13 things that don’t make sense about Waun Mawn (Stonehenge’s The Lost Circle Revealed)
Introduction
According to the BBC documentary, the discovery of the bluestone quarry in Wales was presented as a major breakthrough in understanding Stonehenge. At face value, that seems fair enough. Identifying a potential source for the stones is important.
But this is where the problem begins.
Because from that point onward, the investigation appears to shift away from asking what the evidence actually shows… and toward trying to make the evidence fit an already established timeline.
Instead of examining the quarry independently and comparing it objectively with Stonehenge, the focus becomes finding dates that support a pre-existing conclusion. That is not how science works. When you start with the answer and work backwards, you are no longer testing a hypothesis — you are trying to confirm one.
Craig Rhos-y-Felin is a good example of this.
Craig Rhos-Y-Felin: Stonehenge: The Lost Circle Revealed
The site contains clear evidence of Mesolithic activity, particularly in the form of man-made hearths. That should be the starting point for interpretation. Yet the emphasis is instead placed on a small number of later samples that fall closer to the desired Neolithic timeframe.
When those dates still don’t quite align, the solution is not to question the model — it is to introduce another one. A “prototype” stone circle in Wales was later moved to Stonehenge. A theory designed not from evidence, but from necessity.
And so begins a decade-long search for that missing link.
Sites are proposed… then quietly dropped when the dates don’t match. New locations are suggested… then abandoned for the same reason. The pattern repeats. The goal is no longer discovery — it is validation.
Eventually, everything converges on Waun Mawn.
(Stonehenge’s The Lost Circle Revealed)
This is presented as the long-awaited solution. But when you strip it back, the physical evidence is extremely limited. A handful of stones. A small number of possible stone holes. Nowhere near enough to replicate what exists at Stonehenge.
So the gaps are filled in.
Estimates are extended beyond what is actually present. Missing stones are assumed. Layouts are reconstructed from partial data. And suddenly, a fragment becomes a full circle.
Then we come to the dating.
Among a broad range of results spanning several millennia, one sample is highlighted as aligning with the proposed timeline. The rest — which do not support the theory — receive far less attention.
This is the core issue. You cannot treat a single favourable result as definitive while ignoring the wider dataset. That is not strengthening an argument — it is narrowing it.
The same pattern appears in other parts of the interpretation.
(Stonehenge’s The Lost Circle Revealed)
Large stones at the quarry are presented as the source of Stonehenge’s bluestones, despite clear differences in size and shape. No explanation is provided for how they were reduced or reworked.
Transport by water is dismissed, despite experimental demonstrations showing it is entirely possible. Instead, overland transport through heavily forested and waterlogged terrain is presented as the more feasible option — a claim that raises more questions than it answers.
Even the more technical aspects, such as photogrammetry, are used in ways that assume ideal conditions. A stone is said to match a socket, without addressing the simple fact that removing a stone alters the shape of that socket. Basic mechanical realities are overlooked.
And then, towards the end, the programme drifts into broader speculation — cultural movements, symbolic alignments, and generalised astronomical claims. These are presented confidently, but without the level of supporting evidence required to justify them.
Meanwhile, key inconsistencies remain unresolved.
Stonehenge contains 56 bluestone positions. Waun Mawn does not. The construction methods differ. The depth of the stone holes differs. The overall structure is not the same.
These are not small details. There are fundamental differences.
(Stonehenge’s The Lost Circle Revealed)
So what are we left with?
Not a clear, evidence-led conclusion — but a narrative built around selective interpretation. Certain data points are emphasised. Others are downplayed. Gaps are filled with theory rather than evidence.
The result is compelling television.
But it is not robust science.
Because real scientific analysis does not depend on finding the right answer.
It depends on being willing to accept when the evidence points somewhere else entirely.
(Stonehenge’s The Lost Circle Revealed)
The Documentary
Therefore, the last hope for MPP’s reputation and his ’10-year search’ fell upon Waun Mawn, culminating in the BBC documentary “Stonehenge: The Lost Circle Revealed”, shown on the 12th February 2021. In it, he claimed many so-called ‘facts’ which I shall now highlight as ‘not making sense’, with the reasons why.
1. At (13:20) MPP shows signs of human-made quarrying and splitting of Bluestones at Carn Goedog in Wales – unfortunately, there are no extensive excavation reports on this site, just a published review showing that of the 31 carbon dates, only three random samples support his theory and none of the man-made hearths which are Mesolithic (like Craig Rhos-Y-Felin) or late Neolithic.
2. The program showed the suggested quarried stones at Carn Goedog, which are over 12 feet long and 5 feet wide, weighing therefore around 20+ tonnes. The Stonehenge bluestones are, on average, less than six feet high and about 18–24 inches wide, weighing 1-3 tonnes.The review on the site offered no evidence that the stones were cut down and reshaped for the journey to Stonehenge or elsewhere. (Stonehenge’s The Lost Circle Revealed)
Carn Goedog – Stonehenge: The Lost Circle Revealed
3. MPP claims that the boat transport method (14.50) was infeasible as they did not have sturdy enough boats to carry the stones on such a journey – Sadly, you do not need a ‘boat’ to transport stones in a river as shown by Atkinson in the 1960’s who employed just four school kids to punt a raft with a 3 tonne stone attached down the Avon. Moreover, he has failed to recognise that the oldest boatyard in the world, located in the Solent (at the end of the Avon), was found with planked wood (and associated wheat grain from Turkey), indicating that substantial seafaring boats were available by the 7th Millennium BCE.
Clearly MPP was too young to see this punt down the Avon?
4. Mike Parker-Pearson also suggested that an ‘ox-cart’ route that followed the current A40 was the most feasible way of transporting these stones to Stonehenge. He believed that they dragged these stones over 200 km on wooden sledges – unfortunately, the example shown on the program shows schoolboys dragging a small stone over flat grassland, which would not be available for another 4000+ years and after Stonehenge’s initial construction. At the time of Phase I construction, the environment (as indicated by pollen analysis) shows that 70% of the terrain was woodland and forest, and the remaining 30% was mostly rivers and swampland, making such an endeavour impossible.
5. The Discovery (21:15) of ‘random’ hazel nuts at Craig Rhos-Y-Felin provides MPP’s required date for Stonehenge of 3300 BCE (which is still 500 years before MPP’s supposed construction date) – This clear ‘cherry picking’ of the archaeological evidence is ‘Bad Science’. To take just two carbon dates from over 40 at the Craig-Rhos-Y-Felin site and ignoring the more solid man-made hearth dates, which are Mesolithic and moreover, compatible with 26 carbon dates found at Stonehenge, is plainly a falsehood.
6. When they eventually found their target site (36:15), 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 10 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.
Nowhere near the 56 stones needed to create Stonehenge Phase I
7. The BBC reconstruction shows just 28 stones (38:05) of the 56 Bluestones required for the Aubrey holes to be filled at Stonehenge, and MPP goes on to suggest, that the stone circle is of equal size and dimensions as Stonehenge, quote “the chances of the two sites having the EXACT dimensions are very slim”- This sadly, is another falsehood, the Moat/Ditch at Stonehenge is approximately 110 metres in diameter, NOT the Aubrey holes which are 90 metres in diameter. Moreover, Stonehenge has a ditch/moat surrounding the stones (for a good reason) Waun Mawn does not!!
8. MPPs then used a new, unused tool in archaeology to prove their hypothesis, ‘photogrammetry’, and suggested that Stone 62 at Stonehenge fitted the stone hole 91 at Waun Mawn. The reason this method is not used is somewhat obvious to even non-academics. You would need a crane to lift the stone vertically out of the hole to get an exact imprint. If you are taking out a stone by hand and/or with levers, you will rock it from side to side, destroying the stone hole impression, as we have seen with post holes in numerous excavations.
9. The program fails to report that the 40 carbon dates from wood found on the site did not come up with MPP’s magic date, and so he employed another form of Dating OSL (40:17) to find this single piece of evidence he desperately required. – Sadly, watching Dr Kim Kinnaird’s efforts to get a light, uncontaminated sample from over a fallen Stone summed up the state of archaeology as a science for me. Armed with a black weed blocker and a bicycle light on his head, he set forth to get a sample to prove MPP’s hypothesis. Anyone who considers this an effective way of obtaining an OSL sample is beyond scientific redemption, as logic would suggest; doing it at night would perhaps be more suitable. This was finally compounded when we saw him transporting the sample in his hand into the detector in daylight, which was pure icing on that flawed cake.
10. Roberts indicated (quite rightly) that ALL the dates were “way out” and all hopes were put on this one sample, MPP then claimed (42:20) “we had dated the thing, and it just before Stonehenge’s construction” (3300 BCE) – Sadly, and not report in the program, but within the Waun Mawn excavation report, there was not one OSL samples taken but 18, which gave results in the range of 6980+/- 2120 BCE to AD 1900 +/- 20. So the 17 dating sample did not verify MPP’s hypothesis, only a single one, which was dated 3530 +/- 330 (with that date range, the probability it’s 3300 BCE is slim!!).In fact, the OSL data in the review document suggested “removal of the stones” in 2120 +/- 520 BCE, long after the Stonehenge phase I.
