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.
![]() |
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:
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 - 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.
![]() |
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 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.
![]() |
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!!