying .I don't point out the establishment view but what is the case . I don't always accept the establishment view but I'm not necessarily interested in views . Comments like "“NOT ONE SINGLE BURIAL was ever found at the base of a round barrow “ are not views they are simply wrong . Comments about the car park post holes were for mooring boats is a a non falsifiable "view" which I find funny but am not interested in discussing . it takes enough time to get the errors accepted , views would take for ever .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "but am not interested in discussing . it takes enough time to get the errors accepted , views would take for ever ."

      The term anal-retentive (also anally retentive), commonly abbreviated to anal, is used conversationally to describe a person who pays such attention to detail that the obsession becomes an annoyance to others, potentially to the detriment of the anal-retentive person.

      Sigmund Freud

      Delete
    2. In your search for info on the web did you notice this
      http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/arcnat/megalithes/en/mega/megacartum_en.htm which mentions the midle 5th millenium date .
      The paper by Petrequin , Sheridan ,Cassen ,Field et al (2010 )on the Breamore axe mentions (p25) that the tumulus dates to around 4500 BC .

      Serge Cassen (2011) “in comparison, Saint-
      Michel, well dated to the mid-5th millennium and therefore later than the others has the smallest sepulchral area and a less elaborate
      set of variscite ornaments .

      Scarre , Burrenhult , Sheridan et al (2003 )These include the chambers of the Tumulus de Saint Michel and le Moustoir at carnac , which from their contents date probably to the later 5th millennium .BC .

      Delete
    3. Lots of papers on 5th millennium axes - the date from the axes is based on the date found at their quarry site, which in turn is based on charcoal from fires next or near the jade outcrop.

      As these are 'associated' dates. The only TRUE statement that can logically be devised from this evidence is that it is believed that the 'LATEST' date for these axes and therefore barrows is 5th Millennium. But this is not the 'absolute date' for the only absolute dates are the charcoal not the axes or barrows.

      Consequently, as we find similar dating evidence at the base of a barrow of St Michael in Carnac which was dated as 6850BCE, that then changes the date of the 'association' to 6850BCE. So we can now claim using the same association process used for the axes, that the barrow was built before 6850BCE at the latest.

      Unless you can tell me a 'scientific' reason why a 'associated' date can logically be translated as an 'absolute' date?? A academically qualified paper will suffice!

      RJL

      Delete
  30. At least your trying and not resorting to bluster . That is not two and it is not current archaeology .Look at the source from Ancient Wisdom ,it’s Julian Cope’s Megalithic European which is referring to the same discredited date as you . Keep trying and let us know when you find any mention from current archaeology i.e. archaeologists who know the period , monuments and area writing in the past 15 years , a clue I have already mentioned some examples.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geo

      We can all be pedantic, its not a skill lets try YOUR quote:

      "We are talking about the date from Mont St Michel ,simply provide evidence that it is accepted by anyone except you ." " Quote and refute if you can ."

      Well Dr Stuart Love - that's one!
      Ancient Wisdom - that's two
      Julian Cope - That's Three

      That's easy!!

      Would you like to withdraw your comment??

      RJL

      Delete
    2. Furthermore Geo

      "Quote and refute" YOUR quote again "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."

      Tuesday, May 01, 2012 10:48:00 AM

      http://robertjohnlangdon.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/echoes-of-atlantis.html

      "Where is your evidence from current archaeology , not the discredited Mont St Michel date you keep peddling , current archaeology dealt with that 40 years ago"

      If it has been discredited 40 years ago - why are you giving reasons for the charcoal - sub-fossil or peat bog wood??

      Show us the evidence for this 'discredited' sample Gsy-90 - the statement from the lab stating we analysed the sample incorrectly - if you can do that I will withdraw my claim - if not I will accuse you of being a fraud!

      RJL

      Delete
  31. I doubt Stuart Love is an authority on the period ,the area or tne monumnent . .The Ancient Wisdom site merely quotes Cope who is in the same boat as Stuart , he was merely quoting the old figure . I doubt that adds up to much never mind three . I have pinted out recent commnents from people who actually know about the site and the area and the monument . There is no comparison .
    Irealise tht you din't like quotes ,that might explain why you don't recognoise one when you see one , the “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. “ is a direct quote from the lab in relation to GSY-90 , not me . I pointed this out to you months ago elsewhere, and also here .

    ReplyDelete
  32. Geo

    Sorry did we miss something?

    I hate to be too anal but you did want to 'quote and refute' did you not??

