Introduction

The winter solstice, occurring around December 21st in the Northern Hemisphere, marks the shortest day and longest night of the year. This celestial event has been celebrated for millennia, symbolizing the rebirth of the sun and the promise of longer days ahead. Long before Christianity shaped the holiday calendar, ancient cultures observed the solstice with rituals and festivities that laid the groundwork for many modern winter traditions. (Rediscovering the Winter Solstice)

The Solstice and Ancient Britain

In prehistoric Britain, the winter solstice held profound significance. Ancient monuments such as Stonehenge reflect a sophisticated understanding of celestial cycles. For example, Stonehenge is famously aligned with the setting sun during the solstice. These alignments suggest that midwinter was a time of immense cultural and spiritual importance.

“As we stand on the brink of the Winter Solstice, it’s fascinating to observe the intricate dance between celestial events and human interpretations, especially when coloured by the deliberate distortions of the Christian church. This orchestrated misrepresentation, driven by a disdain for perceived ‘pagan’ influences, offers a curious blend of amusement and disillusionment.” – Learn more about this on the article “Rebirth in Stone: Decoding the Winter Solstice Legacy of Stonehenge” (Rediscovering the Winter Solstice)

A Turning Point in the Year

The winter solstice marked a turning point in the agricultural calendar. With the sun’s return, ancient communities celebrated the promise of renewal and fertility. Feasting, sacrifices, and communal gatherings were common, emphasizing themes of survival and hope. These celebrations were deeply rooted in the rhythms of nature, with practices that often involved fire and light to symbolize the rebirth of the sun.

The traditional view of Stonehenge is of an entirely round monument with lintel stones completing the circle – but there is a massive problem with this theory (and it is ONLY a hypothesis – as nothing has ever been proven), for not all the expected stones holes are present, leading to some experts to suggest that the monument is, in fact, incomplete and was never finished. Stonehenge Hoax – Round Monument? (Rediscovering the Winter Solstice)

The Symbolism of Light and Fire

Central to solstice traditions was the use of light and fire as symbols of hope and renewal. Bonfires, torches, and candles played a significant role in rituals, representing the return of the sun and the triumph of light over darkness. Communities would gather around these flames, forging bonds and ensuring the continuation of life through the harsh winter months.

“It remains an indisputable truth, grounded in astronomical reality, that the astronomical ‘new year’ aligns itself with the day succeeding the Winter Solstice. Yet, one is prompted to question the number within the Anglo-Saxon Christian populace that pays homage to this alignment. The overwhelming majority, duly indoctrinated, instead embraces a day etched within the Gregorian calendar, forged half a millennium ago, a week to ten days after this celestial milestone.Additional research highlights that Stonehenge’s design specifically aligns with the winter solstice sunset, making it a focal point for midwinter celebrations and ceremonies“. See more details in “Stonehenge and the Winter Solstice Sunset Alignment”. (Rediscovering the Winter Solstice)

Monuments Beyond Stonehenge

While Stonehenge is the most famous example, other sites in Britain also show evidence of solstice alignments. Sites such as Maeshowe in Orkney demonstrate a precise understanding of solar positioning, with its chamber illuminated by the setting sun during the solstice. These alignments suggest a widespread reverence for this pivotal time of year.

“Stonehenge was initially built not to observe the midsummer solstice day sunrise as commonly believed, but more significantly the midwinter SUNSET some six months later and in the opposite direction!” More details can be found in “Solstice Alignments Across Prehistoric Britain”. (Rediscovering the Winter Solstice)

The Christian Adoption of Winter Celebrations

As Christianity spread, many pagan traditions were adapted into the new religious framework. Christmas, celebrated on December 25th, closely follows the solstice and incorporates elements of earlier festivals. The use of evergreen decorations, feasting, and candlelight during this time of year reflects the enduring influence of solstice traditions. (Rediscovering the Winter Solstice)

The Significance of Evergreen Symbols

Evergreens—plants that remain lush and green throughout winter—became powerful symbols of endurance and hope. Holly, ivy, and mistletoe were revered for their resilience and were often used in solstice rituals to decorate homes and sacred spaces. These traditions persist today, connecting modern celebrations to ancient practices. (Rediscovering the Winter Solstice)

Why Isn’t the New Year on December 21st?

Logically, the day after the shortest day—December 22nd—could be considered the start of a new year. However, the modern New Year’s Day on January 1st is a legacy of shifting cultural traditions rather than celestial markers. (Rediscovering the Winter Solstice)

Modern Solstice Gatherings

Today, remnants of ancient solstice celebrations are evident in modern customs. The lighting of candles, decorating with evergreens, and themes of renewal and hope echo prehistoric practices. Additionally, there has been a resurgence of interest in the solstice, with thousands gathering at ancient sites like Stonehenge to witness the sunset on this significant day. (Rediscovering the Winter Solstice)

Bridging Past and Present

Understanding the origins of winter festivals offers insight into how ancient traditions have shaped contemporary culture. These celebrations connect us to a time when humanity’s survival depended on an intimate relationship with the natural world. They remind us of the sun’s enduring power and the earth’s cycles. (Rediscovering the Winter Solstice)

The Solstice’s Lessons for Today

In a world increasingly disconnected from nature, the solstice offers a moment to pause and reflect on our relationship with the environment. It reminds us of the importance of living in harmony with the natural cycles that sustain life. (Rediscovering the Winter Solstice)

Finding Meaning in the Solstice

By observing the solstice and acknowledging its historical significance, we honour the ingenuity and spirituality of our ancestors. Whether through ancient rituals or modern celebrations, the winter solstice inspires reflection, gratitude, and hope for the future. Reconnect with this timeless tradition by exploring more articles on prehistoric Britain’s ancient monuments and their celestial alignments. (Rediscovering the Winter Solstice)

Other this that don’t make sense in History

Introduction

The recently published book, “13 Things That Don’t Make Sense in Ancient History,” authored by Robert John Langdon, sheds light on various historical anomalies that have largely been accepted without question by both the general public and academics in universities. The book challenges these accepted narratives and encourages readers to reevaluate our understanding of the past. (Rediscovering the Winter Solstice)

1. Ten thousand year old boats found on Britain’s hillsides – 7,000 years before they were invented.

A small body of determined spirits fired by an unquenchable faith in their mission can alter the course of history. – Mahatma Gandhi

Synopsis

Careful examination reveals that these monuments are shaped like a boat with an open back end for a chamber which is similar to the helm of prehistoric and even boats of today where the crew would normally sleep.

If these monuments called ‘Long Barrows’ were located anywhere else such as Egypt, Greece or Asia Minor, then archaeologists would happily identify them as a representation of a sailing ship – but these ‘ships’ were built thousands of years before the current experts believe British boats were constructed.Recently, archaeologists in Asia Minor have realised that the world suffered massive flooding after the last Ice Age, so much so that areas like the Caspian and Black Seas doubled their volumes due to this ‘post-glacial flooding’ and this effect must have had similar results in Britain, which was considerably closer to the ice sheet. British Geology Maps show in the recent superficial soils that there was once major flooding that affected 90% of the mainland rising groundwater levels and swelling rivers.

