Conundrum 13 – The Builders / Woodhenge

I owe, I owe so off to work I go

The Problem

Stonehenge has also been a problem, as there is no evidence of occupancy, and this causes problems as it is supposed to have been built by the first farmers of the Neolithic period (if the carbon dating is correct). The solution is that Durrington Walls and Woodhenge, so close to Stonehenge and houses, are reportedly found within the ‘henge’.  But there are problems with this ‘simplistic’ solution: the first is that you can’t see Stonehenge from Durrington Walls, and the second is: why build a time-consuming structure such as Woodhenge if you’re busy building Stonehenge?

The Solution

If you go to the original North East path break in the Stonehenge ditch, you find the Heel Stone, which was moated during the Mesolithic Period. You will also find a direct alignment to Stonehenge’s nearest neighbours, Woodhenge and Durrington Walls.

The Avenue is wider than the break in the ditch around Stonehenge and has always been a mystery to archaeologists.  This mystery is compounded by the Heel Stone’s position to the right of the Avenue rather than in the centre. The Avenue was built after the Mesolithic ditch was created; therefore, these individual moated stones start to make some sense as alignment points.

The Heel Stone was positioned before the Avenue’s construction; the moated stone points to Stonehenge’s sister site Woodhenge and not, as is currently believed, to the midsummer sunrise.

In 2016, Durrington Walls hit the headlines with “Remarkable new archaeological discoveries are beginning to suggest that Stonehenge was built at a time of particularly intense religious and political rivalry.

Just two miles north-east of the World Heritage site, at an important archaeological complex known as Durrington Walls, archaeologists have discovered what appears to have been a vast 500-metre-diameter circle of giant timber posts. The find is of international significance.

Originally, archaeologists, using geophysics rather than excavation, thought they had found buried standing stones, so the discovery has fundamentally changed their understanding of the site, the largest ancient monument of its type in Britain.

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

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

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

In 2015, Sky News reported:

“Scientists have found a larger version of Stonehenge just one mile from the site of the famous Wiltshire stone monument.  The Durrington Walls ‘superhenge’ is larger than Stonehenge and may include as many as 90 large stones. Built about 4,500 years ago, the stones lined an arena that was probably used for religious ceremonies or solstice rituals.

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

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

In 2015, the ground survey found “90 large stones, lying on their sides and measuring nearly 15ft” under the ground” – then, in 2016, we have “200 – 300 giant posts 6-7 metres long” – So was there another ground radar survey between the two claims or were the ‘experts’ caught guessing?

Sadly, the misinterpretation of the evidence doesn’t end the nonsense and gives us a clue to this deception – “However, the most significant revelation is the discovery that the newly identified timber circle complex was probably never fully completed“.

You could say that about the entire site – if you believe what the archaeologists tell you.  Durrington Walls is a classic ‘half-moon’ shape, evident in the missing bank towards the River Avon in the East and the absence of a bank to the South, where they found these anomalies.  Now the bank is no small matter, unlike Stonehenge, as it is 30m – 40m wide and 3m high in the North-western sector of the site.

Archaeologists have yet to suggest why the banks are missing – if it were a ‘henge’, it would have had banks and ditches surrounding its entirety.

The first thing that strikes you when you look at Durrington Walls is that it seems incomplete; from aerial photographs, it looks like a half-circle, and on the ground, you get a sense of it being only half-finished.  But most illustrations include the eastern section because magnetometer surveys in 2006 show more ditches beneath the surface, although you might question their purpose, as they are not apparent.

The site’s east side was clearly built much later than the original west side. As a result, the eastern bank is smaller and does not match the specifications of the original ditch and moat, which was roughly 5.5 m deep, 7 m wide at its bottom, and 18 m wide at the top.

The bank was 30m wide in some areas. The bank and ditch indicated by the magnetometer surveys are less than half that depth; the bank is only about a third the size of the one on the northern side.  The current theory and plan for Durrington Walls do not stand up to investigation, for it is clear that the Eastern side of the camp was added later, when the prehistoric groundwater had begun to recede. This would include the Southern circle found in the 1960s.

It would help if you considered the site’s terrain, location, and layout to answer that question. The first thing that hits you is that the site is not flat – in fact, it’s a huge bowl. Archaeologists say that it is a settlement, but anyone who goes camping will tell you not to pitch your tent on a slope, and for an excellent reason: you will wake up one morning covered in water, as when it rains, the water runs downhill.

Archaeologists will insist that, because they have found a few postholes they believe are the foundations of a couple of roundhouses, the site must unquestionably be a settlement, as its position and shape confound them.

 If we now add the higher Mesolithic groundwater tables as presented in our hypothesis, as we had shown at the Stonehenge site, when the river Avon was 30m more elevated in the Early Mesolithic period.  This site (less than three river miles down the road from Stonehenge) becomes a perfect natural harbour, with shallow sides for pulling boats ashore and a 4-metre deep ravine in the centre of the sanctuary. Moreover, a northern and western bank would have provided shelter from gales.

Woodhenge (which lies to the South of Durrington Walls) has two entrances: one directed towards Durrington Walls’ harbour and, more importantly, a mysterious second entrance that trails to our Mesolithic shoreline.  This clearly indicates that groundwater was present at Woodhenge during Mesolithic times. It would explain the strange shape of the camp and the magnetometer survey (Parker-Pearson, 2006), which shows the continuation of ditches to the east, dug after the groundwater had fallen in Neolithic times. 

Even more impressive is how the landscape reflected the receding shoreline during the Neolithic when the waters receded (as we saw at Stonehenge and The Avenue). The present-day minor road runs along the course of the Neolithic shoreline circa 4000 BCE.

We should not be too surprised by this, as lakeshores and coastlines still have paths along with them today so that we can fully enjoy them. There is no reason to believe that prehistoric people did anything different 5,000 years ago, and such a path would also have a practical purpose, as the shorelines were used as a mooring site.  If we are correct about the road and the mooring points, is it possible to find the same post holes here as we saw in the old car park at Stonehenge? 

Wainwright, in his excavations of Durrington Walls, discovered lots of them. These postholes would make a natural landing area for boats, mooring up for Woodhenge when the waters fell in the Neolithic period.

Water was also reported by Mike Parker-Pearson during his excavations of the site in 2009, when he located ancient springs in the centre of Durrington.  A strange place to put a settlement, where you are building houses – unless, like Much Farm, these houses were on stilts and the waters were underneath the house. These ‘crannogs’ are found throughout Britain and date to the Bronze Age, but there is no reason not to believe that this boat society would have been the first to use these aquatic houses as the perfect mooring platforms for their boats.

