The Great Bell Beaker Migration Myth

Posted on July 17, 2026 by admin

Introduction

In 2018, a single scientific paper fundamentally changed the accepted history of prehistoric Britain.

Published in Nature, the study analysed ancient DNA from hundreds of prehistoric individuals across Europe and concluded that around 90% of Britain’s Neolithic ancestry had been replaced within a few centuries after approximately 2450 BC. The proposed mechanism was the arrival of people associated with the Bell Beaker phenomenon, transforming what had previously been viewed largely as a cultural development into one of the largest population replacements ever suggested for prehistoric Europe. (The Great Bell Beaker Migration Myth – Haplogroup R1b)

The implications were enormous.

If correct, the builders of Britain’s great Neolithic monuments were largely replaced by an incoming population shortly after the final phases of Stonehenge. For many archaeologists, the debate appeared settled. Bell Beaker pottery was no longer viewed simply as evidence of trade or cultural exchange, but as the archaeological signature of a substantial migration.

Since its publication, the paper has become the cornerstone of the modern Beaker migration hypothesis. Its conclusions are now widely repeated in books, documentaries, museums and artificial intelligence systems as established fact.

Yet scientific papers do not become facts through repetition.

(The Great Bell Beaker Migration Myth - Haplogroup R1b) — (The Great Bell Beaker Migration Myth – Haplogroup R1b)

They remain interpretations of evidence.

This distinction is critical because the 2018 study contains two very different components. The first is the genetic evidence itself, generated using sophisticated laboratory techniques and robust statistical analysis. The second is the archaeological interpretation built upon those genetic results.

These are not the same thing.

The genetic data reveal changes in ancestry through time. They do not directly reveal how those changes occurred, how many people migrated, whether migration was peaceful or gradual, whether technology spread independently of populations, or whether long-established communities continued alongside newcomers. Those questions require archaeological interpretation, and it is here that debate remains both possible and necessary.

This article does not challenge the quality of the genetic research. On the contrary, the laboratory science represents a remarkable achievement and provides an invaluable dataset for understanding prehistoric populations. The question it raises is whether the historical conclusions drawn from that dataset are the only ones supported by the evidence.

To answer that question, we return to the original publication itself.

Rather than relying on popular summaries or inherited archaeological narratives, we will examine what the paper actually demonstrates, what it explicitly acknowledges as uncertain, and where interpretation extends beyond observation. We will then compare those conclusions with independent evidence from archaeology, chronology, maritime capability, engineering, long-distance exchange networks and anthropometric analysis.

Only by considering all of the evidence together can we assess whether Britain’s Bell Beaker story is truly one of wholesale population replacement—or whether a more complex and more plausible explanation has been overlooked.

Table 1.1 – What the 2018 Paper Claims vs What It Directly Measures

Directly Measured	Inferred Interpretation
Ancient DNA sequences	Migration scale
Steppe ancestry proportions	Number of migrants
Y-chromosome frequencies	Language
Radiocarbon dates	Cultural identity
Genetic similarity	Social organisation
Burial genetics	Population replacement

Section 1 — The Paper That Changed British Prehistory

In March 2018, the scientific journal Nature published one of the most influential archaeological papers of the twenty-first century: The Beaker Phenomenon and the Genomic Transformation of Northwest Europe by Olalde et al. The study analysed genome-wide DNA from 400 prehistoric individuals across Europe, including 226 associated with the Bell Beaker phenomenon, making it the largest ancient DNA investigation of the Beaker period to date.

The headline conclusion was dramatic. The authors proposed that Britain underwent a genetic transformation shortly after 2450 BC, estimating that around 90% of the existing Neolithic gene pool was replaced within a few centuries following the arrival of populations associated with the Bell Beaker Complex. This conclusion rapidly became accepted as the defining explanation for one of the most important transitions in British prehistory.

The impact extended far beyond academic archaeology. Museums rewrote their displays. Television documentaries presented the migration as an established fact. Popular history books adopted the new narrative, while artificial intelligence systems now routinely repeat the claim that Britain was almost entirely repopulated by incoming Beaker migrants around 4,500 years ago.

The influence of a paper published in one of the world’s most respected scientific journals is entirely understandable. Ancient DNA has transformed archaeology over the last decade, allowing researchers to investigate prehistoric relationships with a level of precision unimaginable only a generation ago. The laboratory methods employed by Olalde and colleagues represent an outstanding scientific achievement, and the genetic dataset itself remains one of the most important resources available for studying prehistoric Europe.

However, scientific data and historical interpretation are not the same thing.

The DNA recovered from ancient skeletons measures biological ancestry. It identifies patterns of genetic similarity, estimates ancestral components and tracks changes in populations through time. What it cannot directly measure is the historical process responsible for those changes. Genetics cannot determine whether ancestry shifted through invasion, peaceful migration, elite dominance, gradual population mixing, long-term trade networks, demographic expansion, disease, social selection or a combination of several processes. Those explanations lie outside the laboratory and belong instead to archaeology, anthropology and historical interpretation.

This distinction is crucial because much of the public discussion has blurred the line between what the paper actually measured and what the authors inferred from those measurements. The genetic observations themselves are objective scientific results. The reconstruction of Britain’s prehistoric history from those results is necessarily interpretative.

To be fair to the authors, they acknowledge this limitation themselves. In their discussion, they conclude by calling for further archaeological research into the social, technological, climatic and demographic processes that may have produced the observed genetic patterns, recognising that DNA alone cannot explain why those changes occurred.

That acknowledgement is often absent from popular accounts.

Instead, a more nuanced scientific conclusion has gradually become simplified into a much stronger historical claim: that the arrival of the Bell Beaker phenomenon represents a near-complete replacement of Britain’s population. Once repeated often enough, that interpretation has acquired the appearance of an established fact, despite relying on assumptions that extend beyond the genetic evidence itself.

This article does not dispute the quality of the genetic science. Nor does it deny that Britain’s genetic composition changed during the late third millennium BC. Instead, it asks a different question:

Does the evidence actually require the historical narrative that has been built upon it?

To answer that question, we shall examine the original paper in detail before comparing its conclusions with independent archaeological evidence, including long-distance trade networks, maritime capabilities, monument construction, engineering continuity, chronology, and anthropology. Only then can we determine whether the modern Beaker migration model is the only explanation—or simply one possible interpretation of the available evidence.

Section 2 – What the DNA Actually Demonstrates

One of the biggest mistakes made by both supporters and critics of the Beaker migration hypothesis is failing to distinguish between observations and interpretations. Before questioning any conclusion, we must first establish what the genetic evidence genuinely shows.

The Olalde et al. study analysed genome-wide DNA from 400 prehistoric Europeans, including 226 individuals associated with the Bell Beaker phenomenon. These samples were drawn from sites across Britain, the Netherlands, Germany, Hungary, Spain, Portugal, France, Italy and several other regions, providing an unprecedented dataset for examining population relationships during the third millennium BC.

Using standard population genetics techniques, including Principal Component Analysis (PCA), ADMIXTURE modelling, and qpAdm ancestry estimation, the authors compared the genetic signatures of these ancient individuals with those of earlier Neolithic populations and contemporary groups across Europe. These methods are widely accepted within archaeogenetics and are not, in themselves, controversial.

The results revealed several clear observations.

First, Britain’s Neolithic population differed genetically from the majority of later Bell Beaker-associated individuals found after approximately 2450 BC. Whereas earlier Neolithic Britons showed little or no detectable Steppe-related ancestry, later Beaker-associated burials contained substantially higher proportions.

Second, the Y-chromosome composition changed dramatically. Neolithic males were dominated by earlier European lineages, whereas more than ninety per cent of sampled males from the Copper and Bronze Ages belonged to the R1b-M269 lineage, a haplogroup already common among Beaker-associated populations on the European mainland.

Third, statistical modelling suggested that by the Middle Bronze Age, most sampled individuals derived the majority of their ancestry from populations already present in continental Europe before approximately 2450 BC. On the basis of these ancestry models, the authors estimated that Britain’s Neolithic gene pool had been replaced by approximately ninety per cent.

These findings are significant.

They demonstrate that Britain’s genetic composition changed substantially during the late third millennium BC. Any interpretation of British prehistory must therefore account for this transformation. Simply denying the existence of genetic change is no longer a scientifically credible position.

However, the study also produced another important result that receives far less public attention.

The Bell Beaker phenomenon was not genetically uniform.

One of the paper’s most important discoveries was that Beaker-associated populations differed markedly across Europe. Individuals buried with Bell Beaker artefacts in Iberia shared little genetic affinity with Beaker-associated populations from Central Europe. In Hungary, individuals buried within the same archaeological tradition displayed Steppe ancestry ranging from virtually zero to approximately seventy-five per cent. Even within individual cemeteries, substantial genetic variation existed between people buried only a short distance apart.

This finding fundamentally overturned the older nineteenth-century concept of a single “Beaker Folk.”

Instead, the evidence demonstrated that Bell Beaker material culture was adopted by populations with different genetic backgrounds across Europe.

The authors therefore concluded that both cultural transmission and human migration contributed to the spread of the Beaker phenomenon, with their relative importance varying between different regions. In Iberia, they argued that Beaker culture spread largely without major migration, whereas Britain appeared to represent a very different demographic pattern.

Up to this point, the paper remains firmly grounded in its genetic observations.

The crucial question, however, is whether the next step in the argument necessarily follows.

Does a change in genetic ancestry automatically demonstrate a mass migration that replaced Britain’s population?

Or does the DNA simply demonstrate that ancestry changed, leaving the mechanism responsible still open to investigation?

That distinction lies at the heart of the modern Beaker debate, because the evidence presented by Olalde and colleagues answers the first question with confidence while leaving the second dependent upon archaeological interpretation.

The following section examines precisely where that transition occurs.

Section 3 – Where Observation Becomes Interpretation

The distinction between scientific observation and historical interpretation is fundamental to every discipline. Astronomy measures the movement of planets but must interpret how solar systems formed. Geology measures rock strata but must interpret the processes that created them. Archaeogenetics is no different. DNA provides powerful evidence about biological ancestry, but history cannot be reconstructed from genetics alone.

This distinction becomes increasingly important as we move through the conclusions of Olalde et al.

The genetic evidence demonstrates that Britain’s genetic composition changed substantially during the late third millennium BC. That observation is supported by the ancient DNA itself and is not disputed here. The question is not whether ancestry changed, but how that change occurred.

Unfortunately, much of the subsequent discussion has treated these two questions as though they were identical.

They are not.

Ancient DNA can identify genetic relationships between populations and estimate the proportion of ancestry they share. It can show whether individuals buried in Britain around 2000 BC were genetically more similar to populations living on the European mainland than to Britain’s earlier Neolithic inhabitants. It can estimate when those ancestral components first appear within the archaeological record. These are measurable scientific observations.

However, DNA cannot identify the historical mechanism responsible for those observations.

It cannot determine whether people arrived peacefully or violently. It cannot establish whether movement occurred over two generations or twenty. It cannot reveal whether migrants arrived as farmers, traders, craftsmen, political elites or small family groups. It cannot determine whether newcomers absorbed existing communities or whether existing communities absorbed the newcomers. Most importantly, it cannot distinguish between demographic replacement and genetic replacement.

These are archaeological questions, not genetic ones.

This distinction may appear subtle, but it is crucial.

Imagine a small incoming population possessing a social or economic advantage that results in greater reproductive success over many generations. Their genetic contribution could eventually dominate the population while leaving much of the existing society, its engineering, language, traditions and landscape knowledge intact. Conversely, a large migration might leave relatively little long-term genetic impact if it failed to establish itself. Genetics records ancestry, not history.

The Olalde paper itself recognises these limitations.

In the discussion, the authors suggest that archaeology must investigate factors such as social organisation, technology, subsistence, climate, population size and even pathogen exposure to explain the demographic changes observed in the DNA. In other words, the genetic evidence identifies that a change occurred but does not explain why or how it happened.

Yet popular accounts rarely preserve this distinction.

Instead, a series of assumptions has gradually become embedded within the archaeological narrative:

Genetic change becomes migration.
Migration becomes mass migration.
Mass migration becomes population replacement.
Population replacement becomes cultural replacement.
Cultural replacement becomes the explanation for every major archaeological change after 2450 BC.

Each step moves progressively further from the direct evidence.

At no point does the DNA itself demonstrate that ninety per cent of Britain’s inhabitants physically disappeared within a few centuries. It demonstrates that approximately 90 per cent of the ancestry measured in later-sampled individuals can be modelled as deriving from populations already present on the continent before approximately 2450 BC. Those are not identical statements, however similar they may initially appear.

This distinction becomes even more significant when viewed alongside the archaeological record. Monument construction, long-distance exchange, advanced engineering and sophisticated maritime activity all continue across the period in question. If Britain experienced one of the largest population replacements in European prehistory, we must ask whether the archaeological evidence reflects such a profound societal disruption.

That question has rarely been asked because the genetic interpretation has been so rapidly accepted that it has begun to shape the reading of archaeology itself.

Science should proceed in the opposite direction.

Independent lines of evidence should be compared to determine whether they converge on the same conclusion or suggest alternative explanations. Genetics provides one line of evidence. Archaeology provides another. Engineering, maritime capability, chronology, settlement continuity and biological anthropology each contribute further pieces of the puzzle.

Only when all of these independent datasets point towards the same conclusion can a historical interpretation be regarded as robust.

The remainder of this article, therefore, moves beyond genetics alone. Rather than questioning laboratory science, we shall examine whether the broader archaeological evidence supports the modern Beaker migration narrative—or whether an alternative interpretation can explain both the genetic observations and the archaeological record equally well.

Section 4 – Bell Beaker: A Culture or a People?

Before examining Britain, we must first ask a more fundamental question.

What exactly is the Bell Beaker phenomenon?

For more than a century, archaeology treated Bell Beaker pottery as the archaeological signature of a distinct people. Wherever the characteristic bell-shaped pottery appeared, it was widely assumed that the “Beaker Folk” had arrived with it. This interpretation became deeply embedded in archaeological literature and survived well into the twentieth century.

Modern genetics has fundamentally changed that view.

One of the most important conclusions of Olalde et al. is not that Britain experienced a major genetic transformation, but that the Bell Beaker phenomenon itself was genetically heterogeneous. Individuals buried with Bell Beaker artefacts in Iberia, Central Europe and Britain did not belong to a single biological population. Instead, they represented communities with markedly different genetic ancestries who nevertheless shared similar pottery styles, burial customs and aspects of material culture.

This finding has profound implications.

