Sunday, 4 September 2016

Landscape Archaeology using the Post Glacial Flooding Hypothesis



Recent proof of Stonehenge's true construction date has opened the possibility of dating sites by their positions on the topology of the landscape, rather than the traditional and less reliable method of ‘dating by association’ with the artefacts found on the site.


Post Glacial Hypothesis
CLICK ON PICTURE for my - Post Glacial Hypothesis

 The method of carbon or stratification dating is high controversial as these artefacts can have been used and left at a much later date than the original construction.  This then leads to a multitude of theories and subjective conjecture which is confusing archaeology today, as they have now eroded into s almost religious attitude to the science that relies on ‘cultural interpretation’ of monuments and hence the modern astronomical and alignment obsession – none of which is justified by any true scientific evidence.


This is what the University of Oxford make of this technique:

Dating methods are the means by which archaeologists establish chronology.  The more dating methods we use to construct a chronology, the more likely it is that the chronology will be reliable.
The most universal dating method in archaeology is a relative dating method: dating by association. At it simplest, this means recognising an artefact or structure as belonging to a known type of a particular date.  Where there is a significant number of these associations, the dating information they give us becomes more reliable - individual cases can be misleading - artefacts, for instance, may be residual (belonging to an earlier period but present in a later context due to redeposition). The more associations we have, the easier it is to see such problems in the evidence, and therefore the more likely the site chronology is to be correct.

Absolute dating methods include radiocarbon, dendrochronology, TL/luminescence dating, archaeomagnetic dating and a variety of less common techniques.  All of these have two things in common:  Firstly they are only possible when the right sort of material is present (for example, there is no possibility of using radiocarbon or dendrochronology when there is no organic matter or preserved wood available); secondly, they are all comparatively expensive to carry out and the results may not provide the kind of answer that the archaeologist is trying to find.  Archaeologists must depend on their experience to guide them as to the most effective use of resources in commissioning scientific dating programmes.  

Often, this only becomes clear at the post-excavation stage.  It is always good practice therefore, to take a wide range of samples of any datable material during excavation so that there will be maximum potential for a dating programme at a subsequent stage of the work.  Ideally, relative and absolute dating methods should complement each other and provide a means of cross-checking or control.  Any conclusion on dating drawn from just one unsupported technique is usually regarded as unreliable by other archaeologists.



Sadly this doesn’t happen on most archaeological sites as money is the paramount issue and therefore subjective judgement predominates.  This unscientific judgement was seen recently at Craig Rhos-Y-Felin when only TWO out of the FIFTY radiocarbon dates were used to support a previous hypothesis by UCL’s Mike Parker-Pearson and the majority of the scientific dates were ignored.

Any qualified scientist would have had an objective view of the site – knowing that the microscopic rock analysis had proven with a 98% possibility that the quarry was the site of the Stonehenge ‘Bluestone’ – would have accepted that the majority of the radiocarbon dates were in the Mesolithic period (30%) and that 100% of these dates had come from known man-made hearths, unlike the random ‘nut shells and other organic material found scattered over the site.

Criag Rhos-Y-Felin
Criag Rhos-Y-Felin - Surrounded in the Mesolithic Period
 Moreover, these dates corresponded to other independent dates found in the old Visitors Car Park in the 1960 and 80’s.  These until now had been discounted as they did not fit the ‘dating by association’ of artefacts found on the main site like the antler picks found in the ditches surrounding Stonehenge.  These dates we now understand to be the ‘post holes’ from the mooring posts that held the boats as they unloaded the Bluestones from Stonehenge – a piece of which was found in the soil of the infill of one of these post holes.

This now gives us a radiocarbon date for the shoreline of the Stonehenge site as it is at a height when the river touched these post holes.

Old Visitor's Car Park - Stonehenge radiocarbon dates
Avon River shoreline in the Mesolithic Period with the corresponding Hearth Dates

 The River Avon (at the time of Stonehenge’s Phase I construction -ditch & Bluestones) was 96m high, rather than the 65m height of today.  This is a decrease of 48% over the last 10,000 years (average 3.1mm per annum) – which 30 - 40% is probably due to isocratic rebound from the last ice age.  Consequently, if we take these statistics and look at other sites around the same River Avon, such as Durrington Walls, we can now conduct our first Landscape Analysis.