Furthermore, the authors of these press releases and reports failed to understand why these posts were eventually removed and backfilled.  It doesn’t make sense to complete (as they suggest) a third to half the site, then stop and remove all the posts you planted if it’s for ‘ceremonial’ reasons, unless the posts were there for a more practical purpose, as a windbreak for the harbour.  This would logically result in them ‘slowly’ disappearing over a few decades through rot and removal.

We should also remember that many posts were also found to the south of this site and at Woodhenge next door.  So, the idea that they didn’t have enough posts to finish off (as suggested in their report) is merely archaeological guesswork and, therefore, nonsense.

Another survey by this group, reported in 2020, included some findings and dates that accidentally supported my Post-Glacial Flooding Hypothesis.  They carbon tested pits in the landscape and came up with yet another ludicrous theory about a ‘late Neolithic pit structure’, as they have found clusters of pit features (of the same size and depth as we saw in the Stonehenge ditch), which they imagine was a giant ring 1.2miles in diameter surrounding Durrington Walls – which the authors suggested is a ‘marker’ to strangers not to approach!

They found a ‘Dyke’ from the river Avon to a ‘Causewayed enclosure’ and a selection of pits on the shorelines of the river Avon in Palaeochannels (like Stonehenge Bottom) that were part of the expanded river Avon during the Mesolithic period. 

The Palaeochannel ditches are of most interest as we can get (like the old Stonehenge car park pits) accurate dates to the levels of the river Avon for future dating of other sites, like we have achieved at Durrington, knowing that the three Mesolithic pits at the old car park were dated around 8100 BCE for a recorded height of the river Avon of 98m.  We can now add Borehole 9A BH 1 (SUERC-92464) at 7179 BP +/- 28 and 8A BH2 (SUERC-92465) at 5788 BP +/- 28 to this catalogue.

And this type of a Dyke was not the only one found at Durrington Walls, for the most obvious evidence of water and the high water table can be seen on the southern side of the site as a massive ditch. However, this enormous earthwork is currently either totally ignored or is dismissed as a ‘lynchet’ feature.

This ‘elephant in the room’ is a clear indication of past use at Durrington Walls, and, like the avenue at Stonehenge, this civilisation attempted to keep the monument working as the waters of the Neolithic retreated from the site.

If you look closely at any satellite pictures, you will find a Dyke.  This feature is not concave as they would like to tell you; it is like all Dykes, wholly straight and runs from the end of the western moat to the River Avon, which is impossible for a natural lynchet to run parallel to hill contours.

This Dyke would have been added (and then extended) once the original moats failed, as the shoreline and water table dropped throughout the Neolithic period, following the river Avon, so that boats could access the site.

Woodhenge

This monument has a series of ‘massive’ wooden post holes – at this point, I need to explain that archaeologists don’t seem to understand the difference between a ‘Post Hole’ and a ‘Stake Hole’.  You use stake holes for posts such as fences as they can be quickly buried in the ground as they have a sharp point – this point naturally compresses the surroundings (due to the shape and hammering from above), so they don’t move or wobble!

A ‘Post Hole’ is different as it has a flat bottom and needs rubble to stop it from rocking from side to side.  Stake holes are easy because they are ‘self-burying’, while post holes are more work because you need to dig a hole for them. The only reason you would do all the extra work of digging a flat-bottomed hole (especially in chalk) is if the wooden pole is to take some kind of weight from above, for a stake hole is useless for this type of structure, as it would sink (over time) under the weight pushing down on the point and probably fall over.

Therefore, if you have a round wooden single-storey building with a simple roof, as current archaeologists suggest for some of these post-hole structures, why use these massive posts, as it is ‘over-engineering’ and time-consuming, especially with simple tools?

Cunnington’s excavations at Woodhenge in 1929 suggested that some posts are up to 60 inches in diameter:

“clear evidence was obtained in excavation that the six centric rings of holes once held posts or tree trunks varying from 1ft to 3ft in diameter according to the size of the hole…… the size and depth and distance varies in each circle…. In the outer circle holes are 6ft apart from centre to centre, from 1 1/2 ft to 2ft in depth and from 2ft to 3ft in diameter. In the second circle the holes are larger and further apart, averaging about 4ft in depth and 3 ½ to 4ft in diameter. The largest of all were those were those of the third circle, being about 6ft deep with a diameter at the top from 4ft to 5ft “ (Cunnington. M.E., ‘Prehistoric Timer Circles’, Antiquity A Quarterly Review Of Archaeology Vol.1, 1927)

Sadly, Woodhenge shows us yet another illustration of flawed science in archaeology.  Even with a ‘second-rate’ excavation report from the 1920s, modern archaeologists conclude that this structure was a single-story house – a slightly grander feature than the traditional ‘Iron Age’ house.  This is simply nonsense. If we look closely at the evidence presented here, we reach a different, more accurate conclusion about the nature of this structure.

Firstly, if we look at the site’s layout (which lacks detail), we can see from the original excavation plans the extent of this understatement, as the existing ‘concrete’ posts on the site are far too small.  The most recent photo, from Pollard’s 2007 excavation, indicates that these posts are at least five times larger than the current representations.

The following fact, left unanswered, is the reason for the large post-hole ramps. You don’t take the time to install 32 ramps in the soil unless it is essential, as you’ve just added at least another month to the site’s building work 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, a sizeable, healthy person could pick up one foot of pine and place it in a hole without assistance or a ramp. 

Consequently, an eight-foot pine tree trunk could easily be placed on the shoulders of 8 people and put straight into the hole, which is the current estimation by archaeologists for a single-storey structure. Therefore, the empirical evidence suggests they are wrong, and the pole was much more significant.

We have seen similar ramps at Stonehenge, not by the 4-tonne bluestones but by the Sarsen stones, which averaged 25 tonnes (the trilithons are 35 tonnes), though half the size of these ramps.

A 25-tonne pine post of width between 4 – 5 ft would be 39m long or 128ft, and a 35-tonne pine tree is about 177ft long.  But do Pine trees grow that tall?  Longleat Forest is just down the road from Durrington Walls; it contains pine trees.  These trees grow to nearly 200ft tall.

Moreover, the site plan provides another clue about the length of these poles.  If you 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 is if you erect the pine poles in a set order so that they would not hit or interfere with each other when attempting to erect the posts.