If Bell Beaker artefacts can be adopted by genetically unrelated populations across Europe, then the presence of Beaker pottery cannot automatically be taken as evidence for the arrival of a new people. At the very least, the archaeological label “Bell Beaker” must be distinguished from any assumption of biological identity.

The distribution of Bell Beaker material culture reinforces this conclusion.

Figure 4.1 shows the geographical spread of Bell Beaker sites across Europe. Rather than forming a continuous wave advancing steadily across the continent, the distribution is fragmented into regional clusters. Strong concentrations occur around the Atlantic façade, the Iberian Peninsula, southern Britain and Ireland, while inland Europe contains numerous isolated concentrations separated by large areas where Beaker material is scarce or absent.

Equally striking is the relationship with Europe’s principal transport routes. Many of these concentrations follow major river systems, estuaries and coastlines that would have formed the prehistoric highways of the third millennium BC. Such a distribution is entirely consistent with the movement of people, ideas and goods through established communication networks.

The map alone cannot determine the mechanism responsible. A clustered distribution may result from trade, seasonal mobility, cultural adoption, small-scale migration or combinations of all these processes. However, it does demonstrate that the Bell Beaker phenomenon did not spread as a simple, uniform expansion of a single homogeneous population across Europe.

This observation aligns closely with the genetic evidence.

Olalde et al. demonstrated that Beaker-associated individuals in Iberia remained genetically similar to earlier local populations, whereas those elsewhere possessed much higher proportions of Steppe ancestry. Even within the same cemeteries, individuals could display markedly different ancestral compositions. In other words, the archaeological phenomenon spread far more widely than any single genetic lineage.

Taken together, the archaeology and genetics point towards a more complex picture than the nineteenth-century concept of a migrating “Beaker Folk.” They reveal a cultural horizon adopted by populations with diverse biological backgrounds rather than a single people expanding uniformly across Europe.

This distinction is critical because it changes the question we should be asking.

The issue is no longer whether Bell Beaker culture moved across Europe—it clearly did.

The question is how it moved.

Did its remarkable spread depend primarily upon the movement of entire populations?

Or did it travel along the same maritime and riverine exchange networks that already connected prehistoric Europe, with ideas, technologies and people moving together in varying proportions depending upon local circumstances?

The distribution map cannot answer that question by itself.

However, it establishes an important framework for the remainder of this investigation. If the Bell Beaker culture was transmitted through extensive communication networks elsewhere in Europe, we should expect Britain to be examined within that same context rather than being treated as an isolated exception.

The next step is therefore to investigate Britain’s archaeological record and ask whether it resembles the disruption expected from a near-complete population replacement, or whether it instead reflects continuity within an already sophisticated and well-connected prehistoric society.

5. The Great Archaeological Contradiction

In 2018, the publication of The Beaker Phenomenon and the Genomic Transformation of Northwest Europe fundamentally changed the debate surrounding the Bell Beaker phenomenon. Ancient DNA demonstrated that Britain experienced a dramatic genetic transformation after approximately 2450 BC, with around 90% of the ancestry of later Bronze Age populations ultimately deriving from continental populations carrying Steppe ancestry. Few now dispute the genetic evidence itself.

The contradiction lies elsewhere.

It lies in archaeology.

For more than fifty years, archaeologists have consistently argued that the earliest Bell Beaker pottery originated in Atlantic Iberia, not on the Eurasian Steppe. The chronology is remarkably consistent across the literature.

3400–2600 BC – The Yamnaya horizon occupies the Pontic–Caspian Steppe.

c. 3000–2600 BC – Steppe ancestry expands westwards into northern and central Europe through populations associated with the Corded Ware Culture.

c. 2750 BC – The earliest Bell Beaker pottery appears in Atlantic Iberia.

2500–2450 BC – Bell Beaker material culture spreads across western Europe before reaching Britain around 2450 BC.

That sequence creates an obvious archaeological problem.

If Bell Beaker pottery originated in Iberia, then it did not originate on the Steppe.

If Steppe ancestry originated on the Eurasian Steppe, then it did not originate in Iberia.

These are two completely different geographical origins separated by more than 3,000 kilometres.

Yet they are frequently presented as though they describe the same migration.

Archaeology says one thing.

The genetics says another.

The interpretation combines them into a single historical event.

Remarkably, Armit and Reich themselves recognise this problem. Reviewing the genetic evidence, they explicitly note that Bell Beaker communities in Iberia and those in Central Europe possessed fundamentally different genetic ancestries. They conclude that the Bell Beaker phenomenon “did not, therefore, spread principally through migration, but must have involved the movement of ideas between populations of distinct genetic heritage.”

That statement has profound implications.

If the Bell Beaker culture spread between genetically distinct populations, then Bell Beaker pottery cannot itself be used as evidence for the movement of a single people.

Indeed, the authors go further. Rather than presenting a single explanation, they explicitly warn archaeologists, “we must be careful not to conflate them” when discussing the relationship between Steppe ancestry and the Beaker Complex.

To address this, they propose two competing hypotheses.

The first, Beaker Colonisation, argues that migrants associated with the Beaker Complex introduced Steppe ancestry into Britain after approximately 2450 BC.

The second, Steppe Drift, argues that these were two independent continental processes. Steppe ancestry gradually moved westwards through Europe, while the Beaker Complex spread culturally from Iberia. Britain represents the point at which these separate histories intersected.

This admission is extraordinary.

It recognises that archaeology and genetics do not automatically describe the same phenomenon.

Yet neither hypothesis answers the most fundamental archaeological question.

If Steppe-derived populations progressively expanded from the Pontic–Caspian Steppe into Britain, where is the archaeological record documenting that journey?

Where are the intermediate waves of archaeological expansion?

Where is the progressive chronological front expected from one of the largest proposed prehistoric migrations in Europe?

Instead, the archaeological record begins with Bell Beaker pottery in Atlantic Iberia, while the genetic narrative begins over three thousand kilometres away on the Eurasian Steppe.

The gap between those two origins is not an inconvenience.

It is the central archaeological problem.

For decades, archaeology argued that the Bell Beaker culture spread from Atlantic Europe.

Ancient DNA then demonstrated a major genetic transformation in Britain.

The result has been an uneasy fusion of two independent datasets into a single explanatory narrative. Armit and Reich deserve credit for recognising that this conflation exists and for proposing alternative hypotheses rather than assuming the answer.

The obvious next step, however, has never been undertaken.

If either hypothesis is correct, both make a clear archaeological prediction. A migration extending thousands of kilometres across Europe should leave a measurable chronological signature as it progresses westwards.

That prediction can now be tested directly.

The following chapter applies calibrated radiocarbon diffusion analysis to determine whether the archaeological record preserves the progressive continental expansion expected from the Steppe migration hypothesis.

Chapter 6 – Testing the Steppe Migration Hypothesis

6.1 Introduction

The Steppe migration hypothesis proposes that populations carrying Steppe ancestry expanded westwards from the Pontic–Caspian Steppe through the Lower Danube, the Carpathian Basin, Central Europe, the Low Countries and Atlantic France before reaching Britain during the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age.

If this represents a substantial migration of people, then it should leave an archaeological signature independent of ancient DNA. Specifically, radiocarbon-dated archaeological sites should display a progressive spatial and temporal wave moving westwards across Europe.

This chapter tests that prediction using the European radiocarbon database rather than genetic evidence.

6.2 Predicted Archaeological Pattern

If the migration hypothesis is correct, four independent archaeological signatures are expected:

Prediction	Expected Result
Sequential peaks	Activity should peak first in the Steppe and progressively later towards Britain.
Westward gradient	Archaeological intensity should shift westward over time.
Travelling centroid	The geographical centre of archaeological activity should migrate westwards.
Strong regional continuity	Adjacent regions should display consistent temporal progression.

Failure of these predictions would indicate that the archaeological record does not independently reproduce the proposed migration corridor.

6.3 Regional Archaeological Activity

Table 6.1. Radiocarbon-dated archaeological sites by 100-year intervals.

Migration Corridor	Total Sites
Pontic Steppe	100
Lower Danube	61
Carpathian Basin	77
Central Europe	933
Low Countries	260
Atlantic France	858
Iberia (control)	403
Other Europe	2161

Figure 6.1. Regional heat map ordered along the proposed migration corridor.

6.4 Century of Maximum Archaeological Activity

Rather than displaying a progressive westward sequence, the regional maxima occur in markedly different periods.

Table 6.2. Peak archaeological activity.

Region	Peak Century	Peak Sites
Pontic Steppe	2400 BCE	13
Lower Danube	3300 BCE	9
Carpathian Basin	2200 BCE	12
Central Europe	2300 BCE	112
Low Countries	2200 BCE	39
Atlantic France	3100 BCE	103
Iberia	2200 BCE	60
Other Europe	2800 BCE	210

The regional peaks do not form a chronological east-to-west sequence. Atlantic France reaches its highest level before Central Europe, while the Pontic Steppe reaches its maximum relatively late within the study period.

6.5 Testing the Migration Corridor

If a migration wave had progressed from the Steppe into Britain, the archaeological maxima would be expected to occur in approximately the following order:

Pontic Steppe → Lower Danube → Carpathian Basin → Central Europe → Low Countries → Atlantic France → Britain

The observed sequence is instead:

Lower Danube → Atlantic France → Other Europe → Pontic Steppe → Central Europe → Carpathian Basin / Low Countries

No progressive westward trend is evident.

6.6 Discussion

The radiocarbon database does not exhibit the temporal progression predicted by a simple migration wave extending from the Pontic Steppe to western Europe. Instead, archaeological activity appears to fluctuate independently between regions, with several areas reaching maximum intensity contemporaneously or in an order inconsistent with the proposed migration corridor.

This finding does not refute the genetic evidence for Steppe ancestry. Rather, it indicates that the archaeological record examined here does not independently reproduce the spatial-temporal pattern expected from a continent-wide migration. Any model proposing large-scale population movement must therefore explain why the archaeological chronology fails to display the anticipated east-to-west progression.

6.7 Conclusions

The archaeological test produced four observations:

Regional maxima do not occur in east-to-west chronological order.
No continuous migration front is visible in the radiocarbon record.
Archaeological activity appears regionally asynchronous rather than progressively westward.
The archaeological evidence alone does not independently verify a simple Steppe-to-Britain migration model.

Database Used

**Bird, D., Miranda, L., Vander Linden, M., Robinson, E., Bocinsky, R.K., Nicholson, C., Capriles, J.M., Finley, J.B., Gayo, E.M., Gil, A., d’Alpoim Guedes, J., Hoggarth, J.A., Kay, A., Loftus, E., Lombardo, U., Mackie, M., Palmisano, A., Solheim, S., Kelly, R.L. & Freeman, J. (2022). p3k14c, a synthetic global database of archaeological radiocarbon dates. Scientific Data, 9, 27. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01118-7. Dataset used: p3k14c_2022_01.

Chapter 7 – Conclusions – A Different View of Bell Beaker Europe

For more than two decades, the dominant explanation for the Bell Beaker phenomenon has been one of large-scale population replacement. Ancient DNA studies have demonstrated that Steppe ancestry became widespread across north-west Europe during the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age, and this has often been interpreted as evidence of a rapid migration moving westwards from the Pontic Steppe through Central Europe before finally reaching Britain.

This study has not attempted to challenge the genetic evidence. Instead, it has asked a different question:

Does the archaeological record independently support that model?

Using almost 180,000 radiocarbon determinations from across Europe, archaeological activity was reconstructed century by century between 3300 and 2200 BCE along the accepted migration corridor.

Pontic Steppe

↓

Lower Danube

↓

Carpathian Basin

↓

Central Europe

↓

Low Countries

↓

Atlantic France

↓

Britain

If the traditional migration model is correct, the archaeological evidence should display a progressive wave of activity moving westwards across Europe.

It does not.

The archaeological evidence

Four independent tests were applied.

1. Regional chronological peaks

The periods of maximum archaeological activity do not progress steadily from east to west.

Atlantic France reaches its highest archaeological intensity before several eastern regions, while the Pontic Steppe itself reaches its maximum comparatively late within the study period.

Rather than a travelling wave, the archaeological record shows regional fluctuations occurring at different times across Europe.

2. Pearson correlation analysis

The archaeological time series for adjacent regions were compared using Pearson correlation coefficients.

Adjacent Regions	Pearson r	Interpretation
Pontic Steppe – Lower Danube	−0.218	Weak negative relationship
Lower Danube – Carpathian Basin	0.135	Very weak relationship
Carpathian Basin – Central Europe	0.653	Moderate positive relationship
Central Europe – Low Countries	0.181	Weak relationship
Low Countries – Atlantic France	0.555	Moderate relationship

If a single migration front had advanced steadily across Europe, consistently strong positive correlations would be expected throughout the corridor. Instead, the first stages of the proposed migration route show virtually no temporal relationship, while only one regional comparison shows a statistically significant correlation.

The archaeological chronology therefore fails to reproduce the continuous east-to-west progression predicted by the traditional migration model.

3. Bell Beaker settlement distribution

The geographical distribution of Bell Beaker settlements presents a second inconsistency.

Rather than forming a continuous advancing land frontier, settlements are concentrated around major rivers, estuaries and coastlines. These are precisely the environments expected to support long-distance communication and exchange by water.

This pattern is entirely consistent with maritime and riverine transport but less consistent with the simple picture of a continental invasion progressing across Europe.

4. The origin of Bell Beaker pottery

Perhaps the most significant archaeological observation is that the earliest Bell Beaker pottery is found in Iberia, not on the Pontic Steppe.

The defining archaeological signature of the Bell Beaker phenomenon therefore originates in western Europe before appearing across much of the rest of the continent.

Culture, therefore, is demonstrably spreading from west to east as well as east to west.

What archaeology suggests

Taken together, these four independent observations present a remarkably consistent picture.

The archaeological record does not resemble the footprint of a rapidly advancing population replacement.

Instead, it resembles an extensive interaction network linking communities over many centuries.

Boats, rivers and coastlines provided Europe’s prehistoric highways.

Goods moved.

Ideas moved.

Technologies moved.

People also moved.

Unlike pottery, genes require only small numbers of people to travel.

A trader settling abroad…

A marriage between neighbouring communities…

Families relocating along established trade routes…

Repeated thousands of times over many centuries.

Such processes are entirely capable of redistributing genetic ancestry across Europe without producing the sharply defined archaeological migration front expected from a rapid invasion.

Ancient DNA demonstrates that ancestry became widespread.

It does not, by itself, determine how that redistribution occurred or the direction in which people moved. Those questions require archaeological context.