The Avon at Durrington is 8m higher than its nearest point at Stonehenge and hence will be 8m higher.  This Mesolithic level of 104m (96m + 8m) fills the site as a prehistoric harbour – filled to the newly discovered postholes found last month under the soil.  Not only do the shorelines match both the post holes of Stonehenge and Durrington Walls – so are the sizes of the post holes, clearly showing their association.

Durrington Walls - Harbour
Durrington Walls in the Mesolithic as a harbour
 This suspected shoreline was revealed ten years ago (without any announcements as it contradicted the existing ‘theories’) when a standard Magnetometry Survey was conducted on the site Sheffield University in 2006.

Durrington Walls - prehistoric shorelines
Magnetometry Survey 2006 - showing the prehistoric Shorelines

 This the allows us for the first time to date this site accurately as 8500 BCE (the same as Stonehenge Phase I) for the Durrington Walls harbour and the Western / Northern walls, which are still visible today.  It is now apparent that as the Waters dropped towards the Neolithic Period, that the inner ditch was dug to preserve the boat access to the site and during the middle of the Neolithic Period, the South Eastern and eastern ditches were added for the same purpose, but clearly of a different specification (much smaller and unnoticed, except on geophysical mapping).

This is a simple example of how we can now map the prehistoric site and now obtain much more accurate dates than the existing ‘dating by artefact association method we see today....only time will tell!!

Monday, 15 August 2016

The remarkable and foolish world of archaeology and Durrington Walls supposed 'superhenge'!!

From the Independent - 15th August 2016

 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/revealed-remarkable-ancient-structure-found-just-two-miles-from-stonehenge-a7190476.html

Remarkable new archaeological discoveries are beginning to suggest that Stonehenge was built at a time of particularly intense religious and political rivalry.

Durrington Walls excavation

Just two miles north-east of the World Heritage site, at an important archaeological complex known as Durrington Walls, archaeologists have just discovered what appears to have been a vast 500-metre diameter circle of giant timber posts. The find is of international significance.
 
Originally archaeologists, using geophysics rather than excavation, had thought that they had found buried standing stones, so the discovery has totally changed their understanding of the site –  the largest ancient monument of its type in Britain.

However, the most significant revelation is the discovery that the newly identified timber circle complex was probably never fully completed – and that, just a few months or years after construction had started, there was a dramatic change in religious – and therefore almost certainly also political – direction. Work on the circle was stopped abruptly by around 2460BC – despite the fact that it was nearing completion. The 200-300 giant 6-7 metre long, 60-70 centimetre diameter timber posts were lifted vertically out of their 1.5 metre deep post holes – and were probably used to construct or expand other parts of the complex.

What’s more,  within a few months or years, the post holes themselves were then deliberately filled with blocks of chalk and were  covered up for most of the circuit by a bank made of similar chalk rubble. Two of the post holes have just been fully excavated – and, at the bottom of one, the prehistoric people who decommissioned and buried the site, formerly occupied by the giant timber circle, had placed one of their tools (a spade made of a cow’s shoulder blade) at the bottom of the post hole before it was filled in. It certainly hints at the ritual nature of how the change of religious direction was implemented.

It was as if the religious "revolutionaries" were trying, quite literally, to bury the past. The question archaeologists will now seek to answer is whether it was the revolutionaries’ own past they were seeking to bury – or whether it was another group or cultural tradition’s past that was being consigned to the dustbin of prehistory.

laser-scanning-durrington-phs.jpg
Excavation with 3d Scanner

What’s more,  within a few months or years, the post holes themselves were then deliberately filled with blocks of chalk and were  covered up for most of the circuit by a bank made of similar chalk rubble. Two of the post holes have just been fully excavated – and, at the bottom of one, the prehistoric people who decommissioned and buried the site, formerly occupied by the giant timber circle, had placed one of their tools (a spade made of a cow’s shoulder blade) at the bottom of the post hole before it was filled in. It certainly hints at the ritual nature of how the change of religious direction was implemented.