This allows us to come to some remarkable conclusions about the construction and the process of how it was built:

1. Holes were filled in an anti-clockwise direction, starting at hole 1 (at four o’clock to the site)
2. Poles must have been more than 100’ long; otherwise, you could erect them in any order and direction.
3. The current ditch at the site was added later, as you would need to bring the poles through the ditch and, in some cases, be in the ditch to erect it.
4. The 4- to 5-ft-diameter posts all entered the site from the south, as it had the shortest distance to travel. These poles were either rolled or dragged on a sledge and, therefore, probably came from the direction where the pine trees had initially grown or were unloaded after being floated down the river.

Now the slopes for ‘Ring C’ (the most significant posts) are 5 to 8ft long, which are even longer than the Stone ramps (3 to 4ft) at Stonehenge (Fig.58).  This probably shows the significant (Sarsens are only 13ft tall) leverage factor required to be pulled upright with an A-frame, allowing the posts to slide into position and then into the hole.

Ring B – the 3.5 to 4ft diameter trees also have ramps, but much smaller (3 to 4ft), indicating less leverage and, therefore, half the weight/height? 

Moreover, they were placed into position after the C Ring, as their ramps point away from the centre with no common direction.

The last row of postholes (A), 1 to 3ft in diameter, does not have ramps and are sporadic in nature and size, which leads me to believe they have no structural significance and were probably more like a palisade covering, to either enclose the structure or allow mud or reed covering (wattle & daub) and protection from the elements.

The internal posts (D to F) are superficial and probably were there to support the first-floor structure, as we see in their successors in British history, the ‘broch’ – a stone version built thousands of years later for the same purpose.

But my money would be on the tower being of a lower ratio of 1 to 1, with the base, making it 135ft high and the same height as Silbury Hill, a little further up the river Avon and its design I would suggest would have been the exact ‘layer cake’ design as we will see at Avebury.

Therefore, what would you build next to a harbour to attract and direct boats – it’s obvious, isn’t it? A fire beacon (with a stone base), as we know from written history and the Pharos of Alexandria (280 – 247 BCE).

Furthermore, this link with the harbour is illustrated by the construction of the Moat, Bank and then a Dyke. As we have suggested, the Woodhenge ditch would not have existed at the original time (Phase I) of the construction of the C and then the B rings.  It seems to have been added at the end of Phase I, when the structure was complete and before Ring A was established, as it points to the shoreline of the Neolithic Avon River. This alignment disproves the current ‘expert’ theory about being an astronomical alignment with the Solstice Sunrise. 

Evidence for the construction of the postholes (with gaps in the circle, which were later filled with smaller posts) indicates that the ditch had been filled from age or design. The central opening (in the A circle) to the northeast is not in line with the gap in the ditch, and the two other spaces in the circle would track across the ditch in the southeast and northwest.

As for the dating of Woodhenge (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 and 1929, for reasons known best to the experts.

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”, as quoted by the labs at the time, who failed to carbon date the samples as the experts had declared them Neolithic, supporting the antler pick dates.  Now that this gross error has been exposed, we know these pine charcoal dates are Mesolithic, 8300 BCE, which ‘begs the question’: are the pine charcoal dates found at Woodhenge also Mesolithic?

Less than a mile down the river is ‘Blick mead’ (Vespasian’s Camp), which has also been found on dates ranging from 7900 BCE (remember our Bluestone estimation for Stonehenge is 8000 BCE), to 4050 BCE, with multiple RC dates from the 8th to the 5th BCE.  Sadly, until someone finds these samples and carbon-dates them to get an accurate date for Woodhenge and Durrington Walls, this unscientific, ad hoc archaeological dating methodology will continue.

Furthermore, the engineering structure created by this civilisation – like the design at Stonehenge – has been overlooked by archaeologists looking for a more simplistic ‘hunter-gatherer’ solution for this superstructure, which has resulted in a single-storey roof that is well over-engineered for that purpose.  We can see at Woodhenge (and at The Sanctuary at Avebury) the ‘triangulation’ of wood joints using the mortice and tenon techniques we have seen on the Sarsen stones at Stonehenge. This structural technique (incorporated into modern towers) allows the construction of extremely high wooden towers, as seen at Woodhenge.

Unearth the Astonishing Secrets of Stonehenge (The Stonehenge Hoax)

Video

Synopsys

Stonehenge, a timeless enigma etched in stone and earth, has stood as a formidable puzzle challenging the intellects of archaeologists and historians alike. Despite the myriad attempts, including books, TV programs, and academic conferences, the secrets of these ancient stones and their encircling ditches have proven elusive. Against this backdrop, we scrutinise the existing thirteen hypotheses, each presenting its narrative but collectively lacking a coherent thread.

In adopting the deductive reasoning akin to Sherlock Holmes, we endeavour to weave these disparate threads into a unified tapestry that not only unravels the mystery of Stonehenge but also shakes the foundations of established academic narratives. This intellectual journey may induce some discomfort as we challenge conventional perceptions and invite a reevaluation of our understanding of the past. Apologies are extended in advance for any cognitive dissonance, but the pursuit of truth and reason mandates an unfiltered presentation of the facts.

So, fasten your seatbelts for an expedition into the archaeological unknown.

As we navigate this intellectual rollercoaster, be prepared for a revelation that might reshape our understanding of Stonehenge and question the foundations of our historical narratives. The dawn of a new archaeological era awaits promising insights that could leave even the most curious minds astonished. As we delve into this intellectual rabbit hole, be ready for a revelation that could astonish Alice.

Robert John Langdon (2023) – (The Stonehenge Hoax)

The Book

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 been interwoven with stints as an astute scrutineer in government 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 scrutinising gaze of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, an amiable clandestinity in the lap of nature.

Exploring Prehistoric Britain: A Journey Through Time

My blog delves into the fascinating mysteries of prehistoric Britain, challenging conventional narratives and offering fresh perspectives grounded in cutting-edge research, particularly 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 visualises 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 receive re-evaluations 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 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, which suggest a Mesolithic origin 2357. 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 explain 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 astronomical insights into 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 excerpts from the acclaimed Robert John Langdon Trilogy, a series of books that explore Britain during the Prehistoric period. Titles in the trilogy include The Stonehenge Enigma, Dawn of the Lost Civilisation, and The Post-Glacial Flooding Hypothesis, which offer compelling evidence of 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

Conundrum 11 – Periglacial Stripes…………………………. Book Extract (The Great Stonehenge Hoax)

When was the wheel invented?

