Introduction

A Revolutionary Perspective on Archaeology and Hydrology

Fifteen years ago, I introduced an idea that some might consider revolutionary—an insight born from my archaeological investigations. A clear pattern emerged through the detailed graphical analysis of 50 sites around Stonehenge and its surrounding barrows: these locations consistently occupied elevated positions within the upper 30th percentile of the landscape. (The Rivers of the Past were Higher)

This observation was more than coincidental. It pointed to a critical hydrological phenomenon: rivers during the post-glacial period were far more expansive than today. Surprisingly, this idea had not been explored within archaeological circles. I embarked on years of meticulous research to address this gap, culminating in a 50,000-word thesis titled “The Post-Glacial Flooding Hypothesis.” The thesis, supported by 125 peer-reviewed references, explored the interplay between mathematics, hydrology, and archaeology to propose a groundbreaking hypothesis: the elevated placement of ancient sites correlates with the past’s larger, more powerful rivers.

By analyzing major rivers, including the Thames and the Avon, I demonstrated that these waterways were shaped by the glacial meltwaters of the last ice age, and their ongoing diminution reflects millennia of hydrological evolution. This thesis challenged traditional archaeological assumptions about ancient landscapes and human settlement patterns. (The Rivers of the Past were Higher)

The Challenge of Being Heard

Despite publishing over 250 essays, producing over 100 videos, and fostering discussion among 5,000+ community members, I still encounter the same basic misconceptions and questions. Many of these queries could be answered with a brief engagement with the material—something even a curious six-year-old might accomplish if they took the time to delve beyond the surface.

This blog addresses the ten most common questions sceptics and enthusiasts pose. For those who have already grasped the fundamentals, feel free to move on. But I invite you to engage with the answers below for those who remain perplexed or unconvinced. Let’s unravel the science, revisit the evidence, and explore the transformative role of hydrology in reshaping our understanding of ancient human landscapes. (The Rivers of the Past were Higher)

Empirical Proof of Higher Waters in the Past

The “Post-Glacial Flooding Hypothesis,” proposed by Robert John Langdon, suggests that rivers in Britain and Europe were significantly larger after the last Ice Age due to higher water. This hypothesis posits that the landscape remained flooded for thousands of years after the ice caps melted, with water persisting in enlarged rivers. The sources highlight several lines of empirical evidence that are interpreted to support this assertion, drawing on geological, hydrological, and archaeological data.

One key piece of evidence cited is the steady rise in sea levels over the last ten thousand years, proving that water continued to occupy the land as enlarged rivers after the ice caps melted. Beyond this general trend, studies focusing on river activity provide more direct support. A scientific paper by Lewis & Macklin (2003) indicates that rivers in Britain experienced over 100 flooding events in the last ten thousand years, some of which lasted for hundreds of years. Another review of radiocarbon-dated fluvial deposits in the UK suggests up to twenty flooding episodes in lowland rivers between 11,190 and 390 cal B.P.20. These numerous flood events are presented as evidence of a significantly higher water table in the past.

Geological formations such as peat deposits are also considered empirical evidence. Peat forms in wet, marshy ground, and its presence and dating are proof of the extent of the Post-Glacial Flooding and the timing of these episodes. Peat growth is shown to have peaked about 4000 years after the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), which is interpreted as indicating that rivers remained high and flowing until the Neolithic Period. Modern peatlands are even described as old river beds.

River terraces, remnants of former floodplains, offer further geological insights. The sources note that in the Avon Valley, the terraces between T7 and T10 consist of river silt. Optical Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) dating indicates they are “out of sequence” compared to the traditional geological model. This chronological discrepancy is suspected to result from the numerous flooding events during the Holocene, which would have affected and redeposited sediments on older terraces. Recent OSL dating research in the Avon Valley supports the deposition of T10-7 during or before MIS10/9 (including the LGM).

Analysis of the scale of past river systems provides quantitative evidence. Based on sedimentary data and borehole samples, a case study on the Thames River concluded that its current average discharge rate was potentially increased by 3723% during the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods, reaching a peak discharge of 2450 m³/s. This rate was comparable to smaller North American rivers during the same epoch. Similarly, the Mississippi River’s discharge is noted to have increased from its present rate of 16,790 m³/s to a considerable 160,000 m³/s just after the LGM, an 853% rise indicative of significant augmentation in river height and discharge. Globally, river volumes and heights are estimated to have been, on average, around 941% greater towards the end of the last ice age due to extra water washed down existing terrestrial rivers. Evidence from river terraces, sediment deposits, and paleohydrology supports the idea that rivers were more extensive in the post-glacial period, with major rivers like the Thames and Severn having broader and more dynamic channels.

Archaeological sites and features are also interpreted as providing empirical evidence for past higher water levels. The strategic positioning of many prehistoric settlements on higher ground is seen as aligning with the edges of floodplains or higher terraces that would have offered safety from the elevated river levels. The history of sites like Old Sarum is presented as evidence of fluctuating water levels, thriving for approximately 5,000 years (or 4,000) and showing the impact of environmental changes, with its initial abundance of water supporting the notion of much higher levels in prehistoric times. The fact that the Norman well at Old Sarum is now dry is proof of changes in groundwater levels over time. Excavations at Old Sarum also revealed a raised platform and pathway through the outer bank, suggesting the site was accessed by boats on a higher water table during the Neolithic period. Further excavation evidence from the Avebury ditch in 1914, which had to be stopped due to groundwater flooding it and turning it into a moat, is considered a “smoking gun” proving that higher river levels indicated in geological maps would have flooded the ditch. Similarly, an excavation at Hornchurch Marsh, on the edge of the British Geological Survey (BGS) superficial Alluvium flood map, revealed radiocarbon-dated evidence of inundation during the early Holocene, supporting the model of past higher river levels and periodic flooding.

Linear earthworks, commonly known as dykes, are another category of archaeological features offering potential evidence. While traditionally interpreted as boundaries or defensive structures, emerging evidence suggests they may have functioned as prehistoric canals designed for water management and transport within a water-rich landscape. Research indicates that these earthworks can significantly hold and manage water, impacting hydrological connectivity and promoting localized water retention.. An analysis using AI is mentioned, concluding that 8 out of the 10 longest dykes in Britain show empirical evidence of water retainment. Specifically, Wansdyke is noted to incorporate earthworks with right-angled ditches that resemble Roman cross-regulators used for water management, seen at sites like Rybury Camp and Tan Hill. The discrepancy in ditch dimensions between East and West Wansdyke suggests sequential construction linked to changing water levels. Gaps in dykes like Wansdyke and Offa’s Dyke are interpreted as points where ancient, higher rivers coursed through, necessitating a break in the earthwork or requiring boat travel. Excavations by Pitt Rivers are said to reveal that water once flowed through the ditches of Wansdyke. Even Roman structures like Hadrian’s Wall and the Vallum are interpreted as providing evidence; their disappearance for stretches where the landscape would have been flooded by rivers 8m higher than today suggests the structures were routed around these bodies of water, indicating a higher water table even during the Roman period. LiDAR analysis is used to show how structures like henges and potential canals align with past river shorelines or paleochannels associated with higher water levels.

In conclusion, the body of empirical evidence drawn from geological features like peat and river terraces, hydrological data indicating increased river discharge rates, and the characteristics and placement of archaeological sites and linear earthworks (dykes), which are interpreted as supporting the hypothesis of significantly raised river levels in Britain and potentially wider Europe during the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods and extending into later epochs. This perspective challenges traditional archaeological interpretations and suggests a need for re-evaluating ancient landscapes in light of past hydrological conditions. While acknowledging that scientific evidence is always open to reinterpretation, the proponents argue that the collected evidence provides compelling support for this view.

Case Study: Dykes Follow Water: The 68.6% Aquifer Overlap Nobody’s Talking About

Across Britain, prehistoric dykes have long been dismissed as little more than defensive ramparts or mystical boundary markers. But what if we’ve been looking at them through the wrong lens entirely? A new GIS-based study we conducted earlier this year, integrating official British Geological Survey aquifer maps with the known alignments of ancient linear earthworks, reveals something astonishing: 68.6% of dyke segments intersect directly with mapped aquifer zones. That’s not a loose correlation — that’s a direct, measurable pattern that begs for re-evaluation.

This level of overlap seriously undermines the tired narratives of ritual and fortification. Instead, it points to a far more practical purpose — one rooted in hydrology, not mysticism. These dykes, including major features like Offa’s Dyke and Wansdyke, may have been strategically aligned along natural underground water fractures or aquifer boundaries. In this light, their purpose shifts dramatically: from symbolic markers to functioning elements of a water-based transport or irrigation system. Seasonal canal usage, trade facilitation, or even simple water management may have played a central role in their placement.

Overlaying hydrogeological data on ancient dyke networks reveals geometric precision that’s impossible to ignore. These earthworks don’t meander aimlessly — they often shadow aquifer flows, spring lines, and fracture zones. Whether this was achieved through environmental observation, empirical trial and error, or even primitive water divining, it’s clear that prehistoric builders had a working knowledge of what lay beneath their feet. The alignment with hydrological structures is too deliberate to be accidental.

It’s time to abandon the chalky clichés of ritualistic ditches and Saxon scare-lines. This isn’t about spiritual symbolism or defensive paranoia — it’s about engineering, observation, and control of a life-sustaining resource: water. The idea that prehistoric Britons built with such hydrological insight isn’t fantastical — it’s the most logical interpretation of the data. If we start following the water, we might finally start understanding what the dykes were really for.

Case Study: Piercebridge Roman Bridge & the Ancient Tees – A Post-Glacial Perspective

Ever wondered why the Roman bridge at Piercebridge is stranded in a field, far from today’s riverbank?

The answer lies in one of the clearest pieces of physical evidence supporting the Post-Glacial Hypothesis — that Britain’s ancient rivers were not briefly swollen by seasonal flooding but remained massively elevated for thousands of years due to glacial melt, lack of drainage, and a saturated prehistoric climate.

🧱 Roman Engineering Reveals Ancient Water Levels

• Bridge foundations: 58m OD (Ordnance Datum)
• Original bridge deck: likely 6–10m above this = ~64–68m OD
• Standard Roman river clearance: 2–3m ➜ River level: ~61–65m OD

Today, the Tees flows at just ~55m OD, meaning a drop of 6–10m since the Roman era.

But that’s just the start.

🕰️ Rolling Back Time to the Mesolithic (~8000–4000 BC)

With:

• No flood defences
• Heavy glacial runoff
• Slow-draining forested valleys

A conservative model of ~5m drop every 2000 years means the Tees in the Mesolithic likely flowed at ~70–75m OD — up to 20m higher than today.

💡 What It All Proves

This isn’t just a minor fluctuation.

It’s geological proof that prehistoric rivers were immense — wide, high, and capable of supporting boat-based transport across much of Britain. That changes how we interpret:

• “Hillforts” (which may have been river-edge settlements)
• Prehistoric trade and transport networks
• Sites like Stonehenge, where the River Avon (currently at 68m OD) was likely much higher — supporting the theory of bluestone delivery by boat

Piercebridge is no anomaly — it’s a smoking gun.

Case Study – The Thames

The Lower Thames sequence has been thoroughly studied not only because it is one of the largest river systems in the country but also because of its fortuitous exposure in many of the quarries and recent development programmes in and around London. The Thames was diverted into its current valley during the Anglian period where it proceeded to lay down extensive gravel deposits before reaching the sea. Archaeological interest in the Thames alluvial deposits and the raised beaches of the south-east coast is also due to the presence of significant Lower, and Middle Palaeolithic artefacts and hominin remains within these deposits.

The depositional chronology of the Thames gravel terraces has yet to be universally accepted, and the two significant sequences have been proposed by Gibbard (1985) and Bridgland (1994).  This is because the terraces are dated by the artefacts found within them which are archaeologically dated and not carbon dated.  The problem with this method is that if the area flooded after the original deposits were laid down, the artefacts could have been washed down from upstream and embedded at random.

Traditional View of the Thames River terraces

The modern floodplain of the Lower Thames, downstream of central London, is bounded either by older Pleistocene sands or gravels at the higher levels or by bedrock. The depositional chronology of the Thames gravel terraces has yet to be universally accepted, and the two significant sequences have been proposed by (Gibbard, 1985).

The SBAB model of floodplain evolution proposes that during the early Holocene multi-channel braided systems stabilised with the narrowing and deepening of some channels, and the progressive abandonment of others over the course of the Holocene (Brown et al. 1994).

The Lower Thames saw a rise of about 15m in relative sea level between c. 10,000, and c. 6000 BP (Rackham and Sidell, 2000; Sidell 2003b). This would have had a significant effect upon settlement of the outer and mid estuary floodplain. It has been suggested, for example, that settlement areas along the river margin progressively moved to higher ground as the land below was overtaken by the rising water levels (Rackham and Sidell 2000).

During the early Holocene, the Lower Thames floodplain was a complex environment of peat-forming areas, migrating channels and raised eyots (Sidell 2003a). Often these eyots were the focus of prehistoric occupation, for example, Runnymede (Needham 1991; 1992), Westminster, Southwark (Bowsher 1991; Dillion et al. 1991; Merriman 1992) and Bermondsey (Sidell et al. 2002). These areas tended to lie at the junction between the higher ground on the edge of an island and the adjacent peat and alluvium, which preserved the evidence of human activity that took place when the river levels were lower (Merriman 1992; Sidell et al. 2002).

The investigations carried out for the Jubilee Line extension have suggested that the sand eyots of Westminster and north Southwark did not complete their formation by the early Holocene as initially believed. Still, instead, they formed in the mid-Neolithic (c. 3500 cal B.C.). This could help explain why there is a lack of Early Neolithic occupation in the floodplain (Sidell 2003b).

An extensive number of boreholes (> 1100) have allowed the British Geological Society to map the extent of flooding in the early Holocene period as it left extensive alluvium up to 10m deep in places showing the vast duration of the raised water levels.

BGS Map of London showing in blue the Alluvium deposited at the end of the LGM.  We have sectioned off A- G areas to look at their cross-sections.

If we section off (A to G) the Thames and look at the volume and width of the Holocene Thames in comparison to today, we can get an estimation of the discharge of water at its peak during this period.

Increased discharge levels during the Holocene

Cross- Section	Current Width	Holocene Width	Width Increase %	Volume Increase – (Holo. – Present =) Cu.m3	Increase in Volume
A	400m	4,425m	1,100	71,724 – 800 = 70,924	8,866%
B	650m	7,725m	1,188	71,950 – 1950 = 70,000	3,590%
C	731m	8,450m	1,156	128,430 – 2924 = 125,506	4,292%
D	965m	7,644m	792	60,348 – 4825 = 55,523	1,151%
E	1,207m	11,265m	933	90,122 – 7274 = 82,880	7,367%
F	1,125m	5,230m	465	38,622 – 7875 = 30,747	390%
G	1,448m	7,242m	500	58,902 – 11584 = 47318	408%
Average	932m	7426m	797%		3723%

Thames River Cross-Sections A – G

The current average discharge is 65.8 m³/s and therefore with a 3723% increase in the watershed area we can estimate that at its peak the Thames River discharged 2450 m³/s (0.0025 Gt /s or 1314 Gt per annum). 

About the same rate of one of the smaller rivers ‘Susquehanna/Chesapeake River’ (Table 5) in North America – which is minor, in comparison to the eight North American river discharge ratios, which begs the question as the Thames is the largest river in the country, would it not be affected mostly by the meltwater at the end of the last ice age – so, have the scientists got the extent of the alluvium flooding correct?

To investigate further, we need to look at a detailed excavation undertaken at the edge of the BGS superficial Alluvium flood map to get some real evidence of dates and clues about what sediments are present in comparison to the ages suggested in the past publications.

‘Holocene environmental changes in the Lower Thames Valley’ (Branch et al.,2012) excavated parts of Hornchurch marsh at the edge of the BSG alluvium deposit (Cross-Section D). 

The paper suggests that “Palaeoenvironmental data (publicly or in the form of commercial archaeological reports) on these near-surface sediments indicate that following the end of the last glaciation, the lower reaches of the Thames Valley and its tributaries were inundated by the sea, and marine and estuarine sediments accumulated. Since that time, the evidence suggests that sea level continued to rise at a much slower rate as a response to either glacio-eustatic or sedimentary processes”.  But the idea of any recent “inundation by the sea” can now be easily rebuked.

The reason for this incorrect interpretation of sediments was that past Geologists believed that the LGM was much smaller than previous ice ages – this has now been disproved by new research at sea level data from the Mediterranean (Rohling et al., 2017) as they could only measure by observation the extent of the ice sheets on the surface of the landmass and took for granted the greater the area, the larger the ice mass by estimation.

