Introduction

After 40 years of studying archaeological features and reports, I have sadly concluded that archaeologists no longer follow accepted scientific methods and now revert to the simplistic traditional model or political correctness, mixed with the occasional sensationalism, not to progress the discipline but moreover, to find funding and maintain their status in the archaeological community.  This new social media marketing technique has also spread to both the geological and anthropological disciplines closely related to this archaeological ‘pulp fiction’. (Archaeological ‘pulp fiction’ – has archaeology turned from science?)

Science is about questioning what is known, as it is understood from History that current knowledge is not a ‘SCIENTIFIC FACT’ but just a supposition which over time will change and become more accurate through questioning the details of these ideas over time and the inevitable future scientific discoveries – but this is not the case in archaeology. (Archaeological ‘pulp fiction’ – has archaeology turned from science?)

In recent years, the discovery of the Bluestone quarry at Craig Rhos-Y-Felin should have brought a new perspective to the construction date and nature of the civilisation that built Stonehenge – Britain’s most famous prehistoric site.  Instead, the findings and data were manipulated to prove an existing hypothesis while excluding more interesting and revolutionary results.

This dogmatic approach to archaeology is compounded by new theories and even findings being ignored and, in some instances, actively crushed by the archaeological establishment and their disciples in favour of this dated ‘historical narrative’ in this new post-truth era of social media – rather than following the past practices of a scientific methodology of examining the potential and feasibility of these new ideas. 

This censorship is also practised in scientific journals and websites either by blanket failure to publish contrary evidence or by claiming a liberal attitude and then demanding excessive peer-reviewed endorsements before consideration.  In some instances, they encourage the simplistic labelling of these ideas as ‘pseudoscience’ in social media and academic punishment at university for any student that dares suggest such ideas in their assignments. (Archaeological ‘pulp fiction’ – has archaeology turned from science?)

Moreover, these education establishments have failed to teach their students basic scientific principles of ‘critical analysis’ and ‘deductive logic’ when examining primary sources, demanding their students rely on secondary sources (opinions) of an accepted highly vetted reading list – which therefore favours the current simplistic traditional theories.  Consequently, this allows them to concentrate their energies on the establishment’s main concern for ‘bums on seats’ to secure funding for future financial security, rather than the higher principle of progressive education – questioning the validity of the certificates and qualifications awarded.

The establishments over-reliance on ‘peer-review’ as a conformity standard of credibility has not only been recognised by myself within my recent Honours degree in History but by moreover Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet, who said that:

“The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability—not the validity—of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller.

But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.” (Archaeological ‘pulp fiction’ – has archaeology turned from science?)

So, in what areas do we see this flawed blanket censorship and what are the other possibilities archaeologists have failed to comprehend?

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? (Archaeological ‘pulp fiction’ – has archaeology turned from science?)

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. (Archaeological ‘pulp fiction’ – has archaeology turned from science?)

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. (Archaeological ‘pulp fiction’ – has archaeology turned from science?)

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 political ‘brownie points’ on social media. Previous studies (Genomic structure in Europeans dating back at least 36,200 years, Science DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa0114) have shown that the first Europeans were Scandinavians, and hence cheddar man’s’ blue eyes’. (Archaeological ‘pulp fiction’ – has archaeology turned from science?)

Craig Rhos-Y-Felin (Stonehenge’s Bluestone Quarry)

The Craig Rhos-y-Felin report (by Mike Parker-Pearson) is full of inconsistencies and logical inaccuracies as the layout of the site were never taken into consideration.  Firstly is the river that runs next to the quarry – this shows that this river was still at the edge of the site as long ago as 5620 – 5460 BCE and possibly up to 1030 – 910 BCE. (Archaeological ‘pulp fiction’ – has archaeology turned from science?)

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

Consequently, what the report is trying to tell us, is that an enlarged stream that feeds into the River Nevern was flowing during the Mesolithic Period up to the quarry outcrop rocks, and it remained there just a few metres away, even up to 1000 BCE.  Therefore, the apparent transport system for these large newly quarried stones to their final destination at Stonehenge, as we have seen in other countries with their stone constructions like Egypt – was via a boat. (Archaeological ‘pulp fiction’ – has archaeology turned from science?)

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

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

This is an astonishing unscientific claim – for how they would know what tool marks are either Mesolithic or Neolithic (would they not be using the same tools?) And secondly, what do they think they were doing there at the quarry during these 1300 years?

What the establishment would like you to believe is that just TWO of the 42 carbon dates obtained from the site are of importance and the other 40 are irrelevant.  This is ‘bad science’ in pursuit of maintaining the ‘tradition model’ at the expense of real science.