It was as if the religious "revolutionaries" were trying, quite literally, to bury the past. The question archaeologists will now seek to answer is whether it was the revolutionaries’ own past they were seeking to bury – or whether it was another group or cultural tradition’s past that was being consigned to the dustbin of prehistory.

Wooden Pit Hole


 The changes may also be linked – in some direct or indirect way – to the arrival in Britain, at around or immediately after this time,  of a new cultural tradition (and probably some new peoples or new elites) – known to prehistorians as the Beaker culture.

The changes at Durrington Walls and elsewhere represent a key element of Britain’s story – part of the transition from the Neolithic era to the Bronze Age. Usually it is impossible to glimpse the internal religious and political rivalries and conflicts of our prehistoric past – but the Durrington discoveries are giving the modern world an unprecedented opportunity to begin to understand aspects of the past that are normally hidden from view.

The Durrington Walls excavation has been carried out by a team of archaeologists led by Professor Vince Gaffney of the University of Bradford and Professor Mike Parker Pearson of University College London. The site is open to the public and is owned by the National Trust.

“The new discoveries at Durrington Walls reveal the previously unsuspected complexity of events in the area during the period when Stonehenge’s largest stones were being erected – and show just how politically and ideologically dynamic British society was at that particularly crucial stage in prehistory,” said Dr Nick Snashall, the senior National Trust archaeologist for the Stonehenge and Avebury World Heritage Site.

Sadly most of this article is pure fiction!!


Last year we were told on Sky News:

 http://news.sky.com/story/superhenge-unearthed-near-stonehenge-10347147

Scientists have found a larger version of Stonehenge just one mile from the site of the famous Wiltshire stone monument.

Durrington Showing the Stones
The Durrington Walls 'superhenge' is larger than Stonehenge and may include as many as 90 large stones. Built about 4,500 years ago, the stones lined an arena that was probably used for religious ceremonies or solstice rituals.

Using ground-penetrating radar on Salisbury Plain, scientists found the stones lying on their sides and buried under three feet of earth. Some of the stones are nearly 15ft and were originally placed along the southeastern edge of the circular enclosure that measured nearly a mile wide - making it the largest earthwork of its kind in the country.

The stones may not always have been part of the henge, possibly being toppled over before being incorporated into it - not an act of vandalism but an attempt to save whatever was thought to have been important about the stone, experts think.

Professor Vince Gaffney, from the University of Bradford, said the "truly remarkable" find is the most important to emerge so far from the Hidden Landscapes project, which is mapping previously unknown archaeological features buried in the Wiltshire countryside.

The 'Superhenge' and it's position on the landscape

 Mr Gaffney, who is one of those leading the project, said: "We're looking at one of the largest stone monuments in Europe and it has been under our noses for something like 4,000 years.

"We don't think there's anything quite like this anywhere else in the world.This is completely new and the scale is extraordinary."

He said that such monuments were designed to "impress and impose" and "to give the idea of authority to the living and the dead".

Dr Nick Snashall, National Trust archaeologist for the Avebury and Stonehenge World Heritage Site, said: "These latest results have produced tantalising evidence of what lies beneath the ancient earthworks at Durrington Walls.

"The presence of what appear to be stones, surrounding the site of one of the largest Neolithic settlements in Europe adds a whole new chapter to the Stonehenge story."

 The Story has changed dramatically!!

 

Last year the Ground survey found "90 large Stones" under the ground - this year we have 200 - 300 hundred??  So has their been more ground radar work or are we guessing as we did last year when the ground radar anomaly produced hidden stones as Professor Vince Gaffney stated? "we are looking at one of the largest stone monuments in Europe" - or are we??

So not only did they get the anomaly wrong they have also increase the numbers threefold without any evidence!!

Sadly the misinterpretation doesn't end their nonsense - "However, the most significant revelation is the discovery that the newly identified timber circle complex was probably never fully completed".

Never Completed??

You could say that about the entire site unless you believe what the archaeologists tell you.  The classic shape of this site is a half moon as the bank is missing towards the River Avon in the South East  and there is no bank to the South where they found these anomalies.

So Was the post holes incomplete - or just didn't exist as they have no idea of the design of function of the site?