The conclusion of this study is to show that the last Ice Age was far more significant than previously maximum (PCM) as illustrated below in table 6 and Fig. 30)

Ten  Frequently Asked Questions

1. If the sea level was so high, wouldn’t people in the past have drowned?

This question reflects a misunderstanding of hydrology. The elevation of a river is not directly linked to sea level. Rivers flow primarily from aquifers—water reservoirs embedded within bedrock—not from just rainfall as commonly taught in schools. These aquifers dictate water flow through natural springs, independent of sea level.

Unfortunately, even prominent figures in archaeology have misunderstood this principle. For instance, one well-known archaeologist dismissed my findings by dubbing the book the “Stonehenge on Sea” hypothesis – based solely on the book’s cover. This misinterpretation highlights the importance of engaging with the underlying science rather than relying on superficial impressions. (The Rivers of the Past were Higher)

2. If sea levels in the past were lower, how could rivers be higher?

During the last ice age, sea levels were approximately 65 meters lower than today. However, the colder climate meant precipitation fell as snow, forming massive glaciers. These glaciers trapped vast amounts of water, preventing it from flowing into rivers.

When the glaciers began to melt, the water released caused rivers to swell dramatically. This wasn’t a quick process. Recent models show that sea levels rose over 7,000 years after the initial melt, transforming landscapes like Doggerland—a land bridge connecting Britain to Europe—into the North Sea. This extended period of flooding explains how rivers could have been significantly larger in the past, despite lower sea levels.

3. Why aren’t all rivers and tributaries the same height in this area?

The simplistic notion that water “always seeks a common level” misrepresents the complexities of hydrology. Multiple aquifers at varying elevations feed rivers, and their flow mirrors the contours of the landscape. This intricate system ensures that rivers don’t conform to a uniform height.

For instance, rivers like the Thames have multiple sources that contribute to their flow. Even when rainfall is scarce, aquifers release water at different elevations, sustaining the river. This dynamic interplay explains why rivers don’t follow a universal level and why one river may sit higher than another in the same region.

4. Is this hypothesis based on fact or just speculation?

The hypothesis is firmly grounded in decades of research and fieldwork. It builds on three decades of academic study and exploration, culminating in an academic thesis supported by 125 peer-reviewed references.

5. I’ve walked these routes and found no water. How do you explain that?

Landscapes are dynamic, not static. Ten thousand years ago, the Sahara was a lush rainforest filled with elephants and lions. Similarly, Britain’s east coast was once a verdant plain connecting it to Europe. Over millennia, these landscapes changed dramatically due to shifting climates and sea levels.

Rivers that once flowed abundantly have since diminished as aquifers dried up. For example, the North Sea, Irish Sea, and English Channel gradually drained the rivers that fed them, lowering water tables and drying out springs in elevated areas. Today, you see a shadow of the ancient hydrological systems that once defined these regions.

6. Why would people push boats to the top of a hillfort?

The idea that ancient people moved boats uphill reflects a misunderstanding of how rivers once shaped the landscape. According to the hypothesis, ancient rivers like the Thames were vastly larger—potentially 3,000 times their current size. What we perceive as hills today would have appeared as islands within these expansive waterways.

Earthworks along these rivers likely defined the edges of these elevated landforms, making them accessible by boat. This perspective challenges modern assumptions about the topography of the past and highlights the transformative role of ancient hydrological systems.

7. Where is the evidence for larger rivers in the past?

British Geological Survey maps provide compelling evidence of ancient, larger rivers. These maps detail the extent of superficial deposits that mark the waterways’ historical boundaries. Features like river terraces further support this evidence.

For instance, the River Avon has ten terraces, indicating its past size and elevation. At one time, this river spanned tens of kilometres in width and was over 100 meters above current sea level. These geological features attest to the dynamic nature of rivers throughout history. (The Rivers of the Past were Higher)

8. I have a PhD in archaeology—why wasn’t I taught this?

Archaeological education has traditionally focused on specific methodologies while neglecting interdisciplinary approaches. In the 21st century, good archaeology requires integrating hydrology, dating methods, and advanced mapping techniques like LiDAR.

LiDAR, for instance, allows us to reconstruct ancient landscapes with remarkable precision. Yet, many archaeologists lack the training to interpret raw LiDAR data or understand its full potential. The absence of such knowledge limits their ability to engage with complex hypotheses like the one presented here. Archaeology must evolve into a more scientifically robust discipline to address this gap. (The Rivers of the Past were Higher)

9. Water can’t flow uphill, for the gradients are too high

This question reflects a common misconception about the nature and purpose of prehistoric linear earthworks, or “dykes,” in a flooded prehistoric landscape. Many people mistakenly interpret these structures through the lens of Victorian canals, imagining them as continuous waterways designed to transport goods over long distances in a single, uninterrupted flow. This comparison oversimplifies the engineering principles and functional realities of prehistoric dykes. (The Rivers of the Past were Higher)

In prehistory, river levels were significantly higher than today, which meant that the distances goods needed to travel over land were much shorter. Prehistoric dykes were not designed as continuous waterways; instead, they were engineered to serve as efficient connections between rivers or to transport raw materials from quarries to waterways. These materials could then be transported by boat to trading sites or processing locations.

A key feature of these dykes is their adaptability to the landscape. Unlike Victorian canals, which relied on a continuous channel of water and locks to maintain flow, prehistoric dykes often utilized natural springs at the tops of hills. These springs could provide water that flowed down both sides of a hill, enabling transport without the need to “go over” the hill itself. This ingenious use of natural water sources allowed for movement between points A and B most efficiently, considering the terrain and hydrology of the time. (The Rivers of the Past were Higher)

10. How can you connect to other rivers as you need to go over the hill?

In cases where goods or people needed to traverse a hill with water flowing down both sides, the solution was remarkably straightforward and practical. A boat or barge, naturally floating in the water and much lighter to manage than carrying goods or loads overland, could be dragged uphill using workforce or, more efficiently, animal power. Oxen, for example, would have been ideal for towing boats up gradients along the dyke.

Once the summit was reached, the natural downhill flow of water could take over, allowing the boat to continue its journey easily. Using animal power to drag boats uphill echoes practices seen in early Victorian canal systems. During this period, weirs were often constructed to slow water flow in downhill rivers, facilitating the towing of barges and boats uphill. The principle was straightforward: use animal power for uphill transport and natural flow for downhill movement, ensuring efficiency and minimizing the physical burden on workers.

This method would have effectively transported goods or people over varied terrain in a prehistoric context, leveraging both natural hydrology and available resources like animal labour. The adaptability of this system highlights the innovative and pragmatic approaches of ancient societies to overcome challenges posed by their environment.

By viewing prehistoric dykes through this lens, we can better appreciate their functionality and the ingenuity of those who designed them. Modern assumptions of continuous waterways did not limit these structures but reflected a deep understanding of the landscape and the tools available to navigate it. (The Rivers of the Past were Higher)

Conclusion

The Post-Glacial Flooding Hypothesis challenges conventional wisdom about ancient landscapes and hydrology. It invites us to reconsider the evidence and embrace a more interdisciplinary approach to archaeology. While the journey to broader acceptance has been fraught with resistance and misunderstanding, the evidence speaks for itself.

For those willing to engage deeply, the hypothesis offers a transformative lens to understand the past—a perspective rooted in science, shaped by rigorous research, and open to thoughtful debate.

Scientific progress begins with hypotheses. I welcome questions and challenges, but they must be substantiated with evidence. The burden of proof lies with those who disagree, requiring more than opinion; it demands well-referenced counterarguments. This process of scrutiny and debate is the essence of scientific advancement.

The landscape has changed — but the clues are still there, in stone, in soil, and in elevation maps. It’s time archaeology stopped ignoring the water and started reimagining the prehistoric world from the riverbed up. (The Rivers of the Past were Higher)

(The Rivers of the Past were Higher)

Exploring Prehistoric Britain: A Journey Through Time

My blog delves into the fascinating mysteries of prehistoric Britain, challenging conventional narratives and offering fresh perspectives based on cutting-edge research, particularly using LiDAR technology. I invite you to explore some key areas of my research. For example, the Wansdyke, often cited as a defensive structure, is re-examined in light of new evidence. I’ve presented my findings in my blog post Wansdyke: A British Frontier Wall – ‘Debunked’, and a Wansdyke LiDAR Flyover video further visualizes my conclusions.

My work also often challenges established archaeological dogma. I argue that many sites, such as Hambledon Hill, commonly identified as Iron Age hillforts are not what they seem. My posts Lidar Investigation Hambledon Hill – NOT an ‘Iron Age Fort’ and Unmasking the “Iron Age Hillfort” Myth explore these ideas in detail and offer an alternative view. Similarly, sites like Cissbury Ring and White Sheet Camp, also receive a re-evaluation based on LiDAR analysis in my posts Lidar Investigation Cissbury Ring through time and Lidar Investigation White Sheet Camp, revealing fascinating insights into their true purpose. I have also examined South Cadbury Castle, often linked to the mythical Camelot56.

My research also extends to the topic of ancient water management, including the role of canals and other linear earthworks. I have discussed the true origins of Car Dyke in multiple posts including Car Dyke – ABC News PodCast and Lidar Investigation Car Dyke – North Section, suggesting a Mesolithic origin2357. I also explore the misidentification of Roman aqueducts, as seen in my posts on the Great Chesters (Roman) Aqueduct. My research has also been greatly informed by my post-glacial flooding hypothesis which has helped to inform the landscape transformations over time. I have discussed this hypothesis in several posts including AI now supports my Post-Glacial Flooding Hypothesis and Exploring Britain’s Flooded Past: A Personal Journey

Finally, my blog also investigates prehistoric burial practices, as seen in Prehistoric Burial Practices of Britain and explores the mystery of Pillow Mounds, often mistaken for medieval rabbit warrens, but with a potential link to Bronze Age cremation in my posts: Pillow Mounds: A Bronze Age Legacy of Cremation? and The Mystery of Pillow Mounds: Are They Really Medieval Rabbit Warrens?. My research also includes the astronomical insights of ancient sites, for example, in Rediscovering the Winter Solstice: The Original Winter Festival. I also review new information about the construction of Stonehenge in The Stonehenge Enigma.

(The Rivers of the Past were Higher)

Further Reading

For those interested in British Prehistory, visit www.prehistoric-britain.co.uk, a comprehensive resource featuring an extensive collection of archaeology articles, modern LiDAR investigations, and groundbreaking research. The site also includes insights and extracts from the acclaimed Robert John Langdon Trilogy, a series of books exploring Britain during the Prehistoric period. Titles in the trilogy include The Stonehenge Enigma, Dawn of the Lost Civilisation, and The Post Glacial Flooding Hypothesis, offering compelling evidence about ancient landscapes shaped by post-glacial flooding.

To further explore these topics, Robert John Langdon has developed a dedicated YouTube channel featuring over 100 video documentaries and investigations that complement the trilogy. Notable discoveries and studies showcased on the channel include 13 Things that Don’t Make Sense in History and the revelation of Silbury Avenue – The Lost Stone Avenue, a rediscovered prehistoric feature at Avebury, Wiltshire.

In addition to his main works, Langdon has released a series of shorter, accessible publications, ideal for readers delving into specific topics. These include:

• The Ancient Mariners
• Stonehenge Built 8300 BCE
• Old Sarum
• Prehistoric Rivers
• Dykes, Ditches, and Earthworks
• Echoes of Atlantis
• Homo Superior
• 13 Things that Don’t Make Sense in History
• Silbury Avenue – The Lost Stone Avenue
• Offa’s Dyke
• The Stonehenge Enigma
• The Post-Glacial Flooding Hypothesis
• The Stonehenge Hoax
• Dawn of the Lost Civilisation
• Darwin’s Children
• Great Chester’s Roman Aqueduct
• Wansdyke

For active discussions and updates on the trilogy’s findings and recent LiDAR investigations, join our vibrant community on Facebook. Engage with like-minded enthusiasts by leaving a message or contributing to debates in our Facebook Group.

Whether through the books, the website, or interactive videos, we aim to provide a deeper understanding of Britain’s fascinating prehistoric past. We encourage you to explore these resources and uncover the mysteries of ancient landscapes through the lens of modern archaeology.

For more information, including chapter extracts and related publications, visit the Robert John Langdon Author Page. Dive into works such as The Stonehenge Enigma or Dawn of the Lost Civilisation, and explore cutting-edge theories that challenge traditional historical narratives.

(The Rivers of the Past were Higher)

Other Blogs

(The Rivers of the Past were Higher)

Introduction

The recent report on ancient DNA and human pigmentation has sparked controversy, particularly in how social and commercial media have misrepresented its findings. The study suggests that early inhabitants of Britain, including those who may have built Stonehenge, had abundant melanin in their skin—but this does not equate to them being “Black” in the modern racial sense. Instead, the study’s broad terminology, particularly its classification of “dark-skinned” individuals, has led to widespread misunderstandings. (Blackhenge: Debunking the Media misinterpretation of the Stonehenge Builders)

One of the key failings in how the media reported the findings is the assumption that “dark skin” in ancient populations is equivalent to the complex racial identities we use today. Instead of a nuanced look at genetic pigmentation, some outlets have claimed outright that “Black people built Stonehenge,” which is a significant misinterpretation. The builders could have had a range of pigmentation types, including those commonly associated with modern Europeans, such as pale, freckled skin and red or blonde hair.

The Issue with Broad Terminology

One of the key issues in the report is the lack of precision in skin tone classification. The study divides ancient populations into three general categories: “dark,” “intermediate,” and “light.” However, this system lumps olive-skinned, freckled individuals together with people with deep brown skin, which can be misleading when applied to historical narratives. (Blackhenge: Debunking the Media misinterpretation of the Stonehenge Builders)

The Freckled Redhead Problem: Misclassified as “Dark”

Freckled individuals present an interesting challenge. Freckles are a sign of melanin but in an uneven distribution rather than high overall melanin levels. Red-haired, blue-eyed individuals with freckles—such as those associated with ancient Irish populations, including some early Britons—would have been technically classified as “dark-skinned” under the report’s broad terminology【source】. This is misleading for several reasons:

1. Freckled individuals tend to have pale skin (Type I-II), not deep brown skin (Type VI).
2. The classification method used in the report fails to differentiate between high eumelanin (deep brown skin) and localized pheomelanin (freckles).
3. This means that Stonehenge could have been built by individuals with red or blonde hair, blue or green eyes, and freckles—who are now mistakenly included in “dark-skinned” categories.

This is not just an academic issue; it has real-world implications. By misrepresenting the pigmentation of ancient populations, the media reinforces misleading narratives about identity, race, and migration in prehistory. (Blackhenge: Debunking the Media misinterpretation of the Stonehenge Builders)

Key Genetic Findings from the Report

The study also reveals how genetic markers for pigmentation changed over time:

• The first instances of lighter skin (SLC24A5 gene mutation) appeared in Mesolithic Northern Europe (Sweden and France).
• The presence of blue eyes peaked during the Mesolithic period before decreasing in the Neolithic period and rising again in the Bronze Age.
• Hair colour remained mostly dark until the Bronze Age when more variation emerged due to gene flow from Anatolia and the Pontic Steppe – but without full MC1R sequencing, early red-haired individuals in Britain may have been misclassified as “dark-haired”.

Additionally, the study supports the idea that pigmentation evolved gradually over thousands of years, influenced by migration, diet, and environmental adaptation. (Blackhenge: Debunking the Media misinterpretation of the Stonehenge Builders)

How the Media Got It Wrong

Because the report states that melanin was more abundant in early Britons, some media outlets jumped to the conclusion that the builders of Stonehenge were “Black” in the modern racial sense. The genetic evidence does not support this. Instead, the report tells us that lighter skin only became common in Britain during the later Bronze and Iron Ages.

This misunderstanding can be traced back to:

• Overgeneralised classifications in the report (grouping olive, tanned, and freckled individuals into “dark-skinned”).
• Sensationalised media headlines that equate high melanin levels with modern Black African ancestry.
• The failure to consider how genetic traits like freckles and red hair interact with skin tone.

Conclusion: A Call for More Precision in Pigmentation Studies

The study on ancient DNA and human pigmentation is valuable. Still, its broad terminology has led to confusion. Instead of claiming that the builders of Stonehenge were “Black,” a more accurate interpretation would be:

• The early Britons had higher melanin levels than today, but this included a wide range of skin tones, including freckled individuals with red hair.
• The idea that Stonehenge was built by “Black people” as understood in modern racial terms, is a media exaggeration.
• More precise genetic research and classification systems are needed to avoid these misinterpretations in future studies.

If we want to understand our past accurately, we need more precise language in scientific studies and more responsible reporting from the media. Stonehenge’s builders were likely diverse in their pigmentation, but calling them “Black” is an oversimplification that does not align with the actual genetic findings.