The Problem

Deep chalk cuts lines found under the surface of the Avenue, which lead from the Stonehenge monument site to ‘Stonehenge Bottom’ a valley in the NE of the landscape, had always created speculation, especially today as the ‘experts’ came up with a ludicrous argument that had caught the mainstream archaeologists imagination when they suggested that these were Periglacial Stripes from the last ice age, and this was the reason for our ancestors built Stonehenge at this place.  These lines are just a foot or so below the topsoil on a known roadway that dates back older than the B-road that passed the stones that have now been removed.

The Solution

This is probably the most provocative subject in history – who invented the wheel and when?  What should be remembered when considering this as a key ‘landmark’ invention in the progress of humanity is that the wheel is useless without a road. The current belief is that the wheel was invented in Mesopotamia in about the 4th millennium BCE. This, however, is archaeological gobbledygook as the concept of moving items around on top of a round surface, like a tree trunk, goes back to the Neanderthals, I would imagine, if not before.

Archaeologists and historians would argue that the concept of the ‘axle’ connected to two free-running discs constitutes an actual wheel technology. However, in 2012, a Museum in Turkey found a ‘toy car’ made of stone with wheels in the northern Kurdish town of Qoser (Kızıltepe), pushing back the accepted date of wheel technology to the 6th millennium (5500BCE). The interesting aspect of this discovery was that it was a toy and not the real thing. This may be because the wood would not last this long, and even the toy car’s timber axle had to be replaced by a modern stick by the museum because it had rotted. But it should be kept in mind that this may represent an accurate record of a wagon or cart with wheels, but without a flat surface, it would be useless. (The Stonehenge Hoax – Periglacial Stripes)

We have seen these kinds of ‘revolutionary inventions’ many times in history and the two most famous ‘useless’ inventions that spring to my mind are the ‘Steam Engine’, and the ‘Windmill’ – both inventions were available to the Romans in 2000 years ago, the original steam engine was a toy that spun around when a candle was placed under the brass ball with pipe outlets. Diagrams of this unique invention are shown in Hero of Alexandria’s epic work on pneumatics, which offers many other unused (or currently undiscovered) hydraulic devices.  The windmill, again another mechanism well known to the Romans, was also made as a toy for children, for those who need to construct a full life-size version, at a considerable cost, which can only be used when the wind blows – in comparison to a treadmill that can work 24/7 when you have slaves?

As an example of this limited efficiency of the wheel, the American Indians also had knowledge and access to ‘real wheels’ before they were placed on their reservations, but they continued their nomadic lifestyle with horses that pulled sleighs as the distribution of weight on unmade roads made it less likely for the sleigh to get stuck and bogged down – unlike the wagon trains that could only be used seasonally as the roads were unsuitable for winter weather.  Moreover, wagons suited the lifestyle of the white pioneers as not everyone could or wanted to get to their destination quickly, unlike the indigenous populations that survived on the movement of herds.

Where and when did our ancestors invent the wheel or cart, and for what purpose?

To answer this question, we need to find some kind of ‘road’ or a natural clearing that could be used as a road. If we could find such an area, we might be able to spot the telltale signs of these wheeled carts and, if we are fortunate, the cart itself.  (The Stonehenge Hoax – Periglacial Stripes)

When Doggerland had finally sunk into the North Sea, The Megalithic Builders built Stonehenge, and around 4300BCE, they changed the site to incorporate a new mooring place from the original car park in the North West (which pointed towards the Preseli Mountains where they obtained their sacred healing Bluestones), to a new mooring place in the North-East towards the Solstice midsummer sunrise and their old homeland Atlantis/Doggerland.

The New Shoreline was about a kilometre from the Stonehenge site, so they built what we call ‘The Avenue’, a long straight road about 30 metres wide, too wide for a walkway (which we have seen in places like Avebury is much narrower) but large enough to get two carts going either way with ease. Sadly, for archaeologists, a long ‘road-like’ prehistoric trackway will not persuade them that it was constructed as a road for carts, even if it is concave in shape and has water drainage gullies on both sides – like a Roman road. (The Stonehenge Hoax – Periglacial Stripes)

William Hawley in 1922, Atkinson in the 1950s and Mike Parker-Pearson in 2009 found what they believed to be periglacial stripes – they thought that these stripes were the product of rocks being dragged along the floor by ice glaciers or the constant freezing and thawing of the soil known as tundra. 

Why am I mentioning such an essential natural feature seen throughout the world? 

Well, the great surprise is that they are not natural. These features are found only on the Avenue, not outside the 30m width of the Avenue. Moreover, none are found in the excavated old car park some 50m away, or even inside the Stonehenge enclosure.  If they were natural, they should be found either side of the Avenue or past the ‘Heel Stone’ – but mysteriously, they are not. Archaeologists would have you believe that this strange ‘narrow passage’ event happened naturally during the last ice age, which supposedly explains why they built Stonehenge where it is. (The Stonehenge Hoax – Periglacial Stripes)

However, the most apparent error by these archaeologists in their assumptions is that we know that the Avenue was built AFTER the Phase I of the site construction (including the ditches) as the ends of the Avenue ditches do not line up and stop short of the Stonehenge Ditches, which would not be the case if periglacial stripes were there first?

Perhaps this strange event brought the stones to Stonehenge?

Well, could we not argue that it is possible the Bluestones of Phase I mentioned earlier were delivered via this route on a glacier? This is a nice theory, but sadly, the glacier would be travelling the wrong way. We now know that the Bluestones came from Wales and the Preseli mountains, which are northwest of the site (Solstice midsummer sunset), not the northeast, and the last ice sheet stopped at the Bristol Channel 200km away and travelled in a southeast direction.

So, it is only in previous ice ages that an ice sheet could have reached Stonehenge, which was about 400,000 years ago, and could have come from the northeast. However, would this leave stripes only 30 metres wide? The other problem with these ‘natural features’ is the depth at which they were found, and supposedly half a million years old, yet just under the surface. (The Stonehenge Hoax – Periglacial Stripes)

If it’s not a glacier, what could have made these tracks?