    "We are talking about the date from Mont St Michel ,simply provide evidence that it is accepted by anyone except you ." - where did the word authority come into this quote??

    So you admit you are WRONG - yet again??

    So the quote is NOT as you suggested a bad or poor sample its discredited by the DATE. Well were did we see that before oh yes..

    Only in 1975 when a 'student' informed EH they were wrong to give the car park pits an 'associated' date of Neolithic due to the proximity to Stonehenge site.

    Eventually, when they did carbon date only two of the three samples - to find they were IN FACT Mesolithic!! That's a FACTUAL date, just in case your still having difficulty in distinguishing.

    So was there lots of publicity to say they had got it wrong....NO! They suggested instead, that the samples were 'contaminated' or in this case they can't use that old excuse (used before) lets go for old wood from a bog site (as they are numpties and believe anything) - pathetic - anyone with half a brain can see through this - except you.

    Tell me if this kind of 'accident' is feasible, why can't the fires form the jade axes be from a similar batch of 'fossilised wood' and therefore the jade was manufactured as described by the British Museum in 2000BC?? OR its just saved for 'special occasions' when the numpties are short of excuses.

    So back to reality and the basis of your 'logic' of dating by association (you missed this question) - can tell me a 'scientific' reason why a 'associated' date can logically be translated and accepted as an 'absolute' date??

    A academically qualified paper will suffice!!

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  33. You asked “Show us the evidence for this 'discredited' sample Gsy-90 - the statement from the lab stating we analysed the sample incorrectly “ I showed you it , you just didn’t realise that you had been presented with it 6 months ago .
    Now you are back to more bluster
    You asked for the "Current archaeology shows Long Barrows were built AT LEAST in the 7th Millennium - as shown from the Carbon dating of St Michaels in Carnac " Are you suggesting Stuart , yourself and Julian Cope might have a better idea than people who actually know what they are talking about .The source of all your mistakes is the same dating that the lab at the time , over 50 years ago in the infancy of the RC dating said was anomalous and maybe other dates from the monumnet might be considered as more likely
    Against that we have the current experts for the period ,area and the monument which I provided . Can't you face up to that ? You even mistook the comments from the lab as mine .
    No I didn't say I was wrong , but you have been shown to be wrong many times and seem to have a pathological inability to accept it .

    ReplyDelete
  34. Geo

    That statement was made in 1966!!! Strangely enough at the same time they found the post holes at Stonehenge and claimed them Neolithic - if that's the best you have - then you don't have. Its like taking Stukeley's estimations of Stonehenge being Roman - he may have been a archaeologist - doesn't make him right!!

    And no proof of the main question that you base your beliefs upon - 'associated' artefact dating - as you have not provided any papers to support your ideas (even ancient antique one's), should we take it for granted these is none?

    Consequently, you need to qualify your dates with either the wording 'as these are associated dates, this is the latest date' or 'as these are associated dates they are open to change to an earlier date' - anything else is just fraud!!

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Furthermore

      If we read the COMPLETE sentence rather than your abbreviated version:

      "General Comment: Gsy-89 corresponds to beginning of Middle Neolithic,
      and goes well with present ideas about date of large mounds of the Car-
      nac group. 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.


      So what date did this 'archaeologist' believe the mound to be made 3030BC - which we know to be 1500 years incorrect, that's not just a few years but about 30% out as we have the Jade Axes to prove a better latest date.

      So the evidence you used is based on a person who clearly was under the influence of analysis that was fundamentally wrong!!

      You are either a fraud or a complete numpty!!

      RJL

      Delete
  35. Chris Johnson you write,

    Kostas, I like Keats:

    "Beauty is truth, truth beauty,- that is all you know on earth, and all you need to know."

    The jadeite axes are beautiful I think and fashioned by man. What is your view? Auroch's fart?


    Try all you can you can't get me out of your mind!

    I like Keats and add like Plato: “Beauty, Truth and Goodness is One”.

    The question is not how truly beautiful jade axes are. But who and when and why they were made. If mere possession and placement proves origination then the Acropolis marbles in the British Museum are also British!

    Some pressing alimentary truths are agitating your gut feelings. Your 'Auroch's fart' fart reeks of your noxious state of mind.

    More sophistry and rhetoric, you say? Sophistry and rhetoric (“lies and deception”) is what was coming out of London and Washington leading up to the Iraq War. These signs of civilization in decline should worry you! Not the downfall of ancient Athens.