This discovery has opened the distinct possibility that the ‘megalithic builders’ of Northern Europe were a single maritime civilisation that used boats to transport stone to build such monuments as Stonehenge, Avebury, Carnac and even Gobekli Tepe as the post-glacial flooding after the ice age affected not only Europe but even as far away as Asia Minor thus allowing people to travel throughout these extended continents via inland waterways.Archaeological findings in Britain also suggest that an archaic maritime civilisation did, in fact, exist in Northern Europe directly after the ice age.

As we have found prehistoric pictures on the walls of Stone in ‘the ancient trial’ of Ostflod in Norway showing double hull reed boats, wooden ‘mortice and tenon’ joints dated at 6250BC under the sea at Boulder Cliff in the Isle of Wight and most recently the discovery of the oldest boatyard in the world in South Wales, which launched not just boats but ‘catamarans’ possibly dating back to the end of the Ice Age some 10,000 years ago.The fact that these catamarans have now been found in Britain replicating the drawings in Norway clearly shows that an ancient maritime civilisation with advanced boat technology must have existed once upon a time. (Rediscovering the Winter Solstice)

2. Gigantic Canals – that are technically superior to even Victorian engineering.

A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. – Max Planck

Synopsis

A ‘Dyke’ is a word used to represent either a wall or protective mound to keep out or channel water, so why do we have such large dykes such as ‘Offa’s Dyke’ on the England/Wales border and ‘Wansdyke’ in Wiltshire on top of hill’s miles away from any form of water?

It has always been believed that some of these dykes (canals) were originally built as Medieval defensive walls, but that is far from the truth. The current dating for these monuments have been obtained by artifacts found at the bottom of their ditches, and although there are mainly artefacts of Roman origin, some stone and flint tools have also been located in or near the structures, yet archaeologists are loaved to date them as prehistoric, although we have seen similar ditches contained within monuments such as Avebury, which were undertaken thousands of years before the Romans.

This type of historical confusion can be found at two of our biggest dykes in Britain. Offa’s Dyke which is over 81 miles long and named after King Offa (730 – 796) who was supposed to have built it to defend Britain against the Welsh tribes. Sadly, for traditional archaeologists, recent investigations have shown that it was used much earlier as Roman artefacts were found at the base of one of the ditches. The other is Wansdyke in Wiltshire; this dyke is over 21 miles long; it can be in places up to 65 feet wide and 8 feet deep, but it is built in a straight line with a bank to one side, which is also believed to be a defensive structure – even though attackers could walk around the edge of the ditch without obstruction.

Newly discovered ‘Post Glacial Flooding’ shown on the British Geological Maps and investigated in recent books had indicated that these dykes were constructed in a time when superficial deposits were formed by the flooding after the last ice age when man had returned to Britain less than 10,000 years ago. The Kennet and Avon Canal is a waterway in southern England with an overall length of 87 miles (140 km), made up of two lengths of navigable river linked by a canal. The name is commonly used to refer to the entire length of the navigation rather than solely to the central canal section. From Bristol to Bath, the waterway follows the natural course of the River Avon before the canal links it to the River Kennet at Newbury, and from there to Reading on the River Thames. Quite remarkably Wansdyke was constructed just 3 km north of the Kennet and Avon canal and the new prehistoric waterway maps of Britain show it had the same result of joining the River Thames to the Bristol Channel some 6-8K years before the Victorian’s great canal system. (Rediscovering the Winter Solstice)

3. Roman ports miles away from the coast – when sea levels are apparently rising.

The difference between science and the fuzzy subjects is that science requires reasoning, while those other subjects merely require scholarship – Robert A Heinlein

Synopsis

When we look at old maps of Roman settlements and ports around Britain and the Mediterranean, we see that a majority are built on the coastline or waterways of these countries. This fact is not surprising as these locations would need a constant supply of goods for trading and construction. However, if we look more closely at these at these sites, it becomes apparent that some of the locations are far away from the shoreline or rivers that once supplied them. For example, Brading Roman Villa in the Isle of Wight 1. 5km from the sea and 500m from the nearest in water river, which is so small that it could hardly take a canoe let alone a Roman supply ship.

Another example is in Turkey in the Roman capital of Asia Minor, Ephesus where Queen Cleopatra sailed from Egypt to the Roman high command to meet Anthony, with a ceremony that is still enacted today for the tourists. Ephasis is a good 8km from the sea, so unless Queen Cleopatra was in need of a long walk, the shoreline has drastically changed since Roman times. The final and best example is Lewes in East Sussex, which is an incredible 15km from the coast. Moreover, this vast distance from the sea we see today is compounded by the fact that sea levels have risen by 2m over the last two thousand years, showing that the natural distance from these harbours to the coastline was even greater during the past.

The history books will tell you that this is down to either natural or manmade drainage, but why would you wish to allow a thriving harbour to silt up if it was commercially viable? In all three cases, this silting resulted in the houses or cities being completely abandoned or livelihoods lost, and the towns scaled down as a consequence. However, what is remarkable about all these locations is that they share in common factor and that the harbours were directly fed by rivers emptying into that area.These locations we built, at a time when the ground waters were high and the river flow was sufficient to flood the harbour allowing boats to sail in and out of the location. (Rediscovering the Winter Solstice)

4. Raised Beaches – that have never met the sea.

Science is a way of thinking much more than a body of knowledge. – Carl Sagan

A raised beach, marine terrace, or perched coastline is an emergent coastal land-form. Raised beaches and terraces are beaches or wave-cut platforms high above the current shoreline relative to a fall in the sea level. These are clearly seen in areas such as Norway or Scotland where the ice cap has compressed and sunk the ground surface layer (Isostatic Transformation) and has over thousands of years rebounded back to its original height.One of the classic cases of these ‘Raised Beaches’ is on the South Coast of Britain between Bournemouth and Brighton.

Unfortunately, an ice cap has never reached these areas during the last half a million years, although the raised beaches are sitting just 18” below the top soil.Theories of how this sandy layer that appears in the soil layers high in hill sediments are abundant, including British tsunamis (giant tidal waves that left sand deposits on hills).If you consult Wikipedia, it will tell you: “Tectonical and or eustatical use of marine terrace sequence”The total displacement of the shoreline relative to the age of the associated interglacial stage allows calculation of a mean uplift rate or the calculation of eustatical level at a particular time if the uplift is known. (Rediscovering the Winter Solstice)

5. Giant skeletons – found by French archaeologists now dismissed by today’s scientists.

Your theory is crazy, but it’s not crazy enough to be true. – Niels Bohr

Synopsis

In 1868, parts of five skeletons were discovered in the rock shelter, located in the famous Dordogne Valley of France – they called them Cro-Magnon. Recent research over the past 20 years or so, however, has led scholars to believe that the physical dimensions of so-called ‘Cro-Magnon’ are not sufficiently different enough from modern humans to warrant a separate designation.However, the Cro-Magnon’s found under the rock shelter were over a foot taller, twice as strong, lived longer and had a brain capacity 15% greater than the people who found them, and this is why the Victorians saw them as a sub-species of man and named them accordingly.