By recognizing the complexity of ancient human pigmentation, we can ensure that historical narratives remain rooted in evidence rather than modern identity politics.

Source

Inference of human pigmentation from ancient DNA by genotype likelihood, Silvia Perretti, et. Al. bioRxiv 2025.01.29.635495; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.01.29.635495

Cheddar Man

A recent discovery in Britain was made by analysing the mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) from the skeleton of a Mesolithic man, discovered in the Cheddar Gorge, Somerset, England. According to the announcement, what researchers found in their analysis was that this ancient person (dated approximately 9000 years ago) likely had a dark (brown-black) skin colour, dark brown hair, blue eyes, and phenotypical features resemble western Europeans. That’s all well and good, but what’s the problem with that?

Without going into too much detail about the genomic research conducted, the issue is with the findings compiled with data collected over twenty years prior when the mtDNA collection first began in 1996. The 1996 study (interestingly was not subjected to any peer-review) it has been stated by subsequent reports referencing these findings, suggested that there was modern DNA contamination at some point in the process of collection.

The more recent study was made after a fragment of the skull was analysed in 2018. It was found that Cheddar Man’s remains belonged to the same ancestral family as other Mesolithic European populations. This information does not seem too profound, but what appears to be an issue for some, including myself, is simply the lack of efforts to peer-review the work first conducted to ensure that all the findings are legitimate and then knowing its questionable origins to go on to publish the chromosome details of hair colour, eye colour and skin colour via a model to gain maximum publicity.

Even if the DNA was not contaminated initially, the chromosomes required to estimate (as this science is still not proven, just a working hypothesis) were missing.  Of the six types of chromosome needed for the estimation of skin tone, 60% of them were absent, and consequently, at BEST, the assessment had a 60% chance of being incorrect.  Science dictates that unless the probability rate is greater than 50%, then the result should not be even attempted as the likelihood (statistically) is wrong!!

Yet, this announcement has now created ‘scientifically based’ documentaries showing that black Rastafarian men (with dreadlocks), discovered and populated Ireland ten thousand years ago, all based on ‘Bad Science’ that gave the establishment.

Executive Summary

A recent study (Perretti et al.) using ancient DNA to infer pigmentation traits in past Eurasian populations has been widely misinterpreted by media outlets and the public. The core issue lies in the oversimplified categorization of skin tones (“dark,” “intermediate,” “light”), leading to inaccurate claims about the racial identity of ancient peoples, particularly concerning the builders of Stonehenge. These misinterpretations stem from a failure to consider the complexities of pigmentation, the limitations of ancient DNA analysis, and the dangers of equating ancient phenotypes with modern racial concepts. The “Cheddar Man” study is also criticized for its questionable origins and the lack of peer-review.

Main Themes and Key Ideas:

The Perretti et al. Study: Pigmentation Shifts in Eurasia

• Methodology: The study uses a probabilistic method to infer skin, eye, and hair color from ancient DNA, addressing the challenges of low-coverage ancient genomes. They use a probabilistic approach to phenotypic inference, useful when a direct genotype calling would not be accurate. They tested this framework by estimating phenotypes considering for each sample 1,000 combinations of genotypes at the 41 HIrisPlex-S positions, reflecting their likelihoods.
• Findings: The study traces the evolution of pigmentation in Eurasia over 45,000 years, finding a gradual shift towards lighter pigmentation. “The shift towards lighter pigmentations turned out to be all but linear in time and place, and slower than expected, with half of the individuals showing dark or intermediate skin colors well into the Copper and Iron ages.”
• They observed a peak of light eye pigmentation in Mesolithic times, and an accelerated change during the spread of Neolithic farmers over Western Eurasia.
• Early Europeans often had darker skin than modern populations. “During much of prehistory, most Europeans were dark-skinned.”
• Gene flow was a major factor causing shifts of pigmentation traits.

Media Misrepresentation and Oversimplification:

• The “Black Stonehenge” Narrative: The media has jumped to the conclusion that early Britons, including Stonehenge builders, were “Black” in the modern racial sense based on the presence of “dark skin” alleles. This is a significant oversimplification. “Instead of a nuanced look at genetic pigmentation, some outlets have claimed outright that ‘Black people built Stonehenge,’ which is a significant misinterpretation.”
• Broad Terminology: The study’s use of broad categories (“dark,” “intermediate,” “light”) is problematic because it lumps together a range of skin tones, including those with freckles or olive complexions. “One of the key issues in the report is the lack of precision in skin tone classification.”
• Freckled Redheads: Individuals with freckles, red hair, and blue eyes, common in ancient British populations, would likely have been classified as “dark-skinned” under the study’s system, which is misleading.
• Importance of Gradual Change: The media often fails to account for the gradual nature of pigmentation changes and the diverse range of phenotypes that likely existed in ancient populations.

Genetic Markers and Their Evolution:

• The presence of blue eyes peaked during the Mesolithic period before decreasing in the Neolithic period and rising again in the Bronze Age.
• Hair colour remained mostly dark until the Bronze Age when more variation emerged due to gene flow from Anatolia and the Pontic Steppe.
• The first instances of lighter skin (SLC24A5 gene mutation) appeared in Mesolithic Northern Europe (Sweden and France).
• The shift to food production by early Neolithic farmers had two evolutionary advantages, increase in available food and skin phenotype fit for the lower levels of UV radiation.

Critique of the “Cheddar Man” Study:

• The source criticizes the “Cheddar Man” study, arguing that the findings were compiled with data collected over twenty years prior when the mtDNA collection first began in 1996.
• The 1996 study suggested that there was modern DNA contamination at some point in the process of collection, and it was not subjected to any peer-review.
• Even if the DNA was not contaminated initially, the chromosomes required to estimate skin tone were missing.

Quotes from Sources:

• (Perretti et al.): “The shift towards lighter pigmentations turned out to be all but linear in time and place, and slower than expected, with half of the individuals showing dark or intermediate skin colors well into the Copper and Iron ages.”
• (“black stonehenge builders.pdf”): “Instead of a nuanced look at genetic pigmentation, some outlets have claimed outright that ‘Black people built Stonehenge,’ which is a significant misinterpretation.”
• (“black stonehenge builders.pdf”): “One of the key issues in the report is the lack of precision in skin tone classification.”
• (“blackhenge.pdf”): “Without going into too much detail about the genomic research conducted, the issue is with the findings compiled with data collected over twenty years prior when the mtDNA collection first began in 1996.”

Recommendations:

• More Precise Language: Scientific studies should use more precise and nuanced terminology when describing pigmentation traits.
• Responsible Reporting: Media outlets should avoid sensationalizing findings and should provide context about the complexities of pigmentation genetics.
• Focus on Diversity: Acknowledge the diverse range of phenotypes that likely existed in ancient populations, rather than attempting to assign simplistic racial labels.
• More precise genetic research and classification systems are needed to avoid these misinterpretations in future studies.

Conclusion:

The study of ancient DNA and pigmentation offers valuable insights into human history, but it is crucial to avoid oversimplification and misinterpretation. By using more precise language, responsible reporting, and a focus on diversity, we can ensure that our understanding of the past remains rooted in evidence rather than modern-day identity politics.

(Blackhenge: Debunking the Media misinterpretation of the Stonehenge Builders)

Further Reading

For those interested in British Prehistory, visit www.prehistoric-britain.co.uk, a comprehensive resource featuring an extensive collection of archaeology articles, modern LiDAR investigations, and groundbreaking research. The site also includes insights and extracts from the acclaimed Robert John Langdon Trilogy, a series of books exploring Britain during the Prehistoric period. Titles in the trilogy include The Stonehenge Enigma, Dawn of the Lost Civilisation, and The Post Glacial Flooding Hypothesis, offering compelling evidence about ancient landscapes shaped by post-glacial flooding.

To further explore these topics, Robert John Langdon has developed a dedicated YouTube channel featuring over 100 video documentaries and investigations that complement the trilogy. Notable discoveries and studies showcased on the channel include 13 Things that Don’t Make Sense in History and the revelation of Silbury Avenue – The Lost Stone Avenue, a rediscovered prehistoric feature at Avebury, Wiltshire. (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

In addition to his main works, Langdon has released a series of shorter, accessible publications, ideal for readers delving into specific topics. These include:

• The Ancient Mariners
• Stonehenge Built 8300 BCE
• Old Sarum
• Prehistoric Rivers
• Dykes, Ditches, and Earthworks
• Echoes of Atlantis
• Homo Superior
• 13 Things that Don’t Make Sense in History
• Silbury Avenue – The Lost Stone Avenue
• Offa’s Dyke
• The Stonehenge Enigma
• The Post-Glacial Flooding Hypothesis
• The Stonehenge Hoax
• Dawn of the Lost Civilisation
• Darwin’s Children
• Great Chester’s Roman Aqueduct
• Wansdyke

For active discussions and updates on the trilogy’s findings and recent LiDAR investigations, join our vibrant community on Facebook. Engage with like-minded enthusiasts by leaving a message or contributing to debates in our Facebook Group.

Whether through the books, the website, or interactive videos, we aim to provide a deeper understanding of Britain’s fascinating prehistoric past. We encourage you to explore these resources and uncover the mysteries of ancient landscapes through the lens of modern archaeology.

For more information, including chapter extracts and related publications, visit the Robert John Langdon Author Page. Dive into works such as The Stonehenge Enigma or Dawn of the Lost Civilisation, and explore cutting-edge theories that challenge traditional historical narratives.(Blackhenge: Debunking the Media misinterpretation of the Stonehenge Builders)

---

Other Blogs

(Blackhenge: Debunking the Media misinterpretation of the Stonehenge Builders)

Introduction

Challenging the Migration Myth: Einkorn Wheat, Ancient Mariners, and the True Timeline of Megalithic Europe

For decades, the “migration model” has dominated the narrative of early farming in Europe, portraying agriculture as spreading westward through the gradual movement of farming communities from the Middle East. However, recent discoveries, including findings at Bouldnor Cliff, evidence of the world’s oldest boatyard in Wales, and new analyses of radiocarbon dates, are reshaping this long-held theory. These groundbreaking insights reveal a far more intricate picture of prehistoric Europe, characterized by advanced maritime trade networks and megalithic monuments built millennia earlier than previously believed. (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

---

The Einkorn Wheat Discovery at Bouldnor Cliff

Over a decade ago, archaeologists uncovered traces of domesticated einkorn wheat at Bouldnor Cliff, a submerged Mesolithic site off the British coast. Radiocarbon dating confirmed that this discovery dates back over 8,000 years, predating the arrival of farming in Britain by 2,000 years. This challenges the idea of agriculture’s slow and linear spread and suggests that Mesolithic hunter-gatherers in Britain accessed agricultural products through complex trade networks extending to the Middle East.

The presence of einkorn wheat, a domesticated crop with origins in the Middle East, implies that prehistoric societies had advanced seafaring capabilities. Evidence of planked wooden boats at the site contradicts the traditional view of Mesolithic communities as primitive hunter-gatherers using rudimentary dugout canoes. Instead, these boats could navigate long distances and enabled sophisticated trade networks. (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

---

The Oldest Boatyard: Catamarans and Maritime Innovation

Supporting this narrative is the discovery of what has been called the “oldest boatyard in the world,” located in Wales. Initially thought to be channels for dugout canoes, a reevaluation using LiDAR mapping revealed that these were slipways for catamarans—a remarkable technological advancement not recognized in Europe until thousands of years later.

These catamarans, equipped with outriggers, could transport heavy materials over water. This innovation aligns with the movement of large stones, such as those transported from the Preseli Hills to Stonehenge. The revised dating of this boatyard to around 8,000 BCE supports the theory that maritime trade and technological sophistication existed far earlier than previously believed. (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

---

Radiocarbon Dating and the Revised Timeline of Megalithic Europe

The timeline of megalithic construction in Europe is also being reexamined. A comprehensive study of over 2,400 radiocarbon dates suggests that megalithic construction originated in northwestern France around 4500 BCE and spread via coastal and maritime networks. However, a closer analysis of early contexts points to an even earlier timeline, with sites like Carnac and Stonehenge showing evidence of activity as far back as 8300 BCE.

These findings challenge the traditional narrative, which dates megalithic monuments to 5000 years later. Mesolithic hearths, tools, and other features suggest that these sites were part of a widespread maritime culture, further emphasizing the advanced capabilities of these prehistoric societies. (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

---

Implications for Prehistoric Migration and Trade

The implications of these discoveries are profound and dismantle the outdated “migration model” as the sole explanation for the spread of agriculture and culture. The evidence suggests:

• Sophisticated Maritime Trade: Prehistoric societies were interconnected through vast trade networks, enabling the exchange of goods, ideas, and technologies.
• Advanced Seafaring Technology: Using planked boats and catamarans demonstrates significant maritime innovation, facilitating long-distance travel and trade.
• Pre-Agricultural Networks: Long-distance trade routes likely predated the adoption of farming, serving as conduits for agricultural products and cultural exchanges.
• Mesolithic Origins of Megaliths: Monumental structures such as Stonehenge and Carnac were built much earlier than previously believed during the Mesolithic period.

These findings reveal a more nuanced view of prehistoric societies, characterized by ingenuity and technological sophistication rather than the simplistic hunter-gatherer versus farmer dichotomy. (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

---

Rethinking the Past

Despite the mounting evidence, some academic communities have resisted reevaluating entrenched narratives. Discoveries at sites like Craig Rhos-y-Felin, where Mesolithic carbon dates suggest an early quarrying activity, have been dismissed in favour of later Neolithic timelines. Similarly, Mesolithic post holes at Stonehenge have been downplayed as unrelated artefacts rather than being recognized as evidence of early monumental construction. (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

This reluctance highlights the need for a paradigm shift in archaeological thought. By embracing new perspectives, we can:

• Recognize the complexity and interconnectedness of prehistoric societies.
• Acknowledge the central role of maritime activity in shaping early European cultures.
• Employ more accurate dating methods, moving beyond relying solely on Bayesian statistical modeling.
• Encourage open-mindedness in interpreting data, ensuring discoveries are not dismissed for contradicting established theories.

---

The Call for a New Paradigm

The einkorn wheat discovery, the world’s oldest boatyard, and revised megalithic timelines collectively demand reevaluating our understanding of prehistoric Europe. These findings reveal a world where maritime trade, advanced engineering, and cultural innovation flourished long before the arrival of farming communities. They challenge the outdated “migration model” and call for a broader, more inclusive framework that better reflects the ingenuity of our ancestors.

By shifting our perspective, we can uncover a richer, more accurate account of prehistoric Europe—one that honours the achievements of early seafarers and their contributions to the development of human civilization. (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

References

By Michael BalterFeb. 26, 2015 , Science Magazine.

Hunter-gatherers may have brought agricultural products to the British Isles by trading wheat and other grains with early farmers from the European mainland. That’s the intriguing conclusion of a new study of ancient DNA from a now submerged hunter-gatherer camp off the British coast. If true, the find suggests that wheat made its way to the far edge of Western Europe 2000 years before farming was thought to have taken hold in Britain.

The work confronts archaeologists “with the challenge of fitting this into our worldview,” says Dorian Fuller, an archaeobotanist at University College London who was not involved in the work.

For decades, archaeologists had thought that incoming farmers from the Middle East moved into Europe beginning about 10,500 years ago and replaced or transformed hunter-gatherer populations as they moved west, not reaching Britain until about 6000 years ago. But that worldview had already undergone some modifications. Recent discoveries, for example, have shown some incoming farmers coexisted with the hunter-gatherers already living in Europe rather than quickly replacing them. In 2013, researchers reported that, beginning about 6000 years ago, farmers and hunter-gatherers had both buried their dead in the same cave in Germany and continued to do so for 800 years, suggesting that the two groups were in close contact. More controversially, researchers claimed that about 6500 years ago hunter-gatherers in Germany and Scandinavia may have acquired domesticated pigs from nearby farmers. (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

The new findings promise to further upset the scenario that farming steadily marched from east to west. A team led by Robin Allaby, a plant geneticist at the University of Warwick in the United Kingdom, was looking for the earliest evidence of domesticated plants in the British Isles. The researchers decided to take a gander at an underwater site called Bouldnor Cliff, 250 meters offshore from the hamlet of Bouldnor in the northwest corner of the Isle of Wight. (The island is in the English Channel just off Britain’s southern coast.)

Bouldnor Cliff, located 11 meters below the water’s surface, was discovered in 1999, when, as the United Kingdom’s Maritime Archaeology Trust puts it on its website, “a lobster was seen throwing Stone Age worked flints from its burrow.” Archaeologists have been working there ever since. The site was clearly occupied by hunter-gatherers, who may have built wooden boats. Allaby’s team took four core samples of sediments from a section of the site littered with burnt hazelnut shells apparently left by the hunter-gatherers and subjected the samples to both radiocarbon dating and ancient DNA analysis. The samples’ wood and plants were dated to between 8020 and 7980 years ago, after which the site was inundated by the rising seas that created the English Channel and separated Britain from France.