11. The program then went onto a flight of fantasy for 15 minutes (25% OF AIR TIME) with unscientific mythology and astroarchaeology (which proved MORE that astroarchaeology doesn’t have any significance as the ‘expert’ suggested that the stones were ‘in the general direction’ of an alignment – which by the very nature of a stone circle of 360 degrees – every stone circle in the world is in the general direction of all astrological alignments!! Even more ludicrous came an idea that the Welsh culturally invaded England in 3300 BCE and took the stones of Waun Mawn with them –Sadly, at no point did the experts attempt to justify why Stonehenge had 56 Bluestones and the site at Waun Mawn had less than 30 at the most. Even if this idea were remotely true, why would you leave four stones behind when you are already going to be 30 stones short and need to go back and get some more from the quarry site?
12. The program never went into any detail of the OTHER carbon dates found at Waun Mawn, which would have allowed a balanced scientific program, allowing the viewer to decide whether MPP’s hypothesis was actually feasible. It presented speculation as fact, with a number of site workers and the presenter agreeing on MPP’s ideas without question or qualification – this is commonly known as ‘propaganda’ rather than scientific methodology. Moreover, the REAL evidence can be found in the report and shows that of the carbon dating evidence at Waun Mawn (the OSL data was excluded from the report accept a small paragraph without all data!) shows that of the 42 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 from the 4th Millennium BCE to 17 AD.
13. The report on Waun Mawn contains other questionable evidence, which was excluded from the program. This includes the fact that the Aubrey holes at Stonehenge are ALL two to three times deeper than at Waun Mawn. This indicates that the Stonehenge Bluestones were made from larger bluestones than those at Waun Mawn (Stonehenge Bluestone hole 69 is over 1.5m deep, as it is long and thin). It looks as if the original stone circle at Waun Mawn was made up of stones similar in shape to the existing recumbent stone 13, which is 6– 7 feet tall and surrounded by a moat. The shape of recumbent 13 indicates that rather than the long thin bluestones as at Stonehenge, Waun Mawn had ‘fat bottomed’ domed ends and hence the need for only shallow ditches.
recumbent stone 13; Stonehenge: The Lost Circle RevealedStonehenge Bluestone 69 – a third is underground. Stonehenge: The Lost Circle Revealed
Conclusion
In conclusion, 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 very limited success.
(Stonehenge’s The Lost Circle Revealed)
Memoir
I first met MPP on his excavation dig on the Avon in 2009, where he was preparing to announce his bluestone site, ‘Bluestonehenge’. At the time, we had a discussion about the date of the site, as he was convinced that (at that time) he believed it predated Stonehenge Phase I (we now know this was the first of many claims of a predated Stonehenge bluestone circle). I did point out that at the meeting that I thought this date would be incorrect as according to my research (of the surrounding 50 sites around Stonehenge) which was included in my published book and post-glacial flooded environment hypothesis ‘The Stonehenge Enigma’ in 2013 – that this site would have been below water as the River Avon would remain flooded throughout the Neolithic period. At this point, he ended the meeting and disappeared at such a rapid speed – it looked as if he thought I was clearly mad.
Later carbon dating proved my point and supported my hypothesis, as it is now accepted that Bluehenge was constructed between 2840 and 2230 BCE, in the Early Bronze Age.
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
For those interested in British Prehistory, visit www.prehistoric-britain.co.uk, a comprehensive resource featuring an extensive collection of archaeology articles, modern LiDAR investigations, and groundbreaking research. The site also includes insights and excerpts from the acclaimed Robert John Langdon Trilogy, a series of books that explore Britain during the Prehistoric period. Titles in the trilogy include The Stonehenge Enigma, Dawn of the Lost Civilisation, and The Post-Glacial Flooding Hypothesis, which offer compelling evidence of ancient landscapes shaped by post-glacial flooding.
To further explore these topics, Robert John Langdon has developed a dedicated YouTube channel featuring over 100 video documentaries and investigations that complement the trilogy. Notable discoveries and studies showcased on the channel include 13 Things that Don’t Make Sense in History and the revelation of Silbury Avenue – The Lost Stone Avenue, a rediscovered prehistoric feature at Avebury, Wiltshire.
In addition to his main works, Langdon has released a series of shorter, accessible publications, ideal for readers delving into specific topics. These include:
For active discussions and updates on the trilogy’s findings and recent LiDAR investigations, join our vibrant community on Facebook. Engage with like-minded enthusiasts by leaving a message or contributing to debates in our Facebook Group.
Whether through the books, the website, or interactive videos, we aim to provide a deeper understanding of Britain’s fascinating prehistoric past. We encourage you to explore these resources and uncover the mysteries of ancient landscapes through the lens of modern archaeology.
For more information, including chapter extracts and related publications, visit the Robert John Langdon Author Page. Dive into works such as The Stonehenge Enigma or Dawn of the Lost Civilisation, and explore cutting-edge theories that challenge traditional historical narratives.
Exploring the origins and transport of the stones used to construct Stonehenge remains a fascinating subject, rife with theories and controversies. The viral interest generated by my blog post this week, which highlighted a map showing three known sites of the stones’ origins, barely scratches the surface of this complex logistical puzzle. Indeed, there are stones from even greater distances, raising myriad questions about how these megaliths were transported to their final resting place at Stonehenge. This essay aims to delve into these logistics, providing a comprehensive overview grounded in the latest research and theories. (The Stonehenge Transportation Mystery)
The Stonehenge Transportation Mystery
The Bluestones
Recent advancements in micro-spectrum analysis have significantly contributed to our understanding of the origins of bluestones. However, this is not an exact science, as the movement of rocks due to glacial activity and post-ice age water flows complicates their traceability. Some academics have proposed that the bluestones found at Stonehenge were not quarried and transported from Wales but deposited nearby by glacial action. This theory, however, conflicts with geological evidence indicating that the last ice age glaciers did not reach as far as Stonehenge, stopping instead at the Bristol Channel. This discrepancy casts doubt on the glacier transport theory, suggesting the need to consider earlier ice ages, such as the Anglian, which occurred over 500,000 years ago. Yet the immense timescale involved means that any stones moved by such glaciers would be deeply buried beneath millennia of soil, making their discovery improbable.
The Stonehenge Transportation Mystery
Furthermore, the lack of bluestone erratics in the vicinity of Stonehenge further challenges the idea of glacial transport. The site at Craig Rhos-Y-Felin, identified as a source of the bluestones, shows clear evidence of human quarrying activity, contradicting the theory that these stones were randomly picked up from glacial deposits. The discovery of human hearths and quarrying tools at Craig Rhos-Y-Felin, along with a partially quarried bluestone, strongly suggests that these stones were intentionally selected and transported for use at Stonehenge.
The overland path from Craig Rhos-y-felin to Stonehenge is insane. It goes from 75m OD to 541 OD and crosses 95 valleys – the idea that you can either roll, drag or ox-cart such a route without a road is bonkers!!
The Sarsen Stones
The origin and transportation of the sarsen stones present a different set of challenges. These stones are found scattered across the Salisbury Plain and further afield, in areas never reached by the ice sheets that covered Britain during the last ice age. The popular theory that the sarsen stones came from West Woods near Avebury suggests that they could have been dragged to their current location. However, recent observations indicate that many of these stones are in paleochannel riverbeds rather than rock outcrops. This suggests that they were transported by ice-age floodwaters rather than being quarried from nearby outcrops.
Even the shortest route known to transport these stones is difficult to follow, as the 12 valleys and 14 peaks shown on this map testify.
Theories of Transportation
The theory that the stones could have been moved over frozen rivers during the ice age is intriguing but fraught with logistical issues. The absence of a significant human population capable of organising such an endeavour, coupled with the challenges of moving heavy stones over potentially thin ice, makes this theory less plausible. Additionally, the radiocarbon dating of Stonehenge would be significantly off if the stones had been transported at the end of the ice age.
The Stonehenge Transportation Mystery
LiDAR, or Light Detection and Ranging, is a remote sensing technology that uses laser light to densely sample the earth’s surface, creating highly accurate topographic maps. It has revolutionised archaeological surveys by uncovering features difficult or impossible to see from the ground or through traditional surveying methods. Regarding Stonehenge and the transportation of the stones used in its construction, LiDAR technology offers invaluable insights into the landscape and potential transport routes used by ancient peoples.
The trilithon stones, weighing around 50 tonnes, reportedly come from Sussex. Such weights were successfully transported down the Nile on boats.
LiDAR Evidence and Stonehenge
LiDAR has been instrumental in mapping the landscape around Stonehenge, revealing details that have remained hidden for millennia under vegetation or soil. This technology has the potential to identify old riverbeds, trackways, and other features that could suggest routes for transporting the massive sarsen stones and bluestones used in the monument’s construction. However, despite its capabilities, LiDAR has not yet provided definitive evidence of prehistoric roads or paths leading directly from the quarries to Stonehenge.