They were the first to paint and play musical instruments.Their size and statue allowed them to become the ‘megalithic stone builders’ of prehistory who used boats to travel throughout the known world and even the Greek philosopher Plato talked about them in his dialogues. So who were these ‘Cro-Magnons’ and for what political purpose have the anthropologists killed them off? (Rediscovering the Winter Solstice)

6. Quantum of Solstice – Pythagorean maths put to use four thousand years before he was born

If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right, but if he says that it is impossible, he is very probably wrong. – Arthur C. Clarke

Synopsis

If we look at the skills of the what traditional archaeologists call the ‘Megalithic People’ – the civilisation that made the first stone monuments. We notice that to achieve such grand constructions, they would have required the advanced mathematics which to date have been credited to the ancient Greeks. By undertaking a closer detailed analysis of monuments such as Stonehenge and more importantly the mathematics used to design such monuments, we can see that these constructions that are ten thousand years old were in fact, based on sound and accurate trigonometrical theory.So how was Stonehenge planned and what can we see from the ‘blueprint’ what they knew about mathematics?

Firstly, Stonehenge was built in two very separate phases – current archaeologists are confused by the monument and dating of the structure, so if you read or browse the internet you will see the ‘traditionalist’ quote three to five phases. Moreover, these phases occurred AFTER the original monument was abandoned and thousands of years later, the ritualistic Celts occupied the monument and used it to worship the Sun and the Summer Solstice as we see reenacted today during the summer solstice.The First Phase took place at 8500 BCE when our ancestors built the original ditch made up of individual pits that were cut below the ancient groundwater table level to create a moat. This moat was used with the Bluestones to bathe away infections from cuts and bites which, if left untreated, would have turned into gangrene and lethal fevers.

For Bluestones (when wet) releases chemicals, including the most potential natural antiseptic – rock salt.The most amazing aspect is the accuracy of the diameter of this moat, which is exactly 360 ft (109.73m). This length is no accident or coincidence it is the reason that our angular and trigonometrical system revolves around 360!We have 12 months a year and each has a lunar cycle that lasts (from New Moon to New Moon ) 29.53 days. We have shown in my last book ‘The Stonehenge Enigma’ that there was 56 Bluestones (2 x 28), and we can show that this was used as a very accurate (99.8%) moon and eclipse calendar, which could compensate for the 0.47 day difference between the moon cycle and a 30 day standard cycle.It is, therefore, no surprise that the most ancient of calendars are 12 x 30 = 360 days in length.In history, we know that in the eighth century B.C.E., civilizations all over the world either discarded or modified their old 360-day calendars. The 360-day calendars had been in use for the greater part of the past millenniums. In many places, month lengths immediately after that change were not fixed but were based instead on observation of the sky. (Rediscovering the Winter Solstice)

7. Recent Landscape Flooding & Storms – the secret our ancestors knew about Britain’s weather

Synopsis

“Flooding is the major and most frequently recurring natural disaster in Britain. However, it is not a new phenomenon and geological information show where it has happened in the last 10,000 years” – British Geological Society.

BSG has published maps showing the remains of ancient waterways evidenced by the deposits of clay, sand and gravel; these are termed as “ alluvial deposits,” and they cover 10% of the mainland of Britain showing it was flooded directly after the last Ice Age – but there are further deposits of all a substances called ‘head’ made up also of Clay, sand and gravel, which show, in reality, that 40% of the land surface was flooded directly after the last ice age – the consequence is that the so-called ‘hunter/gathers’ could not have existed as portrayed in our history books, unless he had a boat.So why are these obvious geological features ignored by archaeologists and what could it mean to the history of Ancient Britain? (Rediscovering the Winter Solstice)

8. Mythological Dragons – a non-existent animal that is shared by the world.

Look deep into nature and then you will understand everything better. – Albert Einstein

Synopsis

A dragon is a legendary creature, typically with serpentine or reptilian traits, that features in the myths from many cultures. According to our popular history books, there are two distinct cultural traditions of dragons: the European dragon derived from folklore and ultimately related to Greek and Middle Eastern mythologies, and the Chinese dragon, with counterparts in Japan, Korea and other East Asian countries.

However, there are also Dragons in Central America and Africa, which are not as well known.But how can these groups of people separated by tens of thousands of miles dream up a ‘non-existent’ creature with the same look and features?Dragons appear in Wales, England, Greece, Slovakia, Indian, Persia, Asia Minor, Japan, China, Vietnam, and Australia and let us not forget (like the history books) Mexico, Central America, Ethiopia and Egypt.This actually places dragons on every continent in the World!The association of the serpent with a monstrous opponent overcame by a heroic deity has its roots in the mythology of the Ancient Near East, including Canaanite (Hebrew, Ugaritic), Hittite and Mesopotamian. Humbaba, the fire-breathing dragon-fanged beast first described in the Epic of Gilgamesh is sometimes described as a dragon with Gilgamesh playing the part of dragon-slayer.

The legless serpent (Chaoskampf) motif entered Greek mythology and ultimately Christian mythology, although the serpent motif may already be part of prehistoric Indo-European mythology as well, based on comparative evidence of Indic and Germanic material.Although dragons occur in many legends around the world, different cultures have varying stories about monsters that have been grouped together under the dragon label. Some dragons are said to breathe fire or to be poisonous, such as in the Old English poem Beowulf. They are commonly portrayed as serpentine or reptilian, hatching from eggs and possessing typically scaly or feathered bodies. They are sometimes portrayed as hoarding treasure. (Rediscovering the Winter Solstice)

9. On Sunken land of the North Sea – was this the world’s oldest and greatest civilisation?

“The sea, once it casts its spell, holds one in its net of wonder forever”. – Jacques Yves Cousteau

Synopsis

After the last ice age, the ‘great melt’ flooded the landscape of Britain for over ten thousand years. This flooding started a chain reaction and as a consequence, the sea level slowly increased and vast areas of land were lost including a land mass known as ‘Doggerland.’Throughout the 19th century, oyster dredgers working the shallow waters off the north east coast of England recorded frequent finds of animal bones caught up in their nets.

These discover- is became a regular occurrence as the fishing technology increased and the trawlers at a later date and in deeper waters of the North Sea also found traces of civilisation and a lost continent. Sadly, the location and accuracy are rarely recorded with any degree of accuracy; this material appeared to come from some areas within the North Sea.One area where the greatest number of finds discovered is known as the ‘Dogger Bank’ which lies just 90km – 110km (60-70 miles) from the coast of the British Isles. This shoal (a shoal, sand- bar, sandbank or gravel bar is a somewhat linear landform within or extending into a body of water, typically composed of sand, silt or small pebbles.) rises about 45m (150 ft) above the North Sea bed, to the north it plunges into deeper water and forms a subterranean plateau covering 17,600 sq. km. (6,800 miles) With a maximum dimension being 260km (160 miles) from North to South and 95 km (60 miles) from East to West.