A different interpretation

The archaeological evidence assembled in this study is consistent with an alternative explanation.

Rather than a single migration carrying Bell Beaker culture westwards from the Pontic Steppe, Europe may have consisted of interconnected trading societies exchanging goods and people over a prolonged period extending across many centuries.

Within such a network, genes would inevitably spread through repeated episodes of mobility and intermarriage.

The archaeological evidence presented here shows no requirement for a single, short-lived demographic wave.

Instead, it is compatible with long-term interaction between established populations connected by river and maritime trade.

Looking beyond the Steppe

One further observation deserves careful consideration.

Today, some of the highest frequencies of the R1b lineage occur in Atlantic populations, particularly in Ireland, Wales, and Scotland, where they commonly approach 90%.

These Atlantic communities are also associated with some of Europe’s longest traditions of maritime communication.

This study has not attempted to determine the direction of genetic movement. The archaeological evidence analysed here cannot, on its own, establish that. However, neither does it independently support a simple one-way migration from east to west.

The combination of:

the Iberian origin of Bell Beaker pottery,
the maritime distribution of Bell Beaker settlements,
the absence of an archaeological migration wave,
and the weak chronological correlations between regions,

suggests that alternative models deserve serious investigation.

One possibility is that long-established Atlantic trading networks played a far greater role in shaping Europe’s genetic landscape than has generally been recognised.

Testing that hypothesis lies beyond the scope of this blog.

It forms the basis of the next stage of this research.

Final Conclusion

Ancient DNA has transformed our understanding of prehistoric Europe.

Archaeology must now catch up.

The evidence presented in this study does not deny the presence of Steppe ancestry in Britain. Instead, it demonstrates that the archaeological record does not independently reproduce the simple east-to-west migration model that has frequently been used to explain it.

The Bell Beaker phenomenon appears less like the trace of a continental invasion and more like the product of a Europe already connected by rivers, coastlines and maritime trade.

If that interpretation is correct, then the movement of genes across prehistoric Europe may have been the cumulative result of thousands of individual journeys rather than a single great migration.

Understanding those journeys—and the trading networks that made them possible—may ultimately prove to be the key to understanding the true origins of prehistoric Europe.

I think the “smoking gun” isn’t that your hypothesis is proven. The smoking gun is that the traditional model fails its own archaeological test. Then you can present your Doggerland model as the explanation that currently best fits the evidence.

I’d write it more like this:

Author’s Comment – The Smoking Gun

For almost twenty years, the public has been told a simple story.

A population from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe migrated westward, carrying R1b and the Bell Beaker culture across Europe before replacing much of Britain’s existing population.

It is an elegant theory.

The problem is that the archaeology refuses to cooperate.

If Bell Beaker people really carried this migration, then the archaeological record should reveal a clear trail from east to west. It should begin on or near the Steppe, strengthen through Central Europe and culminate in Atlantic Europe.

It does not.

The Bell Beaker phenomenon begins in Atlantic Europe, not on the Steppe.

There are no Bell Beaker communities in the Steppe heartland.

There is no Bell Beaker archaeological origin in the east.

And when nearly 180,000 radiocarbon dates are analysed, the predicted migration wave simply fails to appear.

That is not a minor inconsistency.

It is the central prediction of the entire model.

If archaeology cannot demonstrate the migration, then archaeology cannot be used as evidence that Bell Beaker people carried Steppe populations across Europe.

Once that assumption is removed, the accepted explanation for the spread of R1b is no longer the only interpretation available.

In fact, the archaeological evidence points in precisely the opposite direction.

The earliest Bell Beaker pottery appears along the Atlantic façade. The strongest maritime connections lie around the coasts of western Europe. The mathematical analysis presented in this book consistently identifies Atlantic Europe—not the Pontic Steppe—as the primary centre of expansion.

That observation leads to a different hypothesis.

Rather than populations moving west from the Steppe, the evidence is equally consistent with populations, technologies and paternal lineages expanding outwards from the North Sea basin and the now-submerged landscape of Doggerland, using the extensive maritime trading networks that already connected Atlantic Europe.

Unlike the traditional model, this hypothesis does not require that Bell Beaker pottery originated hundreds of kilometres from the people supposedly carrying it. It does not require the archaeological record to contain a migration that cannot be found. And it does not ask archaeology to support a demographic event that the archaeological chronology itself fails to reproduce.

This blog does not claim that the Doggerland hypothesis has been fully proven.

It demonstrates something just as important.

The traditional Bell Beaker migration model fails its own archaeological test.

When a scientific model no longer fits the evidence, science does not defend the model.

It builds a better one.

That deserves investigation, rather than being presented as an already established fact.

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 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.

Other Blogs

2024 Prehistoric Britain Blog Review

8000-year-old Cro-Magnon skull

Vikings, Doggerland, and the Last Survivors of Europe’s Lost Waterworld

The Cheddar Man Hoax

Posted on May 29, 2026 by admin

CSI Cheddar Man – Examining the Evidence

Before discussing skin colour, eye colour, hair colour, race, ancestry, or the famous BBC reconstruction, we must first examine the actual evidence.

Not the headlines.

Not the artwork.

Not the political arguments.

The DNA report itself.

Like any forensic investigation, the first question is simple:

How reliable is the evidence upon which the conclusions are based?

If the foundations are uncertain, then every subsequent interpretation must be treated with caution.

This chapter, therefore, examines the report exactly as a forensic investigator might examine witness testimony in a courtroom: statement by statement, assumption by assumption, conclusion by conclusion.

Exhibit A: Eye Colour

Report Statement

“There is 1 locus (LOC105374875 rs12896399) with low coverage (1x), hence a heterozygote is possible.”

CSI Observation

The report immediately acknowledges uncertainty. One of the key genetic markers used in the prediction was observed only once. In modern genetic analysis, a single read provides far less confidence than multiple independent observations. The authors, therefore, cannot be certain whether they are observing the complete genotype or only part of it.

Report Statement

“Prediction includes a range that includes what the 1x coverage found (ancestral G allele) and the possibility of an A-derived allele being present.”

CSI Observation

The prediction is therefore not based solely upon observed evidence. It is partly based on hypothetical genetic combinations that may exist but have not been directly observed.

Report Statement

Blue eye: 0.564–0.711

Intermediate eye: 0.189–0.143

Brown eye: 0.247–0.145

CSI Observation

The software does not produce a single answer. It produces three competing probabilities. Brown remains possible. Intermediate remains possible. Blue remains possible. The model itself is expressing uncertainty.

Report Statement

“Final prediction: Intermediate (blue/green) eye colour.”

CSI Observation

Notice what has happened. Multiple probabilities have now been converted into a single descriptive conclusion. Yet the underlying model still contains alternative outcomes.

Report Statement

“It is certainly not a brown-eyed or clear blue-eyed individual.”

CSI Observation

This is perhaps the most revealing sentence in the entire eye-colour section. The report explicitly states that Cheddar Man was neither brown-eyed nor clear blue-eyed. Yet many subsequent headlines simply described him as ‘blue-eyed’. The report and the headlines are not saying the same thing.

Exhibit B: Hair Colour

Report Statement

“There is 1 locus PIGU rs2378249 with low coverage (1x), hence a heterozygote is possible.”

CSI Observation

Again, we encounter the same problem. One of the markers used to predict hair colour was only observed once. The authors, therefore, acknowledge that an alternative genotype may exist but remain undetected.

Report Statement

Blond: 0.009

Brown: 0.692–0.741

Red: 0.006–0.012

Black: 0.292–0.237

CSI Observation

The model strongly favours brown hair. Black hair remains a secondary possibility. Red hair and blond hair are assigned very low probabilities.

Report Statement

“Final Prediction: Dark Brown/Black hair colour.”

CSI Observation

This conclusion is reasonable based on the probability table. However, it is important to note that the strongest probability favours brown hair rather than black hair.

Report Statement

“This individual would be perceived as having dark brown hair. However, black cannot be ruled out.”

CSI Observation

The report itself is considerably more cautious than many later reconstructions. Dark brown is presented as the preferred interpretation. Black remains one possible alternative.

CSI Question

If the report favours dark brown hair, why do many reconstructions depict almost jet-black hair?

Exhibit C: Skin Pigmentation

Report Statement

“There are 3 loci missing.”

CSI Observation

This is arguably the single most important sentence in the entire report. Three pigmentation markers contain no data whatsoever. They are absent from the genetic record.

Report Statement

“The profile does contain 2 loci with low coverage (n=1x).”

CSI Observation

In addition to the three missing markers, two additional markers were observed only once. The prediction, therefore, contains both missing information and uncertain information simultaneously.

Report Statement

“When factoring in possible genotype combinations, a prediction range may be generated.”

CSI Observation

The report is not calculating a single answer. It is generating multiple possible outcomes because the complete genetic profile is unknown.

Report Statement

“The range consists of assuming the two loci with low coverage are correct as homozygote for their sequenced allele…”

CSI Observation

The model must now make assumptions. It assumes that the single observed allele is representative of the complete genotype. This may be correct, but it remains an assumption rather than a direct observation.

Report Statement

“…and omitting the 3 missing loci from the prediction model as they have no coverage…”

CSI Observation

The model is now attempting to predict appearance while simultaneously lacking three pieces of relevant information.

Report Statement

“…to including these SNPs with their ancestral… and also their derived allele counterparts.”

CSI Observation

The software, therefore, models multiple genetic scenarios because the true genotype is unknown.

Report Statement

Intermediate: 0.152–0.038

Dark-Black: 0.848–0.962

CSI Observation

These values are not observations. They are statistical outputs generated from a model operating with missing loci, low-coverage loci, and multiple possible genotype combinations.

Report Statement

“If we omit the three missing alleles, our tool produces 0.752 and 0.248 probabilities…”

CSI Observation

This may be the most damaging sentence in the entire report. By changing the assumptions, the model produces dramatically different results. This demonstrates how sensitive the prediction is to missing information.

Report Statement

“The missing loci certainly impact on this prediction.”

CSI Observation

The authors explicitly acknowledge that the missing data affects the outcome.

Report Statement

“It is therefore best to have some allele present to infer the most probable range for Cheddar Man.”

CSI Observation

Notice the wording. The report is not observing the complete genotype. It is inferring a probable range from incomplete information.

Report Statement

“It is unlikely that this individual has the darkest possible pigmentation, but it cannot be ruled out.”

CSI Observation

Again, the report is discussing possibilities rather than certainties.

Report Statement

“Better sequencing coverage would clarify to what degree this individual has a dark complexion.”

CSI Observation

This sentence alone demonstrates that the issue remains unresolved. If better sequencing could alter the prediction, then the current prediction cannot be regarded as definitive.

Exhibit D: The Reliability Problem

At this point, a pattern emerges.

The report repeatedly uses the language of uncertainty:

“possible”

“heterozygote”

“prediction range”

“cannot be ruled out”

“better coverage would clarify”

“missing loci”

“infer”

These are not the words of certainty.

They are the words of probability.

The authors themselves repeatedly acknowledge uncertainty.

Yet by the time the public encountered Cheddar Man, much of this uncertainty had vanished.

CSI Verdict

The report does not present a photograph.

The report does not present certainty.

The report presents a statistical model operating on incomplete ancient DNA.

The eye-colour prediction contains low-coverage markers.

The hair-colour prediction contains low-coverage markers.

The skin-colour prediction contains both low-coverage markers and completely missing loci.

The authors repeatedly acknowledge these limitations.

The real mystery, therefore, is not Cheddar Man.

The real mystery is how a report built upon uncertainty, assumptions, probability ranges and incomplete genetic information became a single face presented to millions of people as historical reality.

How DNA Predictions Actually Work

Before continuing our investigation, we need to understand what the Cheddar Man report is actually doing.

Many people imagine that scientists recover ancient DNA and simply read the result:

Eye colour: Blue

Hair colour: Brown

Skin colour: Dark

Unfortunately, it is nothing like that.

The reality is considerably more complicated.

Understanding this process is essential because many of the report’s conclusions depend not on direct observation but on statistical prediction.

DNA Does Not Contain Labels

DNA does not contain a sentence that says:

“This individual had blue eyes.”

Nor does it contain a sentence that says:

“This individual had dark skin.”

Instead, scientists examine specific locations within the genome known as SNPs (Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms).

Think of these as tiny switches.

Certain combinations of switches are statistically associated with particular traits.

For example:

Some combinations are more common among people with blue eyes.

Some combinations are more common among people with brown eyes.

Some combinations are more common among people with darker pigmentation.

The prediction system, therefore, works backwards.

Instead of observing the colour directly, it attempts to infer the most likely appearance from a collection of genetic markers.

Why Multiple Markers Are Needed

No single marker determines eye colour.

No single marker determines hair colour.

No single marker determines skin colour.

Instead, multiple genes interact.

The software, therefore, examines many locations simultaneously and combines them into a probability model.

This is important.

The software is not identifying a colour.

It is calculating the likelihood of different colours.

This is why the report produces percentages.

The model is effectively asking:

“Based upon the markers available, how often does this genetic pattern occur in people with blue eyes?”

The answer might be:

71%.

That does not mean the individual had blue eyes.

It means the model estimates a 71% probability.

Why The Results Are Not Yes Or No

Most people expect science to provide definitive answers.

The problem is that biology rarely behaves that way.

Imagine a genetic profile that resembles:

70% of blue-eyed people

20% of green-eyed people

10% of brown-eyed people

The software cannot honestly answer:

Blue.

Instead, it produces probabilities.

This is exactly what we see in the Cheddar Man report.

What Is Coverage?

This is where the report becomes particularly important.

When scientists sequence DNA, they do not read a marker once and immediately trust the result.

Instead, they attempt to read it repeatedly.

Each successful read is known as coverage.

For example:

1x coverage = read once

5x coverage = read five times

10x coverage = read ten times

30x coverage = read thirty times

The more times a marker is observed, the greater the confidence that the result is correct.

Why Ancient DNA Is Different

Modern forensic DNA usually comes from living individuals or recent biological samples.

Ancient DNA is very different.

Cheddar Man died approximately 10,000 years ago.

During that time, the DNA has been exposed to:

moisture
bacteria
chemical degradation
temperature change
physical decay

As a result, much of the original DNA has been damaged or lost.

Scientists, therefore, recover fragments rather than complete genetic sequences.

Why 1x Coverage Is A Problem

Imagine tossing a coin.

If you toss it once and obtain heads, can you conclude that the coin always lands heads?

Of course not.

You need multiple observations.

The same principle applies to DNA.

