Wednesday, 12 March 2014

A Case of Archaeological Censorship!

By Robert John Langdon

When I launched my book 'The Stonehenge Enigma' some four years ago, I undertook the normal practice of sending review copies to Archaeological Institutions, Newspapers and prominent Archaeologists.  This resulted in the Sunday Express doing a very nice double page spread on my hypothesis and placing the book within their own book club.

Other outlets also reviewed the book, including some that made fun of the fact it supported the great flood theory written about in the bible.  Also contained in the first response to my book were 'Peer Reviews' that were returned to me including 'famous' TV archaeologists, which I didn't use or publish as they we quite frankly their critical analysis of the hypothesis was quite simply 'wrong' as they assumed that the findings was based on rising sea levels (which clearly it was not!).

So to save these individuals embarrassment, as I respected their past work, I did not publish the peer reviews.

Archaeological Censorship
Archaeological Censorship

So last year when I published the second edition of the book with new compelling evidence that proves the hypothesis beyond reasonable doubt - Yet I was 'shocked' at the lack of interest in the subject matter compared to four years earlier.

Had everyone gone off archaeology?

I knew that the books had been reaching the intended recipients as they started to appear on Amazon as 'new' books at a vastly discounted rate.  But it was only recently that I found out why the second edition book has such 'poor publicity'.  After six months of zero reviews (although I had increased my review database by 150% to included worldwide archaeology magazines), I decided to cut corners and just place my own article in these magazines in the form of this advertorial.

BBC History Magazine Ad

Taking to the main two magazines Current Archaeology and British Archaeology Magazine, both were more than interested in my advertorial and the fact I was happy to pay them the £500 for the privilege.  Once the copy was sent to them 'strange things' started to happen.

One didn't acknowledge the receipt of the email attachment - so I sent it a second time and followed up with a call suggesting it had not been received.  The second magazine uses an 'agent' to place the advert who emailed be to say 'that they are not happy with the copy' - when we pursed the agent they then confessed:

"they are unwilling to discuss the subject matter!"

This astonishing fact was further compounded when, in response I published my 'Post Glacial Maps' - the first detailed prehistoric maps in History!!   And of the 82 archaeological magazines contacted only one run the article:

I even had a BBC TV crew coming down to my exhibition in Rottingdean to see the maps on display (a series of urgent phone calls from them over a two hour period to get a firm time and free access for their vehicles) - yet fifteen mins before they were due to arrive they pulled out of the interview and would not reschedule!  Further, calls to the presenters assistants confirmed my fears that they were 'warned off' by a senior archaeological professor who they wished to part of the report.

We look at Putin's Russia, China and North Korea and comfort ourselves that we in the west are free from censorship - but are we?  We have seen in this site blogs showing us that the 'Truth is NOT out There' and we have to fight the establishment under the freedom of information act to divulge the truth:

So why do they hide the facts from us?

Sadly, it's all down to money not principle.  If I am right about Post Glacial Flooding the establishment (English Heritage) and the archaeologists that lecture and write books and articles for money are wrong.  Will EH and the museums pulp all the books, bin all the signs as they are wrong?  Will the eminent professors resign their posts and return their PhD's as it is based on garbage and poor research - no chance!

They will ignore the findings and hope I go away!!

I have recently, been in contact with Dean Talboys who was the first to recognise that water played a major part in the construction of Avebury:

He tells me the same situation happened to him when he first published:

"I assume you're not an archaeologist then? I hoped I had coined the term "Archillogical" when I developed my theory about Stonehenge back in 2006. At one point I created a 3D model of 30 men stood in a circle, arms locked to represent the archaeological community's closed-minded attitude towards what the uninitiated (like myself) knew to be absolute nonsense. 

I left it out of the book, relying instead on a painstaking disassembly of orthodox belief. And for what you might say? Only one Prof. of Archaeology stepped out of line to admit my theory really did hold water (literally). All my efforts to have the articles published were to no avail, even though I had received a peer review. I wish you well."

So long as there is an Internet free from control and people like Dean who have 'open minds' and intelligence to see that the establishment is either deluded or quite simply lying to for the sake of money and position.  Then I will continue and expand my writings to prove them wrong, for the words of George Orwell in his classic 1984 (which was about 1948, if you were unaware) ring truer today than when I first read them some years ago.

 "He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future." 1984

(George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four is a fictional account of the manipulation of the historical record for nationalist aims and manipulation of power. In the book, the creation of a "national story" by way of management of the historical record is at the heart of the debate about history as propaganda.)



  1. Keep at it Robert and don't let the buggers get you down, it's plain to see even after 3 months of over-average rainfall how the British landscape can change, one of the roads near me and the river Kennet (Marsh Benham) is still closed where the river is flowing over the surface of the road even after a few weeks of relatively dry weather, it's only logical that the higher groundwater levels etc from the melting icecaps would immensely cover the landscape as we see it now. It makes sense to me but like you say, very difficult to change people's minds especially when their jobs depend on history being unchanged!

  2. Thanks for your continued support Roger.

    The Environment Agency (no less) have recently sent me a six page letter after reading about my hypothesis, suggesting that my research could be of value to them - which is no surprise to anyone like yourself how can clearly see the 'common sense' of what has happened to our environment in the recent past (last ten thousand years) and is returning due to global warming.

    Lets hope the 'dinosaurs' in the archaeological world join the true scientists in the hydrological field and wake up to the obvious and openly 'discuss' the matter rather than hiding away and pretending it doesn't exist.


  3. Hi Robert, your theory is fascinating. I've not read your book yet, but can you tell me , is there any evidence in the soil of the flooding? As a layperson, I'd guess that if land was under water for thousands of years, there would be evidence in the geology, soil, silt layers etc? Surely this would provide huge weight to your ideas, if this evidence is there? Keep up the good work! Ian

    1. Ian

      That's what the first book in the trilogy is all about - the archaeological evidence which gives 40 proofs that Post Glacial Flooding occurred in the last 10,000 years.

      Silt layers surround Stonehenge as seen in the British Geological Society maps that are called 'superficial soils' - there is a viewer on their web site:

      Click on the left on 'superficial deposits' and go take a look at Stonehenge. Voila it is surrounded with sand, silt, clay and pebbles - so (in theory) you are right and everyone should accept that 'this would provide huge weight of your ideas' - but sadly, they don't. For they call this deposit 'head' rather than alluvium (which BGS accept is post glacial evidence of flooding) - although it is made of the same substances.

      Eventually, when geologist realise than these deposits were also left post glacial rather than "hill wash" then my hypothesis will be recognised as correct.... but don't hold your breath (as stated in the blog) the matter is not open to debate.... I guess if I added some UFO's or stone age man banging the stones like a gigantic xylophone, then that's far less preposterous and could be debated.


  4. I have read and endorse your article and thank you for your research. It was always a mystery to me how the bluestones got to Stonehenge from Wales. Your presentation reveals they must have have been transported to Stonehenge on wooden barges, or an ancient equivalent. Quoting Orwell is entirely appropriate here. I have read tales about other archaeologists who have had their careers ruined for telling the truth.

  5. Thank you for your endorsement anon.

    It is a sad indictment that progress in any scientific field is thwarted by ignorance - my new book '13 Ancient things that don't make sense in History' has an excellent quote that sums up the history of science from Max Plank of the quantum world (who's science suffered the same problems in the early twentieth century) who said "A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it".