 Durrington Walls - Debunked Part One

In my last video about Durrington Walls - I explained in detail that the River Avon at the time of Durrington's construction was ten times higher than today.  This would have produced a landscape that complemented the location of the Site as the higher waters would have entered in the South Eastern Quadrant and turned the location into a harbour.

Durrington - in the Mesolithic past as a harbour

This logical function for this site clearly shows why the site has a strange cut and fall away towards the River and this is also shown in the sub-soil of ground penetrating work undertaken in the mid- 2000's by Sheffield University.

Ground survey of Durrington in 2006
Conclusive evidence of water on the site?

Durrington Walls showing the two springs that would flow into the River Avon - but much larger than shown!
 
This evidence of water was also reported my Mike Parker-Pearson in his excavations of the site in 2009 when they located ancient springs that were in the centre of the site.  A strange place to put a settlement, where you are building houses - unless like Much Farm these houses were in fact on stilts and the waters were underneath the house!! 

Much Farm - showing a Crannog on stilts above the waterline

Finally, they failed to understand why these posts were eventually removed and back filled.  It doesn't make sense to complete (as they suggest ) a third to half the site then stop and removed all the post you planted if it's for 'ceremonial' reasons.  Unless of course the post were they're to tether boats by the ditch as we also see with the large Stones by the ditch in Avebury for the same purpose - which would logically result in them 'slowly' disappearing over a few centuries through rot and removal as the bank of the river retreated leaving the harbour eventually 'dry'.

We should also remember that a number of post were also found to the south of this site and at Woodhenge next door - so the idea that they didn't have enough posts to finish off Durrington as the archaeologists are currently claiming is beyond logic or intelligence sadly!!

Finally - if it could get any worse, they dated these posts at 2400BCE.  Wow..so how did they get that date from just two holes, was it superfast carbon dating of the wooden fragments in the hole.... 

No!! Sadly.  It's the same old fashioned tried and tested guestimation...how very scientific.

Remembering the last time archaeologists attempted this same process in the Visitor's Car Park at Stonehenge, when they discover four similar posts in 1966 but dated them as contemporary to the Stonehenge site at 2500BCE (remarkable only 40 years difference to days estimate!!) to discover some 20 years later by a PhD student - that they were completely wrong!! (maybe they still have the same egg on their face?) that the posts were not Neolithic but 5,000 earlier in the Mesolithic.....what's the chances, my friends???


RJL

Monday, 11 July 2016

Stonehenge Built 8000 BCE - an Inconvent Truth and Absolute Proof!





  Stonehenge Phase 1 - by 7500 BCE

A Recent paper by the University of London, Southampton, and Manchester; about the discovery of the quarry that provided the 'bluestones' for Stonehenge at Craig Rhos-y-felin caught the eye of the world by archaeologists announcing Stonehenge was originally built in Wales then transferred to Salisbury Plain 500 years later. 

 Video Evidence

Which is totally incorrect and wholly inaccurate?

The ‘Craig Rhos-y-felin: a Welsh bluestone megalith quarry for Stonehenge’ was a report published in December’s Edition of Antiquity Magazine 2016, it stated that a series of radiocarbon dates were found on the site by a 4m long monolith (ready for transportation) made of a rock which was microscopically identified as the same bluestone as the rocks that surround the existing Stonehenge site. Moreover, the report’s authors had decided that just two random sample dates (the two closest to their well-publicised hypothesis on Stonehenge's construction date) would be headlined and advertised to the mass media.


 Mike Parker Pearson et al. Craig Rhos-y-felin: a Welsh bluestone megalith quarry for Stonehenge. Antiquity, 89, pp 1331-1352. doi:10.15184/aqy.2015.177. 

In spite of these published radiocarbon dates the archaeologists had an obvious problem, as the samples were still 500 years older than the dates, they were hoping to find.  So they had to invent a new ‘story' to compensate for this ‘poor science’ and so started the speculation, in their report, that the monument was originally built in Wales then moved at a later date. This will no doubt be followed by another report in a few year's time (archaeologists love to do the lucrative lecture tours on limited ‘titbits’ of information) finding remains of a few small bluestones within a short distance from the quarry site and claiming them as evidence of the original Stonehenge – this would probably followed by even more lucrative lecture tour.