The Stonehenge Transportation Mystery
Key Findings from LiDAR Surveys
No Prehistoric Roads from Quarries: LiDAR surveys have not found any evidence of engineered roads or paths originating from the bluestone quarries in Wales or from locations where sarsen stones are found. This absence challenges theories that rely on overland transport of the stones using rollers, sledges, or ox-carts over vast distances and rugged terrain.
Ancient Waterways and Paleochannels: One significant contribution of LiDAR is the identification of ancient waterways and paleochannels. These features are crucial for understanding the prehistoric landscape, suggesting that rivers and watercourses may have played a significant role in transporting the stones. The larger rivers identified by LiDAR, which were navigable in the past, support the theory that water transport was a feasible and preferred method for moving the stones.
Atkinson proved with just four small schoolboys that a 4-tonne stone can easily be moved by boat down to the River Avon
Landscape Features: LiDAR has revealed the complexity of the landscape through which any transportation route would have had to navigate, including valleys, dense forests, and waterlogged areas. This detailed mapping underscores the logistical challenges faced by ancient builders, further calling into question the practicality of relying solely on land-based transport methods.
We have now found empirical evidence of boat yards in which catamaran design is made to carry large weights in Wales, dating back to the Bronze Age and beyond
Implications of LiDAR Evidence
The evidence from LiDAR surveys, particularly the absence of prehistoric roads and the emphasis on natural watercourses, suggests a reevaluation of how the stones were transported to Stonehenge. The lack of direct routes from quarries to the site and the identification of navigable ancient rivers and paleochannels lend weight to theories prioritising water transport. This perspective aligns with the understanding that ancient peoples were highly adept at utilising their natural environment to achieve monumental feats of construction.
The Altar Stone is now suspected of coming from as far as Scotland, as its Geo signature is not available down south (I would guess Doggerland for obvious reasons), but even if it just came from the Yorkshire Dales, the idea of l, and transportation is pure nonsense
Short Transportation systems from the boatharbours to the Monument
Mechanical Advantage of Poles (from the book – Dawn of the Lost Civilisation)
The principle of leverage, applied through poles, provides a mechanical advantage when handling heavy weights. Professor John Cunningham, an art professor at Skidmore College, has introduced a novel concept, creating a new class of simple machines based on flexible rods. Unlike traditional machines, Cunningham’s design not only multiplies force but also distributes it and stores mechanical energy.
The Stonehenge Transportation Mystery
Consider a scenario with a 20,000-pound stone. If you attempt to support it on two rigid beams, each will bear half the weight (10,000 pounds), posing a risk of fracture. Now, imagine spreading the load across 20 solid, parallel beams, each supporting only a fraction of the total weight, making the burden manageable. Cunningham’s innovation takes this idea further by replacing solid beams with flexible poles.
The Bluestones were carried, not dragged, to Stonehenge
In the flexible pole structure, each pole can be raised independently without affecting the others. By lifting one end of a pole, a small amount of extra energy is imparted to that pole, and the energy is distributed across the structure. The weight rises by a fraction of the raised end, divided by the number of pole ends. If one end is lifted by a foot, the weight on each of the other pole ends diminishes by a corresponding fraction. Using this method, heavy loads can be lifted with significantly fewer people, as each person is only moving a fraction of the weight at a time.
This innovative approach enables efficient handling of substantial weights, offering a unique perspective on the use of mechanical advantage in lifting and distributing loads. (Stone transportation and censorship)
The Stonehenge Transportation Mystery
Cunningham has distilled the concept to a formula: D = S x 1/N
Where D is the distance, the load is raised, s is the distance any one pole is blocked up, and N is the total number of pole ends in the system. Given n is the number of pole ends lifted simultaneously, the mechanical advantage for any symmetrical pole configuration will be N/n.
The Stonehenge Transportation Mystery
So, the fact that a pole bends like a bow, storing energy, makes it easier to carry. So easy in fact, that it acts as a lever and gives you a mechanical advantage. This principle would be well known as it is the same principle as how a bow works as it is a store of potential energy, you can’t throw an arrow 100 metres, but the bowing of the wood channelled through a small area (the string) give you the potential energy.
Walk like an Egyptian
The experiment showed that 48 students ( four x 12 poles) could lift 2.3 tonnes, which was the weight of one of the pyramid’s building stones. The larger the stone, the more poles and men you need, but it was quite easy even for wimpish students. In prehistoric Days with Cro-Magnon works you would need only 24 people to move a Pyramid stone or a Bluestone at Stonehenge without the rest blocks the video has included in their H & S safety assessment….LOL!!
A-Frames and Cranes
The advancement of technology and the movement of massive stones, such as the Sarsen stones at Stonehenge, Avebury, and Carnac, demand a closer examination of the engineering and logistical challenges faced by the ancient civilisation of Homo Superior, also known as Cro-Magnons. The Sarsen stones, weighing up to 60 tonnes, were not merely transported but meticulously erected, presenting a feat that even modern attempts struggle to replicate.
In our exploration of ancient technology, we encounter the question of how to transport and handle colossal loads. The Sarsen stones serve as an illustrative example due to their significant size, and it is perplexing that historians and archaeologists often overlook the intricacies of moving and placing these stones. This oversight persists even though, even with today’s technology, replicating the achievements of Homo Superior at Stonehenge remains a daunting challenge.
The Stonehenge Transportation Mystery
The crane, a machine designed to lift and move heavy materials, is pivotal in the transport and construction industries. Equipped with a hoist, wire ropes or chains, and sheaves, a crane utilises mechanical advantages to lift and lower materials beyond the capacity of human effort. Historically, the invention of the crane is attributed to the Ancient Greeks in the late 6th century BC, as evidenced by cuttings for lifting tongs and Lewis irons on stone blocks of Greek temples dating to around 515 BC.
However, when scrutinising Stonehenge, we encounter a fascinating divergence. In contrast, archaeological evidence points to the use of lifting devices, particularly with cuttings indicating the application of cranes, the peculiarities of Stonehenge’s construction challenge conventional narratives. Notably, the placement of lintels on Sarsen uprights and the presence of holes like Y & Z, potentially serving as foundations for A-frame crane legs, hint at a more sophisticated lifting apparatus.
The Stonehenge Transportation Mystery
The reluctance of some scholars to acknowledge advanced lifting devices in the historical context of Homo Superior may stem from the challenge they pose to established historical frameworks. Nevertheless, the investigation into the engineering marvels of Stonehenge encourages us to reassess the capabilities of this ancient civilisation, prompting a deeper understanding of their technological prowess and organisational acumen.
The Stonehenge Transportation Mystery
The transition from ramps to the more sophisticated winch-and-pulley hoist marked a significant shift in ancient construction technology. The emergence of the compound pulley system, attributed to Aristotle in the Mechanical Problems, coincided with a notable decrease in the weights of stones handled on Greek building sites. This transformative period saw the prevalence of smaller stones, weighing less than 15–20 metric tonnes, in contrast to the archaic era’s trend of using larger blocks.
The adoption of the crane, facilitated by the compound pulley system, introduced a more efficient and practical method of vertical motion. Grecian temples of the classical age, exemplified by the Parthenon, favoured using several smaller stones rather than fewer larger ones. Monolithic columns, a prominent feature in earlier constructions, were gradually replaced by multiple-column drums.
The Stonehenge Transportation Mystery
The reasons behind this technological evolution are not entirely clear. It raises intriguing questions about whether the shift from larger to smaller stones was due to the loss of past techniques, improved quarrying methods that enabled faster cutting of shorter blocks, or other factors influencing construction practices. The shift in societal dynamics, with smaller, professional construction teams being favoured over larger bodies of unskilled labour, is proposed as a potential contributing factor. The crane, with its efficiency in handling smaller stones, became preferable in the more volatile social and political conditions of ancient Greece.
While the exact circumstances of this transition remain uncertain, the historical record indicates that the compound pulley system and the crane became integral to Greek construction sites. The literary evidence from Aristotle’s Mechanical Problems and the resurgence of larger block sizes at Greek temples suggests a correlation between the adoption of the compound pulley and advancements in construction techniques. The earliest construction cranes, likely powered by humans or beasts of burden like donkeys, marked a transformative period in ancient construction methods.
The Stonehenge Transportation Mystery
The evolution of cranes played a crucial role in the construction of tall buildings, enabling the lifting of heavier loads. In the High Middle Ages, harbour cranes emerged to facilitate ship loading and unloading, often integrated into stone towers for enhanced strength and stability. The earliest cranes were crafted from wood, but with the advent of the Industrial Revolution, materials like cast iron and steel became predominant.
At Stonehenge, the construction methods are a subject of speculation, with suggestions that timber A-frames were employed to raise the stones. Teams of individuals may have hauled the stones upright using ropes, and the topmost stones (lintels) could have been incrementally raised on timber platforms and slid or pushed into place. Carpentry-type joints on the stones indicate a high level of woodworking skill among the builders.
