Monday, 30 September 2013

BBC ATLANTIS - offer of assistance

By Robert John Langdon

I watched with interest the BBC's new series on Atlantis that looks at the adventures of a man called Jason (as in Argonauts fame).  The opening sequence was most encouraging as it showed our hero on a exploration boat in the North Sea and not the Mediterranean as most deluded academics are now claiming.


BBC Atlantis


He then takes a submersible (mini submarine) down to what can only be Doggerland at the bottom of the North Sea and finds relics from an ancient civilisation - so far so good... then it goes off into a world where historical accuracy has no meaning.

As the primary expert on the subject - see The Epilogue of my book published on this blog site - I feel that I should offer my services to the producers and director so that they can correct the mistakes of the first series, if a second is commissioned.  For although, the location of Atlantis was correct (or limited filming budget may have used this location by luck?) the historical accuracy of the city and people of Atlantis was plainly wrong!

As an illustration, the city was on a rock face with high walls like a castle.  Plato's description of Atlantis was a City of concentric circles on a flat fertile plain.  The reason the city had concentric circles is because it was a civilisation of mariners, who traded and lived on ships and they moored these boats within these safe harbours as we found in the ancient prehistoric site of Avebury, where you can still see the size and scale of these internal round harbours.  Sadly apart from him swimming to shore the lack of boats in Atlantis is a mystery as nearly everyone in the city seemed to be a trader of tropical fruit without obvious means of transport.

The second major mistake was weaponry, the Greek/Persian looking guards (and why not!) were using 'reflex' bows again with this Greek/Persian influence - but the archaeology of the North Sea and surrounding coast lands show they had 'Long Bows' ( Holmegaard bows in Denmark are dated to the time of Atlantis 9000BC) with micoliths rather than clumsy arrow points.

Lastly (and most importantly) the population of Atlantis was NOT small dark Mediterranean types, Atlanteans were tall, blond and blue eyed - even the three heroes of this adventure are shown to be small Greek like people (politically correct no doubt!) but the description of Hercules is "He was twice as strong and powerful unlike a normal man. His eyes were fremon blue and his hair was light brown which lurked and brushed backwards from his temples. "  which should be no surprise as he was the son of Zeus (yet another blue eyed, blond person) and was from Germania as testified by none other than Tacitus.

He records a special affinity of the Germanic peoples for Hercules. In chapter 3 of his Germania, Tacitus states:

... they say that Hercules, too, once visited them; and when going into battle, they sang of him first of all heroes. They have also those songs of theirs, by the recital of this barditus as they call it, they rouse their courage, while from the note they augur the result of the approaching conflict. For, as their line shouts, they inspire or feel alarm.

And what about our hero Jason well her was an Argonaut and as we know, Jason assembled a great group of heroes, known as the Argonauts after their ship, the Argo. The group of heroes included the Boreads (sons of Boreas, the North Wind) who could fly, Heracles, Philoctetes, Peleus, Telamon, Orpheus, Castor and Pollux, Atalanta, and Euphemus.  All of our hero's were 'sons of Boreas' and as you see in The Epilogue of this blog the Greeks had another word for Atlantis 'Hyperborea' which not only gives us the location of Atlantis but identifies the people that will be become the Norse myths and legends.
Doggerland /Atlantis
Doggerland/Hyperborea/Atlantis - Names for the same location and people


RJL

Tuesday, 10 September 2013

Stonehenge dispute solved after 260 years - I don't think!!

By Robert John Langdon

I have just sent off yet another letter to Mike Pitts of the CBA who produces a bi-monthly magazine called 'British Archaeology'.  This is not the first time that I have written to Mike nor no doubt the last, but none to date have ever been published - which I can only attribute to the 'controversial nature' of my findings and hypothesis.  If I am incorrect in my conclusions 'everybody' who has access to a computer can challenge me openly in debate here on this web site which has been done over the past two years with over 1000 comments being posted - one would imagine that the readership of 'British Archaeology' magazine (like me who are charged me £27 a year to read the magazine) would publish each article online so that they can be read and challenged if the facts are wrong- but they don't, so what are they hiding from?

If they are right and us so called  'pseudo scientists' are wrong - surely by an open debate 'the truth will out'? 

CBA
"Censored Archaeology for all true believers"
Or does the archaeological academic 'club' only allow accepted 'propaganda' to be published - can someone please pass me a copy of 1984, I think I'm suffering from 'deja vu'!!

Although it is frustrating as an author not to have your views printed, I suddenly realised this morning after sending the email that I have a far larger audience here on this bog site (with over 100,000 views) than Mikes magazine circulation which is less than 18,000.  I therefore decided to print the letter here - to a greater audience.


Dear Editor

Let it not be said that Mike Pitts 'never let the truth get in the way of a good story'

I read with great fascination your article in the Sept/Oct issue of the CBA magazine - what is this definitive proof going to be that ended this 260 year old mystery? But sadly it soon became apparent that the article was going to be based on unqualified scientific evidence which gave way to a collection of poor judgements and mindless speculation.

Patch marks are not new to Stonehenge and have been seen many times before, but your article portrayed this common event as a great discovery.  
The reality of these marks are not, as you have suggested, a clue to the completion of the stone circle, but an indication that the monument was never designed to be a circle in the first place.  If you look carefully at past 'patch marks' that have been more extensive and pronounced, you will notice a row of 'Z' holes around the present outer ring of sarsen stones - these marks are the exact same size and shape as the marks shown in your article.




Stonehenge Parchmarks


Excavation of these 'Z' holes show that they are far too small to have taken the large outer ring sarsen stones you suggest.  But my the major irritation with the article is that we already have physical evidence of the existing standing stone 11 and excavation details of outer stone holes, such as 13, which show quite conclusively that the SW quadrant was left empty of these larger sarsen stones - apart from stones 15 and 16 which are part of the midwinter solstice alignment.  The only redeeming aspect of the article is the quotation you included from Mike Bowden from EH's assessment team who quite rightly points out that there is a case it might be an incomplete circle.  

Stonehenge Parchmarks 2


The obvious point which is missing (from the article) is that if it is a monument to the dead, which most archaeologist now believe, it would be dedicated to the moon (hence the Aubrey holes) and therefore NOT a round monument temple (as current perceived) to the sun. Consequently, it was originally constructed as a 'crescent moon' and therefore, all the holes necessary for a complete monument are, and always have been, in place.

RJL