Over time, the number of finds reduced as the same area was dredged day after day and any artefacts sitting on the surface would have been scooped up and either returned as a curiosity or in a majority of the time just thrown back in a different location.Even so, items such as; bear, wolf, hyena, bison, woolly rhino, mammoth, beaver, walrus, elk, deer and most importantly horse has been collected. This precious collection of findings gives us a fantastic insight into what Doggerland looked like, the environment that supported these animals and the climate of this unique area of the world.It would be impossible to talk about Doggerland and its environment without understanding if there was a written history of a land that flooded thousands of years ago, and this comes in the works of the ancient Greek Philosopher Plato.

Over the years, Atlantis has grown to be both a legend and the source of many science fictions; this is neither correct nor helpful in tracing the history of humanity, as it moves the debate from scientific observation to fantasy and the degrading of the most important time in our history. Plato is a source of credible information as he is not a ‘story teller’ like some other historical writers. He is fundamentally a philosopher, whose writings are still studied even now, some 2,000 years after his death at the most famous and prestigious universities throughout the world. This man is not prone to fantasy or exaggeration, his writings, therefore, must be accepted as true evidence that once in the distant past a great ancient civilisation, did, in fact, exist, and that they changed the course of humanity in ways which I believe we do not fully understand to date. (Rediscovering the Winter Solstice)

10. Alexander the Great sailed into India – where no rivers now exist.

I came, I saw, I conquered – Julius Caesar

Synopsys

The Indian campaign of Alexander the Great began in 326 BC. Alexander was born July20, 356 B.C. in Pella, in the Kingdom of Macedonia. During his leadership, he united the Greek city-states and led the Corinthian League. He also became the king of Persia, Babylon and Asia, and created Macedonian colonies in Iran. After conquering the Achaemenid Empire of Persia, the Macedonian king (and now high king of the Persian Empire) Alexander launched a campaign in north west India (what is now Pakistan.) The Battle of the Hydaspes river against King Porus in Punjab is considered by many historians, as the most costly battle that the armies of Alexander fought.

The rationale for this campaign is usually said to be Alexander’s desire to conquer the entire known world, which the Greeks thought ended in north-western India. While considering the conquests of Carthage and Rome, Alexander died in Babylon on June 13, 323 BC. In 321 BC, two years after Alexander’s death, Chandragupta Maurya of Magadha, founded the Maurya Empire in India.The Battle of the Hydaspes River was fought by Alexander in July 326 BC against King Raja Purushottama (Poros) a Kshatriya on the Hydaspes River (Jhelum River) in the Punjab of Pakistan, near Bhera.

The Hydaspes was the last major battle fought by Alexander. The main train went into modern-day Pakistan through the Khyber Pass, but a smaller force under the personal command of Alexander went through the northern route, resulting in the Siege of Aornos along the way. In early spring of the next year, he combined his forces and allied with Taxiles (also Ambhi), the King of Taxila, against his neighbor, the King of Hydaspes.

Puru was a great King of Indus/ Asiatic continent. Arrian writes about Porus, in his own words “One of the Indian Kings called Porus a man remarkable alike for his strength and noble courage, on hearing the report about Alexander, began to prepare for the inevitable.Accordingly, when hostilities broke out, he ordered his army to attack Macedonians from whom he demanded their king, as if he was his private enemy. Alexander lost no time in joining battle, but his horse being wounded in the first charge; he fell headlong to the ground, and was saved by his attendants who hastened up to his assistance.” Porus drew up on the south bank of the Jhelum River, and was set to repel any crossings. The Jhelum River was deep and fast enough that any opposed crossing would probably doom the entire attacking force. (Rediscovering the Winter Solstice)

11. Antler Picks that built ancient monuments – although only one has been found at the largest stone circle in the world.

Science never solves problems without creating ten more – George Bernard Shaw

Synopsis

According to the history books, our ancestors built the great and numerous prehistoric sites using basic tools such as antler picks to cut the chalk bedrock and animal shoulder blades as a shovel.Some of these ancient constructions moved over half a million tonnes of chalk to create the likes of Silbury Hill – the largest prehistoric mound in Europe and Avebury with its massive 70 foot wide and 36 foot deep ditches that took eighteen million man-hours to build over very many years.Yet in Avebury only one buried antler has ever been found and less than a handful of tiny fragments found inside Silbury Hill.So how were these monuments really built and why has this false evidence made its way into our history books? (Rediscovering the Winter Solstice)

12. Columbus was the first Western Man to reach America – Yet bones and tools suggest that Europeans sail there ten thousand years earlier.

“We would like to live as we once lived, but history will not permit it” – John F. Kennedy

Synopsys

A blood type (also called a blood group) is a classification of blood-based on the presence or absence of inherited antigenic substances on the surface of red blood cells (RBCs). These antigens may be proteins, carbohydrates, glycoproteins, or glycolipids, depending on the blood group system. Some of these antigens are also present on the surface of other types of cells of various tissues. Several of these red blood cell surface antigens can stem from one allele (or very closely linked genes) and collectively form a blood group system. Blood types are inherited and represent contributions from both parents. A total of 32 human blood group systems is now recognized by the International Society of Blood Transfusion (ISBT).

The two most important ones are ABO and the RhD antigen; they determine someone’s blood type (A, B, AB and O, with + and – denoting RhD status).Many pregnant women carry a fetus with a blood type different from their own, and the mother can form antibodies against fetal RBCs. Sometimes these maternal antibodies are IgG, a small immunoglobulin, which can cross the placenta and cause hemolysis of fetal RBCs, which in turn can lead to hemolytic disease of the newborn called erythroblastosis fetalis; an illness of low fetal blood counts that ranges from mild to severe.

Sometimes this is lethal for the fetus; in these cases, it is called hydrops fetalis.One of the Greatest Mysteries in Anthropology is how the A Rh neg blood groups originated in North America.Blood groups are a good method to detect population migration in conjunction with modern DNA Haplogroups, as the former has been identified for over 100 years, unlike the modern method.An individual either has or does not have, the “Rhesus factor” on the surface of their red blood cells. This term refers only to the most immunogenic D antigen of the Rh blood group system, or the Rh- blood group system. The status is usually indicated by Rh positive (Rh+ does have the D antigen), or Rh negative (Rh- does not have the D antigen) suffix to the ABO blood type. (Rediscovering the Winter Solstice)

13. Was Troy really located in Turkey – if so why did it take Odysseus ten years to travel 200 miles get home to Greece.

The very ink with which history is written is merely fluid prejudice. – Mark Twain

Synopsys

Where Troy Once Stood is a book by Iman Wilkens, that argues that the city of Troy was located in England and the Trojan War was fought between groups of Celts.The standard view is that Troy is located near the Dardanelles in Turkey. Wilkens claims that Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey, though products of ancient Greek culture, is originally orally transmitted epic poems from Western Europe. Wilkens disagrees with conventional ideas about the historicity of the Iliad and the location and participants of the Trojan War.Copies of his book ranked high on Bookfinder’s list of most-wanted out of print books until 2005, when the latest revised edition was published. His work has had little impact on professional scholars.