More information can be found about Craig Rhos-Y-Felin can be found on this website and on this video channel. (Archaeological ‘pulp fiction’ – has archaeology turned from science?)

Woodhenge

Sadly, Woodhenge’s traditional reconstruction shows us yet another illustration of flawed science in archaeology.  Even with a ‘second rate’ excavation report from the 1920s, the conclusion of modern archaeologists is that this structure was a single-story house – a slightly grander feature to the traditional ‘iron age’ house or an ‘artistic forest’ of tree stumps is simply nonsense. If we look closely at the evidence presented here, we obtain a totally different and more accurate conclusion to the nature of this structure.

Firstly, if we look at the layout of the site (which lacks much detail), we can see from these original excavation plans the scale of this understatement, as the existing ‘concrete’ posts on the site are far too small.  The most recent photo was from the excavation by Pollard in 2007 indicates that the original post holes are at least five times larger than the current representations. (Archaeological ‘pulp fiction’ – has archaeology turned from science?)

The following fact that goes unanswered is the reason for the large ramps by the post holes. You don’t take time to put 32 ramps into the soil unless it is essential, as you just added at least another month to the building work for the site and 500 working hours.  What archaeologists have missed (or failed to mention) is in which direction these ramps were cut – as it tells us more than the entire excavation report by Cunnington.

The massive 4 – 5 ft pine posts of the 16 postholes (known as the C Ring) would weigh 214kg per foot of length.  Therefore, several sizeable healthy adults could pick up a single story pole and place it in a hole without assistance or a need for a large ramp.

Moreover, the site plan does also give us another clue to the length of these poles.  If to look carefully at the angle of the ramps into the giant postholes, you will notice that they are not all facing the same direction.  The only logical reason for that to happen is if you erect the pine poles in a set order not to hit or interfere with each other when attempting to erect the posts.  This would prove that the poles at Woodhenge were over 100 ft high (if not taller). (Archaeological ‘pulp fiction’ – has archaeology turned from science?)

As for the dating of Woodhenge reconstruction (and Durrington Walls), like Stonehenge, unrelated antler and bone fragments have dated it to about 2400 BCE, which is very convenient.  The problem is that most of the post hole samples at Woodhenge were either lost or have been stored away and not tested since the excavations between 1926 to 29, for reasons known best to the experts. (Archaeological ‘pulp fiction’ – has archaeology turned from science?)

Moreover, like the samples taken from the old car park in 1966, pine charcoal was reported to be found “similar to the charcoal found at Woodhenge” was the quote from the labs at the time, who failed to carbon date the samples as the experts had declared them Neolithic, supporting the antler pick dates.  Although now, once this gross error was exposed, we know these pine charcoal wood dates to be in fact Mesolithic 8100 BCE – which ‘begs-the-question’ so are the pine charcoal dates found at Woodhenge also Mesolithic, and why were they not also carbon-dated when the mistake was discovered? – more ‘bad science’ supporting the traditional model.

More information can be found about Woodhenge can be found on this website and on this video channel. (Archaeological ‘pulp fiction’ – has archaeology turned from science?)

Dykes

If you study archaeology at university or even on an ordinance survey map at length, you will notice strange earthworks on the sides of hills of Britain, with no rational explanation as to why they are where they are. At university, these features are mostly ignored, or an excuse is made for their construction. The reality is that these features do not make any sense unless there is another factor in operation.

The first thing to notice is that the word ‘Dyke’ is associated with water. It does seem strange you would call an earthwork on top of a hill a Dyke, unless there was some history passed down through the years to its actual use. If we look at the most famous Dyke in Britain: Offa’s Dyke (that tracks the border between England and Wales).

“Offa’s Dyke (Welsh: Clawdd Offa) is a massive linear earthwork, roughly followed by some of the current borders between England and Wales. In places, it is up to 65 feet (19.8 m) wide (including its flanking ditch) and 8 feet (2.4 m) high. In the 8th century, it formed some delineation between the Anglia kingdom of Mercia and the Welsh kingdom of Powys.” (Archaeological ‘pulp fiction’ – has archaeology turned from science?)

At face value, this seems to answer all the questions about dykes – except the water connection.

The current ‘traditional model’ for these features is split into two very unconvincing and easily disproven theories:

Defensive Feature – According to English Heritage, “Sometime during the 780s, Offa decided on the construction of a great earth wall and ditch, or dyke, running from ‘sea to sea’.  The work required thousands of men, and each section seems to have been built by people from a different district. The fact that this mammoth undertaking was achieved illustrates the cohesion of the kingdom at this time. The dyke was never garrisoned but would have been manned by relatively small local forces. Offa died in 796 in a battle against the Welsh. It is believed that he was trying to establish a final link in the dyke to the Irish Sea in the north.“

The ditch only appears in the north of Wales (with two parallel ditches – not explained by any ‘experts’) and in the South.  There is a massive 30-mile gap in the middle which is denoted by the River Wye.  Consequently. If it was defensive, it had an enormous 30-mile flaw?