For the ancient DNA analysis, the team used methods pioneered by paleogeneticist Eske Willerslev of the University of Copenhagen to recover and sequence genetic material left behind in sediments even after the plants that originally contained it have disintegrated. As might be expected, Allaby and his colleagues found DNA from a wide variety of trees and plants known to have populated southern Britain 8000 years ago, including oak, poplar, and beech, along with various grasses and herbs. But the team also got a big surprise: Among the DNA samples were two types of domesticated wheat that originated in the Middle East and that have no wild ancestors in northern Europe. That meant they must have been associated with the original spread of farming from the Middle East, beginning about 10,500 years ago, rather than domesticated locally. Yet many archaeologists assume that by 8000 years ago farming was no further west than the Balkans region and modern Hungary. (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

The researchers performed a number of tests to eliminate the possibility of contamination from modern wheat, including trying to sequence DNA from the chemical solutions it used in the experiments, but no plant sequences were detected. The only possible conclusion was that the domesticated wheat had actually come from the hunter-gatherer site at Bouldnor Cliff, the team reports online today in Science.

“The paper is methodologically impressive,” Fuller says. Willerslev agrees: “The study is quite convincing,” he says, adding that loose DNA from sediments will provide “some of the earliest detectable evidence for farming” because cereal grains themselves are less likely to be preserved. (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

So how did domesticated wheat get to Britain 2000 years before people began to farm there? Allaby’s team does not think the hunter-gatherers cultivated wheat themselves, because no wheat pollen was found in the samples—as should have been expected if the cereal had been allowed to go through its entire life cycle, including flowering.

The team proposes that farming might have spread to western France earlier than had been thought, up to 7600 years ago, and thus only a 400-year gap would have to be explained. But Peter Rowley-Conwy, an archaeologist at the Durham University in the United Kingdom, rejects that suggestion. “The authors do not do justice to the chronology of the spread of agriculture,” he complains, noting that “thousands of directly radiocarbon-dated cereal grains” argue against farming in Western Europe that early. “One DNA study of this kind is just not enough to overturn all this.”

Another possibility, Allaby says, is that the nomadic hunter-gatherers of southern Britain roamed much farther into the European mainland than previously realized, picked up wheat or wheat products from farmers to the east, and brought them back to Britain. He also suggests that the conventional dating of the spread of agriculture, based on clearly detectable cereal grains, might be missing earlier samples.

Allaby may well be right, says Greger Larson, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom. “Are we underestimating the degree to which there were exchange networks between farmers and hunter-gatherers which extended far across time and space? Maybe the only way to pick them up is from DNA signatures.”

Yet Fuller says that the new finds do not necessarily indicate that the spread of farming needs to be radically redated. Rather, he suggests, small-scale pioneers of both farmers and hunter-gatherers may have been “operating beyond the frontier of farming” as it spread west in a wave of advance. The wheat might have been part of trade or cultural exchanges between them. Just as rare spices from the east are regarded as valuable commodities today, Fuller says, the wheat at Bouldnor Cliff might have been symbolically charged and seen as “rare, exotic, and valuable,” rather than something to be eaten daily. (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/02/dna-recovered-underwater-british-site-may-rewrite-history-farming-europe

Clearly, the traditional migration model is, quite frankly – DEAD!

Timeline of Main Events (BCE)

Note that many of these events are based on radiocarbon dating and are subject to interpretation and potential revisions. The sources provided offer a specific perspective that questions some established archeological timelines. (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