Anthony Snodgrass, Emeritus Professor of Classical Archaeology at Cambridge University, has named Wilkens as an example of an “infinitely less-serious” writer.So what evidence does Wilkens use to prove that Troy was in Northern Europe?Wilkens argues that Troy was located in England on the Gog Magog Downs in Cambridgeshire. He believes that Celts living there were attacked around 1200 BC by fellow Celts from the continent to battle over access to the tin mines in Cornwall as tin was a very important component for the production of bronze.Wilkens writes that there are similarities between the river names in the Iliad and present-day England: “Homer names no less than fourteen rivers in the region of Troy.” The rivers Thames, Cam, Great Ouse and Little Ouse, to name a few, can respectively be identified as Temese, Scamander, Simois and Satniois, according to Wilkens.

The revised edition of 2005 contains a “reconstruction” of the Trojan battlefield in Cambridgeshire.13 ancient things that don’t make sense in History – TroyAccording to Wilkens, St Michael’s Mount is the site of Scylla and CharybdisWilkens further hypothesises that the Sea Peoples found in the Late Bronze Age Mediterranean were Celts, who settled in Greece and the Aegean Islands as the Achaeans and Pelasgians. They named new cities after the places they had come from, (similar to the migration of many place names to North America), and brought the oral poems that formed the basis of the Iliad and the Odyssey with them from Western Europe. Wilkens writes that, after being orally transmitted for about four centuries, the poems were translated and written down in Greek around 750 BC.

The Greeks, who had forgotten about the origins of the poems, located the stories in the Mediterranean, where many Homeric place names could be found, but the poems’ descriptions of towns, islands, sailing directions and distances were not altered to fit the reality of the Greek setting. He also writes that “It also appears that Homer’s Greek contains a large number of loan words from western European languages, more often from Dutch rather than English, (Rediscovering the Winter Solstice)

Further Reading

For information about British Prehistory, visit www.prehistoric-britain.co.uk for the most extensive archaeology blogs and investigations collection, including modern LiDAR reports.  This site also includes extracts and articles from the Robert John Langdon Trilogy about Britain in the Prehistoric period, including titles such as The Stonehenge Enigma, Dawn of the Lost Civilisation and the ultimate proof of Post Glacial Flooding and the landscape we see today. (Rediscovering the Winter Solstice)

Robert John Langdon has also created a YouTube web channel with over 100 investigations and video documentaries to support his classic trilogy (Prehistoric Britain). He has also released a collection of strange coincidences that he calls ‘13 Things that Don’t Make Sense in History’ and his recent discovery of a lost Stone Avenue at Avebury in Wiltshire called ‘Silbury Avenue – the Lost Stone Avenue’. (Rediscovering the Winter Solstice)

Langdon has also produced a series of ‘shorts’, which are extracts from his main body of books:

The Ancient Mariners

Stonehenge Built 8300 BCE

Old Sarum

Prehistoric Rivers

Dykes ditches and Earthworks

Echoes of Atlantis

Homo Superior

For active discussions on the findings of the TRILOGY and recent LiDAR investigations that are published on our WEBSITE, you can join our and leave a message or join the debate on our Facebook Group.

Other Blogs

(Rediscovering the Winter Solstice)

Archaeology, often hailed as the key to understanding our past, stands at a contentious crossroads between the humanities and the sciences. Archaeology is largely interpretative and subjective, unlike pure sciences, which rely heavily on quantitative data and mathematical models to test hypotheses. The field depends on analysing artefacts, structures, and cultural remains, often incomplete or degraded. This reliance on fragmentary evidence means that much archaeological interpretation is speculative, making it difficult to draw definitive conclusions. The subjective nature of archaeology raises questions about its scientific rigour, as interpretations can vary significantly depending on the archaeologist’s perspective, cultural background, or theoretical framework.

In contrast, pure sciences like physics, chemistry, and biology adhere to strict methodologies that prioritise empirical data and mathematical precision. These disciplines employ controlled experiments, reproducible results, and quantitative analysis to validate theories and build on existing knowledge. Hypotheses in pure sciences are rigorously tested, often through repeated experiments, to prove or disprove them. The mathematical models in these fields are designed to predict outcomes with high accuracy, leaving little room for personal bias or interpretive flexibility. This reliance on complex data and reproducibility sets pure sciences apart from more interpretative disciplines like archaeology, where conclusions are often inferred from indirect evidence and subject to ongoing debate.

While archaeology provides invaluable insights into human history and culture, its status as a “science” is frequently challenged due to its inherent subjectivity. The field’s heavy dependence on interpretation rather than objective data can lead to multiple, often conflicting, narratives about the past. Archaeology usually deals with probabilities and possibilities rather than certainties, unlike pure sciences, where theories can be definitively proven or disproven. This makes archaeology a unique and valuable discipline. Still, one that straddles the line between science and the humanities, leading some to argue that it is more of a social science than an actual, data-driven science. As a result, the conclusions drawn in archaeology should be viewed critically, understanding that they are often shaped as much by the archaeologist’s perspective as by the evidence itself.

In the competitive world of academia, the struggle for funding is fierce, particularly in fields like archaeology, where financial resources are often scarce. Universities and research institutions face significant pressure to secure grants and sponsorships, which are essential for conducting fieldwork, preserving artefacts, and supporting academic staff. Given the limited budget allocated to archaeology, institutions are often forced to prioritise projects that promise high visibility and public interest, sometimes at the expense of rigorous scientific inquiry. This competition can lead to a climate where sensationalism takes precedence over careful, evidence-based research, with archaeologists making bold claims to capture the media’s and potential funders’ attention.

The egos of leading professors and researchers further complicate this landscape. In their quest for prestige and recognition, some academics may undermine their peers to secure funding and enhance their credibility. This can create a toxic environment where collaboration and peer review are replaced by rivalry and one-upmanship. The need to stand out and secure funding can lead to premature announcements of discoveries or theories that have yet to be fully vetted or substantiated. These announcements often make headlines and capture the public imagination. Still, they also contribute to a growing perception that archaeology is a field rife with contentious guesses rather than solid, verifiable knowledge.

As a result, the discipline of archaeology risks becoming a series of unproven hypotheses, each vying for attention but needing more robust evidence to withstand critical scrutiny. This trend diminishes the field’s credibility as the public becomes increasingly sceptical of claims that are later debunked or revised. The focus on media appeal and public interest, driven by the need for funding, can overshadow the meticulous and often slow scientific validation process essential to any credible discipline. In the long run, this erodes trust in archaeology and undermines its potential to contribute meaningful insights into our understanding of the past.

The misinterpretations surrounding Stonehenge, Iron Age hill forts, and linear earthworks like dykes stem from a failure to fully integrate emerging technologies and scientific methods into archaeological research. For instance, Stonehenge is often dated to the Neolithic period, around 3000 to 2000 BCE. However, as discussed in the blog “The Stonehenge Code”, significant evidence, including Mesolithic carbon dates from quarry sites associated with Stonehenge, was largely ignored. The Mesolithic carbon dates suggest activity at these quarries—and potentially the beginnings of Stonehenge itself—could have occurred much earlier, possibly as far back as 8500 BCE.