Boundary Marker – experts knowing the original ‘defensive identification’ have now fallen  back to support a ‘boundary marker’ theory of the same date – but why build a massive ditch just a few metres from the rest of the river Wye – especially, when you are using over 30% of the same river as the accepted boarder marker?? – it’s completely flawed logic, again to support the irrational traditional model and dating system, especially, when there is a much more rational and simple explanation (a canal)?

More information can be found about Dykes (canals) can be found on this website and on this video channel. (Archaeological ‘pulp fiction’ – has archaeology turned from science?)

The Lost Stone Circle

Following on from the ‘Bad Science’ at Craig Rhos-Y-Felin, Mike Parker-Pearson then went ‘public’ and announced that they found the site of bluestones that supported his hypothesis on Stonehenge being built in 2800 BCE – but there was a problem even with this only two carbon ‘nut case’ date. It was still 500 years too early, and so MPP came up with a ‘credible theory’ about the date differences – A Welsh prototype stone circle that was moved 500 years later.

Consequently, the search started for this mysterious ‘lost’ stone circle in Wales from 2013 (onward) to justify the 500-year gap in his dates. MPP has on several occasions, and he claimed to find this ‘mysterious site’, later to discover that it was nonsense (as he could not find his 3300 BCE date), and then they moved on to find another site.  Needless to say, this is again ‘Bad Science’ as you have prejudiced your methodology, as these other sites may have actually had a more significant impact on the knowledge of Prehistoric Britain and the Stonehenge builders if they were fully excavated and reported upon – rather than just ‘backfilled’ for a later or another excavator in the future, as you are more focused on proving yourself right. (Archaeological ‘pulp fiction’ – has archaeology turned from science?)

Therefore, the last hope of MPP’s reputation and his’ 10-year search’ fell upon Waun Mawn, culminating in the BBC documentary: “Stonehenge: The Lost Circle Revealed”, show on the 12th February 2021.  Once again of the 43 carbon dates obtained from this new discovery, only three random samples supports his theory and none of the human-made hearths which are Mesolithic (like Craig Rhos-Y-Felin) or late Neolithic. (Archaeological ‘pulp fiction’ – has archaeology turned from science?)

When they eventually found their target site Waun Mawn (after many claims that other sites were “the one we have been looking for” to eventually find that the carbon dating on these sites did not match the required date), they found just four bluestones, and so went on a stone hunt and found ten further stone HOLES! – This is clearly a sad attempt to fit a square peg into a round hole. The excavation was flawed as it only identified 14 possible stone locations and the remainder of the estimated 15 – 25 stones was a ‘guesstimation’ based on the known 14 holes – two of which had non-bluestone stones in situ.

Sadly, and not reported in the TV program, but within the Waun Mawn excavation report, there were not one OSL samples taken but 18, which gave results in the range of 6980+/- 2120 BCE to AD 1900 +/- 20. So, 17 dating sample did not verify MPP’s Hypothesis ONLY a single one which was dated 3530 +/- 330 (with that date range, the probability its 3300 BCE is slim!!). In fact, the OSL data in the review document suggested “removal of the stones” 2120 +/-520 BCE, long after Stonehenge phase I. (Archaeological ‘pulp fiction’ – has archaeology turned from science?)

The program never went in to any detail of the OTHER carbon dates found at Waun Mawn, which would allow a balanced scientific program enabling the viewer to decide whether MPP’s hypothesis was feasible? It dictated speculation as fact justified by a number of site workers and the presenter agreeing on MPP’s ideas, without question or qualification – this is commonly known as ‘propaganda’ and not scientific methodology.  Moreover, the REAL evidence CAN be found in the report and shows that the carbon dating evidence at Waun Mawn (the OSL data was excluded from the report except a small paragraph without all data!) shows that of the 43 samples taken:

1 – sample were of 9th Millennium BCE

3 – samples were of the 8th Millennium BCE

8 – samples were of the 7th Millennium BCE

4 – samples were of the 6th Millennium BCE

10 – samples were of the 5th Millennium BCE

6 – samples were of the 4th Millennium BCE

11- samples after 4th Millennium BCE up to 17 AD.