• 8800 BCE: Likely date of construction of Saint Michel site (France), marking the earliest megalithic construction mentioned. The “Maritime Diffusion Model” suggests seafaring people were building megaliths this early.
• 8750 BCE: Likely date of construction of Orquinha dos Juncais site (Portugal), another early megalithic site.
• 8560 BCE: Likely date of construction of Curacchiaghiu site (Corsica), one of the earliest megalithic constructions according to the maritime diffusion model.
• 8328 BCE: Likely date of construction of the Flintbek site (Germany).
• 8300 BCE: Proposed date for the construction of Stonehenge by the author, predating other accepted timelines. This is based on the author’s idea of a maritime diffusion.
• 8080 BCE: Likely date of construction of Casinha Derribada site (Portugal), another early megalithic site
• 8000 BCE: Likely date of construction of Madorras I site (Portugal), suggesting a concentration of early megalithic construction in this area
• 7985 BCE: Likely date of construction of Le Souc´h site (France)
• 7960 BCE: Likely date of construction of Tremedal site (Portugal)
• 7740 BCE: Likely date of construction of Orca de Merouços site (Portugal)
• 7670 BCE: Likely date of construction of Sarceaux site (France)
• 7660 BCE: Likely date of construction of Cabeçuda site (Portugal)
• 7615 BCE: Likely date of construction of the Gökhem 94:1 site (Sweden), the earliest Megalithic site in Scandinavia by far.
• 7580 BCE: Likely date of construction of Barkaer site (Denmark)
• 7550 BCE: Likely date of construction of Cabeço da Arruda (Muge), Ribatejo site (Portugal)
• 7500 BCE: Sketewan site (Scotland), showing evidence for an early phase of megalithic activity in the region
• 7440 BCE: Likely date of construction of Cuevo de los Murciélagos site (Spain)
• 7300 BCE: Likely date of construction of Cabeço da Amoreira (Muge), Ribatejo site (Portugal)
• 7240 BCE: Likely date of construction of Moita do Sebastião (Muge), Ribatejo site (Portugal)
• 7230 BCE: Likely date of construction of Cabeço das Amoreiras, Alentejo site (Portugal), the first of multiple sites in this area.
• 7200 BCE: Likely date of construction of Arapouco site (Portugal)
• 7165 BCE: Likely date of construction of Hoëdic site (France)
• 7140 BCE: Likely date of construction of Cova da Onça (Magos), Ribatejo site (Portugal), indicating that the maritime diffusion model covered many areas of Portugal at this time.
• 7060 BCE: Likely date of construction of L’Ubac site (France)
• 7030 BCE: Likely date of construction of Châ de Carvahal 1 site (Portugal)
• 6990 BCE: Likely date of construction of Quélarn site (France)
• 6925 BCE: Likely date of construction of Ballymcdermot (Ireland), the earliest Megalithic site in Ireland by far.
• 6910 BCE: Likely date of construction of Châ da Parada 3 site (Portugal)
• 6835 BCE: Likely date of construction of Knowth 1 site (Ireland)
• 6760 BCE: Likely date of construction of Cabeço do Pez, Alentejo (Portugal)
• 6740 BCE: Likely date of construction of Téviec site (France)
• 6730 BCE: Likely date of construction of Carvahal site (Portugal)
• 6670 BCE: Likely date of construction of Balnuaran of Clava (Scotland).
• 6575 BCE: Likely date of construction of Chan de Prado 6 site (Spain)
• 6570 BCE: Likely date of construction of Cabras site (Spain)
• 6565 BCE: Likely date of construction of Valdemuriel 2 site (Spain)
• 6500 BCE: Likely date of construction of Carrowmore site (Ireland).
• 6420 BCE: Likely date of construction of Grotte de Puechmargues site (France).
• 6370 BCE: Likely date of construction of Samouqueira 1 site (Portugal).
• 6360 BCE: Likely date of construction of Castelhanas site (Portugal).
• 6330 BCE: Likely date of construction of Correio-Mór site (Portugal)
• 6310 BCE: Likely date of construction of Outeiro de Ante 1 site (Portugal)
• 6305 BCE: Likely date of construction of Er Grah site (France)
• 6300 BCE: Likely date of construction of Biggar Common site (Scotland)
• 6250 BCE: Likely date of construction of Dissignac site (France).
• 6210 BCE: Likely date of construction of Table des Marchands (France), along with Tertre de Lomer and Figueira Branca and numerous other Megalithic sites.
• 6200 BCE: Likely date of construction of Vallon Carbonel site (France)
• 6190 BCE: Likely date of construction of Font de la Vena and La Chaise sites (France).
• 6180 BCE: Likely date of construction of Ascott-under-Wychwood (England) based on the Maritime Diffusion Model, being the earliest Megalithic site in the UK.
• 6140 BCE: Likely date of construction of Skorba (Maltese Archipelago)
• 6100 BCE: Likely date of construction of Cabritos 3 site (Spain)
• 6090 BCE: Likely date of construction of Passy Sablonnière site (France).
• 6060 BCE: Likely date of construction of Lupawa (Poland)
• 6050 BCE: Likely date of construction of Coto dos Mouros (Portugal)
• 6030 BCE: Likely date of construction of Alto da Barreira (Portugal)
• 6022 BCE: Likely date of construction of Menhir de Meada (Portugal).
• 6006 BCE: Likely date of construction of Boghead site (Scotland).
• 5995 BCE: Likely date of construction of Haut Mée site (France).
• 5970 BCE: Likely date of construction of Areita 1 site (Spain).
• 5960 BCE: Likely date of construction of Passy Richebourg site (France)
• 5940 BCE: Likely date of construction of Goumoizère site (Switzerland)
• 5920 BCE: Likely date of construction of Cerro Virtud (Spain), Cova de I´Avellaner (Spain) and Outeiro de Ante 2 site (Portugal).
• 5890 BCE: Likely date of construction of Chan da Cruz 1 site (Portugal).
• 5870 BCE: Likely date of construction of El Padró II site (Spain) and Kilpatrick site (Scotland).
• 5860 BCE: Likely date of construction of Bougon/Chirons site (France)
• 5840 BCE: Likely date of construction of Kercado site (France)
• 5835 BCE: Likely date of construction of Lannec er Gadouer site (France)
• 5820 BCE: Likely date of construction of Monte Areo VI site (Spain)
• 5810 BCE: Likely date of construction of Alcalar 7 site (Portugal), Larrarte and Larratbi sites (Spain).
• 5805 BCE: Likely date of construction of Monte Maninho site (Portugal)
• 5800 BCE: Likely date of construction of Île Guennoc III and Îlot de Roc´h Avel sites (France)
• 5780 BCE: Likely date of construction of Outeiro de Ante 3 site (Portugal).
• 5750 BCE: Likely date of construction of Barnenez site (France)
• 5750 BCE: Likely date of construction of Azutan site (Spain)
• 5730 BCE: Likely date of construction of Hazleton North (England).
• 5720 BCE: Likely date of construction of Castelo Belinho (Portugal).
• 5710 BCE: Likely date of construction of Castillejo site (Spain).
• 5690 BCE: Likely date of construction of Vierville/La Butte á Luzerne site (France)
• 5680 BCE: Likely date of construction of Catasol 2 site (Spain).
• 5670 BCE: Likely date of construction of Valdemuriel 1 site (Spain).
• 5660 BCE: Likely date of construction of Le Grée de Cojoux site (France) and Sandun site (Spain).
• 5650 BCE: Likely date of construction of Petit Mont site (France) and Campo del Hockey site (Spain)
• 5640 BCE: Likely date of construction of Caune de Belesta site (France)
• 5630 BCE: Likely date of construction of Monte da Olheira site (Portugal).
• 5615 BCE: Likely date of construction of Balloy, Les Réaudins site (France).
• 5590 BCE: Likely date of construction of Les Fouaillages site (France).
• 5580 BCE: Likely date of construction of Les Erves and Ty Floc´h, St. Thois sites (France).
• 5570 BCE: Likely date of construction of Sarnowo site (Poland)
• 5560 BCE: Likely date of construction of La Hoguette site (France) and Gruta dos Escoral (Portugal).
• 5550 BCE: Likely date of construction of Cleaven Dyke (Scotland) and Mestreville (France).
• 5545 BCE: Likely date of construction of Lyse 7 site (Sweden).
• 5540 BCE: Likely date of construction of Bòbila Madurell site (Spain), Chenon and Mámoa do Monte: dos Marxos sites (Portugal).
• 5530 BCE: Likely date of construction of Châ da Parada 4 site (Portugal).
• 5500 BCE: Likely date of construction of Outeiro de Gregos 2 site (Portugal), Boeriza 2 and Péré, tumulus C sites (France).
• 5490 BCE: Likely date of construction of Larcuste II and Beg-an-Dorchem sites (France) and Monte Revincu, Dolmen de Casa di l´Urca and Hayas I sites (Corsica)
• 5470 BCE: Likely date of construction of Changé, (Saint Piat) site (France) and Monte Areo V site (Spain)
• 5450 BCE: Likely date of construction of Chã de Carvahal 1 site (Portugal)
• 5440 BCE: Likely date of construction of Portela do Pau 1 site (Portugal)
• 5435 BCE: Likely date of construction of Portela do Pau 2 site (Portugal).
• 5423 BCE: Likely date of construction of Contraguda site (Italy).
• 5410 BCE: Likely date of construction of La Hogue Bie (England), Monte Revincu, Dolmen de Cellucia (Corsica).
• 5405 BCE: Likely date of construction of Monte Revincu, Casa di L´Urcu, La Cabana 2, Monte Revincu, secteur de la Cima de Suarella sites (Corsica).
• 5404 BCE: Likely date of construction of Monte Areo XII site (Spain)
• 5400 BCE: Likely date of construction of Joaninha (Portugal) and Dolmen d`Arreganyats sites (Spain)
• 5390 BCE: Likely date of construction of Île Carn site (France)
• 5380 BCE: Likely date of construction of Brochtorff Circle (Maltese Archipelago).
• 5375 BCE: Likely date of construction of Fuentepecina site (Spain).
• 5365 BCE: Likely date of construction of Champ Châlon, Monument B1 site (France) and Lambourne Ground (England).
• 5360 BCE: Likely date of construction of Lameira de Cima 2 site (Portugal).
• 5355 BCE: Likely date of construction of Camp del Ginébre site (Spain) and Monte Revincu (Corsica).
• 5354 BCE: Likely date of construction of Najac site (France).
• 5340 BCE: Likely date of construction of Els Vilars and La Motte des Justices sites (France).
• 5330 BCE: Likely date of construction of Antelas (Portugal) and Mámoa do Monte: dos Marxos, Cova del Lladres and Prajou Menhir sites (Spain).
• 5329 BCE: Likely date of construction of Cotogrande 1 site (Spain)
• 5320 BCE: Likely date of construction of Alberite site (Spain) and Ventin 4 site (France).
• 5305 BCE: Likely date of construction of Rebolledo site (Spain)
• 5300 BCE: Likely date of construction of Trikuaizti I and Camp de la Vergentière sites (France).
• 5290 BCE: Likely date of construction of Ciella site (Spain)
• 5270 BCE: Likely date of construction of Furnas 1 and 2 and Igartza W sites (Spain).
• 5263 BCE: Likely date of construction of Le Déhus site (England).
• 5260 BCE: Likely date of construction of Meninas do Crastro 2 (Portugal)
• 5250 BCE: Likely date of construction of Neuvy-en-Dunois site (France) and Velilla 2 site (Spain).
• 5240 BCE: Likely date of construction of La Cabaña site (Spain)
• 5235 BCE: Likely date of construction of La Pierre Tourneresse site (France).
• 5230 BCE: Likely date of construction of Outeiro de Gregos 3 site (Portugal), Primrose Grange (Ireland) and Sierra Plana de la Borbolla 24 sites (Spain).
• 5220 BCE: Likely date of construction of Uglhöj and Jättegraven sites (Sweden).
• 5215 BCE: Likely date of construction of Slieve Gullion site (Ireland)
• 5200 BCE: Likely date of construction of Beckhampton Road site (England) Grotte des Cranes (France) and Velilla 3 sites (Spain).
• 5195 BCE: Likely date of construction of L´île Bono and Pena Ovieda I sites (Spain).
• 5190 BCE: Likely date of construction of Los Llanos 1 site (Spain), Dalladies (Scotland), and Horslip (England)
• 5175 BCE: Likely date of construction of La Llaguna A site (Spain)
• 5170 BCE: Likely date of construction of Wietrzychowice site (Poland)
• 5160 BCE: Likely date of construction of Picoto da Vasco (Portugal) and Cave de Cadaval sites (Portugal).
• 5155 BCE: Likely date of construction of El Miradero site (Spain)
• 5150 BCE: Likely date of construction of Dooey´s Cairn (Ireland), Borgstedt LA 22 (Germany), Morceo (Spain), Colombiers-sur-Seulles (France), and As Rozas 1 site (Spain).
• 5140 BCE: Likely date of construction of Krusza Zamkova site (Poland) and Liscuis I (France).
• 5135 BCE: Likely date of construction of La Llaguna D site (Spain).
• 5130 BCE: Likely date of construction of Senhora do Monte 3 (Portugal), Mina do Simão (Portugal), and Castello d’Araggio, C-Ar-4 sites (Corsica).
• 5125 BCE: Likely date of construction of Carapito 1 site (Portugal).
• 5115 BCE: Likely date of construction of Odarslöv site (Sweden)
• 5112 BCE: Likely date of construction of Mamoa do Castelo 1 site (Portugal)
• 5110 BCE: Likely date of construction of Monamore site (Ireland), Albersdorf: LA 56: Bredenhoop site (Germany).
• 5101 BCE: Likely date of construction of Coldrum site (England).
• 5100 BCE: Likely date of construction of Poulnabrone (Ireland), La Mina, Els garrofers del torrent de Sta. Maria sites (Spain).
• 5095 BCE: Likely date of construction of Montou site (France) and Örnakulla site (Sweden).
• 5090 BCE: Likely date of construction of Maes Howe (Scotland) and Sa ´Ucca de su Tintirriolu (Corsica) Dolmen de Tires Llargues, Champ Châlon, Monument B2 sites (France).
• 5080 BCE: Likely date of construction of Mosegården site (Sweden) and La Xorenga (Spain)
• 5078 BCE: Likely date of construction of San Benedetto site (Italy).
• 5070 BCE: Likely date of construction of Street House (England), Port Blanc (France) and Lochhill site (Scotland).
• 5060 BCE: Likely date of construction of Orca das Castenairas site (Portugal).
• 5055 BCE: Likely date of construction of Monte da Romea site (Portugal).
• 5050 BCE: Likely date of construction of Trefignath (Wales), Bjørnsholm (Denmark) and Gwernvale sites (Wales).
• 5045 BCE: Likely date of construction of Orca de Seixas (Portugal) and Ballybriest (Ireland)
• 5040 BCE: Likely date of construction of Monte Areo XV site (Spain)
• 5030 BCE: Likely date of construction of Champ Châlon, Monument C site (France) and Seamer Moor site (England).
• 5029 BCE: Likely date of construction of Broadsands site (England)
• 5025 BCE: Likely date of construction of Le Castellic site (France).
• 5020 BCE: Likely date of construction of Ponte da Pedra (Portugal).
• 5010 BCE: Likely date of construction of Châ da Parada 1 (Portugal) and Lindebjerg and Pedra Cuberta sites (Spain).
• 5005 BCE: Likely date of construction of Gökhem 17 site (Sweden) and Acon site (France).
• 4996 BCE: Likely date of construction of Vale de Rodrigo 3 site (Portugal).
• 4990 BCE: Likely date of construction of Orca da Penela 1 site (Portugal), Châ de Santinhos 2 site (Portugal) and Lameira de Cima 1, Algarão da Goldra sites (Portugal).
• 4980 BCE: Likely date of construction of Châ de Santinhos 1 and Pedra Moura sites (Portugal).
• 4970 BCE: Likely date of construction of Rustrup I site (Denmark) and Pen-y-Wyrlod site (Wales).
• 4969 BCE: Likely date of construction of Su Stampu e Giovnnicu Meli site (Corsica)
• 4965 BCE: Likely date of construction of Tulloch of Assery B (Scotland)
• 4960 BCE: Likely date of construction of Tully (Ireland) Willerby Wold site (England), Gladsax (Sweden) Meninas do Crastro 3 sites (Portugal), Cotobasero 2 and Orca dos Padrões sites (Portugal).
• 4955 BCE: Likely date of construction of Hirumugarrieta 2 site (Spain).
• 4950 BCE: Likely date of construction of West Kennet Long Barrow site (England), Dombate (Spain), Chamster Long (England), Costa dels Garrics de Caballol I Pinell and Grotta Filiestru sites (Spain).
• 4935 BCE: Likely date of construction of Dolmen de Menga site (Spain).
• 4930 BCE: Likely date of construction of Shanballeyedmond no 3 (Ireland), El Palomar, and Feixa del Moro sites (Spain).
• 4920 BCE: Likely date of construction of Monte d´Accodi (Italy), Rustrup II (Denmark) and Forno dos Mouros site (Portugal).
• 4910 BCE: Likely date of construction of Rude (Denmark)
• 4905 BCE: Likely date of construction of Vale de Rodrigo 2 (Portugal).
• 4900 BCE: Likely date of construction of Mound of the Hostages (Ireland) Millbarrow site (England), Grotta del Guano (Italy) Anta de Serramo, Collado Palomero 2 sites (Spain).
• 4897 BCE: Likely date of construction of West Tump site (England)
• 4890 BCE: Likely date of construction of Valtorp 2 site (Sweden)
• 4880 BCE: Likely date of construction of Ernes site (Scotland).
• 4875 BCE: Likely date of construction of Cotogrande 2 site (Spain)
• 4873 BCE: Likely date of construction of Knowth 17 (Ireland)
• 4870 BCE: Likely date of construction of Oldendorf IV and Champ Châlon, Monument A sites (Germany) , Pierre Virante II (France) and Bagnos site (France).
• 4860 BCE: Likely date of construction of Glenvoideau and Kleinenkneten 2 sites (Germany)
• 4852 BCE: Likely date of construction of Knowth site (Ireland).
• 4850 BCE: Likely date of construction of Bissee (Germany) , As Pereiras and Konens Høj sites (Denmark).
• 4840 BCE: Likely date of construction of La Vega 1 (Spain).
• 4830 BCE: Likely date of construction of Carreg Coetan (Wales), Montiou site (France), Kilham site (England).
• 4825 BCE: Likely date of construction of Kerléven (France), Storegard IV (Sweden) and Creggandevesky site (Ireland)
• 4820 BCE: Likely date of construction of Pena Ovieda and Dorna sites (Spain)
• 4817 BCE: Likely date of construction of Wayland´s Smithy site (England)
• 4810 BCE: Likely date of construction of South Stanwick (England) and Velilla 1 site (Spain).
• 4800 BCE: Likely date of construction of Tulloch of Assery A site (Scotland), Heberg (Sweden) and Ballintruer More site (Ireland)
• 4795 BCE: Likely date of construction of Grundoldendorf I site (Germany) and Lüdelsen 6 (Germany)
• 4785 BCE: Likely date of construction of Parknabinnia site (Ireland).
• 4780 BCE: Likely date of construction of Outeiro de Gregos 5 (Portugal) and Cabeceira 4 site (Portugal).
• 4770 BCE: Likely date of construction of Jerpoint West (Ireland), Carascal (Spain) and Sobreira 1 site (Portugal).
• 4765 BCE: Likely date of construction of Ashley Park site (England).
• 4760 BCE: Likely date of construction of South Street site (England).
• 4755 BCE: Likely date of construction of Rastorf site (Germany) and Drottning Hackas grav (Sweden), La Hameliniere site (France).
• 4750 BCE: Likely date of construction of Großenrode II site (Germany) and Peña Guerra 2 site (Spain).
• 4740 BCE: Likely date of construction of Rokaer and Bygholm Nørremark sites (Denmark) Casota do Páramo (Portugal) and Cova del Toixò site (Spain).
• 4735 BCE: Likely date of construction of Baunogenasraid site (Ireland).
• 4730 BCE: Likely date of construction of Easton Down, Bisshop´s Canning site (England), Collado Palomero 1 (Spain) and Kjeldbækgård site (Denmark).
• 4720 BCE: Likely date of construction of Arnillas and Torshøj sites (Spain), Moinhos de Vento site (Portugal) and Zberzyn site (Poland).
• 4717 BCE: Likely date of construction of San Bieito 2 site (Portugal)
• 4710 BCE: Likely date of construction of Port Charlotte site (Scotland) and Ølstykke site (Denmark)
• 4708 BCE: Likely date of construction of Canelles site (Spain).
• 4700 BCE: Likely date of construction of El Collado de Mallo (Spain), Cabeço de Arruda 2 (Portugal), Tustrup (Denmark) Fuente Morena and Le Stade sites (Spain).
• 4690 BCE: Likely date of construction of La Bruyere du Hamel and La Butte Saint Cyr (France) and Pujolet de Moja site (Spain).
• 4685 BCE: Likely date of construction of Mysinge 2 (Sweden) and Tulach an T`Sionnaich (Scotland).
• 4680 BCE: Likely date of construction of Point of Cott site (Scotland) and La Ciste de Cous site (France).
• 4680 BCE: Likely date of construction of Townleyhall II site (Ireland).
• 4675 BCE: Likely date of construction of Ardcrony (Ireland)
• 4671 BCE: Likely date of construction of Nutbane site (Ireland).
• 4670 BCE: Likely date of construction of Sobreira de Cima 3 site (Portugal).
• 4665 BCE: Likely date of construction of The Ord North site (Scotland).
• 4660 BCE: Likely date of construction of Vroue Hede and Holtenes III sites (Denmark).
• 4653 BCE: Likely date of construction of Warburg III site (Germany).
• 4650 BCE: Likely date of construction of North Mains site (Scotland), Huerta Montero (Spain), Phoenix Park (Ireland), Bagnolet (France), Cabeço da Areira, Cova de la Font del Molinot and Rabuje 5 sites (Spain).
• 4649 BCE: Likely date of construction of Stoneyfield, Raigmore site (Scotland)
• 4640 BCE: Likely date of construction of Tofta 14/Ansarve Hage (Sweden), Pena Guerra II (Spain), Hejring site (Denmark) and Ansião and Ta´Hagrat sites (Portugal).
• 4630 BCE: Likely date of construction of Odoorn site (Netherlands)
• 4620 BCE: Likely date of construction of Château Blanc site (France) and Giants Hills site (England).
• 4620 BCE: Likely date of construction of Hvalshøje site (Denmark)
• 4610 BCE: Likely date of construction of Quanterness site (Scotland) and L´Hotel de Dieu (France).
• 4605 BCE: Likely date of construction of Calden site (Germany).
• 4600 BCE: Likely date of construction of Warburg V site (Germany).
• 4590 BCE: Likely date of construction of Pedras Grandes and Snibhøj sites (Denmark) and Abogalheira 1 and Odoorn D32 sites (Netherlands)
• 4585 BCE: Likely date of construction of Lisduggan North (Ireland) and Mané Kernaplaye site (France).
• 4580 BCE: Likely date of construction of Fjälkinge 9 site (Sweden).
• 4570 BCE: Likely date of construction of Warburg IV site (Germany), Kinneved 21/Slutarp (Sweden) and Ditfurt, Vroue Hede Ia sites (Germany).
• 4560 BCE: Likely date of construction of Vroue Hede III (Denmark) and Falköpings västra 7 site (Sweden) Skjeberg (Norway).
• 4550 BCE: Likely date of construction of Dolmen de Viera site (Spain), Klokkehøj site (Denmark), Poulawack site (Ireland), Großeibstadt I, La Pierre Godon, Beaulieu and Odoorn D32a sites (Germany)
• 4545 BCE: Likely date of construction of Dötlingen site (Germany).
• 4540 BCE: Likely date of construction of La Chaussée Tirancourt (France), Odagsen and Ramshög sites (Germany) and Raevehøj (Denmark).
• 4535 BCE: Likely date of construction of Newgrange (Ireland) and La Grosse Motte (France).
• 4530 BCE: Likely date of construction of Sobreira de Cima 1 (Portugal).
• 4525 BCE: Likely date of construction of Castro Marim (Portugal).
• 4520 BCE: Likely date of construction of Rego da Murta 1 (Portugal), Nordhausen 2 and Dolmen de Mailleton sites (France), Sobreira de Cima 4 (Portugal).
• 4515 BCE: Likely date of construction of Karleby 59 site (Sweden).
• 4510 BCE: Likely date of construction of Hunnebostrand site (Sweden).
• 4505 BCE: Likely date of construction of Les Varennes (France) and Falköpings stad 3 site (Sweden).
• 4500 BCE: Likely date of construction of Noisy-sur-Ecole (France) and Tossen-Keler, Altendorf, Jörlanda 120, and Trekoner and Aguels sites (Spain).
• 4496 BCE: Likely date of construction of S. Caterina di Pittinuri site (Italy).
• 4490 BCE: Likely date of construction of Jordehøj (Denmark), Maison Rouge site (France) and Alvastra and Kellerød sites (Sweden).
• 4485 BCE: Likely date of construction of Tarxien site (Maltese Archipelago)
• 4485 BCE: Likely date of construction of Großenrode I site (Germany).
• 4480 BCE: Likely date of construction of Isbister (Scotland) and Cova de las Encantades de Martis (Spain) and Loon D15 and Horta (Netherlands).
• 4476 BCE: Likely date of construction of Cannas di Sotto site (Italy)
• 4475 BCE: Likely date of construction of Schönstedt site (Germany) and Ubby Dysselod (Denmark).
• 4470 BCE: Likely date of construction of Valle de las Higueras (Spain) and Gavrinis site (France).
• 4460 BCE: Likely date of construction of Berry-au-Bac and Niederbösa sites (Germany).
• 4450 BCE: Likely date of construction of Liscuis II site (France), Atteln (Germany), and Trigache 4, Cuesta de los Almendrillos and Cova del Frare sites (Spain).
• 4445 BCE: Likely date of construction of Kurtzebide site (Spain) and Schönstedt site (Germany).
• 4440 BCE: Likely date of construction of Maglehøj site (Denmark)
• 4435 BCE: Likely date of construction of Portejoie/sepulture 1 (France) and Kruckow (Germany)
• 4430 BCE: Likely date of construction of Goërem (France), Holm of Papa Westray North (Scotland) and Gökhem 78 and Valtorp 1 sites (Sweden)
• 4428 BCE: Likely date of construction of Falk stad 3 (Sweden).
• 4425 BCE: Likely date of construction of Stones of Steness (Scotland) and Ȧ Djèyî (France).
• 4420 BCE: Likely date of construction of Los Millares (Spain), Aldersro (Denmark), Monte Canelas 1 (Portugal), Saint-Gervais (France), Can Pey site (Spain), Øm site (Denmark), and Knowth 9 site (Ireland)
• 4410 BCE: Likely date of construction of Praia das Maças (Portugal), Santa Margarida 2 (Portugal), Casullo (Italy), Lairg, Achany Glen (Scotland), Arruda (Portugal).
• 4405 BCE: Likely date of construction of Buchow-Karpzow site (Germany).
• 4399 BCE: Likely date of construction of Knowth 16 site (Ireland)
• 4395 BCE: Likely date of construction of Annaghmare site (Ireland)
• 4390 BCE: Likely date of construction of Petit-Chasseur I (Switzerland) and Kermené (France).
• 4390 BCE: Likely date of construction of Cotogrande 5 site (Spain) and Falköpings stad 28 (Sweden).
• 4389 BCE: Likely date of construction of Lohra site (Germany).
• 4376 BCE: Likely date of construction of Warburg I site (Germany).
• 4375 BCE: Likely date of construction of Megalithe du Chateau site (France).
• 4370 BCE: Likely date of construction of Gökhem 31 (Sweden) and Hotié de Viviane site (France).
• 4360 BCE: Likely date of construction of Bola da Cera site (Portugal).
• 4340 BCE: Likely date of construction of Em

(The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

Challenging the Migration Myth: Einkorn Wheat, Ancient Mariners, and the True Timeline of Megalithic Europe

For decades, the narrative of early farming in Europe has been dominated by the “migration model,” which suggests that agriculture spread westward through the gradual movement of farming communities from the Middle East. However, groundbreaking discoveries, including those at Bouldnor Cliff, the world’s oldest boatyard in Wales, and a comprehensive analysis of radiocarbon dates, are forcing a reevaluation of this long-held theory . These findings reveal a far more complex picture of prehistoric Europe, where sophisticated maritime trade networks predated and possibly facilitated the spread of agriculture, and where megalithic monuments were built millennia earlier than previously believed. (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

The Einkorn Wheat Revelation at Bouldnor Cliff

Over a decade ago, archaeologists unearthed traces of domesticated einkorn wheat at an underwater site off the British coast at Bouldnor Cliff [1]. This discovery, dating back over 8,000 years, is significant because it predates the accepted timeline of farming in Britain by 2,000 years . The presence of einkorn wheat, a crop originating in the Middle East, challenges the notion that agriculture spread slowly and linearly across Europe through migration . Instead, it indicates that Mesolithic hunter-gatherers in Britain had access to agricultural products through complex trade networks stretching as far as the Middle East. (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

This discovery implies that prehistoric societies possessed advanced seafaring capabilities, enabling long-distance exchanges thousands of years earlier than previously thought. The site at Bouldnor Cliff also yielded remnants of planked wooden boats, contradicting the traditional portrayal of these societies as primitive hunter-gatherers using only dugout canoes. These boats were capable of long voyages, facilitating trade routes that spanned vast distances . This evidence suggests a need to reconsider the conventional view of “hunter-gatherer” societies, acknowledging their skills as both traders and innovators in maritime engineering. (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