This oversight exemplifies how the subjective nature of archaeology can lead to selective interpretation of data. Suppose a more scientific approach incorporating probability and statistical analysis had been employed. In that case, it might have revealed that the likelihood of these earlier dates being relevant to Stonehenge’s construction was much higher. Instead of discarding the Mesolithic evidence, a rigorous application of mathematical models could have provided a more nuanced understanding of the site’s history, possibly redefining the origins of one of Britain’s most iconic monuments. This tendency to favour prevailing theories over emerging evidence highlights the risk of allowing unproven hypotheses to dominate the discourse.

Similarly, classifying over 3,300 sites across Britain as “Iron Age hill forts” reveals another instance of entrenched archaeological assumptions. As discussed in the blog on Iron Age hill forts, many of these earthworks have no concrete evidence that they were constructed during the Iron Age or served as fortifications. The absence of mass graves or signs of warfare at these sites challenges the accuracy of their classification as “forts.” This misclassification has stifled further research, as archaeologists may need to pay more attention to evidence suggesting alternative uses or periods.

The issue extends to linear earthworks or dykes, traditionally attributed to the Saxon period due to their names. However, LiDAR technology has revealed these structures to be much older and likely filled with water, suggesting they served as transport hubs rather than defensive boundaries. Discoveries such as the Roman barge at Car Dyke indicate that these features predate the Saxon era, further supported by recent scientific analyses pointing to a Mesolithic origin. This evidence fundamentally changes our understanding of these dykes, emphasising the need to integrate new findings into the archaeological narrative.

The failures to interpret these sites accurately often stem from a broader oversight in archaeological analysis: the post-glacial flooding that reshaped Britain’s landscape. According to research on post-glacial flooding, large portions of Britain were submerged underwater for thousands of years after the last Ice Age. This created waterways essential for transportation, trade, and monumental construction, allowing a megalithic civilisation to thrive. Many archaeologists, lacking training in hydrology, have not fully grasped the significance of this waterlogged environment, leading to misinterpretations about the origins and functions of these prehistoric sites.

This dysfunction has contributed to a discipline of arguably 70% suggestive fiction and only 30% scientific fact, where speculative interpretations often overshadow hard evidence. By failing to consider the dynamic nature of ancient landscapes and the significance of waterways, archaeology risks misrepresenting the true complexity of Britain’s prehistoric past. A more interdisciplinary approach, incorporating hydrology, geology, and climate science, is crucial to reconstructing these environments accurately and moving beyond preconceived notions.

In conclusion, while archaeology employs various scientific techniques, it is not immune to human biases and the influence of external pressures. The reliance on subjective interpretation over empirical data, the competition for funding, and a tendency to favour popular narratives have contributed to a discipline that often straddles the line between science and speculative storytelling. By embracing a more evidence-based, interdisciplinary approach, archaeology can enhance its credibility and offer a more accurate exploration of our past, reducing the current imbalance between fiction and fact in the field.

Further Reading

For information about British Prehistory, visit www.prehistoric-britain.co.uk, which has the most extensive collection of archaeology blogs and investigations, including modern LiDAR reports.  This site also includes extracts and articles from the Robert John Langdon Trilogy about Britain in the Prehistoric period, including titles such as The Stonehenge Enigma, Dawn of the Lost Civilisation and the ultimate proof of Post Glacial Flooding and the landscape we see today.

Robert John Langdon has also created a YouTube web channel with over 100 investigations and video documentaries to support his classic trilogy (Prehistoric Britain). He has also released a collection of strange coincidences that he calls ‘13 Things that Don’t Make Sense in History’ and his recent discovery of a lost Stone Avenue at Avebury in Wiltshire called ‘Silbury Avenue – the Lost Stone Avenue’.

Langdon has also produced a series of ‘shorts’, which are extracts from his main body of books:

The Ancient Mariners

Stonehenge Built 8300 BCE

Old Sarum

Prehistoric Rivers

Dykes ditches and Earthworks

Echoes of Atlantis

Homo Superior

Other Blogs

Prehistoric Britain saw complex and evolving burial practices, starting with the excarnation of bodies. Dolmens, characterised by their capstones balanced on upright stones, were used as platforms to expose bodies to birds, and wooden palisades encircled the platform, preventing terrestrial animals and rodents from scavenging. (Prehistoric Burial Practices of Britain)

Once cleaned, the bones were collected and stored in long barrow chambers. These megalithic structures were deliberately shaped like boats, symbolising the voyage to the afterlife. The practice dates back to the seventh millennium BCE in France and highlights the cultural significance of these monuments. The misdating of British sites often results from the continuous use of these burial grounds. Older bones were naturally replaced by newer ones, similar to modern graveyards. This ongoing usage has led to confusion, especially when interpreting the age of these sites.

Cremation was another ancient practice, but it began many thousands of years after the first excarnations, indicating a change of culture; this adds further complexity to prehistoric burials. Archaeologists sometimes misinterpret cremated remains at sites like Stonehenge, assuming they date back to the monument’s original use. However, these remains often belong to later periods when ancient sites were reused for other purposes. At Stonehenge, cremated bones have been used to date the site, not recognising that the stones were possibly moved or their sockets were repurposed as burial sites. This misunderstanding challenges the interpretation of the site’s original function.

Round barrows present another puzzle. Often, cremated bones are found on the edges, not in the centre, indicating they were not initially constructed for burials but were later utilised for this purpose. This secondary use complicates the understanding of their primary function.

In areas of Britain like Wales and Ireland, misconceptions about the original function of megalithic sites and their reuse over time have led to confusion among archaeologists. These regions have developed unique site names not found elsewhere, and the designs often reflect changes from excarnation practices to later cremation uses. This has further complicated the understanding of these sites’ function. The intricate design and usage of these megalithic structures underscore the sophisticated burial practices of prehistoric communities. They revered their ancestors and treated death as a significant transition, deserving elaborate and respectful processes.

These burial practices reflect a deep connection with the environment. The boat-shaped long barrows built halfway down the tops of hills symbolised the journey to the afterlife. They were also used as markers for boats on rivers, illustrating the importance of water and travel in their cosmology. Modern archaeological techniques continue to unravel these complexities, revealing a dynamic and continuous use of sacred sites over millennia. Each discovery adds a piece to the puzzle of our ancestors’ beliefs and practices.

In addition to dolmens and long barrows, other megalithic structures played a role in prehistoric burial customs. Cairns and burial chambers, often constructed on hilltops, provided another method for interring the dead. The fact that they have whole bodies and not disarticulated bones indicates that this may have been a halfway house between excarnation and cremation. The community aspect of these burial practices is also notable. The construction of large megalithic structures required coordinated effort, indicating a strong social organisation and shared cultural or religious beliefs. This collective effort would have strengthened communal bonds and reinforced social cohesion.

Rituals associated with burial likely included ceremonies to honour the dead, invoking protection or favour from deities or ancestors. These rituals would have comforted the living, offering a sense of continuity and connection with the past. In some burial sites, grave goods, such as pottery, tools, and ornaments, indicate beliefs in an afterlife where such items would be needed. These offerings reflect the values and daily life of the communities, providing archaeologists with insights into their material culture.