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  36. The statement wasn’t made in 1966 . it was made earlier . You were told this all 6 months ago and typically didn't understand or read properly . Your response at the time was to suggest that using old wood from the peat was somehow unusual . Much like your recent comments about the quarry site at Mount Viso being difficult to access because it was at 2000m (originally 2000 feet compounding the mistake by a factor greater than 3 ) it shows an ignorance of landscape and how it was and is lived in even today . Ancient wood taken from the peat is still burnt in homes , I was comforted by some in a bothy only last week . The point is that any association of that date with the build of the monument is discredited .Not that it matters that much but it does get worse ,Giot (no relation ,excavator of the tumulus ) also commented on the lab “….(GIF-1309), which corresponds to the 95% interval 4938-4330 BC (this measurement was made in 1969, when the Gif-sur-Yvette physicists were producing dates for archaeology with large standard errors). “ .
    You didn’t say ,but where did you get your reference for the date , I’d like to know , could it have been the same source as the others ?
    What matters is that the comment "Current archaeology shows Long Barrows were built AT LEAST in the 7th Millennium - as shown from the Carbon dating of St Michaels in Carnac " ,is nonsense , I have provided evidence to show that current archaeology not only does not “show “ that to be the case , it has an entirely different view and anyone accepting that date has been led astray . Double check everything , particularly if it looks too good to be true , even the experts get it wrong but be even warier of those who peddle solutions ,explanations to secrets ,mysteries ,enigmas , puzzles , etc , alarm bells should ring when any of these words appear in the title of their wares .

    ReplyDelete
  37. Geo

    Your comments like your sources are out of date and out of context. Far from showing the carbon dating was 'nonsense' you have completely justified the dates of DSY-90 sample as being correct - thank you, numpty!

    As for a academic reference?? IS A CARBON DATED SAMPLE you don't need a numpty like you to justify it IT EXISTS!!

    You are clearly an old fraud who lacks the ability to see through the propaganda and see the reality of the dating evidence. Fotunately, you are old school and new more dynamic individuals will in time take a fresh look at this dated dogma, you call fact.

    Moreover, IF you ever come up with ANY academic papers qualifying the accuracy of 'associated' dates as being factual - do let us know - I'm always looking for sources of amusement.

    TIME TO MOVE ON from the Jade Axes proving an advanced manufacturing and distribution system existed in the 5th Millennium 'at the latest'.

    My personal prediction is that now we have the 6850BCE carbon date as factual, we will find (in the course of further investigations) that they were distributed in the 8th, just after the start of Stonehenge Phase I as shown from the Car Park Carbon Dating evidence.

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  38. @Kostas
    Plenty of sophistry these days, you are right. However since the recent Irish vote on the Euro I am placing my trust in the virtues of a good education to refute lies and deceptions from people who should know better.

    Perhaps we better stay off the subject of Iraq? It is highly emotional, especially in UK. For me it illustrates the perils of bluffing a pair of deuces - something I am sure happened in pre-history too. Not much sophistry involved, although plenty of rhetoric on all sides.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Chris you write,

    “For me it [Iraq War] illustrates the perils of bluffing a pair of deuces ...”

    I would have dropped this thread and not responded. But the matter is so deadly serious, I must.

    Great and powerful nations should not so easily be provoked to war by 'bluff and bluster'! Such cowardly behavior is for the unwise and insecure – and special interests that turn a blind eye to the 'common good'.

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
  40. The use-phase of the central chamber/cists of tumulus Saint-Michel was in the mid-fifth millennium BC (4500BC), or perhaps slightly earlier.

    Source : http://lara-polen.univ-nantes.fr/IMG/pdf/25Schulting2009.pdf

    Jade axes business has started around 5200BC (to 3700 BC)

    Source : http://neolithique02.blog4ever.com/blog/lire-article-65835-1901275-les_haches_alpines_en_roche_verte___commerce_inter.html

    What is the issue ?

    ReplyDelete
  41. Robert in your main post you write,

    “...[the CBA Issue 96, Sept 2007] believed they [jade axes] come from China!! (Interesting no-one explained how they got to Britain, via hunter gathers tribes that didn't sail boats...) “


    Let me take a stab at your enigma!

    These jade axes were ornamental. Mostly in possession of private individuals in the UK. Check the wiki article on jade: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jade .
    Nothing there about Neolithic Brits using jade. But plenty about Chinese emperors favoring jade in ornamental carvings.