It seems that the BBC has produced a nice piece of archaeological propaganda that supports the current false ‘archaeological narrative’ of mythology and speculation, rather than tested and qualified scientific fact. This lack of ‘critical analysis’ is a clear indication of why the ‘science’ of archaeology has not progressed much over the last 50 years, even with modern technology, which it has incorporated to minimal success.

More information can be found about Waun Mawn can be found on this website and on this video channel. (Archaeological ‘pulp fiction’ – has archaeology turned from science?)

Conclusion

We have sadly seen this kind of censorship and banal attitude to knowledge and education before in pre-enlightenment Europe, with the dominance of the Christian church as a fundamental feature of the establishment

It is also a reminder of a world, just 350 years ago, that used ‘suppression’ to control the thoughts of the mass population against any kind of ‘original thought’ or ideas.  Galileo Galilei; (15 February 1564 – 8 January 1642), was an Italian physicist, mathematician, astronomer, and philosopher who played a major role in the Scientific Revolution. His achievements include improvements to the telescope and consequent astronomical observations and support for Copernicanism. Galileo has been called the “father of modern observational astronomy”, the “father of modern physics”, the “father of science”, and “the Father of Modern Science”. (Archaeological ‘pulp fiction’ – has archaeology turned from science?)

Three hundred and fifty years ago, he was not a father to anything, and he was a ‘heretic’ as he believed that the earth went around the sun, contrary to the bible (a peer-reviewed book).  Galileo did not have the internet to promote his hypothesis, and the church had a complete monopoly over ideas and the print industry at that time.  Moreover, even after verification of his evidence and the acceptance of his theories, it still took another fifty years for the ‘Inquisition’s ban’ on printing Galileo’s works to be lifted in 1718 – when permission was finally granted to publish an edition of his works (it had to exclude the ‘condemned’ Dialogue’s) – the church finally lifted this partial ban in 1835, just 178 years ago and 193 years after his premature death.

This kind of institutional censorship still survives today but in a different form.  The print industry in the last century, through books, used to (and in some instances still do) publish ideas through ‘accredited’ authors only (Professors and some PhD’s, within the subject matter).  But this is not the censorship of ideology, and it is censorship through publishing editorial ignorance!

I was at a journalist workshop the other day at the Guardian Newspaper (one would imagine a safe liberal-minded audience); the science writer confessed that most of the new books and articles under review were written in such convoluted scientific language that most people, including the editors of scientific journals, had no idea if the content was true of false, so they had to rely on ‘peer review’ for its accuracy.  The problem with this system is that is fraught with significant concerns, as your peer may be either your competitor or rival.  The long-term effect of this ignorance is the stagnation and dismissal of new ideas (even if there is overwhelming evidence), just like we have seen with Galileo’s life. Not because he was wrong, but because if he is right – his (so-called) peers would be shown to be wrong and their credibility questioned. (Archaeological ‘pulp fiction’ – has archaeology turned from science?)

The church was brought down by science in what is termed the ‘enlightenment period’ where truth overcome ignorance.  Sadly, what we have seen since is the replacement of the church with academia, who use the same propaganda and discrediting tactics to maintain their cultural dominance. 

Science was revolutionary as it questioned authority and demanded qualified answers (speak truth to power) – but that methodology and philosophy is missing from academia today.  Universities do not teach knowledge to their students they instead teach conformity and censorship using exclusion as a weapon of choice. For if you dare questioning the so-called facts at University, you will fail to obtain the grades as punishment and consequently, the chances of any financially successful career in the future, forcing you to live a life of poverty and suppression. (Archaeological ‘pulp fiction’ – has archaeology turned from science?)

PodCast

Author’s Biography

Robert John Langdon, a polymathic luminary, emerges as a writer, historian, and eminent specialist in LiDAR Landscape Archaeology.

His intellectual voyage has interwoven with stints as an astute scrutineer for governmental realms and grand corporate bastions, a tapestry spanning British Telecommunications, Cable and Wireless, British Gas, and the esteemed University of London.

A decade hence, Robert’s transition into retirement unfurled a chapter of insatiable curiosity. This phase saw him immerse himself in Politics, Archaeology, Philosophy, and the enigmatic realm of Quantum Mechanics. His academic odyssey traversed the venerable corridors of knowledge hubs such as the Museum of London, University College London, Birkbeck College, The City Literature Institute, and Chichester University.

In the symphony of his life, Robert is a custodian of three progeny and a pair of cherished grandchildren. His sanctuary lies ensconced in the embrace of West Wales, where he inhabits an isolated cottage, its windows framing a vista of the boundless sea – a retreat from the scrutinous gaze of the Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, an amiable clandestinity in the lap of nature’s embrace.

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.

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.

Other Blogs

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.

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.

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

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