The Oldest Boatyard: Catamarans and Maritime Mastery

Further bolstering the argument for advanced prehistoric maritime capabilities is the discovery of what has been called the “Oldest Boat Yard in the World” in Wales. Initially, archaeologists interpreted channels at the site as evidence of dugout canoe construction dating back 4,000 years. However, a more critical analysis, aided by LiDAR mapping and BGS data, revealed that these channels were part of a slipway for catamarans, not canoes. This is a crucial distinction, as the use of catamarans with outriggers is a remarkable engineering feat not recognized in the Western world until the 16th century. (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

The boatyard’s slipway is associated with the transport of large stones. This suggests that these vessels were designed for moving heavy materials over water. The site’s dating has been revised to the Mesolithic period, around 8,000 BCE when it is believed that bluestones were transported to Stonehenge Phase 1. This dating aligns with the presence of Mesolithic tools found at the site. (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

These findings at the boatyard further demonstrate the technological sophistication of prehistoric societies. Instead of simple dugout canoes, they were using complex vessels designed for long-distance travel and the transport of heavy loads . This undermines the idea of a slow and linear progression of technology and civilization, suggesting instead a more nuanced path with peaks and troughs of invention. (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

Radiocarbon Dating and the True Timeline of Megaliths

The traditional narrative of megalithic construction in Europe is also under scrutiny thanks to a comprehensive study that analyzed over 2,410 radiocarbon dates. This study, which employed Bayesian statistical modeling, concluded that megalithic construction originated in northwestern France around 4500 BCE and spread primarily through maritime networks. The study emphasizes the importance of coastal communities as key nodes in this cultural transmission, highlighting the advanced navigational and organizational skills of prehistoric Europeans. (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

However, the study’s reliance on Bayesian analysis has faced critique for its inability to accurately identify original construction dates . Bayesian mathematics tends to average dates, which can skew results toward the midpoint and obscure the actual timeline of a site’s origin, particularly when dates span millennia. Reconstructing the radiocarbon data to focus on the earliest securely dated contexts, reveals that Carnac in France, not Stonehenge, is the oldest megalithic complex, dating to approximately 4500 BCE . (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

This revised data indicates that Stonehenge and other similar structures formed part of a network of early monuments reflecting regional variations and migrations of prehistoric cultures. This revised dating places construction thousands of years earlier than what has been previously presented. Mesolithic hearths at the bluestone quarries, Stonehenge’s old car park, and even beneath Stone 10 in the center circle consistently point to an 8300 BCE construction date. This challenges the traditional narrative that dates megalithic monuments to 5000 years later. The statistical probability of these dates aligning with Mesolithic features by chance is exceedingly low, supporting the idea of a Mesolithic origin for Stonehenge .

Implications for Prehistoric Migration and Trade

The implications of these findings are profound. The einkorn wheat discovery, the oldest boatyard, and the revised dating of megalithic sites collectively dismantle the “migration model” as the sole explanation for the spread of agriculture and culture in prehistoric Europe. Instead, the evidence suggests:

• Sophisticated Maritime Trade: Prehistoric societies were not isolated, but rather engaged in extensive maritime trade networks that facilitated the exchange of goods, ideas, and technologies across vast distances.
• Advanced Seafaring Capabilities: The use of planked boats and catamarans demonstrates a high level of maritime skill and technology, enabling long voyages.
• Pre-Agricultural Networks: Trade routes likely predated the spread of farming, with the movement of people emerging as a byproduct of established trading activities.
• Mesolithic Origins of Megaliths: Megalithic monuments such as Stonehenge and Carnac were built thousands of years earlier than previously believed during the Mesolithic period’

These findings also challenge the notion of a linear progression of culture and technology. The existence of catamarans and complex trade networks in the Mesolithic period shows that societies were capable of advanced innovation and development much earlier than previously thought. (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

Reevaluating the Narrative

The persistent adherence to the outdated “migration model” has led to the misinterpretation and dismissal of crucial evidence . For example, discoveries at the Craig Rhos-y-Felin quarries, where bluestones for Stonehenge were sourced, reveal Mesolithic carbon dates that suggest a much earlier period of human activity than the Neolithic dates that were emphasized in reports Similarly, Mesolithic post holes discovered at the old car park at Stonehenge were dismissed as totem poles from unrelated hunter-gatherers, rather than being recognized as potential evidence of early activity at the site.

These examples underscore a reluctance within some archaeological circles to reconsider established narratives, even when faced with contradictory data. This highlights the need for more open and unbiased research approaches that prioritize the accurate interpretation of our past . As more evidence emerges, it becomes clear that the traditional academic framework for understanding early farming and trade in Europe is inadequate. (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

The Need for a Paradigm Shift

The einkorn wheat discovery at Bouldnor Cliff, the oldest boatyard in Wales, the revised dating of megalithic sites, and the evidence of sophisticated maritime trade collectively call for a paradigm shift in archaeological thought . It’s time to move beyond the simplistic “migration model” and embrace a more nuanced understanding of prehistoric societies that recognizes their ingenuity, interconnectedness, and advanced technological capabilities. (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

By embracing these new perspectives, we can:

• Acknowledge the complexity of prehistoric societies: Recognize that societies were not solely defined by their subsistence strategies (hunter-gatherer vs. farmer), but were capable of innovation and complex social and economic interactions.
• Reconsider the role of maritime activity: Acknowledge the crucial role of seafaring in the transmission of goods, ideas, and technologies throughout prehistoric Europe.
• Embrace new dating methods: Be cautious about relying on Bayesian statistical modeling, and incorporate alternative methods for determining construction dates and timelines.
• Promote open-mindedness in archaeological research: Encourage a more thorough and unbiased approach to data interpretation, where findings are not dismissed simply because they contradict established narratives.

In conclusion, the discoveries at Bouldnor Cliff, the oldest boatyard, and the radiocarbon dating of megaliths are not isolated anomalies. Instead, they form part of a larger pattern of evidence that challenges our understanding of prehistoric Europe and the “migration model” that has been used to explain the diffusion of agriculture and cultural practices’ This new evidence reveals sophisticated maritime trade networks, advanced seafaring capabilities, and the Mesolithic origins of monumental architecture, demonstrating the need for a more nuanced and accurate understanding of our shared history.

The evidence provided strongly supports the hypothesis that the site at Stonehenge was constructed at the same time as Carnac in France in the 9th millennium BCE. This places the construction of these sites thousands of years before the arrival of farming communities in Britain, demonstrating a more complex history and interconnectedness of European sites, and reinforces the evidence that the current hypothesis on migrations is wrong. This also strongly supports the idea that these sites were built by seafarers rather than farmers who moved across Europe. (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

Exploring Prehistoric Britain: A Journey Through Time

My blog delves into the fascinating mysteries of prehistoric Britain, challenging conventional narratives and offering fresh perspectives based on cutting-edge research, particularly using LiDAR technology. I invite you to explore some key areas of my research. For example, the Wansdyke, often cited as a defensive structure, is re-examined in light of new evidence. I’ve presented my findings in my blog post Wansdyke: A British Frontier Wall – ‘Debunked’, and a Wansdyke LiDAR Flyover video further visualizes my conclusions. (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

My work also often challenges established archaeological dogma. I argue that many sites, such as Hambledon Hill, commonly identified as Iron Age hillforts are not what they seem. My posts Lidar Investigation Hambledon Hill – NOT an ‘Iron Age Fort’ and Unmasking the “Iron Age Hillfort” Myth explore these ideas in detail and offer an alternative view. Similarly, sites like Cissbury Ring and White Sheet Camp, also receive a re-evaluation based on LiDAR analysis in my posts Lidar Investigation Cissbury Ring through time and Lidar Investigation White Sheet Camp, revealing fascinating insights into their true purpose. I have also examined South Cadbury Castle, often linked to the mythical Camelot. (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

My research also extends to the topic of ancient water management, including the role of canals and other linear earthworks. I have discussed the true origins of Car Dyke in multiple posts including Car Dyke – ABC News PodCast and Lidar Investigation Car Dyke – North Section, suggesting a Mesolithic origin2357. I also explore the misidentification of Roman aqueducts, as seen in my posts on the Great Chesters (Roman) Aqueduct. My research has also been greatly informed by my post-glacial flooding hypothesis which has helped to inform the landscape transformations over time. I have discussed this hypothesis in several posts including AI now supports my Post-Glacial Flooding Hypothesis and Exploring Britain’s Flooded Past: A Personal Journey. (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

Finally, my blog also investigates prehistoric burial practices, as seen in Prehistoric Burial Practices of Britain and explores the mystery of Pillow Mounds, often mistaken for medieval rabbit warrens, but with a potential link to Bronze Age cremation in my posts: Pillow Mounds: A Bronze Age Legacy of Cremation? and The Mystery of Pillow Mounds: Are They Really Medieval Rabbit Warrens?. My research also includes the astronomical insights of ancient sites, for example, in Rediscovering the Winter Solstice: The Original Winter Festival. I also review new information about the construction of Stonehenge in The Stonehenge Enigma.

(The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

Further Reading

For those interested in British Prehistory, visit www.prehistoric-britain.co.uk, a comprehensive resource featuring an extensive collection of archaeology articles, modern LiDAR investigations, and groundbreaking research. The site also includes insights and extracts from the acclaimed Robert John Langdon Trilogy, a series of books exploring Britain during the Prehistoric period. Titles in the trilogy include The Stonehenge Enigma, Dawn of the Lost Civilisation, and The Post Glacial Flooding Hypothesis, offering compelling evidence about ancient landscapes shaped by post-glacial flooding.

To further explore these topics, Robert John Langdon has developed a dedicated YouTube channel featuring over 100 video documentaries and investigations that complement the trilogy. Notable discoveries and studies showcased on the channel include 13 Things that Don’t Make Sense in History and the revelation of Silbury Avenue – The Lost Stone Avenue, a rediscovered prehistoric feature at Avebury, Wiltshire. (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

In addition to his main works, Langdon has released a series of shorter, accessible publications, ideal for readers delving into specific topics. These include:

• The Ancient Mariners
• Stonehenge Built 8300 BCE
• Old Sarum
• Prehistoric Rivers
• Dykes, Ditches, and Earthworks
• Echoes of Atlantis
• Homo Superior
• 13 Things that Don’t Make Sense in History
• Silbury Avenue – The Lost Stone Avenue
• Offa’s Dyke
• The Stonehenge Enigma
• The Post-Glacial Flooding Hypothesis
• The Stonehenge Hoax
• Dawn of the Lost Civilisation
• Darwin’s Children
• Great Chester’s Roman Aqueduct
• Wansdyke

For active discussions and updates on the trilogy’s findings and recent LiDAR investigations, join our vibrant community on Facebook. Engage with like-minded enthusiasts by leaving a message or contributing to debates in our Facebook Group.

Whether through the books, the website, or interactive videos, we aim to provide a deeper understanding of Britain’s fascinating prehistoric past. We encourage you to explore these resources and uncover the mysteries of ancient landscapes through the lens of modern archaeology.

For more information, including chapter extracts and related publications, visit the Robert John Langdon Author Page. Dive into works such as The Stonehenge Enigma or Dawn of the Lost Civilisation, and explore cutting-edge theories that challenge traditional historical narratives. (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

Other Blogs

(The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

Introduction

The Crisis in Archaeology: Why a Once-Respected Discipline is Losing Its Way

Archaeology, the study of human history and prehistory through excavation and analysis, is facing a credibility crisis. Once a vital link to the past, the discipline is increasingly met with scepticism, with its findings often dismissed as speculative or even fictional. This erosion of trust and academic relevance arises from flawed methodologies, resistance to new technologies, and a culture prioritising sensationalism over rigorous scientific inquiry. This article examines the core issues contributing to archaeology’s challenges and explores potential solutions to restore its integrity. (Archaeology: fact or fiction? )

Subjectivity vs. Scientific Rigour

One major criticism of archaeology is its inherent subjectivity. Unlike pure sciences that rely on quantitative data and mathematical models, archaeology often interprets incomplete and degraded evidence, such as artefacts and structures. This reliance on fragmentary data makes definitive conclusions difficult and opens the discipline to claims of speculation. (Archaeology: fact or fiction? )

Interpretative Bias

Archaeological findings are frequently influenced by the archaeologist’s perspective, leading to multiple, sometimes conflicting narratives. These narratives can vary based on cultural background, theoretical framework, or even personal bias. The result is that possibilities are often presented as certainties, creating a misleading view of the past. (Archaeology: Fact or Fiction? )

Lack of Reproducibility

In scientific disciplines, reproducibility is a cornerstone of credibility. However, archaeological findings are often unique to specific sites and cannot be replicated. For example, interpreting an artefact’s purpose or an ancient structure’s use often relies on context that cannot be recreated, making it difficult to validate conclusions through independent studies. (Archaeology: fact or fiction? )

Emphasis on Probability

Archaeology operates in probabilities, where conclusions are based on the most likely scenarios rather than certainties. While this approach is a pragmatic necessity given the fragmentary nature of evidence, it contrasts sharply with the definitive proof or disproof found in pure sciences. This can make archaeology appear less rigorous and more speculative. (Archaeology: fact or fiction? )

Resistance to New Technologies

The reluctance of some archaeologists to adopt new technologies is a significant factor in the discipline’s struggles. While methods like GIS, LiDAR, stable isotope analysis, and Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) dating have revolutionised the field, resistance to integrating these into traditional studies persists. This often stems from an overreliance on older methodologies or scepticism about newer techniques. (Archaeology: fact or fiction? )

LiDAR Technology

LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) provides unparalleled accuracy in studying landscapes by using laser technology to create detailed topographical maps. For instance, a comprehensive LiDAR survey of Offa’s Dyke revealed new insights into its construction and purpose. Despite these advancements, some archaeologists continue to rely on outdated observational methods, ignoring the transformative potential of LiDAR. (Archaeology: fact or fiction? )

OSL Dating

OSL dating offers critical information about the last exposure of sediments to sunlight, providing insights into site usage and artefact burial timelines. Despite its potential to reshape our understanding of archaeological sites, there are instances where OSL findings are dismissed or underutilised. This is often due to a preference for traditional carbon dating methods or a reluctance to challenge established narratives.(Archaeology: fact or fiction? )

Integration Challenges

Part of the resistance to new technologies lies in integrating them into existing curricula and research frameworks. Many archaeologists are trained in traditional methodologies and lack exposure to advanced techniques during their education. Bridging this gap requires significant investment in training and resources, which some institutions are hesitant to provide.(Archaeology: fact or fiction? )

Funding, Egos, and Sensationalism

The competitive nature of academia exacerbates the challenges facing archaeology. With limited funding opportunities, researchers often prioritise sensationalism to attract grants and media attention. This focus on bold claims over meticulous research undermines the discipline’s credibility.(Archaeology: fact or fiction? )

Ego-Driven Research

The egos of prominent archaeologists can create a toxic environment where rivalry replaces collaboration. In some cases, this leads to premature announcements of discoveries that have not been thoroughly investigated. The rush to claim credit for significant findings can result in flawed interpretations and missed opportunities for peer review. (Archaeology: fact or fiction? )

Sensationalised Interpretations

Archaeologists sometimes present sensationalised interpretations of findings to secure funding or public interest. For example, media coverage of Cheddar Man’s DNA analysis led to exaggerated and often inaccurate reconstructions of his appearance. These narratives, while engaging, usually lack the scientific rigour necessary for credibility. (Archaeology: fact or fiction? )

Ignoring Contradictory Evidence

In some instances, evidence that challenges established theories is disregarded to preserve favoured interpretations. For example, carbon dates from Stonehenge’s quarries suggest activity as early as 8500 BCE, far earlier than traditional timelines. Rather than re-evaluating these findings, they are often dismissed or overlooked. (Archaeology: fact or fiction? )

---

Misinterpretations of Key Sites

The reluctance to embrace new methods and the tendency to prioritise established narratives have led to significant misinterpretations of key archaeological sites. These errors hinder our understanding of history and contribute to the discipline’s credibility crisis. (Archaeology: fact or fiction? )

Stonehenge

Stonehenge is traditionally dated to the Neolithic period, approximately 3000-2000 BCE. However, earlier carbon dating evidence suggests the site’s construction may have begun as far back as 8500 BCE. Additionally, the widely accepted theory that the stones were dragged over land ignores the challenges posed by the landscape’s steep drops and river valleys. Alternative explanations, such as the use of waterways, remain underexplored. (Archaeology: fact or fiction? )

Iron Age Hill Forts

Over 3,300 sites in Britain are classified as “Iron Age hill forts,” despite limited evidence to support this designation. Many of these sites lack indications of fortification, such as mass graves or signs of warfare. This misclassification stifles further research into their true purpose and period. (Archaeology: fact or fiction? )