Similar ruts have been found elsewhere in the world, and particularly in Europe. However, the most famous tracks can still be seen today in Malta, which played a crucial role in another of Humanity’s trade routes.  Misrah Ghar il-Kbir (informally known as Clapham Junction) is a prehistoric site in Malta near the Dingli Cliffs. It is best known for its “cart ruts” – a complex network of tracks gouged in the rock. However, the age and purpose of the tracks are still a mystery in Maltese history. (The Stonehenge Hoax – Periglacial Stripes)

In general, most archaeologists presume that the site was established around 2000 BCE, when new settlers arrived from Sicily to begin the Bronze Age in Malta.  It is reported that the “Clapham Junction” nickname was given by an Englishman, who later wrote that it reminded him of the busy railway station Clapham Junction in London. The tracks (known and signposted in Malta as Cart Ruts) can be found at several sites in Malta and Gozo.  Busewdien in St Paul’s Bay, Naxxar, San Gwann, and Bidnija are good examples of cart tracks on the island of Malta. Gozo’s best cart ruts are on the Ta’ Cenc plateau, Sannat. The Misraћ Gћar il-Kbir site near the Dingli Cliffs in the south of the island is probably the most impressive – they form a real “traffic jam” here. Also called cart ruts, they are up to 60 cm deep and have an average spacing of 110 to 140 cm. Some cross while others form junctions. This creates the illusion of a great railway station switching yard.

Is this what William Hawley found originally in 1922? 

He believed so and immediately called them ‘cart tracks’ because he lived in a time when horse-drawn carriages were common, and their tracks were easily identified.  The cart ruts in Malta are not the only reports of earlier wheel use for transportation. In Portugal, in a mountain called Vale d’egua, cart tracks have been found cut into the rock (which by its very nature is undatable) but are located at an altitude of 800m, and they appear ‘out of nowhere’, but it is possible to follow them quite a distance. We can solve this mystery quite simply, as these carts would be used to move goods to and from boats, and at the time of these ruts, the groundwater level would, like we have found throughout Britain, be much higher than today – hence the height and apparent disappearance of the cart tracks.

Why build a road?

The second phase of Stonehenge (the Sarsen Stones) was much heavier than the Bluestones (twelve tonnes versus four tonnes), so the Bluestones could effortlessly be dragged or even carried by the Megalithic Builders as they were tall and heavy, weighing in at about 150kg, so as little as ten fit men would easily lift a stone weighing four tonnes on a ‘stretcher’ type stone carrier. In contrast, the larger Sarsens would need sledges or wheeled transportation. As we have seen previously, such technology has existed since the 6th Millennium BCE, in the form of ‘toy cars’ in Black Sea ports on the trading routes of Doggerland. Therefore, Stonehenge Avenue was Britain’s first ‘road’, and a wheeled cart was first used to move the immense Sarsen Stones from the boats moored at Stonehenge Bottom at the end of 4300BCE. (The Stonehenge Hoax – Periglacial Stripes)

Yes. The strongest 2026 update is no longer the T9 model. The strongest update is that the Stonehenge Bottom borehole dataset has now been completed, and it independently confirms the hydrological interpretation.

Here’s the direction I’d take:

2026 Update: The Stonehenge Bottom Borehole Data Have Now Settled the Question

When this article was updated in 2025, the argument against the so-called “periglacial stripes” relied primarily on the T9 hydrological model. The conclusion was simple: the Avenue corridor was underwater when archaeologists claim these stripes were visible and used to align the monument.

Since then, the investigation has moved beyond modelling.

The complete Stonehenge Bottom borehole dataset has now been analysed.

The results provide direct physical evidence from beneath the landscape itself.

The Fundamental Problem

The periglacial-stripe hypothesis requires archaeologists to believe four things:

1. The stripes were visible on the ground surface.
2. The landscape was dry enough for them to be observed.
3. The Avenue was laid out using these surface features.
4. The features survived from the last Ice Age until the Neolithic.

The borehole evidence now challenges every one of these assumptions.

What the Boreholes Reveal

The Stonehenge Bottom boreholes show a concentration of water-related deposits at consistent elevations across multiple independent boreholes.

This is precisely what would be expected if the valley functioned as a long-term watercourse or flooded basin.

It is not what would be expected in a dry landscape dominated by preserved surface frost features.

The remarkable aspect of the dataset is that the deposits cluster by elevation rather than depth.

When analysed against the Ordnance Datum height, the water-related horizons consistently occur at the same levels across the valley, indicating that they were controlled by a common water surface rather than by random geological processes.

The landscape was responding to hydrology.

Not periglacial stripes.

Why This Matters

Periglacial stripes are fragile surface features.

They are not engineered structures.

They cannot remain visible and intact within an active hydrological system subjected to:

• Groundwater fluctuations
• Seasonal flooding
• Sediment deposition
• Erosion
• Channel migration

Yet the borehole evidence demonstrates that Stonehenge Bottom was precisely such a hydrological environment.

The valley was not a dry chalk corridor waiting for Neolithic surveyors.

It was part of a dynamic water system.

The Fatal Contradiction

The archaeological explanation now faces a simple problem.

If the boreholes are correct, the landscape was water-dominated.

If the landscape were water-dominated, the stripes could not have functioned as visible alignment markers.

If the stripes could not serve as alignment markers, the entire explanation of the Avenue’s alignment would collapse.

The theory depends upon a dry landscape.

The boreholes demonstrate a wet one.

Both cannot be true.

The Simpler Explanation

The Avenue follows the same route because it follows the hydrology.

The so-called stripes are not the reason the Avenue exists.

They are simply geological features that happened to occupy the same corridor later used by water and subsequently by people.

Archaeologists have reversed cause and effect.

The Avenue was not built because of the stripes.

Both the Avenue and the stripes follow the same route because it was controlled by the underlying landscape and its water system.

Conclusion

The 2025 T9 model suggested that the periglacial-stripe theory was environmentally impossible.

The 2026 Stonehenge Bottom borehole analysis now provides direct subsurface evidence supporting that conclusion.

What began as a mathematical challenge has become a geological one.

The landscape beneath Stonehenge does not support the traditional explanation.

The more evidence we recover from the ground itself, the harder it becomes to argue that the Avenue was aligned using visible Ice Age stripes.

The evidence increasingly points in a different direction:

Stonehenge was designed around water.

Not frost.

🔵 2025 Update: The T9 River-Height Proof Completely Invalidates the Periglacial Stripe Theory

Since this article was first published, we have completed the T9 River-Height Mathematical Model, which reconstructs the groundwater and river levels around Stonehenge across the early Holocene.
The findings are so clear-cut that they require a public correction to the archaeological narrative.

The T9 model shows that at the time the Avenue was supposedly aligned using “periglacial stripes,” the entire Avenue route was underwater.

Not partially wet.
Not marshy.
Submerged. Long-term.

This single fact collapses the entire periglacial-alignment hypothesis.