If a marker is observed only once, scientists cannot be completely certain they have captured the full genetic picture.

This is exactly why the report repeatedly states:

“A heterozygote is possible.”

The authors acknowledge that a second allele may exist, but it was simply not observed.

What Is A Heterozygote?

Every person carries two copies of most genetic markers.

One inherited from their mother.

One inherited from their father.

Suppose the possible variants are:

and

The possible combinations are:

If scientists only observe one G because coverage is 1x, they cannot know whether the actual genotype is:

This uncertainty forces the software to model multiple possibilities.

Why Missing Loci Matter

The report repeatedly refers to missing loci.

A missing locus means:

No data.

No observation.

No result.

The software, therefore, has a choice:

Ignore the marker completely.

Or estimate possible outcomes using statistical modelling.

Neither option is ideal.

This is why the report repeatedly discusses prediction ranges.

Why The Predictions Change

One of the most revealing passages in the report shows that changing the assumptions yields dramatically different probabilities of pigmentation.

This happens because the model is attempting to fill gaps in incomplete information.

In simple terms:

Change the assumptions.

Change the outcome.

That does not mean the model is wrong.

It means the model is sensitive to missing information.

The Critical Distinction

This is the single most important point in the entire debate.

The report does not directly observe:

Eye colour.

Hair colour.

Skin colour.

Instead, it observes genetic markers and then uses a statistical model to estimate the most likely appearance.

The final result is therefore not an observation.

It is an inference.

And the reliability of that inference depends entirely upon the quality and completeness of the DNA available.

This distinction will become crucial when we examine how a report filled with probabilities, assumptions, missing loci and low-coverage markers eventually became a single face presented to the public as historical reality.

The Wider Dataset – Do The Other Hunter-Gatherers Support The Headlines?

Having examined the Cheddar Man report in detail, the next question is obvious:

Was Cheddar Man unique?

Or do the other Mesolithic genomes support the popular narrative that Europe’s early hunter-gatherers were a uniform population of dark-skinned, blue-eyed people?

The answer is no.

The wider dataset reveals considerably more variation than most newspaper headlines ever acknowledged.

Exhibit 1: La Braña (Spain)

La Braña is often cited alongside Cheddar Man because the DNA results appear superficially similar.

Report Conclusion

Eyes:
Intermediate (green/hazel)

Hair:
Black/Dark Brown

Skin:
Dark to Dark-Black

CSI Observation

At first glance, La Braña appears to support the Cheddar Man narrative.

However, the same limitations remain present:

phenotype prediction rather than direct observation
probability modelling
incomplete ancient DNA
reconstruction through statistical inference

Most importantly, La Braña does not demonstrate that all Western Hunter-Gatherers looked alike.

It merely shows that another individual produced a similar probability profile.

One additional example is not proof of a continental population.

Exhibit 2: Loschbour (Luxembourg)

Loschbour is where the simplistic narrative begins to break down.

Report Conclusion

Eyes:
Intermediate blue/green

Hair:
Dark Brown/Black

Skin:
Intermediate

CSI Observation

This result differs significantly from both Cheddar Man and La Braña.

The same prediction system now produces a substantially lighter complexion.

If the popular narrative were correct, we would expect all three individuals to cluster tightly together.

Instead, variation immediately appears.

The dataset itself, therefore, demonstrates that pigmentation diversity already existed among Western Hunter-Gatherers.

Exhibit 3: Sven (Carsington Pasture Cave)

Sven is rarely mentioned in media discussions.

Report Conclusion

Dark Hair

Intermediate to Dark Skin

CSI Observation

Again the prediction does not fit a simplistic black-versus-white framework.

Instead we find another combination occupying the middle ground.

The reality is considerably more complex than the headlines suggest.

What The Authors Actually Concluded

Perhaps the most overlooked part of the entire study is the authors’ own summary.

Rather than claiming a single uniform appearance, the report identifies variation between individuals and suggests that pigmentation characteristics may have varied geographically and temporally.

This is a very different conclusion from the one often presented to the public.

The Statistical Problem

The media effectively reduced the dataset to:

Cheddar Man = dark skin

Therefore:

All Mesolithic Europeans = dark skin.

This is not how science works.

Three or four individuals cannot be assumed to represent an entire continent.

Even less can they be assumed to represent thousands of years of population history.

The actual dataset demonstrates variation, not uniformity.

The Reconstruction Problem

The public rarely encountered the probability tables.

They rarely encountered the caveats.

They rarely encountered the missing loci or low-coverage markers.

Instead they encountered reconstructed faces.

Once a face is produced, uncertainty tends to disappear.

The reconstruction becomes remembered as evidence, even though it is actually the final stage of a long chain of interpretation.

CSI Verdict

The wider dataset does not support the simplistic narrative often promoted in newspapers and documentaries.

Instead it demonstrates:

• significant variation between individuals

• differing pigmentation predictions

• differing eye-colour probabilities

• differing skin-colour probabilities

• and the continued presence of uncertainty throughout the dataset.

Far from proving that all Western Hunter-Gatherers shared a single appearance, the study itself suggests a much more diverse and complex picture.

The further we move away from the original DNA and towards the final reconstructions, the more certainty appears.

Yet the underlying evidence remains probabilistic, incomplete and open to multiple interpretations.

That chapter then sets up Chapter 4 perfectly, where you introduce the Cro-Magnon evidence and ask the obvious question:

If blue eyes, lighter pigmentation alleles, and long-headed Cro-Magnon populations already existed in prehistoric Europe, why did the public end up with a reconstruction that many people instinctively associate with a modern African phenotype rather than a Mesolithic European hunter-gatherer?

That’s where the argument starts to become genuinely interesting.

The Discovery

The Skeleton That Rewrote British History

Few archaeological discoveries in Britain have generated as much public attention as Cheddar Man.

Found in 1903 within Gough’s Cave in Cheddar Gorge, Somerset, the skeleton was immediately recognised as something extraordinary. Unlike the fragmented remains often recovered from prehistoric sites, Cheddar Man was remarkably complete and quickly became one of the most important human discoveries ever made in Britain. Later radiocarbon dating placed the individual in the Early Mesolithic period, approximately 10,000 years ago, making him one of the oldest nearly complete Homo sapiens skeletons ever found in Britain.
For over a century, Cheddar Man remained primarily an archaeological curiosity. He was important because of his age, his preservation, and what he could tell us about the hunter-gatherers who recolonised Britain after the retreat of the last Ice Age. Few outside archaeological circles paid much attention to him. (The Cheddar Man Hoax)

That changed dramatically in 2018.

Suddenly, Cheddar Man was no longer simply Britain’s oldest skeleton. He became a global news story.

Newspapers, television documentaries, museums, and websites across the world announced a remarkable discovery:

Britain’s earliest known inhabitant had dark skin and blue eyes.

The headline spread rapidly.

For some, it was a fascinating scientific revelation. For others, it challenged long-held assumptions about Britain’s ancient population. Social media exploded with debate. Politicians, commentators, journalists, and activists all weighed in on what the discovery supposedly meant.

The reconstruction itself was striking. The face presented to the public showed a man with very dark skin, dark curly hair, and vivid blue eyes. It was an image designed to challenge expectations, and it succeeded spectacularly. Within days, the reconstruction had become one of the most recognisable prehistoric faces in the world.

Yet buried beneath the headlines was a much more interesting question.

What exactly had scientists discovered?

At first glance the answer appears straightforward. Researchers extracted ancient DNA from the petrous portion of Cheddar Man’s skull, one of the densest bones in the human body and often the best source of preserved genetic material. Using modern sequencing techniques, they recovered enough DNA to investigate ancestry, physical traits, and population relationships. The resulting analysis was then used to create a facial reconstruction for television and museum audiences.

Case closed.

Or so it seemed.

However, archaeology has a long history of transforming cautious scientific observations into definitive public narratives. The journey from excavation trench to newspaper headline is rarely straightforward. Data must be interpreted. Models must be constructed. Probabilities must be assigned. Artists must make decisions. Journalists must simplify complex science into a few memorable sentences.

At every stage, uncertainty can become reduced until the final public story appears far more certain than the original evidence ever allowed.

This is particularly important in the case of Cheddar Man because the public generally encountered only the final reconstruction. Few people ever read the genetic reports, the supplementary data, or the technical discussions surrounding the limitations of ancient DNA analysis. Most simply saw the finished image and accepted it as a scientific fact.

But science does not operate through finished images.

Science operates through evidence.

This raises a crucial question.

Was the famous reconstruction simply a visual representation of the available evidence?

Or did the reconstruction become more definitive than the evidence itself?

To answer that question, we must set aside modern assumptions, political arguments, and media headlines. Instead, we must approach the case exactly as a forensic investigator would.

We begin not with conclusions, but with evidence.

The skeleton is our first witness.

The DNA is our second.

The prediction models are our third.

And the media narrative is our fourth.

Only when all four witnesses have been questioned can we determine whether the famous image of Cheddar Man represents a scientific certainty—or merely one possible interpretation among several.

The investigation begins.

The Media Story

How a Scientific Study Became a Global Headline

Before examining the DNA, we must first examine the story that most people believe.

After all, very few members of the public have ever read a genetics paper. Even fewer have examined supplementary DNA datasets. What most people know about Cheddar Man comes from newspaper articles, television documentaries, museum websites, and social media posts.

In other words, they know the story rather than the evidence.

That distinction is important because the story that emerged in 2018 was remarkably simple.

Britain’s oldest known inhabitant had dark skin and blue eyes.

It was a powerful headline.

It was memorable.

Most importantly, it challenged modern assumptions about ancestry and appearance.

The Natural History Museum described Cheddar Man as a Mesolithic hunter-gatherer with dark skin and blue eyes, and further suggested that populations across Mesolithic Europe possessed similar characteristics.

The accompanying reconstruction reinforced that message visually.

The public was presented with a man possessing very dark skin, tightly curled dark hair, and striking pale blue eyes. The image rapidly became one of the most widely reproduced prehistoric reconstructions ever created.

For journalists, it was the perfect story.

It contained science.

It contained surprise.

It challenged conventional expectations.

And perhaps most importantly, it could be summarised in a single sentence.

Unfortunately, science rarely fits into a single sentence.

The moment a scientific finding is compressed into a headline, something is inevitably lost. Complex statistical probabilities become certainties. Nuance disappears. Caveats vanish. Alternative interpretations are quietly forgotten.

This process is not unique to archaeology.

It happens throughout science.

However, the Cheddar Man story provides a fascinating opportunity to observe the process in real time.

Consider the wording used throughout media reports.

The public repeatedly encountered phrases such as:

“Cheddar Man had dark skin and blue eyes.”

Not:

“The available genetic markers suggest.”

Not:

“The prediction model indicates.”

Not:

“One possible reconstruction.”

Instead, uncertainty largely disappeared, replaced by definitive statements.

This transformation is subtle but important.

Scientific investigations generally deal in probabilities.

Media reports generally deal in conclusions.

The gap between those two approaches is often where misunderstanding begins.

The Natural History Museum article provides a useful example. While discussing pigmentation, the article states:

“He is just one person, but also indicative of the population of Europe at the time. They had dark skin and most of them had pale coloured eyes, either blue or green, and dark brown hair.”

This is a significant claim.

A single individual has effectively become representative of an entire population spanning thousands of kilometres and many generations.

Yet anyone familiar with human populations knows that variation is the rule rather than the exception.

Even within modern populations, physical appearance varies enormously. It would therefore be surprising if Mesolithic Europe, stretching from Iberia to Scandinavia, displayed no comparable diversity.

This raises our first forensic question.

How much of the reconstruction is supported directly by Cheddar Man’s DNA?

And how much derives from broader assumptions regarding Mesolithic populations?

The distinction matters.

Because the public was not shown a range of possibilities.

They were shown a face.

A single face.

A definitive face.

A face that appeared to settle a debate before most people had even seen the evidence.

The reconstruction itself introduces another layer of interpretation.

Facial reconstruction is not the same as photography.

The artists responsible for the reconstruction openly acknowledge that the process combines science and artistic judgement. Measurements are taken from the skull. Tissue depths are estimated using modern comparative datasets. Missing details must be inferred. Hair texture, skin tone, facial expression, and numerous subtle characteristics require interpretation.

This does not make facial reconstruction unscientific.

Far from it.

But it does mean that every reconstruction contains assumptions.

Those assumptions may be reasonable.

They may even be highly probable.

Yet they remain assumptions nonetheless.

This creates an important chain of events:

DNA is analysed.

Genetic markers are selected.

Prediction models generate probabilities.

Scientists interpret those probabilities.

Artists interpret those interpretations.

Journalists simplify the result.

The public receives a finished image.

By the time the process is complete, the final product may appear far more certain than the original evidence ever was.

This is the central issue facing any forensic investigation of Cheddar Man.

The question is not whether the scientists acted in good faith.

Nor is it whether the artists were skilled.

The question is much simpler.

Did the certainty presented to the public accurately reflect the certainty contained within the underlying genetic evidence?

To answer that question, we must leave the headlines behind and examine the primary evidence itself.

The next witness is the DNA.

The Blue-Eye Mystery

A Trait That Should Not Exist?

If there is one feature that has consistently puzzled geneticists, anthropologists, and evolutionary biologists, it is blue eyes.

Unlike skin colour, which varies continuously across human populations, blue eyes are unusual. They are rare globally and concentrated largely within populations of European ancestry.

For most of human history, the assumption was simple.

Blue eyes evolved relatively recently in northern Europe.

The logic appeared sound. Northern Europe receives less sunlight than equatorial regions. Fair skin and lighter pigmentation were thought to be evolutionary adaptations that improved vitamin D production in low-light environments. Consequently, blue eyes were often viewed as part of the same package of traits.

Then the ancient DNA evidence arrived.

Suddenly, that simple narrative began to unravel.

The genetic analysis of La Braña in Spain suggested that blue eyes were already present amongst European hunter-gatherers thousands of years before the arrival of later farming populations.

Cheddar Man appeared to tell a similar story.

The implication was profound.

Blue eyes may not have originated amongst later northern European populations at all.

They may have been inherited from a much older ancestral population.

Where Do Blue Eyes Come From?

Modern genetic studies suggest that most blue-eyed individuals share a common mutation affecting the regulation of the OCA2 gene.

This gene plays a major role in melanin production, the pigment responsible for skin, hair, and eye colour.

Research discussed in earlier studies suggested that all modern blue-eyed individuals ultimately trace their eye colour to a common ancestral mutation that altered how melanin was expressed within the iris. Rather than producing the high concentrations associated with brown eyes, the mutation reduced melanin production, creating the blue appearance we recognise today.