The Stonehenge Transportation Mystery
The idea of A-frames finds support in demonstrations by individuals such as Wally Wallington, a retired construction worker, who showcased techniques based on lever principles for rotating, lifting, and positioning heavy monoliths. An A-frame, essentially a basic crane without a pulley or winch, operates on similar principles to facilitate vertical movement. Adding a swivel base could transform it into a fully functional crane, a concept compatible with the mortise-and-tenon joints observed at Stonehenge.
The Stonehenge Transportation Mystery
Estimates of the manpower required for Stonehenge’s construction suggest a substantial effort, with millions of hours of work. The various phases of Stonehenge’s construction, from the initial to the third phase, may have required extensive human labour, amounting to up to 20 million hours spent working the stones. The primitive tools available at the time necessitated considerable effort, highlighting the strong will and advanced social organisation required to build and maintain such a monumental site. Stonehenge stands as a testament to the ingenuity and determination of its ancient builders. (Stone transportation and censorship)
The Stonehenge Transportation Mystery
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
For those interested in British Prehistory, visit www.prehistoric-britain.co.uk, a comprehensive resource featuring an extensive collection of archaeology articles, modern LiDAR investigations, and groundbreaking research. The site also includes insights and excerpts from the acclaimed Robert John Langdon Trilogy, a series of books that explore Britain during the Prehistoric period. Titles in the trilogy include The Stonehenge Enigma, Dawn of the Lost Civilisation, and The Post-Glacial Flooding Hypothesis, which offer compelling evidence of ancient landscapes shaped by post-glacial flooding.
To further explore these topics, Robert John Langdon has developed a dedicated YouTube channel featuring over 100 video documentaries and investigations that complement the trilogy. Notable discoveries and studies showcased on the channel include 13 Things that Don’t Make Sense in History and the revelation of Silbury Avenue – The Lost Stone Avenue, a rediscovered prehistoric feature at Avebury, Wiltshire.
In addition to his main works, Langdon has released a series of shorter, accessible publications, ideal for readers delving into specific topics. These include:
For active discussions and updates on the trilogy’s findings and recent LiDAR investigations, join our vibrant community on Facebook. Engage with like-minded enthusiasts by leaving a message or contributing to debates in our Facebook Group.
Whether through the books, the website, or interactive videos, we aim to provide a deeper understanding of Britain’s fascinating prehistoric past. We encourage you to explore these resources and uncover the mysteries of ancient landscapes through the lens of modern archaeology.
For more information, including chapter extracts and related publications, visit the Robert John Langdon Author Page. Dive into works such as The Stonehenge Enigma or Dawn of the Lost Civilisation, and explore cutting-edge theories that challenge traditional historical narratives.
The third book in my trilogy aims to weave together the discoveries made across Britain, with a particular focus on Stonehenge, to shed light on a civilisation that archaeologists have termed the ‘megalithic builders.’ This civilisation is markedly distinct from those that came after, showcasing an extraordinary level of capability and engineering skill in moving vast stones and constructing earthworks that have endured for nearly ten thousand years. These achievements are even more striking when compared to the structures left by the Romans, who occupied these lands for hundreds of years yet left behind fewer enduring monuments. (Stonehenge, Doggerland and Atlantis connection)
Video
The megalithic builders’ legacy, characterised by iconic structures such as Stonehenge, reveals a sophisticated understanding of both engineering and astronomy. Their ability to align massive stones with celestial events suggests a deep connection to their environment and a complex societal organisation capable of undertaking such monumental projects. This civilisation’s accomplishments in stone construction and earthwork highlight their technical prowess and cultural and spiritual values, as many of these sites are believed to have served practical purposes.
Long Barrows of Europe – centred over The North Sea (Doggerland) – (Stonehenge, Doggerland and Atlantis connection)
In writing this third book, I aimed to connect the dots between various megalithic sites across Britain and explore the knowledge, skills, and motivations of the people who built them. By examining the evidence left by the megalithic builders, from the stones they transported and erected to the earthworks they shaped, we can gain insights into a civilisation that continues to fascinate and inspire despite its distance in time.
(Stonehenge, Doggerland and Atlantis connection)
This exploration is an academic exercise and a journey into the heart of a civilisation whose creations still stand as a testament to human ingenuity and perseverance. The megalithic builders may have vanished into the mists of time, but their legacy endures, inviting us to marvel at their achievements and to contemplate our own place in the continuum of human history.
(Stonehenge, Doggerland and Atlantis connection)
The Megalthic Builders
The megalithic builders, a fascinating civilisation from our prehistoric past, operated on a scale and with a level of cooperation that transcends modern conceptions of boundaries and nation-states. Their domain spanned northern Europe, a testament to their widespread influence and shared cultural or technological practices. Unlike the segmented and often isolated cultures that followed, these ancient builders engaged in monumental constructions that served both the living and the dead, creating long barrows and dolmens as eternal resting places and linear earthwork canals and stone trading circles for the living.
(Stonehenge, Doggerland and Atlantis connection)
One of the most intriguing aspects of their civilisation is the central role played by an area now submerged beneath the North Sea, known as Doggerland. This now-lost land, which started to succumb to rising sea levels approximately 9,000 years ago, was once a vital part of a massive Mesolithic landscape. Doggerland connected the British Isles to mainland Europe, serving as a crossroads for people, ideas, and goods. The remnants of this landscape, including the Dogger Bank, provide a tantalising glimpse into a world where megalithic builders thrived, interacting with their environment and with one another in sophisticated ways.
Stonehenge is a moon temple made for the dead – (Stonehenge, Doggerland and Atlantis connection)
The disappearance of Doggerland due to post-glacial sea level rise did not merely result in the loss of land; it marked the end of a significant chapter in human history. This transformation from a vast, interconnected landscape to a series of islands fundamentally altered the trajectory of European civilisation. The megalithic builders’ legacy, however, remains etched in the stone and earthworks that dot the landscape of northern Europe, enduring monuments to their engineering prowess and cosmopolitan outlook.
(Stonehenge, Doggerland and Atlantis connection)
Their achievements compel us to reconsider our understanding of prehistoric societies, challenging us to appreciate the complexity and depth of human ingenuity long before the advent of written history. The megalithic builders remind us that the desire to connect, communicate, and commemorate is a fundamental aspect of the human condition, transcending time, space, and the ever-changing contours of the earth.
The Stonehenge Connection
We can see from their greatest achievement, Stonehenge, a ‘message in a bottle’ that the megalithic builders left us some 5,000 years ago. Although subsequent civilisations reused and altered aspects of the Stonehenge Monument, some of the most influential stones and structures still survive in situ, owing to the megalithic ability to manoeuvre vast weights, which effectively hindered lesser cultures in their attempts to radically alter the site’s significance.
(Stonehenge, Doggerland and Atlantis connection)
The origins of the Altar Stone at Stonehenge, described by Professor Hawkins as a “fine-grained pale green sandstone” notable for its mica flakes and glitter”, have long been a subject of speculation among experts. The prevailing theories had pointed towards Wales or Devon as the stone’s source. However, recent findings challenge this perspective, suggesting the stone could have originated much farther afield, potentially as far north as Scotland. This revelation aligns with my hypothesis, presented in my book over a decade ago, proposing an even more dramatic provenance for the Altar Stone—not just from the north, but from the northeast, specifically from the submerged landscapes of Doggerland.
The Altar is one of only two recumbents
Doggerland, the now-submerged landmass that once connected the British Isles to mainland Europe, represents a significant part of Mesolithic Europe’s landscape. The suggestion that the Altar Stone might have originated in this ancient, lost territory adds a fascinating layer to our understanding of Stonehenge’s construction. It implies that the builders of Stonehenge not only could transport massive stones over vast distances but also that their network of trade or cultural exchange spanned a far greater area than previously thought, encompassing regions that are now beneath the sea.
(Stonehenge, Doggerland and Atlantis connection)
The connection between Doggerland and Stonehenge, particularly through the Altar Stone, hints at a deeply intertwined prehistoric landscape that extends beyond current geographical boundaries. The intriguing alignment from the Altar Stone towards the last vestiges of Doggerland, known as the Isle of Dogger, intersects with another enigmatic feature of Stonehenge: the Slaughter Stone. This stone, distinctively recumbent and partially buried by the surrounding ditch, has long puzzled archaeologists. Its unique position within the Stonehenge complex and the name attributed to it by the Druids suggest a significant ceremonial or symbolic role.
Altar Stone and Slaughter Stone align with Doggerland
The deliberate placement of the Slaughter Stone, when considered in relation to the direction towards the remnants of Doggerland, could indicate a symbolic gesture by the builders of Stonehenge, perhaps to commemorate or maintain a connection with their ancestral lands now submerged beneath the North Sea. This alignment and the specific use of stones from distant locations underscore the profound sense of purpose and meaning the Stonehenge builders invested in the site’s construction.