🔵 Why This Matters: Periglacial Features Cannot Survive Underwater

Archaeologists have claimed that “periglacial stripes” or “meltwater channels” formed during the last glaciation and just happened to align with solstice sunrise — and that Neolithic builders chose Stonehenge’s location because these markings were visible on the ground.

The T9 hydrological reconstruction proves this is impossible:

If the Avenue corridor were underwater, those delicate surface features would have been erased by:

• Hydraulic scouring
• Sediment redistribution
• Bank collapse
• Sheet wash and over-topping
• Reworking of the chalk by sustained flow

Periglacial stripes are shallow, fragile polygonal cracks.
They cannot survive decades — let alone centuries — of fluvial action.

You do not get crisp “visible surface stripes” in an active river channel.

You get reworked chalk, mud deposition, and smoothing — the exact opposite of what MPP’s team claimed to see.

🔵 Archaeologists’ Core Assumption Was Environmentally Impossible

The periglacial hypothesis depends on two assumptions:

1. The stripes were visible on dry ground.
2. The ground was dry when Neolithic people built the Avenue.

The T9 model completely destroys assumption #2.
If the ground was underwater, then:

• The stripes could not have been visible.
• The stripes could not have survived.
• The Avenue could not have been laid out on foot.
• The “alignment-by-glacial-chance” story collapses.

A submerged landscape cannot guide architectural decisions based on surface marks.

🔵 Correct Interpretation: The Avenue Was a Watercourse, Not a Footpath

The T9 river height data reinforces everything established in The Post-Glacial Flooding Hypothesis:

• Stonehenge Phase 1 was built on a peninsula surrounded by water.
• The Avenue followed a natural waterway, not a land track.
• The solstice line makes hydrological sense, not glacial sense.
• The site is maritime, not terrestrial, in origin.

Once the Avenue is restored to its true environmental context — a post-glacial river channel, not dry land — the archaeology suddenly stops contradicting itself.

🔵 Conclusion: The “Periglacial Stripe” Theory Is Not Just Weak — It Is Geologically Impossible

The new T9 mathematical proof forces a decisive correction:

❌ The Avenue was not laid out on glacial stripes.

❌ The ground was not dry when the stripes were supposedly “used.”

❌ The stripes could not have survived prolonged inundation.

✅ The Avenue corridor was underwater.

✅ The landscape was shaped by hydrology, not ice.

✅ The entire periglacial-alignment hypothesis must be abandoned.

Unearth the Astonishing Secrets of Stonehenge (The Stonehenge Hoax)

Introduction

Video

Synopsys

Stonehenge, a timeless enigma etched in stone and earth, has stood as a formidable puzzle challenging the intellects of archaeologists and historians alike. Despite the myriad attempts, including books, TV programs, and academic conferences, the secrets of these ancient stones and their encircling ditches have proven elusive. Against this backdrop, we scrutinise the existing thirteen hypotheses, each presenting its narrative but collectively lacking a coherent thread.

In adopting the deductive reasoning akin to Sherlock Holmes, we endeavour to weave these disparate threads into a unified tapestry that not only unravels the mystery of Stonehenge but also shakes the foundations of established academic narratives. This intellectual journey may induce some discomfort as we challenge conventional perceptions and invite a reevaluation of our understanding of the past. Apologies are extended in advance for any cognitive dissonance, but the pursuit of truth and reason mandates an unfiltered presentation of the facts.

So, fasten your seatbelts for an expedition into the archaeological unknown.

As we navigate this intellectual rollercoaster, be prepared for a revelation that might reshape our understanding of Stonehenge and question the foundations of our historical narratives. The dawn of a new archaeological era awaits promising insights that could leave even the most curious minds astonished. As we delve into this intellectual rabbit hole, be ready for a revelation that could astonish Alice. (The Stonehenge Hoax)

Robert John Langdon (2023) – (The Stonehenge Hoax)

The Journey

Langdon’s journey was marked by meticulous mapping and years of research, culminating in a hypothesis that would reshape our understanding of prehistoric Britain. He proposed that much of the British Isles had once been submerged in the aftermath of the last ice age, with these ancient sites strategically positioned along the ancient shorelines. His groundbreaking maps offered a fresh perspective, suggesting that Avebury had functioned as a bustling trading hub for our ancient ancestors. This audacious theory challenged the prevailing notion that prehistoric societies were isolated and disconnected, instead highlighting their sophistication in trade and commerce.

In the realm of historical discovery, the audacious thinkers, the mavericks who dare to question established narratives, propel our understanding forward. Robert John Langdon is undeniably one of these thinkers. With a deep passion for history and an unyielding commitment to his research, he has unearthed a hidden chapter in the story of Avebury that transcends the boundaries of time and offers fresh insights into our shared human history.

As Langdon’s trilogy, ‘The Stonehenge Enigma,’ continues to explore these groundbreaking theories, it beckons us to embark on a journey of discovery, to challenge our assumptions, and to embrace the possibility that the past is far more complex and interconnected than we ever imagined. With its ancient stones and enigmatic avenues, Avebury continues to whisper its secrets to those who dare to listen, inviting us to see history through a new lens—one illuminated by the audacious vision of Robert John Langdon.

(The Stonehenge Hoax – Periglacial Stripes)

The Book

Biography

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

His intellectual voyage has been interwoven with stints as an astute scrutineer in government 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 scrutinising gaze of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, an amiable clandestinity in the lap of nature.

Exploring Prehistoric Britain: A Journey Through Time

My blog delves into the fascinating mysteries of prehistoric Britain, challenging conventional narratives and offering fresh perspectives grounded in cutting-edge research, particularly 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 visualises 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 receive re-evaluations 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 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, which suggest a Mesolithic origin 2357. 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 explain 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 astronomical insights into 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 excerpts from the acclaimed Robert John Langdon Trilogy, a series of books that explore Britain during the Prehistoric period. Titles in the trilogy include The Stonehenge Enigma, Dawn of the Lost Civilisation, and The Post-Glacial Flooding Hypothesis, which offer compelling evidence of 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

Conundrum 12 – The Slaughter Stone……………………… Book Extract (The Great Stonehenge Hoax)

“The Killing of great numbers of human beings”

The Problem

The slaughter stone has always been associated with mythology and speculation.  Some say it was where Druids sacrificed bodies to their gods (hence the name); others suggested that it is merely a fallen Sarsen stone that once stood upright as the entrance to the monument.  But recent scanning has shown that it was once sculpted to look ’lumpy and ‘rolling’,’ but why?