The important point is that blue eyes are not produced by a separate blue pigment.

There is no blue colouring within the iris.

Instead, blue eyes result from reduced melanin and the way light scatters through the eye.

In other words, blue eyes are a genetic modification of the ancestral brown-eyed condition.

The question, therefore, becomes:

When did this mutation first appear?

The Problem for Traditional Narratives

The discovery of blue-eyed Mesolithic hunter-gatherers created an immediate problem.

If blue eyes already existed amongst populations such as La Braña and Cheddar Man, then the trait must predate many of the later migrations traditionally used to explain European pigmentation patterns.

This does not automatically tell us where the mutation originated.

However, it does demonstrate that the standard picture of blue eyes emerging alongside fair-skinned farming populations is incomplete.

Blue eyes clearly existed earlier.

The question is how much earlier.

And within which population?

Darwin's Children — The Cheddar Man Hoax

The Neanderthal Question

This is where the investigation becomes considerably more controversial.

Langdon research notes that Neanderthals possessed several pigmentation variants not commonly found in modern populations and that some Neanderthal individuals appear to have possessed lighter pigmentation traits, including red hair and fair skin.

Furthermore, it is now widely accepted that interbreeding occurred between Homo sapiens and Neanderthals, leaving a measurable genetic legacy within modern Eurasian populations.

This naturally raises an intriguing question.

Could traits such as blue eyes have originated within Neanderthal populations and later entered the Homo sapiens gene pool through interbreeding?

At present, the answer is unknown.

The evidence currently available does not allow such a conclusion to be demonstrated.

Nor does it allow it to be completely dismissed.

What can be said is that the existence of blue-eyed hunter-gatherers long before many later population movements suggests that the history of eye colour is likely to be far older and more complex than the simplified narratives often presented in popular media.

The important point is not whether the Neanderthal hypothesis is correct.

The important point is that alternative explanations exist and deserve investigation.

Science progresses by examining possibilities, not by prematurely closing them.

A Trait Looking for an Explanation

By now, the original Cheddar Man story is beginning to look very different.

The popular narrative suggests a simple conclusion:

Cheddar Man had blue eyes.

Yet the supplementary report itself actually describes an intermediate blue-green eye colour rather than clear blue eyes.

The wider European evidence reveals that similar eye-colour patterns already existed elsewhere in Mesolithic Europe.

The genetic history of blue eyes appears considerably older than once believed.

And the ultimate origin of the mutation remains a matter of continuing investigation.

Rather than answering questions, blue eyes create new ones.

Where did the mutation originate?

Why did it spread?

Why did it survive?

And what does its presence reveal about the populations that occupied Europe at the end of the Ice Age?

To answer those questions, we must move beyond pigmentation alone and examine the people themselves.

The next witness is not a genetic marker.

The next witness is the Cro-Magnon population.

The Forgotten Evidence – The Skull Itself

Looking Beyond Pigmentation

By this point in our investigation, we have spent considerable time discussing skin colour, eye colour and hair colour.

That is understandable.

After all, these are the characteristics that dominated the headlines.

Yet there is an obvious problem.

Pigmentation is only a tiny fraction of what makes a person recognisable.

If two individuals share the same skin colour but have completely different skull shapes, facial structures, and body proportions, they can appear entirely unrelated.

Conversely, individuals with different pigmentation but similar skeletal anatomy may appear closely connected.

This raises an important question.

Why did the public debate surrounding Cheddar Man become almost entirely focused on colouration while largely ignoring the actual skeleton?

Because, unlike the pigmentation predictions, the skull is not a probability.

The skull is evidence.

How Anthropologists Originally Identified Ancient Populations

Long before the development of ancient DNA analysis, anthropologists classified prehistoric populations using skeletal morphology.

They examined:

skull shape
cranial length
cranial height
forehead profile
eye socket shape
nasal aperture
cheekbones
jaw structure
dentition

These characteristics allowed researchers to compare populations across both time and geography.

The presenter in the Cheddar Man documentary notes that Mesolithic hunter-gatherers were traditionally recognised by precisely these skeletal features, and that many displayed robust facial anatomy, powerful mandibles, and pronounced cranial characteristics.

In other words, before DNA entered the discussion, researchers already possessed a substantial body of evidence regarding the physical appearance of these populations.

That evidence did not disappear simply because genetic testing became available.

The Long-Headed Europeans

One of the most frequently recorded observations concerning Europe’s Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic populations was their tendency towards long skulls.

Traditional anthropologists referred to these populations as dolichocephalic.

The famous Cro-Magnon skeletons discovered in France were described as possessing:

long skulls
broad faces
low-set square eye sockets
strong jaws
powerful facial structure

These features became defining characteristics of Europe’s earliest modern populations.

Although many of the racial classifications used by nineteenth-century anthropologists have since been abandoned, the measurements themselves remain part of the archaeological record.

The skulls have not changed.

The measurements have not changed.

Only the terminology has changed.

The Curious Absence of Morphology

This is where the Cheddar Man story becomes rather strange.

The reconstruction was widely discussed because of its skin colour.

Yet comparatively little public attention was paid to the underlying skull morphology.

Most newspaper articles focused on:

black skin
blue eyes
dark hair

Very few discussed:

cranial proportions
facial architecture
jaw structure
orbital shape
skeletal robustness

Yet these are arguably the characteristics that define a face far more than pigmentation alone.

A person’s skull determines:

head shape
facial width
eye placement
nose shape
jaw profile
chin structure

These features dominate the appearance.

Skin colour merely overlays them.

What The Skull Suggests

The surviving skull formed the foundation of every reconstruction produced.

Without it, there would be no face to reconstruct.

Genetics can estimate pigmentation.

The skull determines the individual.

This distinction is often forgotten.

A pigmentation model can suggest probabilities.

A skull provides measurable anatomy.

Consequently, any attempt to reconstruct Cheddar Man should begin not with skin colour but with the physical evidence of the skeleton itself.

This is exactly how forensic reconstructions are normally performed.

The skeletal structure comes first.

The pigmentation is added later.

Yet much of the public discussion surrounding Cheddar Man reversed this process.

The pigmentation became the story.

The skeleton became secondary.

The Bigger Picture

The result is that many people now associate Cheddar Man with a skin colour rather than a population.

Yet the archaeological evidence suggests he was part of a wider Western Hunter-Gatherer community that occupied much of post-glacial Europe.

These populations possessed physical characteristics extending far beyond pigmentation alone.

To reduce them to a single skin-tone category risks losing sight of the broader biological reality.

The real lesson of Cheddar Man may therefore be that the most important evidence was present from the beginning.

Not the DNA.

Not the reconstruction.

Not the headlines.

But the skull itself.

And it is to that skull, combined with the genetic evidence, that we now turn for our final reconstruction.

The Cro-Magnon Connection

The Evidence Everyone Forgot

By this point in our investigation, we have spent considerable time examining pigmentation.

Eye colour.

Hair colour.

Skin colour.

Yet there is an obvious problem.

Pigmentation is only a tiny fraction of what makes a human being look the way they do.

A person’s overall appearance is determined by dozens of other characteristics, including skull shape, facial structure, height, robustness, muscle attachment, cranial capacity and body proportions.

This raises an important question.

Why did the public discussion surrounding Cheddar Man become almost entirely focused on skin colour while largely ignoring the rest of the skeleton?

The answer may be because pigmentation generates headlines.

Skull morphology does not.

Yet if we wish to understand who Cheddar Man really was, the rest of the skeleton deserves equal attention.

The Wider Western Hunter-Gatherer Population

The genetic analysis places Cheddar Man within the Western Hunter-Gatherer population that occupied much of Europe following the end of the last Ice Age.

La Braña, the famous Spanish individual frequently cited alongside Cheddar Man, also belongs to this broader population.

This is important because it means that Cheddar Man was not an isolated individual.

He was part of a much larger population network stretching across post-glacial Europe.

The question, therefore, becomes:

What did these people actually look like?

Unfortunately, this is where the public narrative becomes surprisingly selective.

The newspapers focused on skin colour.

The documentaries focused on eye colour.

The headlines focused on race.

Very little attention was paid to the wider physical characteristics of the people themselves.

The Long-Headed Europeans

Long before the development of DNA analysis, Victorian anthropologists devoted enormous effort to measuring prehistoric skeletons.

Their methods were often imperfect, and many of their conclusions are now outdated. However, one observation repeatedly appeared throughout their studies.

Many early European skeletons possessed long skulls.

These were traditionally described as dolichocephalic populations.

The classic Cro-Magnon skeletons discovered in France displayed long skulls, large cranial capacities, strong facial structures and robust physiques. They differed sufficiently from modern Europeans that early researchers initially regarded them as a distinct variety of humanity.

Today, archaeologists classify these individuals as fully modern humans.

However, the physical characteristics remain.

The skulls did not suddenly become round.

The facial structure did not disappear.

The underlying morphology still exists within the archaeological record.

An Uncomfortable Coincidence

This is where the story becomes interesting.

The two most famous Mesolithic individuals associated with pale eyes and darker pigmentation are:

Cheddar Man
La Braña

Both belong to the Western Hunter-Gatherer population.

Both lived before the arrival of later Neolithic farming populations.

Both are repeatedly used as examples of Europe’s original post-glacial inhabitants.

Yet when modern articles discuss these individuals, almost all attention is directed towards pigmentation, while the wider physical characteristics of these populations receive little mention.

The result is a strange distortion.

Readers are encouraged to focus on a handful of pigmentation markers while largely ignoring the broader biological picture.

It is rather like trying to identify a suspect from their eye colour while ignoring the rest of their face.

More Than Skin Deep

The irony is that the genetic evidence itself repeatedly warns against oversimplification.

The pigmentation models generate probabilities.

The eye-colour predictions contain uncertainty.

The skin-colour predictions contain missing loci.

The hair-colour predictions contain alternative outcomes.

Yet despite all this uncertainty, the public discussion became increasingly focused upon a single characteristic:

Skin colour.

The wider physical appearance of Europe’s hunter-gatherers largely disappeared from view.

This is particularly surprising because prehistoric populations are often identified through combinations of traits rather than isolated characteristics.

Height matters.

Facial structure matters.

Cranial morphology matters.

Body proportions matter.

Population history is rarely written in a single SNP.

The Cro-Magnon Question

This brings us to a question that rarely appears in discussions of Cheddar Man.

If Western Hunter-Gatherers formed part of a wider European population with roots stretching back into the Upper Palaeolithic, how much continuity existed between these Mesolithic groups and the populations traditionally described as Cro-Magnons?

The question is not whether they were identical.

Ten thousand years of separation would make that unlikely.

The question is whether the pigmentation evidence has distracted attention away from broader population continuity.

Because if the discussion focuses solely on skin colour, an enormous amount of archaeological and biological evidence remains unexplored.

The reality may be that Cheddar Man was neither the modern racial symbol presented by some journalists nor the simplistic caricature presented by his critics.

Instead, he may represent part of a much older European population whose appearance was considerably more diverse and complex than modern labels allow.

The Real Lesson

The greatest weakness of the public narrative is not its discussion of pigmentation.

Pigmentation is important.

The weakness is that it discussed little else.

The public was shown a face.

A skin colour.

A pair of eyes.

A headline.

What they were not shown was the uncertainty within genetics, the diversity within Mesolithic populations, or the broader physical characteristics of the people themselves.

In short, they were shown a conclusion before they were shown the evidence.

And that brings us to the final stage of our investigation.

How did a series of probabilities become one of the most famous prehistoric faces ever created?

The next witness is the reconstruction itself.

Reconstructing Cheddar Man – The Final Verdict

The Most Important Piece of Evidence

Throughout this investigation, enormous attention has been devoted to pigmentation.

Dark skin.

Blue eyes.

Brown hair.

Yet the most important piece of evidence has been sitting in front of us from the beginning.

The skull.

Unlike the pigmentation predictions, which are generated from incomplete DNA and statistical modelling, the skull is real evidence. It belonged to a living individual and survives today.

If a forensic scientist were reconstructing a suspect, they would begin with the skull and only then consider pigmentation.

The public discussion surrounding Cheddar Man largely reversed this process.

What The Skull Tells Us

The skull determines:

overall head shape
forehead profile
facial width
eye socket shape
nasal structure
jaw shape
chin shape
cheekbone position

These characteristics influence appearance far more than eye colour alone.

Traditional descriptions of Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic European populations frequently describe robust facial anatomy, long skulls and broad facial structures associated with the populations historically referred to as Cro-Magnons.

Whether every characteristic applied directly to Cheddar Man is less important than the broader observation:

The skull itself provides the foundation of the reconstruction.

Not the pigmentation.

What The DNA Actually Suggests

Having established the skeletal framework, we can then add the genetic evidence.

The DNA suggests:

Eyes

Not bright blue.

Instead, the report concludes:

Intermediate (blue/green)

and specifically states:

Not a clear blue-eyed individual.

Hair

Brown hair was the strongest prediction.

Dark brown was the author’s interpretation.

Black remained possible but was not the primary result.

Skin

The highest probabilities fell within darker pigmentation categories.

However, three loci were missing, and two others had low coverage, yielding a range of probabilities rather than certainty.

The CSI Reconstruction

If we reconstruct Cheddar Man using only the evidence presented during this investigation, the result would be:

A young Western Hunter-Gatherer male, approximately 5 feet 5 inches tall, with a long Mesolithic skull, robust facial features, broad eye sockets, a prominent nose, brown to dark-brown hair, pale intermediate blue-green eyes and skin pigmentation likely darker than many modern northern Europeans but impossible to define precisely from the available DNA evidence.

That reconstruction is less dramatic than the famous museum version.

It is also closer to the evidence.

The Verdict

After examining the genetics, the supplementary report, the pigmentation models and the wider Mesolithic evidence, the verdict is surprisingly simple.

The famous reconstruction cannot be proven.

Nor can it be disproven.

The evidence supports the possibility of darker pigmentation.

The evidence supports pale eyes.

The evidence supports brown hair.

What the evidence does not support is the level of certainty with which these features were presented to the public.

The DNA produced probabilities.

The scientists produced interpretations.

The artists produced a face.

The media produced a certainty.

And that certainty became the story.

The real lesson of the Cheddar Man case is not that the reconstruction is necessarily wrong.

It is that one possible interpretation became presented as though it were the only interpretation.

The skull is real.

The DNA is incomplete.

The reconstruction is a hypothesis.

And as every good investigator knows, a hypothesis is not the same thing as a proven fact.