Nevertheless, if we take an unbiased and more analytical view of the report, we find something very different from the media claims and much more scientifically interesting.


Mike Parker Pearson et al. Craig Rhos-y-felin: a Welsh bluestone megalith quarry for Stonehenge. Antiquity, 89, pp 1331-1352. doi:10.15184/aqy.2015.177.

What was contained in detail within the report but overlooked, was the fact that a considerable number of Mesolithic carbon dates (fourteen compared to just two Neolithic dates the report headlined) were obtained from actual human-made hearths which were much, much earlier in history compared to two random nutshells found in an ‘occupation area’ - which could have been scattered by animals or even the weather?

Consequently, the lowest material found in the excavated area (remembering not the entire site was excavated) was dated at 8550 - 8330 BCE. 

These earlier and more frequent dates are from hearths rather than just random nutshells and was completely overlooked by the team, as it was 'perceived' to be too early to have a connection to Stonehenge. Nevertheless, this connection was well established some fifty years ago and was reported in a press release by myself in August 2011 - entitled ‘The Stonehenge Enigma; an inconvenient truth’:


The article shows that English Heritage did their utmost to conceal the truth about the real 'probable' date of Stonehenge being 5,000 years earlier than their current position. This scientific evidence was based on radiocarbon dating of the three giant post holes found in the visitor’s car park during its construction in 1966.

At the time the wooden remains of the posts (found at the bottom of the post holes) were labelled Neolithic in origin to support the existing antler pick dating hypothesis and was placed on a shelf probably for eternity. Fortunately, some years later an inquisitive Ph.D. student writing a thesis on the Stonehenge’s environment found these samples and concluded that they could not be as claimed by the archaeological community, as they were from pine trees which pollen analysis had concluded were ‘extinct’ in this area at this time of Stonehenge’s supposed construction.


Old Visitors Car Park showing the post hole (white circles on the tarmac) and the suggested shoreline of the Avon during the Mesolithic Period

The officials (of the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, which was later renamed English Heritage) were dismay when they found out that their 'experts' were wrong, and the student was absolutely correct (sadly, never gave her a deserved job as she clearly knew more than the supposed experts) in her assumption as the carbon dating placed them at the start of the Mesolithic of 8860 to 6590 BCE just after the ice age.
 
So, rather than then admitting their fundamental error and re-opening the site to look for more holes and dates to get to the bottom of this unique mystery (which would have been the case for most credible scientific disciplines) they came up with a remarkable and unproven story that these were random 'totem poles' placed by wandering 'hunter-gatherers' which did not relate to the Stonehenge site just 50m away. But was a sheer coincidence, which should be totally ignored.

Over the last four years since my ‘press release’ was ignored by the archaeology world, the story has moved on with even more evidence of English Heritage’s continuing cover-up. 

Archaeologists have now found charcoal from fires in the centre of the Stonehenge monument, which date back to the same early period (but again the news was suppressed) and less than a mile away at the top of the hill that overlooks Stonehenge a site called ‘blick mead’ excavated by the Open University, which is showing us that people were living and feasting at this same earlier period  yet this 'totem pole' myth is still firmly entrenched in EH's view of our prehistoric history through their many costly guidebooks.
 
Moreover, recently the Stonehenge site has had a major transformation as it has closed the b-road that went past the stones and gave access to the old visitor’s car park - which was now moved a mile up the road to the new multi-million-pound visitors centre. Consequently, the aged tarmac was removed and was replaced by grass to make it look more like it did at the time of Stonehenge’s construction.
Now one might imagine that if you were going to remove the tarmac from the old visitor's car park (knowing you have found something quite extraordinary underneath in the past) you would take this 'once in a lifetime opportunity’ to excavate the car park fully to see if you can find any more evidence about the Mesolithic Period of Stonehenge’s history?

Did they? - did they heck!! 

  
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge.” 
― Stephen Hawking 

Tim Daw was a warden at Stonehenge, and he has always been active in taking pictures on the site as he worked on a day-to-day basis at Stonehenge and published them on his blog site.  Last year, he found patch marks by the centre upright stones that were identified as the possible missing circle stones of the Inner Circle, therefore his contribution to the investigation of Stonehenge has been immense.