The Solution

In the centre of the Sarsen circle lies an extraordinary stone – the Altar stone; the reason it’s unique is two-fold. Firstly, it’s made of mica, unlike the other Sarsen standing stones. ‘Hawkins notes that while all the other stones were either bluestone or Sarsen, the so-called altar-stone is ‘of fine-grained pale green sandstone, containing so many flakes of mica that its surface, wherever, wherever it is freshly exposed, shows the typical mica glitter’.  The second reason is that it was positioned to be ‘flat’ with the landscape; the only other stone designed in that fashion is the Slaughter Stone.

Most archaeologists believe that the Slaughter Stone was once a standing stone at the monument’s entrance; this is a flawed theory resulting from a hypothetical drawing by Inigo Jones in 1655. This drawing shows Stonehenge as a perfect circle (Roman Solar Temple), with a hexagon-shaped trilithon and three entrances into the site, with six upright standing stones serving as access points, one of which was the slaughter stone. This idea was incorporated into John Aubrey’s drawing in 1666, which was more accurate but again tended to place all the fallen stones upright.

This false assumption was further compounded by William Cunning in 1880, when (it was reported) that he suggested his grandfather “saw” the upright slaughter stone in the 17th Century. This mistake was later corrected, yet the myths among archaeologists persist (Stones of Slaughter, E. Herbert Stone, 1924, p. 120). (The Stonehenge Hoax – The Slaughter Stone)

The reality is that the Slaughter Stone was always (like the Altar Stone) a deliberate recumbent, as the excavations of this stone by Hawley and Newall in the 1920s clearly show, as the chalk subsoil was also deliberately flattened before it was placed in its current position. Hawley presumed that the Slaughter Stone was once ‘buried’; this idea is understandable as the stone does lie below the ground level, but what Hawley never understood is that the reason the stone was in this position was for the same reason the ditch was built around Stonehenge, as it was made to be full of water.

This can be observed by the size of the stone hole called ‘E’ (WA1165), which lies two metres North West of the Slaughter stone but still within the ‘hollow’ that contains the stone. Most stone holes at Stonehenge are relatively shallow – less than a metre in-depth, but stone hole ‘E’ is twice as deep, over 2m. So if the Slaughter stone were placed in it (as the experts have suggested), it would be only 3m high at the surface, compared to 4.57m for the Heel Stone a few yards away.

The only other place in Stonehenge with these more massive pits is within the Ditch section surrounding the site, which is the same depth, allowing access to the groundwater levels. In the past, when the Slaughter stone was placed in this ditch, as in the moat, water would have surrounded the stone, making it appear like an island.

Therefore, what we see today at Stonehenge is a 6,000-year-old relief map of the land the megalithic builders originated from – Doggerland, which now lies below the North Sea.

Not only did they place a 6ft piece of Sarsen stone, flat in a watery ditch, but they also carved out the island’s contours, showing high and low ground, like a contour relief map.  Archaeologists have always believed these features were ‘weather-worn’ by age (although the other recumbent stones have not been weathered in the same fashion), but recent laser technology has confirmed our belief that this stone was carved, as the tool marks are still visible at the microscopic level.

Moreover, and more importantly, the stone has been placed in a bizarre position, almost in the way of The Avenue. This shows that this stone and the Avenue have a connection; this type of relationship is seen in association with Egyptian Pyramids, where ‘sight lines’ are cut into the sides of the burial chambers toward important star constellations to show their associations with the Gods.

At Stonehenge, the Slaughter Stone and the Avenue are important as they link death with rebirth for this Megalithic Civilisation, for if we look from the Altar stone and follow a line past the Slaughter stone, they make a sight-line, which quite remarkably points directly to their homeland, Doggerland. This was only a small island at the time of the Avenues’ construction in 4100 BCE, but it was constantly shrinking as sea levels (as now) continued to rise.  Geologists currently estimate the sinking of Doggerland to have occurred 2,000 years earlier, at 6200 BCE, after finding a Tsunami that would have hit the island at that time.

Moreover, as we have seen in the Indian ocean and Japan – when tsunami’s hit, they do NOT sink the region, sadly, this is just another example of ‘bad science’ within archaeology.  We can confirm that Doggerland did not disappear at this stage of history with a bit of simple maths.  We know that the island is between 15m and 36m (average 25m) (Wikipedia) under the sea as a sandbank (and hence covered in modern-day wind farms).  And we know (from satellites) that the sea rises 3.6mm per annum – consequently, by 4100 BCE it was still 6m above sea level, but probably so small it was uninhabitable.

2026 Update

When I first published The Stonehenge Enigma almost twenty years ago, one of the most controversial suggestions was that the accepted story of Stonehenge’s stones was incomplete. At the time, archaeologists largely confined their search for sources to Wales and southern Britain, while suggestions of much longer-distance transport were routinely dismissed.

Today, the debate looks very different.

Researchers have now concluded that Stonehenge’s six-tonne Altar Stone most likely originated in north-east Scotland, approximately 700 kilometres from Salisbury Plain. More significantly, the latest peer-reviewed study has examined how such a journey may have been achieved.

According to Dr Anthony Clarke of Curtin University:

“Our modelling shows glaciers may have transported rocks part of the way during the last Ice Age — potentially as far as Dogger Bank in the North Sea — but not into southern England, meaning the stone would still have needed to be moved hundreds of kilometres by people.”

That statement is remarkable.

For decades, the standard objection to long-distance transport was that prehistoric people simply could not move such massive stones across Britain. The new research reaches the opposite conclusion. Not only was human transport required, but the journey appears to have involved multiple stages, combining overland movement with river and coastal transport.

The paper concludes there were no viable glacial pathways connecting the source region directly to Stonehenge. Human organisation, planning and transport networks were therefore essential.

What makes this particularly interesting is the appearance of Dogger Bank within the discussion.

Dogger Bank occupies the heart of the drowned North Sea landscape known as Doggerland. For years, Doggerland has often been portrayed as little more than a submerged hunting ground. Yet the new study identifies the region as a potential staging point within the wider movement of material from Scotland towards southern Britain.

In other words, the researchers are now discussing precisely the kind of interconnected landscape that I have been putting forward for nearly twenty years.

The significance of the paper is therefore not simply that the Altar Stone came from Scotland.

The significance is that a peer-reviewed transport model now places Dogger Bank directly into the discussion and confirms that prehistoric communities were capable of moving multi-tonne stones across hundreds of kilometres using a combination of routes and technologies.

Twenty years ago, such ideas were considered pseudoscience or conspiracy theory.