The chalk under the Slaugher stone was cut away for a purpose
These potential connections to Doggerland not only expand our understanding of Stonehenge’s geographical and cultural significance but also invite us to consider the broader networks of communication, travel, and exchange that existed in prehistoric Europe. The use of stones from such distant sources and the possible alignments with lost lands hint at an intricate web of relationships and a deep historical consciousness among the people who constructed Stonehenge.
(Stonehenge, Doggerland and Atlantis connection)
As we continue to unravel the mysteries of Stonehenge and its stones, the importance of considering wider landscapes and connections becomes clear. The potential links to Doggerland offer a tantalising glimpse into the minds of the megalithic builders, revealing a world where memory, landscape, and the movement of materials were intimately connected. These insights challenge us to look beyond the immediate vicinity of prehistoric monuments and to consider the vast, now-hidden landscapes that were once integral to the lives and beliefs of ancient peoples.
The Slaughrer stone is in fact a relief map (found after a HE scan) and not natural – the ground has been removed so to create an island surrounded by water
This hypothesis challenges the conventional archaeological narrative and suggests a level of sophistication and reach in prehistoric societies that is only now being understood. It underscores the importance of reconsidering and expanding our investigation into the origins and connections of the materials and people involved in creating monumental structures like Stonehenge. As we continue to uncover more about these ancient builders, their methods, and their world, it becomes increasingly clear that their achievements were far more complex and interconnected than once imagined, bridging lands now separated by waters but once part of a vast, interconnected landscape.
The Atlantis Connection
The completion of the quest to pinpoint the homeland of the megalithic builders marks a significant milestone in our understanding of this remarkable civilisation. The evidence of their extraordinary engineering achievements, from constructing monumental stone structures like Stonehenge to creating extensive earthworks such as Silbury Hill, underscores the sophistication and capabilities of these ancient architects and engineers. Without the modern machinery and technology we rely on today, their achievements in construction speak to a profound understanding of their environment and a remarkable ability to manipulate natural materials to their will.
(Stonehenge, Doggerland and Atlantis connection)
Given the scale of their constructions and the distances over which materials, such as the stones used in megaliths, were transported, it becomes clear that these builders possessed sophisticated transportation methods. The absence of roads for moving such massive stones over vast distances suggests that ships and boats were essential to their way of life. Waterways would have served as the arteries of trade, travel, and communication, connecting distant communities and facilitating the exchange of goods, ideas, and cultural practices across Europe.
We have found prehistoric Catamarans made to carry stones – Wales oldest Boat Yard
This reliance on maritime technology indicates that the megalithic builders were skilled engineers, architects, and adept sailors and navigators. Using boats would have allowed them to traverse prehistoric Europe’s coastal and riverine landscapes, enabling the widespread distribution of their megalithic culture. Such capabilities would have been crucial for orchestrating the large-scale cooperative efforts to construct the monumental stone structures that define their legacy.
(Stonehenge, Doggerland and Atlantis connection)
The comparison with the maritime achievements of the Greeks and Romans, celebrated for their advancements in shipbuilding and navigation, underscores the significance of the megalithic builders’ accomplishments. Their ability to harness the power of water for transportation and communication is a testament to their ingenuity and a critical factor in their success as a civilisation.
(Stonehenge, Doggerland and Atlantis connection)
The megalithic builders’ reliance on maritime technology for movement and communication across Europe highlights a sophisticated understanding of their environment and an unparalleled ability to manipulate it to their advantage. This aspect of their civilisation offers valuable insights into the complexity of prehistoric societies and challenges us to expand our appreciation of their technological and cultural achievements.
Plato
The tale of Atlantis, as recounted by Plato, stands as one of the most captivating stories from antiquity, blurring the line between historical account and mythological narrative. Over time, the story of this advanced civilisation that supposedly sank into the sea around 9,000 years ago has been transformed by modern interpretations and entertainment into something more akin to science fiction. This transformation has, unfortunately, obscured the significance of Plato’s account, relegating it to the realm of mere fantasy in the eyes of many.
Plato, a philosopher of unparalleled influence in Western thought, presented the story of Atlantis not as a myth but as a recounting of historical fact told to him by Solon, who had learned it from Egyptian priests. According to the narrative, Atlantis was a civilisation of great power and technological prowess, with ships that traversed the globe and a highly advanced society.
The comparison between the story of Atlantis and the archaeological evidence of Doggerland and the megalithic builders is striking. Like the Atlanteans, the people of Doggerland, who lived around 10,000 years ago, exhibited advanced capabilities, particularly in maritime technology. They built monumental structures and possessed the knowledge to navigate and sail to distant lands. This evidence challenges the prevailing academic view of prehistoric societies as simplistic hunter-gatherer tribes and aligns with Plato’s description of Atlantis as a great and advanced civilisation.
Moreover, the presence of notable figures such as Solon, a key figure in the development of democracy in ancient Greece, and Socrates, celebrated for his wisdom, in the dialogues discussing Atlantis, lends credibility to the account. Their involvement suggests that the story was taken seriously by some of the most respected thinkers of the time, who did not dismiss it as mere fiction.
Some academics’ reluctance to accept the possibility of advanced prehistoric civilisations is perhaps understandable, given the scarcity of direct archaeological evidence and the challenge of separating historical fact from myth. However, the megalithic stones and the submerged landscapes of Doggerland offer tangible links to a past that may have been far more complex and interconnected than previously acknowledged.
The possible connection between Doggerland, the story of Atlantis told by Plato, and the initial stages of Stonehenge’s construction around 8300 BCE suggests that these ancient events might be related or share a common origin. Dating the beginning of Stonehenge to such an early era aligns with the timeline of Plato’s Atlantean civilisation, suggesting a potential connection or shared features between the Stonehenge builders and the advanced society described in the Atlantis legend.
(Stonehenge, Doggerland and Atlantis connection)
This theory challenges commonly accepted beliefs about the achievements and timelines of prehistoric humans. It suggests that Stonehenge, a monument that has fascinated scholars and visitors for centuries, might have originated during the same period as the legendary civilisation of Atlantis. This discovery prompts a reassessment of human activities during the Mesolithic period.
It is possible to imagine a prehistoric world where societies were not only technologically advanced but also well-connected across vast distances, given the architectural complexity and navigational skills demonstrated in the stories of these civilisations. The hypothesis that the megalithic builders, who were capable of maritime travel and of constructing monumental structures like Stonehenge, might have shared a cultural or historical link with the Atlanteans adds depth to the narrative of human history during the Mesolithic era.
This viewpoint emphasises a more inclusive and transparent approach to archaeology, emphasising the significance of sustained inquiry and the readiness to question conventional historical accounts. With the emergence of new findings challenging long-standing assumptions, the links among Doggerland, Atlantis, and Stonehenge exemplify the intricate and multifaceted nature of early human civilisation’s accomplishments.
Plato’s description of an Atlantis city fits the design of Causewayed Enclosures
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
For those interested in British Prehistory, visit www.prehistoric-britain.co.uk, a comprehensive resource featuring an extensive collection of archaeology articles, modern LiDAR investigations, and groundbreaking research. The site also includes insights and excerpts from the acclaimed Robert John Langdon Trilogy, a series of books that explore Britain during the Prehistoric period. Titles in the trilogy include The Stonehenge Enigma, Dawn of the Lost Civilisation, and The Post-Glacial Flooding Hypothesis, which offer compelling evidence of ancient landscapes shaped by post-glacial flooding.
To further explore these topics, Robert John Langdon has developed a dedicated YouTube channel featuring over 100 video documentaries and investigations that complement the trilogy. Notable discoveries and studies showcased on the channel include 13 Things that Don’t Make Sense in History and the revelation of Silbury Avenue – The Lost Stone Avenue, a rediscovered prehistoric feature at Avebury, Wiltshire.
In addition to his main works, Langdon has released a series of shorter, accessible publications, ideal for readers delving into specific topics. These include:
For active discussions and updates on the trilogy’s findings and recent LiDAR investigations, join our vibrant community on Facebook. Engage with like-minded enthusiasts by leaving a message or contributing to debates in our Facebook Group.
Whether through the books, the website, or interactive videos, we aim to provide a deeper understanding of Britain’s fascinating prehistoric past. We encourage you to explore these resources and uncover the mysteries of ancient landscapes through the lens of modern archaeology.
For more information, including chapter extracts and related publications, visit the Robert John Langdon Author Page. Dive into works such as The Stonehenge Enigma or Dawn of the Lost Civilisation, and explore cutting-edge theories that challenge traditional historical narratives.
One of the most recognisable images in archaeology is that of a perfect circular Stonehenge — a continuous ring of upright stones capped with lintels. (The Stonehenge Crescent: A Monument to a Lost World)
You’ve seen it everywhere:
Textbooks
Reconstructions
Documentaries
It has become the accepted version of the monument.
There is just one problem.
Stonehenge was never built that way.