Linear Earthworks

Features like dykes are often attributed to the Saxon period based on their names. However, LiDAR studies suggest these structures are much older and likely served as transport routes rather than defensive boundaries. Discoveries such as a Roman barge at Car Dyke support the theory that these earthworks were prehistoric canals rather than fortifications. (Archaeology: fact or fiction? )

Woodhenge

The traditional interpretation of Woodhenge as a single-story house or an arrangement of tree stumps fails to account for the size of the postholes. Recent excavations indicate that the original posts were far larger, suggesting a more imposing structure. Furthermore, the dating of Woodhenge is based on unrelated antler and bone fragments, with many posthole samples untested or lost. (Archaeology: fact or fiction? )

The Impact of Post-Glacial Flooding

Post-glacial flooding, which submerged large parts of Britain after the last Ice Age, has been overlooked in many archaeological analyses. These waterways were essential for transportation and construction, yet their significance is often underestimated. For instance, linear earthworks like Wansdyke may have functioned as prehistoric canals rather than defensive structures. A better understanding of hydrology is needed to interpret these features accurately. (Archaeology: fact or fiction? )

The Peer-Review Process

While essential for maintaining scientific rigour, the peer-review process can also hinder progress in archaeology. Slow review times and resistance to new ideas often delay the dissemination of groundbreaking research. Critics argue that the discipline’s adherence to outdated methodologies and theories creates an environment hostile to innovation. This resistance to change has been likened to ideological dogmatism, where new evidence is met with outright denial rather than critical evaluation. (Archaeology: fact or fiction? )

Accessibility and Public Engagement

The language used in academic journals is often dense and inaccessible to the general public. This disconnect limits public understanding and engagement with archaeology. Efforts to bridge this gap through public education initiatives and accessible publications are crucial for fostering a broader appreciation of the discipline. (Archaeology: fact or fiction? )

Specific Examples of Flawed Practices

Craig Rhos-y-Felin

Reports on this site have been criticised for inconsistencies and selective use of data. For example, carbon dates suggesting activity as far back as 5620 BCE were largely ignored, and tool marks indistinguishable between Mesolithic and Neolithic periods were overlooked. These omissions undermine the credibility of interpretations. (Archaeology: fact or fiction? )

Waun Mawn

A BBC documentary linking Waun Mawn to Stonehenge relied on flawed methods, such as photogrammetry requiring impractical vertical stone movements. Additionally, OSL samples were collected without ensuring uncontaminated conditions, further compromising the findings. (Archaeology: fact or fiction? )

Professor Ray’s Journey

Attempts to recreate the transport of Stonehenge’s bluestones by foot failed to account for the region’s geographical challenges. The reliance on modern roads and disregard for natural obstacles rendered the experiment unrealistic and uninformative.

The Path Forward

The issues facing archaeology are complex but not insurmountable. By adopting an evidence-based, interdisciplinary approach, the discipline can restore its credibility and continue to illuminate humanity’s shared history.

Embrace New Technologies

Integrating advanced techniques like LiDAR, OSL, and GIS into research and education is essential for improving accuracy and efficiency.

Promote Interdisciplinary Collaboration

Collaboration with hydrology, geology, and climate science fields can provide a more comprehensive understanding of ancient environments and landscapes.

Strengthen Scientific Rigour

Archaeology must prioritise empirical data and mathematical models over subjective interpretation. This includes using statistical analysis to validate hypotheses and revisiting established theories in light of new evidence.

Encourage Critical Analysis

The peer-review process should welcome new ideas and foster critical debate rather than suppress dissenting views. Openness to challenging established narratives is vital for progress.

Enhance Public Engagement

Making research more accessible through public education, open discussions, and simplified publications can bridge the gap between archaeologists and the wider community.

Reduce Sensationalism

Resisting the temptation to prioritise media appeal over scientific validation is crucial for rebuilding trust in the discipline. Findings should be thoroughly vetted before being presented to the public.

Conclusion

Archaeology stands at a crossroads. Its credibility has been undermined by resistance to new methods, subjective interpretation, sensationalism, and external pressures. However, by addressing these challenges, the discipline can regain trust and respect, ensuring its continued relevance in uncovering and understanding our shared human past.

Briefing Document: Re-evaluating Prehistoric Britain

Introduction

This document summarises key themes and arguments presented in a series of blog posts and a PDF document, all focusing on Prehistoric Britain. The sources challenge mainstream archaeological interpretations, proposing alternative explanations for various historical phenomena and highlighting the limitations of current research methodologies. A central figure throughout these documents is Robert John Langdon” who presents many of the alternative theories and claims to be challenging mainstream, accepted archaeology with these claims.

Key Themes and Ideas:

Prehistoric Canals and Linear Earthworks (Dykes):

• Main Argument: Linear earthworks, traditionally considered defensive boundaries or political markers (like Offa’s Dyke and Wansdyke), were primarily prehistoric canals used for transportation and trade.
• Evidence:LiDAR analysis revealing the scale and engineering of these earthworks, suggesting their suitability for water conveyance.
• The discovery of a canal ditch in the Wansdyke earthwork that is “twice as big as the Victorian canal,” suggesting sophisticated hydrological knowledge and engineering.
• The existence of Roman barges at Car Dyke indicates that many of the dykes are pre-Saxon.
• The East Wansdyke being far more substantial, with deeper ditches and wider banks, further supports its use as a waterway, as West Wansdyke appears to be a later, possibly Roman, road extension. As the source material states, “Excavations conclusively show that the Ditches on the East side of Wansdyke are much more profound and twice as broad. In contrast, the Banks on the East Side are much wider.“
• The connection between these ‘canal’ earthworks and barrows and flint pits, which is seen in the East but not the West, further supports the theory that the East portion is older.
• Challenged Ideas: Refutes the traditional narrative that these dykes were defensive structures. “Many people have dismissed my theory, but I have not let that stop me.“

Mesolithic Seafaring and Early Boats:

• Main Argument: Evidence suggests boats were in use much earlier than conventionally believed, possibly as far back as 10,000 years ago.
• Evidence:Discovery of 10,000-year-old boats on British hillsides challenges traditional dating of boat construction.
• Discussion of coracles and their capacity for sea travel, posing the question of early sea exploration. “Furthermore, radiocarbon dating evidence suggests that sea travel may have been invented much earlier than previously thought.“

The Problem of “Iron Age Forts”:

• Main Argument: Many structures labeled “Iron Age hill forts” are misclassified. These sites lack clear evidence of defense, such as mass graves, implying they served other purposes. As the source material notes, “All sites that sit on top of hills and have ditches are called Iron Age Forts – sadly I have yet to find a single location that is either ‘Iron Age’ or a ‘Fortification’ as not a single dead body from slaying has ever been found and all the so called defensive ditches EVER!!“
• Evidence:The lack of defensive remains at these sites.
• The classification stifles further research into the true purpose of these structures.
• Challenged Ideas: The widely accepted idea that many hilltop sites in Britain were military defenses in the Iron Age.

Roman Ports and Shifting Coastlines:

• Main Argument: Roman ports located far inland indicate significant sea-level changes or different hydrological conditions, possibly fed by freshwater rivers rather than the sea.
• Evidence:Examples of Roman ports like Brading and Lewes, now inland, due to what is assumed to be rising sea levels.
• The silting of harbours like Ephesus.
• Questions whether the Lewes harbour was once fed by freshwater rather than seawater.

Raised Beaches and Post-Glacial Activity:

• Main Argument: Raised beaches are better explained by falling sea levels or past tsunami events, rather than solely by isostatic rebound.
• Evidence:Alternative explanations for raised beach formation, including tsunami theory and falling sea levels. “Geologists have come up with a complex explanation for raised beaches, but a more straightforward reason is that they form when sea levels fall, leaving beaches exposed and stranded above the new sea level.“
• Discussion of the Storegga slide and its potential impact.
• Rejection of the idea that deposits are due to post-glacial flooding.

Giant Skeletons and Early Human Populations:

• Main Argument: Claims that giant skeletons were dismissed by modern science. This suggests that prior human species existed that were larger than humans as they exist now.
• Evidence:The dismissing of giant skeleton findings found by French Archaeologists

Ancient Knowledge and Weather Patterns:

• Main Argument: Prehistoric people in Britain had knowledge of severe weather patterns (including tornadoes) and constructed underground shelters in response.
• Evidence:The existence of “souterrains” and fogous.
• Historical records of severe storms such as the “Grote Mandrenke” in 1362 and a tornado in 1091.

Mythological Dragons as Reality:

• Main Argument: The global presence of dragon mythology across diverse cultures suggests a possible shared experience with a real, now-extinct animal or some other ‘real’ experience.
• Evidence:The presence of dragon mythologies across different cultures.

Doggerland/Atlantis and a Lost Civilization:

• Main Argument: The sunken land of Doggerland in the North Sea may be linked to Plato’s account of Atlantis. This suggests a potential “world’s oldest and greatest civilisation” existed in the area.
• Evidence:Plato’s account of Atlantis is debated due to its potential connection to the flooded land of Doggerland

Alexander the Great and Ancient Waterways:

• Main Argument: Alexander’s campaign into India was facilitated by waterways that no longer exist, rather than solely over land.
• Evidence:The proposal that Alexander used waterways that were larger in the past, leading to India. “Traditionally, Alexander’s route was seen as a march over barren land, but a photojournalist suggests he used waterways that were larger in the past.“

Challenging Mainstream Archaeology:

• Main Argument: Mainstream archaeology is flawed, often biased by preconceived notions and hampered by a resistance to alternative interpretations, often referred to as “bad science.”
• Evidence:The classification of many sites as “Iron Age hill forts” despite a lack of evidence.
• The misinterpretations and censorship of archaeological findings.
• The slow adoption of new technology, such as LiDAR, and new perspectives.
• The continued misinterpretations of ancient measurements.
• Specific criticism of academics who use peer review to validate and propogate errors. As the source material notes “Previous peer-reviewed works have perpetuated the same mistakes, making them socially acceptable in archaeology.“

Stonehenge Transportation:

• Main Argument: The stones used in Stonehenge were likely transported primarily via waterways, rather than overland, as mainstream archaeology suggests.
• Evidence: The difficulty in transporting the stones overland, given the landscape.
• Logistical assessments of stone transportation, indicating that overland movement is unlikely, and that using water is far more feasible. As the source material states, “The number of Rivers are immense and would have been larger than today!“
• Calculations of workforce, materials and time needed for moving bluestones with boats as opposed to overland transportation.
• Challenged Ideas: The prevailing idea that stones were hauled by sledges over land, ignoring the difficulties posed by terrain.
• The Use of LiDAR TechnologyMain Argument: LiDAR technology has revolutionised and will continue to transform our understanding of Prehistoric Britain.
• Evidence: The consistent referral to the use of LiDAR technology in various claims throughout the source material.

Contradictions and Questions:

• The sources present a clear bias against mainstream archaeology, often framing it as deliberately flawed or resistant to new evidence.
• Some of the arguments are speculative and may rely on interpretations of the evidence and logic more than concrete proof.
• The sources often conflate multiple lines of evidence to support a singular conclusion, which might make it difficult to verify.

Concluding Thoughts:

These sources provide an interesting challenge to conventional historical accounts of Prehistoric Britain. They raise valid concerns about the limitations of current archaeological practices and push for re-evaluation using new technologies and interdisciplinary approaches. However, it’s important to approach these alternative interpretations with a critical eye and note that they are often based on a revisionist point of view. Further research and scrutiny will be needed to validate the claims made. The use of LiDAR and other advanced technologies to gather new evidence should also be given further scrutiny.

Exploring Prehistoric Britain: A Journey Through Time

My blog delves into the fascinating mysteries of prehistoric Britain, challenging conventional narratives and offering fresh perspectives based on cutting-edge research, particularly using LiDAR technology. I invite you to explore some key areas of my research. For example, the Wansdyke, often cited as a defensive structure, is re-examined in light of new evidence. I’ve presented my findings in my blog post Wansdyke: A British Frontier Wall – ‘Debunked’, and a Wansdyke LiDAR Flyover video further visualizes my conclusions. (The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

My work also often challenges established archaeological dogma. I argue that many sites, such as Hambledon Hill, commonly identified as Iron Age hillforts are not what they seem. My posts Lidar Investigation Hambledon Hill – NOT an ‘Iron Age Fort’ and Unmasking the “Iron Age Hillfort” Myth explore these ideas in detail and offer an alternative view. Similarly, sites like Cissbury Ring and White Sheet Camp, also receive a re-evaluation based on LiDAR analysis in my posts Lidar Investigation Cissbury Ring through time and Lidar Investigation White Sheet Camp, revealing fascinating insights into their true purpose. I have also examined South Cadbury Castle, often linked to the mythical Camelot. (The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

My research also extends to the topic of ancient water management, including the role of canals and other linear earthworks. I have discussed the true origins of Car Dyke in multiple posts including Car Dyke – ABC News PodCast and Lidar Investigation Car Dyke – North Section, suggesting a Mesolithic origin2357. I also explore the misidentification of Roman aqueducts, as seen in my posts on the Great Chesters (Roman) Aqueduct. My research has also been greatly informed by my post-glacial flooding hypothesis which has helped to inform the landscape transformations over time. I have discussed this hypothesis in several posts including AI now supports my Post-Glacial Flooding Hypothesis and Exploring Britain’s Flooded Past: A Personal Journey. (The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

Finally, my blog also investigates prehistoric burial practices, as seen in Prehistoric Burial Practices of Britain and explores the mystery of Pillow Mounds, often mistaken for medieval rabbit warrens, but with a potential link to Bronze Age cremation in my posts: Pillow Mounds: A Bronze Age Legacy of Cremation? and The Mystery of Pillow Mounds: Are They Really Medieval Rabbit Warrens?. My research also includes the astronomical insights of ancient sites, for example, in Rediscovering the Winter Solstice: The Original Winter Festival. I also review new information about the construction of Stonehenge in The Stonehenge Enigma. (The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

(The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

Further Reading

For those interested in British Prehistory, visit www.prehistoric-britain.co.uk, a comprehensive resource featuring an extensive collection of archaeology articles, modern LiDAR investigations, and groundbreaking research. The site also includes insights and extracts from the acclaimed Robert John Langdon Trilogy, a series of books exploring Britain during the Prehistoric period. Titles in the trilogy include The Stonehenge Enigma, Dawn of the Lost Civilisation, and The Post Glacial Flooding Hypothesis, offering compelling evidence about ancient landscapes shaped by post-glacial flooding.

To further explore these topics, Robert John Langdon has developed a dedicated YouTube channel featuring over 100 video documentaries and investigations that complement the trilogy. Notable discoveries and studies showcased on the channel include 13 Things that Don’t Make Sense in History and the revelation of Silbury Avenue – The Lost Stone Avenue, a rediscovered prehistoric feature at Avebury, Wiltshire. (The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

In addition to his main works, Langdon has released a series of shorter, accessible publications, ideal for readers delving into specific topics. These include:

• The Ancient Mariners
• Stonehenge Built 8300 BCE
• Old Sarum
• Prehistoric Rivers
• Dykes, Ditches, and Earthworks
• Echoes of Atlantis
• Homo Superior
• 13 Things that Don’t Make Sense in History
• Silbury Avenue – The Lost Stone Avenue
• Offa’s Dyke
• The Stonehenge Enigma
• The Post-Glacial Flooding Hypothesis
• The Stonehenge Hoax
• Dawn of the Lost Civilisation
• Darwin’s Children
• Great Chester’s Roman Aqueduct
• Wansdyke

For active discussions and updates on the trilogy’s findings and recent LiDAR investigations, join our vibrant community on Facebook. Engage with like-minded enthusiasts by leaving a message or contributing to debates in our Facebook Group.

Whether through the books, the website, or interactive videos, we aim to provide a deeper understanding of Britain’s fascinating prehistoric past. We encourage you to explore these resources and uncover the mysteries of ancient landscapes through the lens of modern archaeology.

For more information, including chapter extracts and related publications, visit the Robert John Langdon Author Page. Dive into works such as The Stonehenge Enigma or Dawn of the Lost Civilisation, and explore cutting-edge theories that challenge traditional historical narratives. (The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

Other Blogs

Introduction

Antler picks, primarily derived from red deer, are frequently cited in archaeological narratives as essential tools used by prehistoric societies for monumental construction and large-scale ditch digging. These tools, often uncovered in association with ancient sites, have been instrumental in dating some of Britain’s most iconic Neolithic and Bronze Age monuments. Despite their prominence in archaeological interpretation, the reliance on antler picks to date sites raises significant methodological and evidentiary concerns. This blog explores the challenges surrounding using antler picks as dating tools, questioning the robustness of current hypotheses. (The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

The Archaeological Evidence Presented Currently

The discovery of antler picks at sites such as Stonehenge, Cissbury Ring, and other prehistoric monuments has long been interpreted as evidence of their use in earth-moving activities. Often found in ditch fills or nearby deposits, these tools have been subjected to radiocarbon dating, providing approximate ages for the associated construction phases.