Today, they appear in the scientific literature.

The lesson is simple.

Never underestimate prehistoric people.

The real mystery is not how they moved the stone.

The real mystery is why it took archaeology so long to accept that they could.

Fast forward to today, and the story has taken a remarkable turn. Advances in geochemical analysis and improved scientific methods have provided new insights into the origin of Stonehenge’s stones, particularly the Altar Stone. Researchers have determined that this unique stone, composed of fine-grained pale green sandstone with a high mica content, does not match the geology of Wales or Cornwall, as once thought. Instead, studies now strongly suggest that it originated in Scotland, a revelation that challenges long-held assumptions and lends credibility to my earlier hypothesis.

The Altar Stone has always been an outlier in terms of its composition. Unlike the bluestones of Preseli or the massive Sarsens from the Marlborough Downs, its distinctive mica-rich material immediately set it apart. Early examinations by archaeologists such as Richard Atkinson noted these differences but lacked the tools to trace their exact origins. It wasn’t until recent years that advanced geochemical fingerprinting techniques were applied, allowing scientists to identify its likely provenance with greater accuracy.

One pivotal breakthrough came in 2016 when researchers conducted isotopic analysis on fragments of the Altar Stone. These tests revealed a chemical composition that closely matched sandstone formations found in southern Scotland. This discovery was groundbreaking, as it opened the door to a broader understanding of how far people in the Neolithic were willing to travel—or trade—to obtain materials for their monumental constructions.

In 2020, further studies refined this analysis, narrowing the possible source to the southern uplands of Scotland. However, the exact quarry site remains unknown. This uncertainty stems from a lack of comprehensive geological mapping of underwater sandstone formations along Scotland’s eastern coast. Some experts have speculated that the stone may have been transported via waterways, possibly from a submerged quarry site now lying beneath the North Sea.

This raises intriguing questions about the logistical capabilities of Neolithic societies. How did they transport such a massive stone across hundreds of miles? Did they rely on an extensive network of waterways and seafaring routes, or were the stones traded overland in a series of exchanges between communities? These questions remain unanswered, but they highlight the sophistication of the builders’ organisational and engineering skills.

The story of the Altar Stone also underscores the slow pace of archaeological research. Despite the clear potential for groundbreaking discoveries, investigations into the stone’s origins have been limited by funding constraints and the challenges of underwater archaeology. The sandstone formations off the east coast of Scotland, which could provide definitive answers, have yet to be explored in detail. Without such investigations, the hypothesis that the Altar Stone came from this region remains partially validated but not fully proven.

Interestingly, the Altar Stone’s unique material properties may have held symbolic significance for the builders of Stonehenge. The shimmering mica within the sandstone gives it a luminous quality when freshly exposed, which may have been interpreted as spiritually or ritually important. Its placement at the centre of the Sarsen circle, lying flat rather than upright like the surrounding stones, further suggests it played a central role in the monument’s purpose.

The debate over the Altar Stone’s origin is part of a broader reevaluation of Stonehenge’s construction and function. The monument was interpreted primarily as a solar temple or astronomical observatory for centuries. However, newer theories emphasise its role as a site of cultural and ritual significance, with connections to far-flung regions of the Neolithic world. The diversity of the stones’ origins supports the idea that Stonehenge was not just a local project but a monument with broader regional and possibly even international connections.

This evolving understanding of the Altar Stone exemplifies the dynamic nature of archaeology. What was once dismissed as pseudoscience is now recognised as a plausible, even likely, explanation. It also highlights the importance of revisiting old assumptions with new tools and technologies. Had geochemical fingerprinting not been applied, the Altar Stone’s Scottish origin might still be unknown.

The following steps in this journey will likely involve underwater archaeology, a field that has only recently begun to gain traction. As technology improves and funding becomes available, it is hoped that investigations into the submerged sandstone formations along Scotland’s coast will uncover the exact source of the Altar Stone. Such a discovery would not only validate this hypothesis but also shed light on the broader network of trade and communication that existed in Neolithic Britain.

Until then, the story of the Altar Stone remains a testament to the resilience of ideas and science’s slow but steady progress. It serves as a reminder that archaeology, while painstakingly slow, has the power to rewrite our understanding of history. My initial hypothesis, once dismissed, has found a place in the growing body of evidence that challenges traditional narratives about Stonehenge and its builders.

Unearth the Astonishing Secrets of Stonehenge (The Stonehenge Hoax)

Introduction

Video

Synopsys

Stonehenge, a timeless enigma etched in stone and earth, has stood as a formidable puzzle challenging the intellects of archaeologists and historians alike. Despite the myriad attempts, including books, TV programs, and academic conferences, the secrets of these ancient stones and their encircling ditches have proven elusive. Against this backdrop, we scrutinise the existing thirteen hypotheses, each presenting its narrative but collectively lacking a coherent thread.

In adopting the deductive reasoning akin to Sherlock Holmes, we endeavour to weave these disparate threads into a unified tapestry that not only unravels the mystery of Stonehenge but also shakes the foundations of established academic narratives. This intellectual journey may induce some discomfort as we challenge conventional perceptions and invite a reevaluation of our understanding of the past. Apologies are extended in advance for any cognitive dissonance, but the pursuit of truth and reason mandates an unfiltered presentation of the facts.

So, fasten your seatbelts for an expedition into the archaeological unknown.

As we navigate this intellectual rollercoaster, be prepared for a revelation that might reshape our understanding of Stonehenge and question the foundations of our historical narratives. The dawn of a new archaeological era awaits promising insights that could leave even the most curious minds astonished. As we delve into this intellectual rabbit hole, be ready for a revelation that could astonish Alice.

Robert John Langdon (2023) – (The Stonehenge Hoax)

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 been interwoven with stints as an astute scrutineer in government 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 scrutinising gaze of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, an amiable clandestinity in the lap of nature.

Exploring Prehistoric Britain: A Journey Through Time

My blog delves into the fascinating mysteries of prehistoric Britain, challenging conventional narratives and offering fresh perspectives grounded in cutting-edge research, particularly 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 visualises 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 receive re-evaluations 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 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, which suggest a Mesolithic origin 2357. 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 explain 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 astronomical insights into 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 excerpts from the acclaimed Robert John Langdon Trilogy, a series of books that explore Britain during the Prehistoric period. Titles in the trilogy include The Stonehenge Enigma, Dawn of the Lost Civilisation, and The Post-Glacial Flooding Hypothesis, which offer compelling evidence of 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