(The Stonehenge Crescent: A Monument to a Lost World)
The Myth of the Perfect Circle
The circular Stonehenge exists more in illustration than in reality.
When we examine the monument itself, the physical evidence tells a very different story:
Several stones required to complete the circle are missing
Others are too small to support lintels
Some are incorrectly positioned for a continuous ring
Stone holes reveal uprights that do not conform to a circular design
This creates a fundamental contradiction.
If Stonehenge was intended to be a perfect solar temple, then:
It was never completed
Or it was deliberately dismantled
Both explanations are unsatisfactory.
There is a far simpler solution.
It was never meant to be a complete circle.
(The Stonehenge Crescent: A Monument to a Lost World)
Structural Proof: Stone 11 Breaks the Model
This conclusion is not just interpretive — it is structural.
One stone alone exposes the flaw in the circular theory.
Stone 11.
This stone is:
Smaller than its neighbours
Structurally inadequate
Incapable of supporting a lintel
This is critical.
A continuous lintel ring requires every upright to meet a basic engineering condition:
It must support load.
Stone 11 cannot.
This is not a minor anomaly. It is a mechanical failure within the supposed design.
There are only two possible explanations:
The builders made a fundamental structural mistake
The circle was never intended to be continuous
Given the precision elsewhere in the monument, the first option is highly unlikely.
Which leaves only one conclusion:
Stone 11 is not an error — it is evidence.
It proves that the monument was never designed as a complete ring.
(The Stonehenge Crescent: A Monument to a Lost World)
A Different Shape Emerges
When we examine all surviving stones and stone holes together, a new pattern appears.
Not a circle.
A crescent.
The Sarsen arrangement — particularly the inner trilithon horseshoe — reinforces this, forming a crescent within a crescent.
This is deliberate.
And its orientation matters.
(The Stonehenge Crescent: A Monument to a Lost World)
Death, Not the Sun
Across ancient cultures:
The sun represents life and continuity
The circle reflects that — endless and complete
But death is different.
Death is transition.
And that transition is often symbolised by the crescent moon — a passage between darkness and renewal.
Stonehenge aligns with this symbolism precisely.
The structure faces the Winter Solstice sunset:
The lowest point of the sun
The moment of greatest darkness
The turning point before light returns
This is not a monument to life.
It is a monument to transition.
(The Stonehenge Crescent: A Monument to a Lost World)
The Missing Stones Tell the Story
The pattern of missing stones strengthens this interpretation.
If stones had been removed later, we would expect:
Random distribution
Removal from accessible locations
But instead:
The majority of missing stones occur in the south-western quadrant
This is the least accessible area
This is not random.
It is intentional.
The monument was designed to be open in this direction — forming a crescent aligned with the Winter Solstice sunset.
(The Stonehenge Crescent: A Monument to a Lost World)
The Altar Stone and the Slaughter Stone
At the centre of the monument lies the Altar Stone:
Fine-grained sandstone
Rich in mica
Distinct from all other stones
It is also placed flat.
This is unusual — but not unique.
Near the entrance lies the Slaughter Stone, also recumbent.
Excavations in the 1920s showed:
The chalk beneath it was deliberately levelled
It was always intended to lie flat
Even more importantly:
It sits in a shallow depression
Connected to the ditch system
Likely water-filled under higher groundwater conditions
This would have made the stone appear as a small island in water.
(The Stonehenge Crescent: A Monument to a Lost World)
A Monument Built in Water
This aligns directly with the hydrological model of early Holocene Britain.
Evidence shows that:
Water tables were significantly higher
River systems were larger
Floodplains dominated the landscape
Stonehenge was not a dry site.
It existed within a water-controlled environment
(The Stonehenge Crescent: A Monument to a Lost World)
The Altar Stone: A Geological Clue
The Altar Stone introduces another layer of evidence.
It is widely accepted that:
It originates from outside the local region
It travelled over long distances
Traditional explanations suggest land transport.
But there is a problem.
Across hundreds of kilometres:
No prehistoric roads
No engineered trackways
No infrastructure for overland movement
What we do find is:
Extensive river systems
Floodplains
Palaeochannels
The conclusion is straightforward:
The stones were transported by water.
(The Stonehenge Crescent: A Monument to a Lost World)
The Doggerland Origin Hypothesis
There is an additional, often overlooked possibility.
The geological composition of the Altar Stone matches:
Bedrock found in northern Britain
And bedrock mapped beneath the North Sea
This is critical.
Because during the early Holocene:
The North Sea was not fully submerged
It was a vast landmass
Doggerland.
If the Altar Stone originated from this region, then:
It was not just transported across distance
It was brought from a landscape that no longer exists
(The Stonehenge Crescent: A Monument to a Lost World)
A Lost Source Beneath the Sea
Geological evidence shows that Doggerland:
Contained exposed bedrock
Shared lithological characteristics with the Altar Stone
Was progressively flooded between ~9000 and 8000 years ago
This reframes the stone completely.
It is no longer just imported material.
It becomes:
a fragment of a lost homeland.
(The Stonehenge Crescent: A Monument to a Lost World)
A Deliberate Sightline
The Altar Stone and Slaughter Stone form a direct alignment:
From the centre
Through the entrance
Along the Avenue
Toward the ancient river system
When extended beyond the monument, this line points toward:
Doggerland.
This is not coincidence.
Ancient monuments frequently connect:
Structure
Landscape
Memory
Stonehenge does all three.
(The Stonehenge Crescent: A Monument to a Lost World)
A Monument Built from Memory
When combined:
Crescent design
Solstice alignment
Directional sightline
Geological connection
The interpretation becomes clear.
Stonehenge is not simply pointing toward a lost world.
It may contain material from it.
(The Stonehenge Crescent: A Monument to a Lost World)
The Hidden Interior: Stonehenge as a Painted Space
There is another overlooked feature.
The inner faces of the Sarsen stones are flattened.
This required:
Significant labour
Controlled shaping
Time investment across multiple stones
This was not done casually.
It was done for a reason.
(The Stonehenge Crescent: A Monument to a Lost World)
The Effort Behind the Surfaces
Flattening stone with prehistoric tools would have taken:
Weeks per stone
Possibly months across the structure
Prehistoric societies do not waste effort.
Every action has purpose.
These surfaces were prepared for something important.
(The Stonehenge Crescent: A Monument to a Lost World)
A Cultural Memory Lost
Before the Ice Age, the ancestors of these builders created:
Complex cave art
Symbolic imagery
Advanced visual culture
After this period, the art seems to disappear.
But it didn’t.
The medium changed
(The Stonehenge Crescent: A Monument to a Lost World)
The Missing Medium
We know:
Pigments were used
Bodies were painted
Symbolism was central
But open-air artwork does not survive:
Rain erodes it
Sunlight fades it
Time destroys it
Over 10,000 years, it vanishes.
(The Stonehenge Crescent: A Monument to a Lost World)
Stonehenge as an Art Space
Now reconsider the monument:
Flattened inner stone surfaces
Enclosed space
Controlled environment
These are perfect conditions for:
painting
(The Stonehenge Crescent: A Monument to a Lost World)
A Prehistoric Gallery
Instead of bare stone, imagine:
Painted surfaces
Symbolic imagery
Cultural storytelling
Ancestral representation
Stonehenge becomes:
a sacred visual environment
From Cold Stone to Living Culture
What we see today:
Weathered stone
Empty surfaces
Structural remains
What once existed:
Colour
Meaning
Cultural expression
Not a ruin.
But a gallery of memory and identity.
(The Stonehenge Crescent: A Monument to a Lost World)
A Memorial to a Lost World
When all evidence is combined:
The crescent form reflects death
The solstice alignment marks transition
The sightline points toward Doggerland
The Altar Stone may originate from that drowned land
The interior may have been painted with cultural memory
The meaning becomes clear.
Stonehenge is not a solar temple.
It is a memorial.
(The Stonehenge Crescent: A Monument to a Lost World)
Final Conclusion
Stonehenge was not built to mark the movement of the sun.
It was built to remember.
To record a moment in human history when:
A landscape was lost
A homeland disappeared
A civilisation adapted
The stones do not just stand.
They point.
They align.
They remember.
And once you remove the myth of the circle, the monument finally makes sense.
Stonehenge was never a circle. It was a message.
(The Stonehenge Crescent: A Monument to a Lost World)
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
For those interested in British Prehistory, visit www.prehistoric-britain.co.uk, a comprehensive resource featuring an extensive collection of archaeology articles, modern LiDAR investigations, and groundbreaking research. The site also includes insights and excerpts from the acclaimed Robert John Langdon Trilogy, a series of books that explore Britain during the Prehistoric period. Titles in the trilogy include The Stonehenge Enigma, Dawn of the Lost Civilisation, and The Post-Glacial Flooding Hypothesis, which offer compelling evidence of ancient landscapes shaped by post-glacial flooding.