    Maybe these ornamental jade axes did come from China, as your referenced article suggests. But not by Neolithic Brits with no boats but by seafaring Brits in the 17th and 18th centuries and even earlier with the best sails in the worlds.

    Kostas

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kostas

      The next post shows that these axes were made in the Neolithic.

      RJL

      Delete
    2. Robert,

      Second store now all set up? Best wishes for a successful business venture!

      As for the Neolithic jade axes in your next post. The question is where they were made. Not when! Very old artifacts (like Neolithic jade axes made in China) could have been brought to the UK by British sailors even in the 16th century. And certainly by Marco Polo coming back to Italy from China. And from there to Britain. So hard to make the case these Neolithic jade axes now found in the UK were made in the UK.

      Kostas

      Delete
    3. Kostas

      The jade has been identified was from the Alps in Italy and now they have found the exact quarry so dating is possible 5200BCE at the latest and probably much earlier.

      China is an interesting connection that is found in the book as they have pyramids and red haired skeletons - the likelihood is that the Cro-magnon's spread to China after the flood and showed them how to find jade and use it!!

      RJL

      Delete
    4. ...of course, ;)

      Kostas

      Delete
  42. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Great debate. Have a massive stock of popcorn for round 17! A subject very close to my heart. What many of you may not know is that Arabians were fashioning, wearing, using, but mostly 'sacrificing' green jade (nephrite) axes into lakes long before any of the Europeans - from any point of the compass. I would argue that 'Green Axe Culture', if indeed such a thing were to exist, may have migrated from Arabia, back into Africa (via SW Arabia c. 8000 BCE)and thence Northward to the Mediterranean coast of N. Africa. There is also the more certain migration of much of rudimentary Neolithic culture from the Fertile Crescent to the NW - and across mainland Europe. Both branches almost certainly carried 'Jade Technology' with them. Either way, 'Green Axe Culture' is often noted as being on the Vanguard of the advance of Neolithic Culture. For Britons c. 4500 - 3500 BCE, our most precious ritual object was almost certainly a green (coloured) axe. And every adult member of those many and on

    Flinty

    ReplyDelete
  44. Flinty

    Don't think the migration would work that way around!!

    First you need to identify where the 'Arabian' jade originates?

    Secondly, I believe that the Italian Jade is the oldest in the world (including China) so you need to qualify the argument.

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  45. Jadeite and fibrolite axes were found at Tumulus Mont St. Michel. The grave dates 6850 BCE. This is the story about the axes. Phaeton the son of Helios wanted to drive the Sun chariot but Helios kept putting him off. But finally he let Phaeton drive the chariot. He lost control and the Sun was scorching the earth here and there. There was such an uproar that Zeus killed Phaeton with a thurnder bolt. Phaeton had a cousin Cygnus who was the ruler of Liguria. When Phaeton died Cygnus grieved so much that he died. Zeus turned him into a constellation. The Ligurian Alps is where the axes come from. None have ever been used. They were tears of Cygnus. Either people went to the Alps on a sort of pilgrimage or someone was doing a good trade in Tears of Cygnus. This story also points to some sort of catastrophe perhaps meteors or.....? A world map was created many thousands of years ago using constellatons. for the map Cygnus lay with his feet on the Isle of Lewis and his head was at Mecca. His wings spread from Scandinavia, through Europe and on to north Africa where tumuli etc. can also be found. This territory was ancient Swan Land.......well that's my name for it. The people in all those areas had similar megalithic traditions. Astronomer, surveyor, navigator, geologist, trading folks.

    ReplyDelete
  46. What is quite interesting this month Joan is that they found wheat in a 'yard' under the solent dated about the same time as the axes. The conclusion of the report in the 'Science' journal is that the wheat came from the Mediterranean, proving our ancestors traded throughout the known world (your Cygnus Map?) - if so this would make sense of the myths and legends of history.

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  47. jade is a Turkish word.Why?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The name jadeite is derived (via French: l'ejade and Latin: ilia) from the Spanish phrase "piedra de ijada" which means "stone of the side". It was believed to cure kidney stones if it was rubbed against the side of the afflicted person's body. The Latin version of the name, lapis nephriticus, is the origin of the term nephrite, which is also a variety of jade.

      Delete
  48. How they could be polished?Which metod could be used?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The process of polishing with abrasives starts with coarse ones and graduates to fine ones placed on the surface of another stone.

      Delete