In conclusion, the burial practices of prehistoric Britain were multifaceted and evolved. They reflect a deep connection with the environment, intricate rituals, and a continuous respect for the ancestors, providing a fascinating glimpse into the past. The combination of excarnation, long barrow interment, cremation, and communal effort in constructing megalithic structures illustrates a rich and complex cultural heritage. As modern archaeology continues to explore these ancient sites, our understanding of prehistoric beliefs and practices will continue to grow, revealing how these early societies interacted with their world.

search more accessible and to engage directly with the public can help bridge the gap between current archaeological research and public understanding.

Further Reading

For information about British Prehistory, visit www.prehistoric-britain.co.uk for the most extensive archaeology blogs and investigations collection, including modern LiDAR reports.  This site also includes extracts and articles from the Robert John Langdon Trilogy about Britain in the Prehistoric period, including titles such as The Stonehenge Enigma, Dawn of the Lost Civilisation and the ultimate proof of Post Glacial Flooding and the landscape we see today.

Robert John Langdon has also created a YouTube web channel with over 100 investigations and video documentaries to support his classic trilogy (Prehistoric Britain). He has also released a collection of strange coincidences that he calls ‘13 Things that Don’t Make Sense in History’ and his recent discovery of a lost Stone Avenue at Avebury in Wiltshire called ‘Silbury Avenue – the Lost Stone Avenue’.

Langdon has also produced a series of ‘shorts’, which are extracts from his main body of books:

The Ancient Mariners

Stonehenge Built 8300 BCE

Old Sarum

Prehistoric Rivers

Dykes ditches and Earthworks

Echoes of Atlantis

Homo Superior

(Top Ten misidentified Fire Beacons in British History)

Introduction

There are many challenges archaeology faces as a discipline. The historical misconceptions and the evolving understanding of our past are significant aspects of archaeological study. (Is Archaeology a dying discipline?)

Here are a few reasons why archaeology can sometimes lag behind other sciences in terms of updating its theories and practices:

Funding Limitations: Archaeology often has limited funding compared to more ‘practical’ sciences like engineering or medicine. Because the immediate applications of archaeological findings aren’t always as straightforward as those in fields that can drive technological innovation or medical advancements, it might receive less investment from both the public and private sectors.

The complexity of Evidence: Archaeological evidence is often incomplete and open to interpretation. Different cultures, times, and environmental conditions can significantly alter the archaeological record, making it difficult to draw definitive conclusions. This complexity means that updating misconceptions requires much new evidence and reinterpretation, which can be slow.

Interdisciplinary Challenges: Archaeology sits at the intersection of the humanities and sciences. It relies on methods and theories from fields as diverse as anthropology, geology, chemistry, and even physics (for dating techniques). This interdisciplinary nature can make integrating new findings and methods difficult, as each contributing discipline may have its own advancements or shifts in understanding.

Public and Academic Interest: The extent to which archaeology can draw public interest often depends on spectacular finds or the promise of uncovering “lost” civilisations, which can skew perceptions of what the field is genuinely about. Academic interest can similarly focus on certain popular or well-funded areas, leaving other equally essential areas under-explored.

Heritage and Cultural Sensitivity: Archaeological work is also closely tied to heritage and cultural sensitivity issues. Respecting present-day cultures and legal frameworks surrounding archaeological sites can slow excavations and studies. Furthermore, the involvement of communities and stakeholders can complicate how sites are investigated and how findings are interpreted and shared.

Despite these challenges, archaeology has made enormous strides in recent decades, particularly with the incorporation of technological advances such as GIS (Geographic Information Systems), LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging), stable isotope analysis, and OSL (Optically Stimulated Luminescence). OSL is particularly transformative as it allows archaeologists to date the last time sediment was exposed to light, providing critical information on site use and artefact burial timing. These tools have revolutionised our understanding of ancient environments and human interactions, helping to refine our interpretations of the archaeological record. However, revising historical narratives can still be slow and contentious.

The critical issues in archaeology, such as the slow pace at which the discipline updates and corrects its understanding of historical and archaeological findings, are significant obstacles to knowledge. This can create a gap between current and public knowledge, contributing to ongoing misconceptions. Here’s a breakdown of some of the factors contributing to this issue:

Peer-Review Process: While crucial for maintaining scientific rigour, the peer-review system can be slow. This can delay the dissemination of new ideas and corrections to established theories. The process is designed to ensure accuracy and credibility, but it can also inhibit rapid progress, especially in a field like archaeology, where new findings can challenge long-held beliefs.

Publication and Communication: The language used in academic journals can be dense and inaccessible to non-specialists. This often means that even when new research is published, it may not be readily understandable to the general public or enthusiasts without a deep background in the field. This can lead to a lag in the public’s understanding of new developments.

Conservatism in Academia: Academic institutions can be conservative in embracing new theories and approaches, particularly when they challenge the foundational understandings of the discipline. Scholars who have built careers on specific interpretations may be reluctant to accept new evidence contradicting their views.

Educational Outreach: There is often a lack of effective communication between archaeologists and the public. This can be due to a lack of resources dedicated to public engagement or focusing on academic publishing over public education. Without active efforts to translate new findings into accessible formats, misunderstandings and outdated perceptions persist.

Integration of New Technologies and Methods: Although new technologies like OSL and GIS have transformed archaeological methods, integrating these into traditional studies and ensuring they are part of the standard curricula across universities can be slow. This delay affects how quickly new findings influenced by these technologies become part of the mainstream archaeological discourse.

Addressing these issues requires a concerted effort to improve the speed and accessibility of the peer-review process, enhance public engagement and education, and encourage a more dynamic acceptance of new technologies and methodologies within the academic community. Efforts to make research more accessible and to engage directly with the public can help bridge the gap between current archaeological research and public understanding.

Practical Examples

Wansdyke

Consequently, one would imagine that the information contained within the publication would have created a ‘talking workshop’ in which questions would be asked and thoroughly discussed in minute detail as it is new to the world and previous undiscovered – but at best, all it received as a ‘Conspiracy Theory’ label even though it was based on research using the most up to date 21st Century software through LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) data collected by the government through is Defra (Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs) website, which has yet to be embraced by the archaeological profession, who still rely more upon dated Satellite technology and crop marks for information.

So, the professionals were reticent, and the only noise from social media was the usual archaeological ‘Jihads’ who refused to accept that the books and courses they attended and read in the last century are no longer relevant or correct as they were then ‘peer reviewed’ and therefore (in their mind) absolute in accuracy, for the rest of time no doubt?

This kind of ‘blind obedience’ is sadly commonplace and can be seen by religious fundamentalists, who take the words from a book and turn them into a test of faith rather than knowledge. ‘Intelligent design’ is a classic response to scientific proof of evolution, and the tactics used by these people are similar to what I see in my work – attempting to disprove a substantial theory by seeking a show that all aspects of evolution have been fully explained (although subjective in nature) and there cancels the hypothesis by default.

One of these ‘diehards ‘ came back at me in the hope that if he could show doubt in just one site – then the whole hypothesis would come tumbling down, even though a book covering every single metre of East Wansdyke has proven beyond any reasonable doubt that Wansdyke was neither a defensive wall nor a boundary marker. He’s claim was that Wansdyke was built on a ‘late iron age’ fortification and therefore must be Saxon.