Tim Daws picture of the post hole - EH would like to lose!! How much history is being lost through ignorance and propaganda??

Tim also took some shots of trenches dug during the reinstatement of the grass over the old visitor’s car park and found something quite remarkable - but he was not allowed to publish as EH had warned him that his unauthorized blog activities had to stop or else.... three guesses why this happened? Now Tim being a man of principal resisted and resigned so continuing his blog work and as a consequence, these new ‘unofficial’ pictures have been made available, showing, even more, post holes are under the car park.


This newly discovered post hole is on the line of four other known post holes.  Moreover, it supports my hypothesis, that they are all on the shoreline of the River Avon at about 8400 BCE.   Furthermore, the fact that rivers in Britain were ten times larger in the past than today effected on not only the River Avon. - but the River Nevern, at Craig Rhos-y-felin which the current ‘Brynberian Stream, (which feeds the Nevern) is only 20m away, from the newly identified quarry site. 





A, B, C are the original 1966 post holes - D was found by Tim Daw (before he was asked to leave!) and 9580 was found in 1988


Consequently, during the Mesolithic period, the newly quarried stones could be placed in boats on the shoreline of the quarry in Wales and could be sailed almost directly to Stonehenge, via just two or three enlarged rivers. And not over the longer sea route, some archaeologist have considered. 

Direct Boat route from Preseli to Stonehenge using the raise river levels of the Mesolithic
This report also goes into great depth in the analysing of the Stone structure of the bluestones from other Preseli sites such as Carn Goedog, Cerrigmarchogion and Craig Talfynyydd, Carn Breseb, Carn Gyfrwy and finally Carn Alw areas. All of which have streams and rivers connecting them with the River Nevern – unfortunately, the archaeologists only can conceive this connection is of a ‘religious’ order rather than something quite functional.  Yet, archaeologists do seem able to consider the existence of a hypothetical road system which Mike Parker-Pearson’s calls his ox-cart route, that follows the current A40 route, but sadly  doesn’t take into account the woods, swamps and even forests of that period, which would make road passing almost impossible.

Nevertheless, this should be no surprise to readers of the Craig Rhos-y-felin report is full of inconsistencies and logical inaccuracies as the layout of the site was never taken into consideration. My analysis of the area shows that the ‘Brynberian Stream’ by the rocky outcrop was much higher in the past - such as in the period directly after the last ice age. The flooding of this area is well known to geologists as they have found sandy deposits are in the excavation sub-soil. Sadly, the team seems to have created a false assumption that these flood waters are from ‘ice melt’ which rapidly disappeared after the ice age into the sea. 

This idea is easy shown to be a false assumption as, if true,  the sea levels would have risen to a couple of meters short of today’s level then plateaued for thousands years – but this is not the case as the scientific ocean evidence shows that the ‘seepage’ into the seas took thousands of years to occur and hence Doggerland off the East coast of Britain, took almost ten thousand years to disappear under the North Sea.

Craig Rhos-y-felin seen from space (white circle)

Criag Rhos-y-felin as it would have looked (as an island) in the Mesolithic

This misunderstanding of the past water levels has lead to Geologists misinterpreted the sediments or the past.  A very similar soil found in one location is given a different name to the same type of soil in another location – so the term ‘Colluvium’ and ‘Alluvium’ is a case in point.  If it is found in a dried-up land area it as called Colluvium, but if it’s by an active river, it’s called Alluvium – the point is THEY ARE THE SAME MATERIAL – a combination of silt and sand.

Remembering this lack of distinction, we find in the report that an old river ran around this quarry as long ago as 5620 – 5460 BCE and possibly up to 1030 – 910 BCE.

“Most of the site was then covered by a layer of yellow colluvium (035), dated by oak charcoal to 1030–910 cal BC (combine SUERC-46199; 2799±30 BP and SUERC-46203; 2841±28 BP). This deposit is contemporary with the uppermost fill of a palaeochannel of the Brynberian stream that flowed past the northern tip of the outcrop. Charcoal of Corylus and Tilia from the basal fill of this palaeochannel dates to 5800–5640 cal BC (OxA- 32021; 6833±40 BP) and 5620–5460 cal BC (OxA-32022; 6543±37 BP), both at 95.4% probability” 

Consequently, what the report is trying to tell us, is that an enlarged stream that feed into the River Nevern was flowing at during the Mesolithic Period up to the quarry outcrop rocks and it remained there  just a few metres away even up to 1000 BCE.  Therefore, the obvious system of transport for these large newly quarried stones to their final destination at Stonehenge as we have seen in other countries with their own stone constructions like Egypt – was via a boat.