For example, antler picks are frequently cited as evidence of early activity at Cissbury Ring, a large Iron Age hillfort in Sussex. Radiocarbon dating of these tools has been instrumental in suggesting Neolithic origins for certain phases of the site’s development (Prehistoric Britain). Similarly, the association of antler picks with the construction of henges and other significant monuments has shaped narratives about labour organisation and the technological capabilities of prehistoric communities. (The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

The Problems with This Hypothesis

While the presence of antler picks at archaeological sites is indisputable, their use as definitive evidence for dating or construction activities is fraught with challenges:

1. Bronze Age Dates for Antler Picks vs. Mesolithic Site Radiocarbon Dates: Many antler picks found at these sites have Bronze Age radiocarbon dates, yet the broader site contexts often yield earlier Mesolithic dates. This disparity suggests that antler picks may have been deposited much later than the initial construction of these monuments. The mismatch in dates raises questions about their relevance to the primary phases of monument construction.
2. Antler Picks in Abandoned Mines: Evidence from flint mines, such as Cissbury Ring, suggests that antler picks may have been used in later, opportunistic foraging rather than during the primary phases of mining. This pattern aligns with examples from South Africa, where scavengers using inefficient tools later reopened abandoned gold mines. These scavengers left isolated tool marks and scattered debris, much like the occasional antler pick marks in chalk mines.
3. Localised and Isolated Marks: If antler picks were the primary tools for excavation, one would expect to find consistent and widespread marks in ditches and mining walls. Instead, the marks attributed to antler picks are often localised and inconsistent, suggesting they were the efforts of scavengers rather than evidence of systematic use in construction.

(The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

Lack of Evidence in Large Ditches

Large ditches, such as those found at henges and causewayed enclosures, are often attributed to the labour-intensive use of antler picks. However, there is a conspicuous absence of direct evidence supporting this hypothesis. Excavations of these features frequently reveal profiles with sharp, clean edges inconsistent with the marks expected from antler tools.

The scale of these ditches also presents a logistical challenge. For instance, the ditches at Avebury and Durrington Walls span several metres in width and depth. The volume of earth removed from such features would have required a level of labour coordination and tool efficiency that antler picks alone seem ill-suited to provide. Moreover, at Avebury, human bones outnumber antler picks in the excavation layers, raising further doubts about the reliance on these tools for large-scale construction. (The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

The Lack of Antler Pick Marks in Ditches

One of the most striking issues is the lack of discernible antler pick marks in the profiles of excavated ditches. If antler picks were the primary digging tools, one would expect to find characteristic striations or impressions consistent with their use. However, such marks are rarely, if ever, observed. Instead, isolated antler pick marks, often attributed to later scavenging activity, align with opportunistic rather than systematic tool use.

This discrepancy has led some researchers to speculate that other tools or methods—such as wooden spades, teamwork, or even fire to soften the ground—may have been employed. The reliance on antler picks as the sole or primary digging tools may represent an oversimplification of prehistoric technological practices. (The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

(The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

The Role of Other Tools in Prehistoric Excavation

In addition to antler picks, tools such as stone axes, wooden spades, and even simple digging sticks were likely part of the prehistoric toolkit. Stone axes, for instance, are robust and capable of cutting through roots or chopping through more complex soils. Their durability and cutting power would make them a more practical choice for tasks requiring significant force or precision.

Although less durable, wooden spades could be used effectively in softer soils and may have been easier to manufacture in large quantities. Combined with teamwork and systematic labour organisation, these tools could have complemented antler picks in large-scale excavation projects. (The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

When comparing these tools, antler picks would not have been the most suitable choice for digging ditches as deep as 35 feet, such as those at Avebury. Stone axes offer superior strength and are less likely to break under pressure, while wooden spades provide a more ergonomic option for moving large amounts of soil. Antler picks, by contrast, are prone to wear and breakage, making them less efficient for sustained heavy labour. Their primary advantage lies in their availability and ease of manufacture rather than their effectiveness as digging tools. (The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

Comparison of Stone Axes and Antler Picks for Cutting Chalk Bedrock

Feature	Stone Axes	Antler Picks
Durability	High—capable of withstanding repeated impacts	Moderate—prone to wear and breakage
Effectiveness	Effective at cutting through chalk and harder soils	Limited effectiveness against hard chalk
Ease of Manufacture	Requires skill and time to produce	Easier to craft with available materials
Ergonomics	Heavier but provides better leverage for cutting	Lightweight but less effective for sustained effort
Suitability for Depth	Suitable for deeper excavation tasks	Unsuitable for large-scale, deep ditches
Overall Efficiency	Superior for cutting and excavation in hard materials	Inferior, best used as supplementary tools

Reassessing Radiocarbon Dates and Antler Pick Contexts

One of the most critical oversights in the current antler pick hypothesis is the radiocarbon dating of associated artefacts. While antler picks generally yield Bronze Age dates, the broader radiocarbon contexts of some sites, such as Avebury, suggest earlier Mesolithic activity. This disparity highlights the complexity of site stratigraphy and challenges the assumption that antler picks were contemporaneous with significant construction phases. (The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

Furthermore, the frequency of human bones in the excavation layers at Avebury surpasses that of antler picks, suggesting a ritualistic or commemorative aspect to these sites that is often overlooked. This pattern further diminishes the likelihood of antler picks as primary construction tools, reinforcing their probable role as opportunistic or supplementary implements.

(The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

New Hypotheses and Directions

Given the limitations of the antler pick theory, alternative hypotheses must be developed to explain the construction of monumental ditches:

1. Integrated Tool Use: A combination of wooden spades, stone tools, and fire-setting techniques could explain the efficiency and scale of prehistoric earthworks. This approach accounts for the lack of visible antler pick marks and the challenges of chalk bedrock.
2. Specialised Labour: Prehistoric societies may have organised labour into specialised teams, each equipped with tools suited to specific tasks, enhancing overall efficiency.
3. Ritual Contexts: Antler picks may reflect ritualistic deposition unrelated to practical construction, aligning with the broader symbolic landscape of prehistoric sites.
4. Temporal Layers of Activity: Recognising the complex, multi-phase use of sites can help untangle the chronological overlap between Mesolithic artefacts and later Neolithic or Bronze Age construction efforts.

By embracing multidisciplinary perspectives and exploring alternative hypotheses, researchers can construct a more accurate and nuanced understanding of Britain’s prehistoric past. This shift challenges outdated assumptions and opens new avenues for investigating the ingenuity and adaptability of ancient societies in creating their monumental landscapes.

The Neolithic Power Axe: Strength & Speed Gains vs the Antler-Pick Story

What makes this tool different from a modern axe?

• Heavier head (stone, often ~2× a steel head).
• Heavier handle (green/undried wood, not kiln-dried), so the whole tool weighs more.
• Short, thick grip built for big hands and close control—more like a sledge than a DIY hatchet.

What that means in the hand (no jargon):
This setup puts much more load on the wrist and forearm. To swing at the same cadence with the same control as a modern 3.5-lb felling axe, a Neolithic user needed roughly 30–50% more wrist/forearm strength. That fits the Langdon‘s Megalithic Builder profile in my books (c. 6′6″, Cro-magnon, large hands/feet): these tools match bigger, stronger users.

Why head-only comparisons are misleading:
Axe performance is a system (head + haft + balance). Modern catalogue rules (“head lbs × 10 ≈ handle inches”) were tuned to lightweight steel heads and kiln-dried ash/hickory. They simply don’t apply to heavy stone heads on green-wood hafts with short, thick levers. The Neolithic design trades long, whippy swings for short-arc, high-impulse blows—superb control, higher local torque.

So what does this do on a real monument? (Avebury as the test)

• Avebury’s ditch ≈ 96,000 m³ of chalk.
• The antler-pick tale asks for ~1.5 million work-hours (≈ 15–16 h/m³).
• Put real tools in the hands of robust users—hafted stone axes + wooden spades—and add the wet-ditch reality (high water table, flat-bottom profile → dredging rather than dry “mining”):
  • Conservative (no water help): ~5 h/m³ → about 3× faster than antlers.
  • With water assist (moat/dredge): ~2 h/m³ → up to 8× faster than antlers.

Bottom line for this section:
Neolithic builders were not poking chalk with antlers for years on end. They used heavy, close-balanced power axes that suit larger, stronger people—and, in a wet landscape, those tools collapse build times by a factor of 3–8. That’s why large earthworks and stone projects are logistically credible in the timeline we’ve set out.

Conclusion

The so-called “antler pick” narrative wilts under basic logistics, hydrology, and the toolset we actually see. There are nowhere near the numbers of antlers you’d need for industrial-scale ditching; most that are found aren’t pruned for heavy chalk work; and the ditch forms themselves (flat bottoms, standing water) say moat/dredge, not quarry face.

Set the story back on its feet:

• The landscape is wet in the phases that matter. Water does half the labour if you understand it.
• The tools are heavy, close-balanced axes with green-wood hafts and big grips—perfect for larger, stronger builders (the Langdon profile).
• The productivity uplift is real: with proper tools and wet-ditch practice you move from ~15–16 h/m³ (antlers) to ~2–5 h/m³, i.e., 3–8× faster—turning “heroic myth” into practical engineering.
• The timeline holds: these methods make Avebury- and Stonehenge-scale works achievable without fantasy headcounts or modern machinery.

The “Great Antler Pick Hoax” isn’t just about a bad tool; it’s about a bad model. Replace it with water-first engineering and Neolithic power tools built for big hands—and the megalithic world suddenly looks exactly as capable as the monuments they left behind.

(The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

Glossary of Key Terms

• Antler Pick: A tool made from the shed antler of a red deer, traditionally believed to be used for digging and excavating in prehistoric times.
• Bluestones: The smaller stones used in the construction of Stonehenge, originally from the Preseli Mountains in Wales.
• Bronze Age: A period in human history, following the Stone Age, characterized by the use of bronze tools and weapons (traditionally dated in Britain as 2500-70 BCE).
• Bur: The thickest part of the antler attached to the deer’s head.
• Dyke: An artificial waterway, often with raised embankments and drainage systems, used to control water. This term has been reinterpreted by the authors as being a channel for transport.
• Flint: A hard, grey rock used to make tools, weapons, and to start fires during the Neolithic period.
• Flint Knapping: The process of shaping flint by striking flakes off the stone to make tools
• Henge: A type of Neolithic monument, typically consisting of a circular bank and ditch, with an entrance.
• Holocene: The current geological epoch, beginning about 11,700 years ago, following the end of the last Ice Age.
• Iron Age: A period in human history following the Bronze age marked by the increased use of iron tools and weapons. In Britain it traditionally dates from 700 BCE to 43 CE.
• LiDAR: (Light Detection and Ranging) Remote sensing technology that uses laser pulses to measure the distance to the earth’s surface, creating detailed maps.
• Lynchets: Terraced formations on hillsides, traditionally associated with agriculture but reinterpreted as possible dykes used for water control.
• Mesolithic Period: The Middle Stone Age, characterized by hunting and gathering societies.
• Megalithic: Large stone structures, usually built during the Neolithic and Bronze Ages.
• Neolithic Period: The New Stone Age, characterized by the development of agriculture and settled societies.
• Paleochannel: A remnant of an ancient river or stream channel, often buried beneath sediment.
• Post-Glacial Flooding: The concept of increased water levels that occurred after the last Ice Age, which had a significant effect on prehistoric landscapes and settlements.
• Ramparts: Defensive walls, often made of earth, built around fortifications like hill forts.
• Radiocarbon Dating: A method of dating organic materials by measuring the amount of the radioactive isotope carbon-14 present in the sample.
• Tine: The pointed projections on a deer antler, specifically the brow, bez and trez.
• Trez: The third tine on a deer antler.

(The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

Exploring Prehistoric Britain: A Journey Through Time

My blog delves into the fascinating mysteries of prehistoric Britain, challenging conventional narratives and offering fresh perspectives based on cutting-edge research, particularly using LiDAR technology. I invite you to explore some key areas of my research. For example, the Wansdyke, often cited as a defensive structure, is re-examined in light of new evidence. I’ve presented my findings in my blog post Wansdyke: A British Frontier Wall – ‘Debunked’, and a Wansdyke LiDAR Flyover video further visualizes my conclusions. (The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

My work also often challenges established archaeological dogma. I argue that many sites, such as Hambledon Hill, commonly identified as Iron Age hillforts are not what they seem. My posts Lidar Investigation Hambledon Hill – NOT an ‘Iron Age Fort’ and Unmasking the “Iron Age Hillfort” Myth explore these ideas in detail and offer an alternative view. Similarly, sites like Cissbury Ring and White Sheet Camp, also receive a re-evaluation based on LiDAR analysis in my posts Lidar Investigation Cissbury Ring through time and Lidar Investigation White Sheet Camp, revealing fascinating insights into their true purpose. I have also examined South Cadbury Castle, often linked to the mythical Camelot. (The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

My research also extends to the topic of ancient water management, including the role of canals and other linear earthworks. I have discussed the true origins of Car Dyke in multiple posts including Car Dyke – ABC News PodCast and Lidar Investigation Car Dyke – North Section, suggesting a Mesolithic origin2357. I also explore the misidentification of Roman aqueducts, as seen in my posts on the Great Chesters (Roman) Aqueduct. My research has also been greatly informed by my post-glacial flooding hypothesis which has helped to inform the landscape transformations over time. I have discussed this hypothesis in several posts including AI now supports my Post-Glacial Flooding Hypothesis and Exploring Britain’s Flooded Past: A Personal Journey. (The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

Finally, my blog also investigates prehistoric burial practices, as seen in Prehistoric Burial Practices of Britain and explores the mystery of Pillow Mounds, often mistaken for medieval rabbit warrens, but with a potential link to Bronze Age cremation in my posts: Pillow Mounds: A Bronze Age Legacy of Cremation? and The Mystery of Pillow Mounds: Are They Really Medieval Rabbit Warrens?. My research also includes the astronomical insights of ancient sites, for example, in Rediscovering the Winter Solstice: The Original Winter Festival. I also review new information about the construction of Stonehenge in The Stonehenge Enigma. (The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

(The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

Further Reading

For those interested in British Prehistory, visit www.prehistoric-britain.co.uk, a comprehensive resource featuring an extensive collection of archaeology articles, modern LiDAR investigations, and groundbreaking research. The site also includes insights and extracts from the acclaimed Robert John Langdon Trilogy, a series of books exploring Britain during the Prehistoric period. Titles in the trilogy include The Stonehenge Enigma, Dawn of the Lost Civilisation, and The Post Glacial Flooding Hypothesis, offering compelling evidence about ancient landscapes shaped by post-glacial flooding.

To further explore these topics, Robert John Langdon has developed a dedicated YouTube channel featuring over 100 video documentaries and investigations that complement the trilogy. Notable discoveries and studies showcased on the channel include 13 Things that Don’t Make Sense in History and the revelation of Silbury Avenue – The Lost Stone Avenue, a rediscovered prehistoric feature at Avebury, Wiltshire. (The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

In addition to his main works, Langdon has released a series of shorter, accessible publications, ideal for readers delving into specific topics. These include:

• The Ancient Mariners
• Stonehenge Built 8300 BCE
• Old Sarum
• Prehistoric Rivers
• Dykes, Ditches, and Earthworks
• Echoes of Atlantis
• Homo Superior
• 13 Things that Don’t Make Sense in History
• Silbury Avenue – The Lost Stone Avenue
• Offa’s Dyke
• The Stonehenge Enigma
• The Post-Glacial Flooding Hypothesis
• The Stonehenge Hoax
• Dawn of the Lost Civilisation
• Darwin’s Children
• Great Chester’s Roman Aqueduct
• Wansdyke

For active discussions and updates on the trilogy’s findings and recent LiDAR investigations, join our vibrant community on Facebook. Engage with like-minded enthusiasts by leaving a message or contributing to debates in our Facebook Group.

Whether through the books, the website, or interactive videos, we aim to provide a deeper understanding of Britain’s fascinating prehistoric past. We encourage you to explore these resources and uncover the mysteries of ancient landscapes through the lens of modern archaeology.

For more information, including chapter extracts and related publications, visit the Robert John Langdon Author Page. Dive into works such as The Stonehenge Enigma or Dawn of the Lost Civilisation, and explore cutting-edge theories that challenge traditional historical narratives. (The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

Other Blogs

(The Great Antler Pick Hoax).