To further explore these topics, Robert John Langdon has developed a dedicated YouTube channel featuring over 100 video documentaries and investigations that complement the trilogy. Notable discoveries and studies showcased on the channel include 13 Things that Don’t Make Sense in History and the revelation of Silbury Avenue – The Lost Stone Avenue, a rediscovered prehistoric feature at Avebury, Wiltshire.
In addition to his main works, Langdon has released a series of shorter, accessible publications, ideal for readers delving into specific topics. These include:
For active discussions and updates on the trilogy’s findings and recent LiDAR investigations, join our vibrant community on Facebook. Engage with like-minded enthusiasts by leaving a message or contributing to debates in our Facebook Group.
Whether through the books, the website, or interactive videos, we aim to provide a deeper understanding of Britain’s fascinating prehistoric past. We encourage you to explore these resources and uncover the mysteries of ancient landscapes through the lens of modern archaeology.
For more information, including chapter extracts and related publications, visit the Robert John Langdon Author Page. Dive into works such as The Stonehenge Enigma or Dawn of the Lost Civilisation, and explore cutting-edge theories that challenge traditional historical narratives.
The Bluestone quarry sites give us compelling evidence of the Mesolithic construction dates of Stonehenge (The Bluestone Enigma)
The papers published by researchers from the University of London, Southampton, and Manchester, including Mike Parker-Pearson and his team, regarding the discovery of the quarries at Craig Rhos-y-Felin and the bluestone megaliths at Carn Goedog have been a significant contribution to our understanding of Stonehenge’s origins. This research brought to light the fascinating theory that Stonehenge was originally built in Wales and later transported to Salisbury Plain around 500 years later.
This groundbreaking discovery not only captured the attention of archaeologists worldwide but also challenged previous assumptions about the methods and motivations behind Stonehenge’s construction. The idea that these bluestones were quarried and shaped in Wales before making their journey to Salisbury Plain adds a new dimension to our understanding of prehistoric peoples’ capabilities and social organisation.
This revelation suggests a remarkable level of dedication and coordination among ancient communities. The logistical feat of transporting these massive stones over such a distance, and the decision to do so centuries after their initial quarrying, hints at the profound significance these stones—and the monument they came to form—held for the people of the time.
As someone deeply interested in the mysteries of ancient civilisations, I find the implications of this research thrilling. It deepens our appreciation for the ingenuity and spiritual dedication of our ancestors and opens up new avenues for exploring the cultural and religious ties that connected different regions of prehistoric Britain.
Prescilli Mountains in Wales – The Bluestone Enigma
Craig Rhos-Y-Felin
The publication of the report “Craig Rhos-y-Felin: a Welsh bluestone megalith quarry for Stonehenge” in the December 2016 edition of Antiquity Magazine unveiled intriguing findings about the origins of the bluestones used in Stonehenge. This study, which identified a 4m long monolith at Craig Rhos-y-Felin as microscopically identical to the bluestones at Stonehenge, has sparked significant debate and speculation within the archaeological community and beyond.
Despite the excitement generated by these findings, the report’s focus on two radiocarbon dates that align with the authors’ hypothesis on Stonehenge’s construction date has raised questions about the completeness of the narrative presented to the public. The discrepancy between these dates and the hoped-for evidence led to the speculative suggestion that Stonehenge was originally constructed in Wales and later relocated to Salisbury Plain. This narrative, while intriguing, illustrates the complexities and challenges of interpreting archaeological data, as well as the temptation to fit new evidence into pre-existing hypotheses.
However, a more detailed analysis of the report reveals a wealth of Mesolithic carbon dates obtained from human-made hearths, suggesting a much earlier period of human activity at the site than the two Neolithic dates highlighted. These Mesolithic dates, which significantly predate the construction of Stonehenge as currently understood, were largely overlooked in the public dissemination of the research findings.
Quarry Site at Craig Rhos-Y-Felin – The Bluestone Enigma
This oversight raises essential questions about the narrative surrounding Stonehenge’s origins and the methodologies used in archaeological dating. The presence of Mesolithic hearths at Craig Rhos-y-Felin suggests that the site was of importance to human communities thousands of years before the Neolithic period. This evidence challenges the conventional timeline of Stonehenge’s construction and suggests a longer, more complex history of human interaction with the landscape and the bluestones.
Furthermore, the report inadvertently highlights the ongoing debate within archaeology about how best to interpret and present findings to the public. The focus on headline-grabbing narratives, such as the relocation of Stonehenge from Wales, can sometimes overshadow equally significant but less sensational discoveries, such as the evidence of Mesolithic activity at the quarry site.
Mesolithic Post Holes at the Old Car Park at Stonehenge – The Bluestone Enigma
The excavation in 1966 and subsequent discoveries surrounding Stonehenge offer a fascinating and somewhat contentious glimpse into the complex task of accurately dating ancient sites. The initial observations by Lance and Faith Vatcher highlighted the Neolithic character of three holes excavated near Stonehenge, with no datable pottery found. Yet, the characteristics of the holes suggested a Neolithic origin. This assumption was later questioned when a PhD student discovered that the charcoal deposits from these holes, surprisingly composed mostly of pine, could not be Neolithic as initially thought. Pine was believed to be ‘extinct’ in the area by the time of Stonehenge’s supposed construction, according to pollen analysis.
This revelation was startling, especially to the officials of the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, later known as English Heritage. The carbon dating of these pine samples placed them squarely in the Mesolithic era, specifically between 8860 to 6590 BCE, challenging the previously accepted timeline for Stonehenge’s construction. Furthermore, the report mentions pine samples from Woodhenge, which, if also Mesolithic, would radically alter our understanding of that site’s age.
Stonehenge Car Park
Mesolithic Post Holes in Old Car Park – The Bluehenge Enigma
Instead of seizing this opportunity to delve deeper into these findings, a narrative was constructed that dismissed these posts as totem poles from wandering hunter-gatherers, unrelated to Stonehenge. This decision to sideline potentially groundbreaking evidence highlights a reluctance within some parts of the archaeological community to reconsider established narratives, even in the face of new evidence.
The discovery in 1988-89 by Wessex Archaeology of another Mesolithic post hole, along with a piece of rhyolite dated to 7737 – 7454 BCE, further complicates the timeline for Stonehenge and the surrounding area. This finding should have prompted a reevaluation of the site’s dating. However, attempts to fit this new evidence into the existing narrative of Stonehenge’s construction timeline illustrate the challenges and controversies inherent in archaeological interpretation.
These instances underscore the necessity for openness, curiosity, and a willingness to revise our understanding of history in light of new evidence. They remind us that the story of human history is complex and continually evolving, and our interpretations must adapt as we uncover more about our past.
Stone Hole WA9580 shows a piece of Bluestone 5,000 years before they arrived. – The Bluestone Enigma
Discoveries at Stonehenge, including charcoal (OxA-18655) found in the Hole socket of Stone 10, dating to 7330 – 7060 BCE, match the dates of the Mesolithic post holes, with significant implications for our understanding of the site’s history. This evidence, dating to the Mesolithic post holes, suggests that the activities at Stonehenge and its surroundings span much earlier than previously believed. However, the apparent suppression of this news from widespread media coverage raises questions about the narrative presented to the public and in educational materials.
The excavation at Blick Mead, less than a mile from Stonehenge, by the Open University, which uncovered evidence of Mesolithic-period habitation and feasting, further challenges the entrenched views held by some about prehistoric life around Stonehenge. These findings suggest a continuous and significant presence of people in this area during the Mesolithic period, contradicting the simplistic ‘totem pole’ myth still perpetuated in some narratives by English Heritage (EH) through their exhibitions and guidebooks.
Moreover, the recent transformation of the Stonehenge site, including the closure of the B-road past the stones and the relocation of the visitors’ car park to a new, multi-million-pound visitor centre, represents a significant shift in how the site is accessed and experienced by the public. The removal of the old tarmac and the reversion of the land to grass aim to restore a more authentic prehistoric ambience to Stonehenge. This effort to make the site appear more as it did at the time of its construction is commendable, but also highlights the ongoing tension between modern interpretations of the site and the emerging evidence of its ancient past.
These developments at Stonehenge and Blick Mead exemplify the dynamic nature of archaeological research and the complexities involved in interpreting and presenting the past. As new evidence continues to emerge, the narrative of prehistoric Britain needs to evolve accordingly, ensuring a more accurate and nuanced understanding of these ancient landscapes and their significance to human history.
In 2008, Stone 10 – Tim Darvill and Geoffrey Wainwright found charcoal dating back to 7330 to 7060 – The Bluestone Enigma
You would indeed think that removing the tarmac from the old visitor car park at Stonehenge, especially given the significant previous findings beneath it, would prompt a comprehensive excavation to unearth more evidence of the site’s Mesolithic history. Such an excavation could potentially transform our understanding of Stonehenge and its origins, providing invaluable insights into its early history and the people who frequented the site during the Mesolithic period.