The 'enlarged stream' is more of a huge river - perfect to float a boat with a four-tonne bluestone down river to the Nevern

Moreover, the site layout also gives a clear indication on when the stone was truly quarried. There is a single monolith ready for transportation by the river on the east side of the site and the hearths which are clearly man-made are a few metres south of this monolith – where you would expect them.  The problem for archaeologists is that these are Mesolithic hearths, and they're not just one but four hearths dating from 8550 – 8330 BCE; 8220 – 7790 BCE 7490 – 7190BCE and finally 5210 – 4947 BCE and yet the report quite clearly states:

“There is no evidence of any Mesolithic Quarrying or working of Rhyolite from this crop” 

This is an astonishing unscientific claim - for how would they know what tool marks are either Mesolithic or Neolithic (would they not be using the same tools?) And secondly, what do they think they were doing there at the quarry during this 1500 year period?
However, what is quite remarkable is the fact that this is a ‘rhyolite’ Quarry. For back at Stonehenge Pit 9580 which was excavated in 1989, was found to be in line with not only with the four post holes found in 1966, but moreover, the one found last month by Tim Daw we talk about earlier

The excavation report stated that  Pit 9580 width started at 1.3m and was then widened to 1.9m  – so what was this large trunk of a tree used for? The archaeologists believed it to be a ‘totem pole’ – but why remove such a pole to put in a larger version at a later date? What I am sure is that it could take a considerable weight if required – but what could be the load be?
The answer comes 20cm down the infill of this post hole as they found a piece of Rhyolite (would you believe?)  And the date of this deposit can be estimated as the soil deposit it was sitting upon was carbon dated as 7560 - 7335 BCE overlapping with the date of hearth number three found at the quarry site.  

The final and conclusive proof of my hypothesis!!


Post holes at Stonehenge on the shoreline of the River Avon - taking off the Preseli bluestones from the boats

Moreover, we can now narrow down the exact date for the construction of  Phase I of Stonehenge (bluestone placements in the Aubrey holes) to at least 8000 BCE (8550 – 7335) – the earliest Hearth Date to the bluestone found in the fill (showing its use prior to that date).  In fact, if we look at the carbon dating of the hearths at Craig Rhos-y-felin and the Car park post hole samples date at Stonehenge we see something quite remarkable – not only do we have one hearth matching radio carbon dates at Stonehenge – we have all three!!

    • Craig Rhos-y-felin (BCE)                             Car Park (BGE)
    • Hearth One: 8550 – 8330                                HAR-455 8820 - 7730 
    • Hearth Two: 8220 – 7790                               GU-5109: 8090 - 7690 
    • Hearth Three: 7490 – 7190                             QxA-4220: 7580 – 7090 
    • OxA 30503: 7490 – 7190                                Har-456: 7480 – 6590 
    • SUERC-51163: 7540 - 7300                           QxA- 4219: 7700 - 7420 


So was it a ‘cock-up’ or a conspiracy? 

EH has invested millions in its new 'money spinner' the Stonehenge Visitors Centre. Within it you will see many claims and models about the origin and possible function of Stonehenge - this exhibition has cost hundreds of thousands of pounds to design and build.  BUT what would happen if their assumptions are proven wrong?

Not only would it have to scrap all the exhibits and a new ones installed, but also the books and literature were written over the decades would need to be 'pulped' as they tell a story of nonsense, just as the Victorian literature was ‘shelved’ when carbon dating revealed that it was not a Roman Temple after all.  Moreover, the directors responsible for this multi-million pound fraud would suffer a potential financial and credibility loss would have to 'fall on their swords' and find new jobs (and there is not many jobs around for discredited archaeologists or historians). 

Or  consequently they are just NOT very good at their job!

RJL