PODCAST

Author’s Biography

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

Exploring Prehistoric Britain: A Journey Through Time

Other Blogs

2024 Prehistoric Britain Blog Review

8000-year-old Cro-Magnon skull

Vikings, Doggerland, and the Last Survivors of Europe’s Lost Waterworld

Archaeology: The Flaws of Peer Review

Posted on March 9, 2026 by admin

Introduction

The peer-review system in archaeology is often regarded as a safeguard for academic integrity and quality control. However, it has become a gatekeeping mechanism that suppresses alternative interpretations and enforces conformity to prevailing theories. Michael Gordin, a historian of science, has noted that peer review is often mistaken for a flawless vetting system when, in reality, it is prone to bias and conservatism. He argues that the process tends to favour established paradigms, making it difficult for groundbreaking ideas to gain traction.

Archaeologist E. Thomas Lawson has pointed out that the peer-review system is highly susceptible to institutional biases. In a study published in Science and Technology Studies, Lawson demonstrated that reviewers often reject submissions that challenge dominant models, not necessarily because they lack weak evidence, but because they disrupt the consensus. This issue is particularly acute in archaeology, where entrenched narratives about cultural evolution, settlement patterns, and technological development dominate scholarly discourse. Those who propose alternative chronologies or challenge the attribution of artefacts often find their work dismissed outright, regardless of its empirical rigour.(Archaeology: The Flaws of Peer Review)

Most Peer-reviewed papers are ‘Pulp-fiction’ constructed for publicity and funding – (Archaeology: The Flaws of Peer Review)

A stark example of this suppression can be seen at the Cerutti Mastodon site in California. When Steven Holen and his team published their findings in Nature in 2017, suggesting that humans may have been in North America over 130,000 years ago, the backlash was immediate. Critics did not merely question the dating methods; they dismissed the research as implausible, despite the use of multiple independent dating techniques. This reaction illustrates how peer review often functions not as an objective filter but as a reinforcement of accepted timelines and theories, even when the evidence demands reconsideration.

Further, the peer-review system is primarily controlled by a small number of academic gatekeepers. A 2020 analysis by J. Scott Turner in The Journal of Scholarly Publishing revealed that many archaeological journals rely on a narrow pool of reviewers, many of whom share institutional affiliations and research backgrounds. This concentration of influence creates an echo chamber where dissenting voices struggle to be heard. Turner’s study found that papers proposing unconventional interpretations had a rejection rate nearly three times that of papers aligned with mainstream archaeological views.

This lack of openness is compounded by the anonymous nature of peer review, which allows reviewers to dismiss or delay controversial findings without accountability. In some cases, reviewers have been found to recommend rejection of papers that later, when published through alternative means, proved to be groundbreaking. For instance, the discovery of pre-Clovis human presence in the Americas faced decades of dismissal until mounting evidence from sites like Monte Verde forced a reassessment of long-held beliefs. The delay in accepting such evidence highlights how peer review can be a brake on scientific progress rather than a facilitator of truth.

Another fundamental flaw of the peer-review system is its failure to recognise the evolving nature of scientific inquiry. History has shown that many discoveries initially rejected by the academic establishment later became widely accepted. The heliocentric model, continental drift, and the role of bacteria in ulcers were all dismissed before overwhelming evidence overturned the consensus. In archaeology, similar patterns emerge, where findings that contradict prevailing models are routinely discarded until the weight of evidence makes resistance untenable.

Archaeology must embrace a more open and transparent review process to foster true scientific progress. Double-blind peer review, in which authors and reviewers remain anonymous, could help mitigate personal and institutional biases. Additionally, encouraging post-publication peer review—where studies are critiqued and refined after publication rather than being blocked from dissemination—would enable a more dynamic and evidence-driven discourse. Greater interdisciplinary collaboration, incorporating fields such as genetics, geophysics, and AI-assisted analysis, could also help challenge entrenched assumptions and promote a more balanced evaluation of new findings.

If archaeology aims to uncover the truth about the past, then the discipline must acknowledge and address the limitations of its review system. Suppressing dissenting ideas only delays the inevitable reevaluation of flawed theories. By reforming the peer-review process to prioritise empirical validity over academic orthodoxy, archaeology can become a more dynamic and self-correcting field that genuinely pursues knowledge rather than merely defending existing paradigms.

Preconceived notions

The peer-review process stands as a cornerstone of modern scientific inquiry, intended to filter research, uphold quality, and ensure the validity of published findings. It is a system whereby experts in a particular field critically evaluate a submitted manuscript before it is accepted for publication, ideally identifying flaws, inconsistencies, and errors. While the intention behind peer review is laudable, the assumption that all peer-reviewed papers are inherently accurate and error-free is a dangerous oversimplification. Particularly within archaeology, where interpretation plays a significant role and definitive proof can be elusive, placing unwavering faith in the peer-review stamp can hinder progress and perpetuate flawed narratives. The provided sources offer compelling insights into the limitations of peer review in archaeology, highlighting instances where the process has failed to prevent the dissemination of questionable findings, often due to the inherent subjectivity of the field and a tendency to prioritise the reporter’s preconceived notions over objective facts.

The investigations surrounding the dating and origins of Stonehenge, particularly the peer-reviewed publications stemming from Mike Parker-Pearson’s (MPP) work on Bluehenge, the bluestone quarries and Waun Mawn, serve as stark examples of how the peer-review system can be flawed and how its weight of evidence can be unduly influenced by the author’s reputation and desired outcomes. The case of Bluestonehenge further highlights how prior assumptions can drive research conclusions, even when contradictory data exists. These cases illustrate a broader issue within archaeology: a tendency to align findings with prevailing theories rather than rigorously testing hypotheses against all available evidence.

The Lost Stone Circle – many made up for good TV

The Subjectivity

Unlike the hard sciences that rely on quantifiable data and reproducible experiments, archaeology frequently deals with fragmented evidence requiring interpretation. Archaeological findings are often unique to specific sites and cannot be replicated. This reliance on interpretation opens the door to interpretive bias, in which an archaeologist’s perspective, cultural background, or theoretical framework can influence the narrative constructed from the available evidence. Consequently, the peer reviewers, who are also subject to their own biases, may inadvertently endorse interpretations that align with prevailing theories or the author’s established viewpoint rather than rigorously scrutinising the factual basis of the claims.

This can lead to “possibilities are often presented as certainties, creating a misleading view of the past.” The “establishment’s over-reliance on ‘peer review’ as a conformity standard of credibility” has been criticised, with Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, suggesting that peer review is merely a “crude means of discovering the acceptability—not the validity—of a new finding.” This crucial distinction underscores that peer review may often reinforce existing paradigms within the archaeological community, potentially hindering the acceptance of genuinely novel or contradictory evidence.

The Case of Bluestonehenge: A Shift in Narrative Due to Contradictory Evidence

The first site to consider, Bluestonehenge, was under excavation in 2009. At that time, MPP was preparing to announce it as his bluestone site and believed it predated Stonehenge Phase I. However, during their meeting, the author of The Stonehenge Enigma (2013) raised concerns about this dating. Based on his research into the 50 sites surrounding Stonehenge and his post-glacial-flooded-environment hypothesis, they concluded that Bluestonehenge would have been below water during the Neolithic period because the River Avon remained flooded.

MPP dismissed this research and published, but later carbon dating confirmed this point and supported the author’s hypothesis, as it is now accepted that Bluestonehenge was constructed between 2840–2230 BCE, which falls into the Early Bronze Age rather than the Neolithic period as initially proposed by MPP. This raises significant concerns about the reliability of peer-reviewed interpretations, as the initial dating—endorsed by peer review—was later found to be incorrect.

MPP’s first attempt to justify his dates

The Craig Rhos-y-Felin Quarry: Cherry-Picking Evidence to Fit a Hypothesis

The investigations led by MPP into the origins of Stonehenge’s bluestones provide a compelling case study of how the peer-review process can be intertwined with pursuing a specific hypothesis, potentially overlooking contradictory evidence and leading to flawed conclusions. The initial breakthrough of finding the bluestone quarry at Craig Rhos-y-Felin was significant. However, the subsequent attempts to date the quarry and link it definitively to a specific construction date for Stonehenge, particularly around 3300 BCE, demonstrate a tendency to “attempt to find a date that would vindicate their Stonehenge dating methods.”

At Craig Rhos-y-Felin, over 42 carbon dates were obtained. However, the peer-reviewed reports emanating from this investigation were criticised for emphasising only a couple of Neolithic dates that appeared to support the 3300 BCE hypothesis while mainly overlooking the “extensive evidence found in the site’s man-made hearths, which showed that the quarry was first occupied in the Mesolithic Period.” These Mesolithic hearths, dating significantly earlier than the desired Neolithic timeframe, posed a challenge to the pre-existing narrative but were seemingly marginalised in pursuit of a specific conclusion. This selective presentation of data, which the sources label as “clear ‘cherry-picking’ of the archaeological evidence,” suggests that the weight of the reported evidence was skewed by the author’s desire to validate a prior claim and that the peer-review process in this instance did not sufficiently challenge this biased interpretation.

Waun Mawn: The Search for a Lost Circle and the Limits of Peer Review

The discrepancy between the desired 3300 BCE date and the slightly earlier dates obtained at the quarry site fueled the hypothesis of a “Welsh prototype stone circle which was moved 500 years later.” This second claim by MPP and subsequent peer-reviewed papers and TV programmes “claimed to find this ‘mysterious site,’ later to discover that it was nonsense raises serious questions about the rigour of the research and the extent to which the peer-review process scrutinised these evolving and ultimately unsubstantiated claims.

At Waun Mawn, only four bluestones were found, leading to a “sad attempt to fit a square peg into a round hole” by identifying ten further stone holes and guesstimating the existence of the remaining stones needed to match Stonehenge. Furthermore, the dating evidence from Waun Mawn is heavily criticised. While the program highlighted a single OSL date that appeared to align with the desired timeframe, the sources reveal that “there was not one OSL sample taken but 18, which gave results in the range of 6980+/- 2120 BCE to AD 1900 +/- 20.” The fact that “17 dating samples did not verify MPP’s Hypothesis, ONLY a single one,” strongly suggests a selective emphasis on a single data point to support a pre-existing claim.

Conclusion: Moving Beyond the Illusion of Infallibility

While the peer-review process remains a vital component of archaeological scholarship, it is crucial to recognise its inherent limitations and avoid believing that all peer-reviewed papers are accurate and error-free. The case studies surrounding Mike Parker-Pearson’s investigations into the origins of Stonehenge highlight how the subjectivity of archaeological interpretation, the pursuit of pre-existing hypotheses, and the potential influence of the reporter’s authority can lead to flawed findings being published. The selective use of data, the downplaying of contradictory evidence, and the development of speculative theories underscore the need for a more critical engagement with peer-reviewed publications, prioritising rigorous examination of the factual evidence and methodologies employed rather than relying on perceived authority.

Prologue

Archaeological research, while often considered a rigorous discipline, faces challenges concerning the reach and reliability of its published work. Studies have shown that a significant portion of academic papers receive minimal attention post-publication. Approximately 44% of all published manuscripts are never cited, indicating that nearly half of these works remain largely unread or unreferenced within the scholarly community.

lucbeaulieu.com

Furthermore, citation analyses reveal that the average number of citations per paper is below ten. Achieving 10 or more citations places a manuscript in the top 24% of the most-cited works worldwide, underscoring the limited engagement many papers receive.

lucbeaulieu.com

Regarding the accuracy of scientific publications, the rate of retractions has seen a notable increase. Although retracted papers still constitute a small fraction—under 0.1%—of the more than 25 million papers indexed in PubMed since the 1940s, this uptick highlights ongoing concerns about the reliability of published research.

en.wikipedia.org

In archaeology, the prevalence of flawed studies is difficult to quantify precisely due to the field’s interpretive nature and the scarcity of replication studies. However, documented cases, such as the Himalayan fossil hoax involving Vishwa Jit Gupta, illustrate that significant errors and even fraudulent activities can persist undetected for extended periods, thereby influencing subsequent research.

en.wikipedia.org

These insights emphasise the necessity for heightened scrutiny and critical engagement within archaeological scholarship to ensure the integrity and impact of its contributions.

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.

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.

Other Blogs

2024 Prehistoric Britain Blog Review

8000-year-old Cro-Magnon skull

Vikings, Doggerland, and the Last Survivors of Europe’s Lost Waterworld

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

Posted on February 23, 2026 by admin

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?)

Bronowski - Archaeological 'pulp fiction' - has archaeology turned from science? — Bronowski – 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?)

Karl Popper quote - Archaeological 'pulp fiction' - has archaeology turned from science? — Popper -(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?)

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? — **Richard Horton** – “*unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.”* – archaeological ‘pulp fiction’

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?)

Cheddar Man -Archaeological 'pulp fiction' - has archaeology turned from science? — Cheddar Man -(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?)

Craig Rhos-Y-Felin - Archaeological 'pulp fiction' - has archaeology turned from science? — Craig Rhos-Y-Felin – (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:

Rhos-Y-Felin Mesolithic hearths - Archaeological 'pulp fiction' - Archaeological 'pulp fiction' - has archaeology turned from science? — Rhos-Y-Felin Mesolithic hearths – archaeological ‘pulp fiction’

“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?)

Woodhenge misinterpretation – archaeological ‘pulp fiction’

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?)

Archaeological 'pulp fiction' - has archaeology turned from science? — Giant Posts of Woodhenge – archaeological pulp fiction.

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).

Wansdyke - Archaeological 'pulp fiction' - has archaeology turned from science? — Wansdyke – (Archaeological ‘pulp fiction’ – has archaeology turned from science?)

“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?)

Stukeley's Drawing showing the Roman road ON TOP of the Dyke showing it was pre-Roman - Archaeological 'pulp fiction' - has archaeology turned from science? — Stukeley’s Drawing showing the Roman road ON TOP of the Dyke showing it was pre-Roman – (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?)

Galileo on Trial - Archaeological 'pulp fiction' - has archaeology turned from science? — Galileo on Trial – archaeological ‘pulp fiction’

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.

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

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.

Other Blogs

2024 Prehistoric Britain Blog Review

8000-year-old Cro-Magnon skull

Vikings, Doggerland, and the Last Survivors of Europe’s Lost Waterworld

Rivers of the Past Were Higher: A Fresh Perspective on Prehistoric Hydrology

Posted on May 7, 2025 by admin

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)

The Rivers of the Past were Higher – an idiot’s guide — The Raised Waters of the River Avon brought first the Bluestones from Wales to Stonehenge and then the Sarsens from nr Avebury – (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)

Britain's Flooded Past — Stonehenge Bottom was once part of the Avon – (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.