So to prove his point, he named a site not actually covered within East Wansdyke book but in an area called West Wansdyke, which I questioned its relevance within the book as I concluded it was connected at a later date to the original prehistoric canal system (probably by the Roman’s) as it was incomplete, sporadic and of a different specification to East Wansdyke.

Cheddar Man

A recent discovery in Britain involving the analysis of mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) from the skeleton of a Mesolithic man found in the Cheddar Gorge, Somerset, England, has sparked considerable debate. According to researchers, this ancient individual, who lived around 9,000 years ago, likely had dark (brown-black) skin, dark brown hair, blue eyes, and phenotypical features resembling those of Western Europeans. But what’s the issue with these findings?

Without delving too deeply into the genomic research, the problem lies in the comparison with data collected over two decades ago when mtDNA collection began in 1996. This earlier study, which was notably not peer-reviewed, has been flagged in subsequent reports for potential modern DNA contamination during the collection process.

The 2018 Analysis and Its Controversy

The more recent study, which analyzed a skull fragment in 2018, found that Cheddar Man’s remains were linked to the same ancestral family as other Mesolithic European populations. This conclusion itself isn’t particularly surprising. However, the lack of peer-review for the initial study raises concerns about the legitimacy of these findings. The publication of detailed chromosomal data related to hair, eye, and skin color—especially given its potentially questionable origins—seems to have been aimed more at garnering publicity than advancing scientific understanding.

Even if the initial DNA was uncontaminated, the science behind estimating physical traits such as skin tone is not fully proven and remains a working hypothesis. Notably, 60% of the necessary chromosomes for accurately estimating skin tone were missing. Consequently, at best, there was only a 60% chance of the assessment being correct. Scientific standards dictate that results with a probability rate of less than 50% should not be considered reliable, as they are statistically likely to be incorrect.

The Media Hype and Its Consequences

Despite these uncertainties, the announcement led to the creation of ‘scientifically based’ documentaries suggesting that dark-skinned men with dreadlocks, akin to black Rastafarians, populated Ireland 10,000 years ago. This narrative, built on what many consider ‘bad science,’ has provided the establishment with political ‘brownie points’ on social media. Previous studies, such as “Genomic structure in Europeans dating back at least 36,200 years” (Science DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa0114), have shown…

The rush to publish sensationalized interpretations without thorough peer review undermines the integrity of archaeological and genetic research, leading to public misinformation and unfounded historical reconstructions.

Craig Rhos-Y-Felin

The Craig Rhos-y-Felin report by Mike Parker-Pearson is riddled with inconsistencies and logical inaccuracies, largely because the layout of the site was not thoroughly considered. One significant detail is the river that runs adjacent to the quarry, which was present as far back as 5620–5460 BCE and possibly up to 1030–910 BCE.

The River and Quarry Relationship

According to the report, “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.”

This suggests that the stream feeding into the River Nevern flowed during the Mesolithic period, reaching the quarry outcrop rocks and remaining close by until around 1000 BCE. Consequently, the transportation of newly quarried stones to Stonehenge likely involved boats, similar to stone transportation methods used in other ancient civilizations like Egypt.

Evidence of Quarrying and Hearths

The site layout also indicates the period when the stones were genuinely quarried. A single monolith ready for transportation lies on the east side of the site, with human-made hearths a few meters south of it—exactly where one would expect them. These hearths, however, are from the Mesolithic period, with three dating back to 8550–8330 BCE, 8220–7790 BCE, and 7490–7190 BCE. Yet, the report asserts:

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

This claim is scientifically dubious. How can one distinguish Mesolithic from Neolithic tool marks when the same tools might have been used? And what activities do archaeologists believe took place at the quarry over those 1,300 years if not quarrying?

Questioning the Scientific Approach

The establishment seems intent on highlighting only two of the 42 carbon dates obtained from the site, disregarding the other 40 as irrelevant. This approach is considered ‘bad science,’ aiming to preserve the traditional model at the expense of genuine scientific inquiry.

Woodhenge

The traditional reconstruction of Woodhenge presents yet another example of flawed science in archaeology. Despite the ‘second rate’ excavation report from the 1920s, modern archaeologists have concluded that this structure was a single-story house or an ‘artistic forest’ of tree stumps. However, a closer examination of the evidence leads to a different and more accurate understanding of this structure.

Site Layout and Post Holes

The site’s layout, though lacking in detail, reveals significant understatements in its reconstruction. The original excavation plans show that the existing ‘concrete’ posts are far too small. A more recent excavation by Pollard in 2007 indicates that the original post holes are at least five times larger than the current representations.

Misinterpretation of Ramps

A crucial unanswered question is the purpose of the large ramps by the post holes. These ramps would have added at least another month to the construction time and 500 working hours, suggesting their necessity. The direction in which these ramps were cut, a detail overlooked or ignored by archaeologists, provides important clues. The massive 4-5 ft pine posts in the 16 postholes (known as the C Ring) would weigh 214 kg per foot of length. Several healthy adults could easily handle a single-story pole without the need for a large ramp, indicating that the poles were significantly taller.

Clues from the Site Plan

The site plan also hints at the poles’ length. The angles of the ramps into the giant postholes are not uniform, suggesting a specific order of erection to avoid interference between the poles. This indicates that the poles at Woodhenge were likely over 100 ft high, if not taller.

Dating and Sample Issues

The dating of Woodhenge (and Durrington Walls) to around 2400 BCE is based on unrelated antler and bone fragments, which is convenient but problematic. Most of the post hole samples from the 1926 to 1929 excavations were either lost or stored away and have not been tested since. Similar issues were found with pine charcoal samples taken from the old car park in 1966, which were initially not carbon-dated and declared Neolithic. However, it was later discovered that these samples were actually Mesolithic, dating to around 8100 BCE. This raises questions about the pine charcoal dates found at Woodhenge, which were also not carbon-dated, supporting the traditional model without proper verification.

Further Reading

For information about British Prehistory, visit www.prehistoric-britain.co.uk for the most extensive archaeology blogs and investigations collection, including modern LiDAR reports.  This site also includes extracts and articles from the Robert John Langdon Trilogy about Britain in the Prehistoric period, including titles such as The Stonehenge Enigma, Dawn of the Lost Civilisation and the ultimate proof of Post Glacial Flooding and the landscape we see today.

Robert John Langdon has also created a YouTube web channel with over 100 investigations and video documentaries to support his classic trilogy (Prehistoric Britain). He has also released a collection of strange coincidences that he calls ‘13 Things that Don’t Make Sense in History’ and his recent discovery of a lost Stone Avenue at Avebury in Wiltshire called ‘Silbury Avenue – the Lost Stone Avenue’.

Langdon has also produced a series of ‘shorts’, which are extracts from his main body of books:

The Ancient Mariners

Stonehenge Built 8300 BCE

Old Sarum

Prehistoric Rivers

Dykes ditches and Earthworks

Echoes of Atlantis

Homo Superior

Other Blog Posts