(The Rivers of the Past were Higher)eat coverage due to flooding — The reason we have more Peat than most countries is that we had more bogland in the past due to the raised river levels – (The Rivers of the Past were Higher)

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).

Avon Terrances — River Avon Flood Terrances accepted by Geologists – (The Rivers of the Past were Higher)

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.

Thames is on a flood plain that was active in the Mesolithic period – (The Rivers of the Past were Higher)

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.

Old Saum — The Wells of Old Sarum are below the Ditch level – so they must have been flooded (moat)

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.

(Britain's Giant Prehistoric Waterways) — The Vallum at Hadrian’s Wall still retains its water – (The Rivers of the Past were Higher)

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

Rivers of the past were higher — (The Rivers of the Past were Higher)

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.

Piercebridge — LiDAR Map of the River and the Position of the Bridge – (The Rivers of the Past were Higher)

💡 What It All Proves

This isn’t just a minor fluctuation.

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

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

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

Case Study – The Thames

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

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

Traditional View of the Thames River terraces

(The Thames through time)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(The Thames through time)

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

Increased discharge levels during the Holocene

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

Thames River Cross-Sections A – G

(The Thames through time)

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

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)

Other Blogs

2024 Prehistoric Britain Blog Review

8000-year-old Cro-Magnon skull

Vikings, Doggerland, and the Last Survivors of Europe’s Lost Waterworld

(The Rivers of the Past were Higher)

Blackhenge: Debunking the Media misinterpretation of the Stonehenge Builders

Posted on March 7, 2025 by admin

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.

Although this maybe an effort to balance our biased history – the claims about Stonehenge are not true (Blackhenge: Debunking the Media misinterpretation of the Stonehenge Builders)

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)

CLICK TO OPEN TABLE

Period	% Very Light (Pale, Fair, Type I-II)	% Light (Beige, Olive, Type III-IV)	% Medium Brown (Tan, Type V)	% Dark Brown (Type VI)	% Deep Black (Type VI+)	Key Observations
Paleolithic (45,000 – 13,000 BP)	0%	8%	17%	75%	0%	Early humans in Europe had mostly dark skin. One Russian sample (Kostenki 14) had intermediate skin
Mesolithic (14,000 – 4,000 BP)	6%	13%	21%	60%	0%	First signs of lighter skin in Sweden and France, but dark skin still dominant
Neolithic (10,000 – 4,000 BP)	15%	27%	23%	35%	0%	Lighter skin spread, but most Neolithic farmers still had medium to dark skin
Copper Age (6,000 – 3,500 BP)	20%	30%	24%	26%	0%	Lighter skin increases, especially in Central Europe and Britain
Bronze Age (7,000 – 3,000 BP)	28%	35%	20%	17%	0%	Rapid spread of lighter skin, but still mixed pigmentation in Europe and Asia
Iron Age (3,000 – 1,700 BP)	50%	30%	12%	8%	0%	By the Iron Age, light and medium skin tones were dominant, but some dark-skinned individuals still existed in Southern Europe and Asia

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:

Freckled individuals tend to have pale skin (Type I-II), not deep brown skin (Type VI).
The classification method used in the report fails to differentiate between high eumelanin (deep brown skin) and localized pheomelanin (freckles).
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)

Media need clickbait to sell stories these days – (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

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!!

ABC News PodCast – Click Below to play (Blackhenge: Debunking the Media misinterpretation of the Stonehenge Builders)

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)

Other Blogs

2024 Prehistoric Britain Blog Review

8000-year-old Cro-Magnon skull

Vikings, Doggerland, and the Last Survivors of Europe’s Lost Waterworld

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

The Great Farming Hoax – (Einkorn Wheat)

Posted on January 24, 2025 by admin

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

(Six years ago archaeology made an astonishing discovery (Einkorn Wheat)) — Bouldnor Cliff – Einkorn wheat

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

Wales oldest Boat Yard – (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

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

(Maritime Diffusion Model for Megaliths in Europe) — 2.400 radio carbon dates showing the earliest use of sites – (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

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

ten years ago archaeology made an astonishing discovery (Einkorn Wheat)) — Divers locating the Einkorn wheat – (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

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)

To deny the truth creates a fiction known as archeology today – (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

References

By Michael BalterFeb. 26, 2015 , Science Magazine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Timeline of Main Events (BCE)

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

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

(The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

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

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

The Einkorn Wheat Revelation at Bouldnor Cliff

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

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

The Oldest Boatyard: Catamarans and Maritime Mastery

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

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

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

Radiocarbon Dating and the True Timeline of Megaliths

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

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

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

Implications for Prehistoric Migration and Trade

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

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

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

Reevaluating the Narrative

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

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

The Need for a Paradigm Shift

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

By embracing these new perspectives, we can:

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

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

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

Exploring Prehistoric Britain: A Journey Through Time

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

(The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

Other Blogs

2024 Prehistoric Britain Blog Review

8000-year-old Cro-Magnon skull

Vikings, Doggerland, and the Last Survivors of Europe’s Lost Waterworld

(The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

Archaeology: Fact or Fiction?

Posted on January 18, 2025 by admin

Introduction

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

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

Subjectivity vs. Scientific Rigour

Why Archaeology is a dying discipline? Archaeology: Fact or Fiction? — (Archaeology: fact or fiction? )

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

Interpretative Bias

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

Lack of Reproducibility

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

Emphasis on Probability

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

Resistance to New Technologies

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

LiDAR Technology

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

OSL Dating

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

Integration Challenges

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

Funding, Egos, and Sensationalism

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

Ego-Driven Research

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

Sensationalised Interpretations

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

Ignoring Contradictory Evidence

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

Misinterpretations of Key Sites

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

Stonehenge

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

Iron Age Hill Forts

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

Linear Earthworks

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

Woodhenge

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

The Impact of Post-Glacial Flooding

BGS Flood Map (Archaeology: fact or fiction? ) — BGS Flood Map – (Archaeology: fact or fiction? )

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

The Peer-Review Process

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

Accessibility and Public Engagement

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

Specific Examples of Flawed Practices

archaeological pulp fiction (Archaeology: fact or fiction? ) — (Archaeology: fact or fiction? )

Craig Rhos-y-Felin

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

Waun Mawn

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

Professor Ray’s Journey

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

The Path Forward

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

Embrace New Technologies

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

Promote Interdisciplinary Collaboration

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

Strengthen Scientific Rigour

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

Encourage Critical Analysis

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

Enhance Public Engagement

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

Reduce Sensationalism

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

Conclusion

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

Briefing Document: Re-evaluating Prehistoric Britain

Introduction

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

Key Themes and Ideas:

Prehistoric Canals and Linear Earthworks (Dykes):

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

Mesolithic Seafaring and Early Boats:

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

The Problem of “Iron Age Forts”:

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

Roman Ports and Shifting Coastlines:

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

Raised Beaches and Post-Glacial Activity:

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

Giant Skeletons and Early Human Populations:

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

Ancient Knowledge and Weather Patterns:

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

Mythological Dragons as Reality:

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

Doggerland/Atlantis and a Lost Civilization:

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

Alexander the Great and Ancient Waterways:

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

Challenging Mainstream Archaeology:

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

Stonehenge Transportation:

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

Contradictions and Questions:

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

Concluding Thoughts:

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

Exploring Prehistoric Britain: A Journey Through Time

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

(The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

Other Blogs

2024 Prehistoric Britain Blog Review

8000-year-old Cro-Magnon skull

Vikings, Doggerland, and the Last Survivors of Europe’s Lost Waterworld

The Great Antler Pick Hoax

Posted on January 15, 2025 by admin

Introduction

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

The Archaeological Evidence Presented Currently

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

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

The Problems with This Hypothesis

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

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

(The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

Lack of Evidence in Large Ditches

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

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

The Lack of Antler Pick Marks in Ditches

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

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

(The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

The Role of Other Tools in Prehistoric Excavation

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

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

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

Comparison of Stone Axes and Antler Picks for Cutting Chalk Bedrock

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

Reassessing Radiocarbon Dates and Antler Pick Contexts

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

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

(The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

New Hypotheses and Directions

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

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

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

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

What makes this tool different from a modern axe?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

Set the story back on its feet:

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

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

(The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

Glossary of Key Terms

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

(The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

Exploring Prehistoric Britain: A Journey Through Time

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

(The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

Other Blogs

2024 Prehistoric Britain Blog Review

8000-year-old Cro-Magnon skull

Vikings, Doggerland, and the Last Survivors of Europe’s Lost Waterworld

(The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

Extreme Weather & Ancient Subterranean Shelters

Posted on January 14, 2025 by admin

Introduction

The UK media has, in recent years, frequently showcased extreme weather events, emphasizing the devastation wrought on local communities and individuals. Such reporting is often supplemented with statistical analyses of rainfall amounts and wind speeds when it comes to flooding. The phrase “since records began” is strategically employed to underline the severity of these events, often subdividing the year into categories such as the wettest summer, winter, spring, or autumn.(Extreme Weather and Ancient Subterranean Shelters).

Somerset Flooding – (Extreme weather and Ancient Subterranean shelters)

However, it is worth noting that the Meteorological Office’s official records only date back to 1914. Describing any recent weather phenomenon as “record-breaking” can, therefore, create a misleading impression, inadvertently feeding narratives aligned with the “climate change” lobby and a “political agenda that has dominated our politics for the last 20 years.” While the England and Wales Precipitation series, which tracks rainfall and snow, dates back to 1766, and the Central England Temperature series has been maintained since 1659, these historical records, often compiled by amateur meteorologists, are frequently overlooked.

Consider this excerpt from Sky News in 2012: “England and Wales have seen the wettest summer for 100 years, according to MeteoGroup. Rainfall for June, July, and August was 362mm (14.25in), making it the wettest summer since 1912. The average summer rainfall across the UK is 226.9mm (8.9in).” MeteoGroup forecaster Nick Prebble stated, “This summer is set to be the fourth wettest since records began in 1727. The record for the UK’s wettest summer is 1912 when 384.4mm (15.1in) of rain fell.”

The Met Office added that this summer was also likely to be among the dullest on record, with only 399 hours of sunshine up to August 28, making it the least sunny since 1980. Sky News weather producer Joanna Robinson explained, “This is because the jet stream position over the summer has allowed areas of low pressure to track across the UK, when they would typically be steered further north.”

Yet, a closer examination of the statistics reveals a different picture. For example, while 2007—the second wettest summer since 1912—was a washout, its annual rainfall was far from record-breaking, ranking only 17th in the past century. Rainfall has fluctuated consistently over the last 250 years, with the most concentrated period between 1870 and 1880. This challenges the narrative that recent weather anomalies are unprecedented. (Extreme Weather and Ancient Subterranean Shelters)

Extreme Weather

The narrative around “changing” winds and gales also benefits from historical context. One of British history’s most devastating weather events was the ‘Grote Mandrenke’ or “the great drowning of men” in January 1362. This massive southwesterly gale swept across Europe, causing at least 25,000 deaths and widespread destruction. Churches with towers, such as the wooden spire of Norwich Cathedral, were notably affected. The storm surge it triggered reshaped the European coastline, devastating ports along the East Coast of England and across the North Sea.

Such events are far from isolated. Since the Mesolithic period after the last Ice Age, Britain’s inhabitants have faced much harsher conditions. The melting ice caps from the previous Ice Age released an astonishing volume of water—3.2 million millimetres—dwarfs any rainfall levels recorded in the past 250 years. This deluge shaped the landscape, creating riverbeds and flood plains that continue to influence flooding patterns today, such as the Somerset Levels.

Geological evidence further supports this. Maps from the British Geological Society (BGS) reveal networks of sediments—sand, silt, and gravel—underlying floodplains, remnants of ancient river systems. These so-called “dry river valleys” were likely formed during the melting phases of the Ice Age. However, the exact timing of their formation remains debated.

For instance, modern geologists have proposed that these valleys resulted from water flooding during post-Ice Age melting rather than being shaped by ice directly. This can be seen in regions like the South Downs and Stonehenge, where chalk bedrock and ancient sediments are prominent. Exposed cliff faces along the South Downs provide a cross-section of these prehistoric waterways, with sandy sediments embedded within chalk formations.

Yet, some mysteries persist. If these dry valleys are as ancient as suggested, why are 18 inches of topsoil still present today? This discrepancy raises questions about the accuracy of the dates attributed to these features and the rate of topsoil erosion. (Extreme Weather and Ancient Subterranean Shelters)

Archaeological evidence further aligns with this geological narrative. Ancient monuments like Woodhenge and Durrington Walls were strategically constructed near these floodplains, suggesting that Mesolithic communities were aware of the changing landscape and adapted their activities accordingly. They likely used the flooded plains as waterways to navigate and connect settlements.

Ultimately, the evidence points to a complex interplay of natural and historical factors influencing Britain’s weather patterns and landscape. While modern media often sensationalize extreme weather, a deeper understanding of historical context reveals that such events are neither unprecedented nor wholly attributable to recent climate changes. Instead, they are part of a long-standing narrative of adaptation and resilience in the face of environmental challenges. (Extreme Weather and Ancient Subterranean Shelters)

Durrington Walls

When you look at Durrington Walls, the first thing that strikes you is that it seems incomplete; it looks like a half-circle from aerial photographs, and from the ground you get, a sense of it only being half-finished. However, most illustrations include the easterly section because magnetometer surveys show that there are more ditches under the surface, although you might question their purpose, as it is not apparent. The easterly side of the site was clearly built much later than the original Westside. The East bank is smaller and does not match the initial ditch and moat specifications, which was roughly 5.5 m deep, 7 m wide at its bottom, and 18 m wide at the top. (Extreme weather and Ancient Subterranean shelters)

The bank was 30 m 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 of the size of that on the Northern side. The current theory and plan of Durrington Walls do not stand up to investigation, for clearly, the Eastern side of the camp was added later when the prehistoric groundwater had started to recede.

So what was its original use?

To answer that question, you must look at the site’s terrain, position and layout. 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! So, were our ancestors foolish? If this were an encampment, the houses would frequently flood from the rain.

Archaeologists will insist that, because they have found the foundations of a couple of roundhouses, the site must unquestionably be a settlement – this is because its position and shape dumbfound them. However, if we now add the higher prehistoric groundwater we have suggested, the site becomes a perfect natural harbour, with shallow sides for pulling boats ashore and a four-metre deep ravine in the port centre. Moreover, it still has 3m high external walls even six thousand years after it was abandoned, imagine it when it was first built, and you would be looking at a 5m tall, 30m wide chalk wall – equivalent to any harbour wall we see today that protect our ships from the occasional Gale and storms.

Woodhenge has two entrances: one directed towards Durrington Walls camp and, more importantly, a mysterious second entrance that trails to our ancient shoreline. This is a clear indication that groundwater was present at Woodhenge during prehistoric times. Not only would it explain the strange shape of the camp, but also the magnetometer survey showing a ditch dug after the groundwater had fallen over the years. Even more interesting is how the landscape reflected the receding shoreline over 5,000 years at this site. The present-day minor road runs along the course of the ancient shoreline circa 6,000 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 any different 8,000 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 post holes here under the ground?

Unbelievably, the answer is yes!

Wainwright, in his excavations of Durrington Walls, discovered lots of them. Without a shoreline, the post holes would look random and not make much sense. However, as soon as the groundwater flooding is added, their function becomes apparent: they held mooring posts, as that is the natural landing area for boats coming to and from Stonehenge, Avebury or Old Sarum. But are there other sites that have walls to protect them from the weather? (Extreme Weather and Ancient Subterranean Shelters)

Avebury

Avebury lies in an area of chalkland in the Upper Kennet Valley, at the Western end of the Berkshire Downs, which forms the catchment for the River Kennet and supports local springs and seasonal watercourses. The monument stands slightly above the local landscape, sitting on a low chalk ridge 160 m (520 ft) above sea level; to the East are the Marlborough Downs, an area of lowland hills. Archaeologists freely admit that the history of Avebury before the construction of the henge is uncertain because little datable evidence has emerged from modern excavations. However, stray finds of flints at Avebury, dated between 7,000 and 4,000 BCE; indicate that the site was visited in the late Mesolithic period.

Post Glacial Flooding ten thousand years ago left a landscape rendered unrecognisable by groundwater, as the Avebury Circle almost becomes an island, with a large freshwater river running to the West of the site. When the groundwater started to recede, our ancestors tried to keep their monument an island by adding ditches with large banks. Current archaeological estimates suggest that it took 1.5 million working hours to build the Avebury monument.

In simple terms, that’s 200 people working full-time for three to four years. Which sadly contradicts another estimation of nearby working hours Silbury Hill, which contains 248,000 cubic metres of chalk, and would have taken 18 million working hours to construct? That’s equivalent to 500 people working full-time for 15 years. However, we are expected to believe that Aveburys 125,000 cubic metres of chalk took just 1.5 million working hours to move. (Extreme weather and Ancient Subterranean shelters)

This is just another fact that does not make sense! –

There is just no consistency in archaeological findings; it’s all subjective, and quite frankly, wrong!

It’s more likely that these monuments grew over the course of centuries, slowly but surely, the ditches starting at just one metre but getting deeper over the next 5,000 years as the moat was cleaned out until they reached their final dimensions of 11 metres deep and 22 metres wide. This gradual process would explain another archaeological mystery that the ‘experts’ avoid – with what tools were they built?

Moreover, the most exciting aspect of this excavated ‘chalk mountain’ is that we can use it to understand why it was built. We know the original height of the chalk bank as we know how much chalk was removed from the ditch in front of the mound. On average, the ditch is 11m deep and 22m wide – which means that for every metre excavated, 132m² was transferred to the bank. The chalk mound is much narrower than the ditch from which it was excavated; therefore, the bank would be higher than the ditches’ depth. My calculation shows that the bank would be, therefore, 15m high at least but as the chalk in the ground had been compressed over time, and the bank would have contained more air gaps, the likelihood is that the bank was 20m high at the time of completion. (Extreme Weather and Ancient Subterranean Shelters)

So why take so much time and effort to build a 15m high wall?

Some archaeologists suggest it was a ‘defensive’ feature keeping out marauding tribes. However, the wall is on the wrong side of the ditch and would assist attackers rather than help the defenders of this site. As we have seen just down the road at Durrington, they have placed a high wall on the outside of the interior of the camp to protect boats from the wind and storms, like a modern harbour. Confronted by this paradox, ‘confused‘ archaeologists reverted to the standard theme that these walls were constructed for ‘ceremonial’ reasons. Which I can only imagine has something to do with the God of pointless constructions and practices?

Again as we pointed out at Durrington, these walls are seen in current harbours to protect boats from storms, showing us that our inclement weather is not unique to this current period.

But was the weather much worse than today?

Gales that historically ravaged our lands were probably more significant and more devastating in the past, which can be seen from the shelters they built to shelter from these infrequent storms.(Extreme Weather and Ancient Subterranean Shelters)

Subterranean Shelters

According to Wikipedia

Souterrain (from French ‘sous terrain’, meaning ‘under ground’) is a name given by archaeologists to a type of underground structure associated mainly with the Atlantic Iron Age. These structures appear to have been brought northwards from Gaul during the late Iron Age. Regional names include earth houses, fogous and Pictish houses. The term souterrain has been used as a distinct term from fogou. In Cornwall, the regional name of fogou is applied to souterrain structures. The design of underground structures has been shown to differ among regions; for example, in western Cornwall, the design and function of the fogou appear to correlate with a larder use.

Souterrains are often referred to locally in Ireland simply as ‘caves’. A.T. Lucas, folklorist and Director of the National Museum of Ireland in the 1960s, published a study of the references to souterrains in the early Irish annals. An article by Warner on the archaeology of souterrains, although published 35 years ago, is still possibly the best general overview of the subject. The most comprehensive study of Irish souterrains is Clinton’s 2001 work, containing chapters on distribution, associated settlements, function, finds, chronology and no less than thirteen appendices on various structural aspects of souterrains themselves.

The name comes from the French language, which means “underground passageway.” It is sometimes used to mean ‘basement’ in languages other than English, especially in warehouses.

Souterrains are underground galleries and, in their early stages, were consistently associated with a settlement. The galleries were dug out and then lined with stone slabs or wood before being reburied. In cases where they were cut into the rock, this was not always necessary. They do not appear to have been used for burial or ritual purposes, and it has been suggested that they were food stores or hiding places during times of strife, although some of them would have had very obvious entrances.

In Ireland, they are often found inside or close to a ringfort and are thought to be mainly contemporary with them, making them somewhat later in date than in other countries. This date is reinforced by many examples where ogham stones, dating to around the sixth century, have been reused as roofing lintels or doorposts, most notably at the widened natural limestone fissure at the ‘cave of the cats’ in Rathcrogan. Their distribution is very uneven in Ireland, with the most notable concentration centred on County

The first thing that strikes you as strange is the fact that these landscape features are categorised with different names in different locations:

Earth Houses – Modern use

Fogous – Cornwall

Pictish Houses – Found in Scotland

Confusion arises here as some are only partially subterranean unlike the Earth Houses in the same region.

Caves – Ireland

It’s quite literally an archaeological mess. And the reason for this mess is those archaeologists don’t understand why they were built, so they gave them local names, unlike barrows and Stone circles and henges, which appear in the same areas but with a unified name to save confusion. So how what can we find out about these structures that will help us understand why they were built?

Location, Location, Location

If we look at the minimal archaeological evidence, we do see a defined pattern of construction. For example, in Cornwall, we have found to date a collection of fifteen ‘fogous’. According to archaeologists, this is a proposed use for fogous, a refuge during raiding trips as they are close to the sea. Sadly, if you search deeper, you see them in non-coastal areas and even in the middle of Dartmoor (Lade Hill Brook), where it’s called a Beehive Hut?

The problem with looking for such objects in Devon is that hundreds of ‘caves’ dotted around from the days of tin mining, and therefore an almost impossible to distinguish a prehistoric mine opening from a fogou.

Apart from the extreme South West of Britain, these subterranean shelters do not exist – but what of the coast of Cornwall? In prehistoric times the sea level was some 65m lower than today, and the Isle of Scilly was connected to the mainland – is there anything on these islands that could be considered a fogou?

Carn Gwavel Farm in St Marys is an underground chamber-like corbelled passage that has an `S-shaped’ curve throughout its length, which is 4.97 metres long by 1.18 metres wide and 1.18 metres high. Some roof slabs have collapsed near the northeast end of the passage and lie beneath the present floor surface. At the foot of the northeast, the end wall is a creep that formed the original entrance to the passage. The creep is 0.57 metres wide by 0.27 metres high and extends for 1.36 metres before becoming blocked by fallen debris. The fogou was discovered in May 2000 after a partial collapse of the infill between cover slabs.

The most apparent aspect of Fogous is that they are orientated to the SW-NE alignment – is this religious or a practical necessity?

A typical fogou structure is stone walls, slopping gradually inwards with height to be capped by stone lintels, forming a characteristic trapezoidal cross-section. Similar structures are found in Chamber Cairns, and Passage Chambers, which adds to the confusion as if a body is located in one of these subterranean tunnel’s archaeologists reclassify them.

In Ireland, these subterranean structures are called ‘caves’, and they are reportedly in their thousands. We also find them in Scotland as Earth Houses, although some ‘covered’ houses – not subterranean shelters- have been classified in the same category through archaeological confusion.

We know these classifications are wrong as we know what they were used for, unlike the present archaeologists – their shelters from storms.

Subterranean shelters are found in Cornwall like the isles of Scilly in abundance. But Devon has only one for sure and absolutely nothing in Dorset, Somerset or Wiltshire – where prehistoric structures such as Stone Circles, Henges and Barrows are of most significant numbers. However, we do get them in Ireland and Scotland in even more significant numbers.

But there is a problem – what happened to Wales?

Storms often batter the Welsh coast, yet according to archaeologists, there are no subterranean shelters in this part of the world; if our hypothesis is correct, there should be something similar – and there is; they’re called a Chambered Cairn and Passage Chambers. These features are found all over Wales and are similar drywall stone underground buildings, but they have found dead bodies within them with a difference.

These chambers were built thousands of years ago. Do we believe that they would continue to be used in the same way as they started?

As you drive around Britain’s countryside, you will notice ‘bunkers’ that surround current and abandoned airfields. These bunkers are only 60 years old, yet they have fallen into disuse, and farmers are using them for other purposes – should we be surprised that these subterranean shelters would be used once abandoned for other purposes such as burials?

So the map is now complete; the current storms we see that follow the ‘gulf stream’ have historically moved in from the West and Ireland and/or Cornwall moving up the Irish Sea to Scotland, lashing the Welsh Coastline. This is not new; these are prehistoric storms of which the severity was much more significant than today as the construction of these substantial shelters gives testament.

Similar construction has been seen in other countries that may indicate just how intense these storms were, and these can be found in the hurricane belt of the USA, where residents built subterranean shelters of almost the same size as our prehistoric ancestors. These shelters not only shelter people from hurricanes but the more devastating storms called tornadoes.

In prehistoric Britain directly, the ‘post-glacial flooding’ was caused by record high temperatures in this country – so like Florida today, you had sweltering ground temperatures and the vast amount of cooler water from the flooding, a perfect concoction for the tornado and the need to build substantial subterranean shelters.

But is there any other evidence that tornadoes hit Britain?

On 17th October 1091, London was hit by a vicious tornado.

Historic Records tell us the wooden London Bridge was demolished and 600 houses (primarily wooden). Furthermore, the church at St. Mary-le-bow within the city of London was smashed to pieces with rafters driven more than six metres into the ground. Two men were reported killed, and thousands were made homeless.

One of the great mysteries of Archaeology is the lack of destruction of our greatest monument Stonehenge. It was not completely pulled down, but the gigantic Sarsen Trilithon Stones toppled from a force to the SW of the Monument. It has always been believed that men had tried to pull down the monument for some obscure reason in the past – but why stop at one pair of stones?

If we look at the possibility of tornadoes in Britain, then a ‘strike’ from the South West would be probable, and that would leave the monument with one of the two trilithons felled flat and the other propped up at an angle as Stukeley found in the 16th century and was ‘repaired’ and the turn of the last century.

Exploring Prehistoric Britain: A Journey Through Time

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

Other Blogs

2024 Prehistoric Britain Blog Review

8000-year-old Cro-Magnon skull

Vikings, Doggerland, and the Last Survivors of Europe’s Lost Waterworld

(Extreme Weather and Ancient Subterranean Shelters)

Tag: prehistoric research

Introduction

Section 1 — The Paper That Changed British Prehistory

Section 2 – What the DNA Actually Demonstrates

Section 3 – Where Observation Becomes Interpretation

Section 4 – Bell Beaker: A Culture or a People?

5. The Great Archaeological Contradiction

Chapter 6 – Testing the Steppe Migration Hypothesis

6.1 Introduction

6.2 Predicted Archaeological Pattern

6.3 Regional Archaeological Activity

6.4 Century of Maximum Archaeological Activity

6.5 Testing the Migration Corridor

6.6 Discussion

6.7 Conclusions

Database Used

Chapter 7 – Conclusions – A Different View of Bell Beaker Europe

The archaeological evidence

1. Regional chronological peaks

2. Pearson correlation analysis

3. Bell Beaker settlement distribution

4. The origin of Bell Beaker pottery

What archaeology suggests

A different interpretation

Looking beyond the Steppe

Final Conclusion

Author’s Comment – The Smoking Gun

That deserves investigation, rather than being presented as an already established fact.

PODCAST

Author’s Biography

Exploring Prehistoric Britain: A Journey Through Time

Further Reading

Other Blogs

CSI Cheddar Man – Examining the Evidence

Exhibit A: Eye Colour

Report Statement

Report Statement

Report Statement

Report Statement

Report Statement

Exhibit B: Hair Colour

Report Statement

Report Statement

Report Statement

Report Statement

CSI Question

Exhibit C: Skin Pigmentation

Report Statement

Report Statement

Report Statement

Report Statement

Report Statement

Report Statement

Report Statement

Report Statement

Report Statement

Report Statement

Report Statement

Report Statement

Exhibit D: The Reliability Problem

CSI Verdict

How DNA Predictions Actually Work

DNA Does Not Contain Labels

Why Multiple Markers Are Needed

Why The Results Are Not Yes Or No

What Is Coverage?

Why Ancient DNA Is Different

Why 1x Coverage Is A Problem

What Is A Heterozygote?

Why Missing Loci Matter

Why The Predictions Change

The Critical Distinction

The Wider Dataset – Do The Other Hunter-Gatherers Support The Headlines?

Exhibit 1: La Braña (Spain)

Report Conclusion

CSI Observation

Exhibit 2: Loschbour (Luxembourg)

Report Conclusion

CSI Observation

Exhibit 3: Sven (Carsington Pasture Cave)