Tim Daw’s role as a warden at Stonehenge, combined with his proactive approach to documenting changes and features of the site through photography, exemplifies the kind of engaged observation that can lead to important discoveries. His finding of patch marks by the central upright stones, indicating the possible positions of missing stones from the Inner Circle, is a testament to the contributions individuals can make to the ongoing investigation of Stonehenge. Daw’s work underscores the value of continuous and attentive observation of archaeological sites, even by those not formally conducting research.
Tim Daw’s evidence of yet another Pit in the Old Car Park not investigated! – The Bluehenge Enigma
The discovery of such features and the potential for further findings beneath the former car park area highlights the need for a thorough and systematic archaeological examination whenever opportunities arise. These efforts not only enrich our knowledge of Stonehenge’s past but also contribute to the broader understanding of prehistoric human activity in the region. As we continue to peel back the layers of Stonehenge’s history, each finding adds a piece to the puzzle of this enigmatic monument’s story, emphasising the importance of preserving and exploring our archaeological heritage.
The Post Holes would have been on the shoreline of the River Avon in Mesolithic period – The Bluestone Enigma
Tim Daw’s experiences and observations as a warden at Stonehenge, particularly his discovery of additional post holes beneath the old visitor’s car park, highlight the ongoing potential for new findings that can challenge and enrich our understanding of Stonehenge’s history. Despite being warned against publishing his conclusions due to unauthorised blog activity, Daw chose to resign and continue his work, revealing, through ‘unofficial’ pictures, the existence of even more post holes under the car park, aligned with those discovered in 1966.
Bluestone Quarries
These findings, including the newly discovered post hole that aligns with the four others from 1966, support the hypothesis that these structures are situated on what was once the shoreline of the River Avon around 8000 BCE. This suggests that during the Mesolithic period, the stones quarried in Wales could have been transported by boat directly to Stonehenge, navigating along enlarged rivers rather than taking the longer sea route proposed by some archaeologists.
Further complicating the narrative are my analyses of the bluestone structures from other Preseli sites like Carn Goedog and Craig Talfynyydd, which are connected by streams and rivers to the River Nevern. Unfortunately, archaeologists have interpreted this network of waterways primarily through a religious lens rather than considering its practical functionality as a transportation network.
The persistence of the ‘ox-cart’ route theory, which posits a land route along the modern A40, overlooks the logistical challenges posed by the period’s dense woods, swamps, and forests. Such conditions would have made the construction and use of a road system highly impractical, if not impossible.
My critique extends to the inconsistencies and logical inaccuracies in the archaeological narrative, particularly regarding the site layout and geological evidence at Craig Rhos-y-Felin. The assumption that floodwaters in the area were solely the result of ice melt, quickly draining into the sea post-Ice Age, ignores the broader implications of such flooding for the landscape and its inhabitants.
Craig Rhos-Y-Felin is on the edge of a gigantic river of the past – The Bluestone Enigma.
We confirm in the report that an old river ran around this quarry as long ago as 5620 – 5460 BCE and possibly as late as 1030 – 910 BCE.
“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.”
The only RED hearths in the site are Mesolithic so they must be quarrying at that time – The Bluestone Enigma
The report’s insights suggest that during the Mesolithic Period, an enlarged stream that fed into the River Nevern reached the quarry outcrop rocks. Notably, it was positioned just a few meters away, even as late as 1000 BCE. This geographical configuration suggests that boats were likely the primary means of transporting the large, newly quarried stones to their final destination at Stonehenge, mirroring stone transport methods in other ancient civilisations, such as Egypt.
The site layout at the quarry provides crucial clues about the timing of the stone quarrying. Notably, a single monolith is positioned near the river on the site’s east side, ready for transportation. Nearby, to the south of this monolith, are human-made hearths, precisely where one would expect them to be. However, the challenge arises in dating these hearths as Mesolithic, with three distinct periods identified: 8550 – 8330 BCE; 8220 – 7790 BCE; and 7490 – 7190 BCE. Despite this, the report asserts that there is no evidence of Mesolithic quarrying or working of rhyolite at this site.
This claim overlooks the practical use of tools across different periods. If Mesolithic and Neolithic communities utilised similar tools, distinguishing tool marks from these different periods might be more challenging than the report suggests. Moreover, the presence of these communities at the quarry for over a millennium raises questions about their activities if not quarrying the stones.
The connection between the quarry site and Stonehenge is strengthened by over twenty Carbon-14 dates that align with my hypothesis, in contrast to the mere two samples currently highlighted by experts, which are dated 300 – 500 years older than existing estimates. By analysing these overlapping dates against the latest carbon-dating curve (IntCal20), we can refine the construction date of Stonehenge’s Phase I (the placement of bluestones in the Aubrey holes). By calculating the mean of these probable dates, we aim to obtain a more accurate estimate of when this monumental task was undertaken, potentially rewriting the timeline of one of the world’s most enigmatic prehistoric monuments.
Carbon Dates comparison – note that the sites are linked to different mooring posts, indicating activity dates
Table 1– Matching Carbon Dates
The calculations indicate that work at the quarry began around 8300 BCE, with its main phase of activity around 8000 BCE, and continued for at least a millennium, challenging the conventional narrative about Stonehenge and its Bluestones. This timeline suggests a far more ancient and enduring connection between the quarry site and Stonehenge than previously acknowledged.
Carn Goedog
Initially, Carn Menyn in the Preseli Hills was believed to be the source of Stonehenge’s spotted dolerite, but later analysis pinpointed Carn Goedog as a closer chemical match. Recent geochemical studies have divided the Stonehenge spotted dolerite into two main groups, with one group closely matching the Carn Goedog outcrop. The origin of the second group remains uncertain, potentially deriving from Carn Goedog or nearby outcrops.
Further geological investigations at Stonehenge have identified additional sources for its bluestones. Unspotted dolerite matches with outcrops at Cerrigmarchogion and Craig Talfynydd on the Preseli ridge. Another bluestone variety, “rhyolite with fabric,” traces back to Craig Rhos-y-Felin, while a source of Lower Palaeozoic sandstone has been identified north of the Preseli hills. The origin of volcanic tuffs found at Stonehenge also likely lies in the Preseli area.
Preseli Mountains and Quarry Sites are ALL by rivers – The Bluestone Enigma
Surface indications of post-medieval Quarrying, particularly on its south side, have evidenced Carn Goedog’s accessibility. This historical quarrying, distinguishable by cylindrical drill holes on some quarried blocks at the outcrop’s base, was performed using the ‘plug-and-feather’ technique with metal wedges. The discovery of a worn trade token beneath one of these blocks helps date this activity to around 1800.
In 2014, test trenching along the southern edge of Carn Goedog revealed layers of human activity spanning various periods, from the recent centuries in trench 3 to deeper prehistorical layers in trench 2. Trench 1, strategically positioned at the outcrop’s base and just beyond the eastern limit of the early modern quarry debris, was particularly significant. It was seen as offering a unique opportunity to uncover evidence of prehistoric quarrying that hadn’t been disturbed by later activities.
This layered historical context at Carn Goedog is crucial for understanding the complex human interactions with the site over millennia. The evidence for prehistoric quarrying, undisturbed by later post-medieval activity, provides invaluable insights into the methods and technologies used by ancient peoples to extract and transport the stones that contributed to the construction of monumental structures like Stonehenge.
Plan of Excavation 106 is the hearth – The Bluestone Enigma.
Trench 1 was enlarged in 2015 and 2016 to reveal features that may relate to prehistoric quarrying activity. At the southern foot of the outcrop, excavation revealed an artificial platform of flat slabs—many of them split—laid (with the split faces upwards) in a tongue-shaped formation 10m north–south by at least 8m east–west (Figure 6).
Those slabs lying against the face of the outcrop had been pressed into the underlying sediments, presumably by the weight of pillars lowered onto the platform. The platform terminates from the outcrop with a vertical drop of 0.9m to the ground surface beyond. This platform is stratigraphically earlier than a series of deposits that included early modern quarrying debris and hearths of the Roman and medieval periods. One hearth (Figure 6: 105) set within a gap in the platform where a slab had been removed produced charcoal dating to 7190–6840 cal BC (8091±38 BP) and 2890–2630 cal BC (4164±30 BP) (Table 1).
The findings across the quarry sites, including Carn Goedog and Craig Rhos-y-Felin, point to a nuanced understanding of how the bluestones were utilised and replenished at Stonehenge. The hearths discovered at these sites, particularly those dating to the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods, suggest ongoing human activity and potentially organised efforts to quarry and transport bluestones over extended periods. This insight challenges the conventional explanation that the transportation of Bluestones to Stonehenge was a singular event.
The Stonehenge Layer
The evidence of modern quarrying at both the northern and southern ends of these sites and the dates from central hearths align with observations made at Craig Rhos-y-felin. Our research, as outlined in published books, supports the theory that ancestors chipped bluestones at Stonehenge for healing, utilising the water in the ditch to bathe their sickness away, as evidenced by the ‘Stonehenge Layer’ discovered by Dervill and Wainwright in 2008. This practice would naturally lead to the depletion of bluestones over time, necessitating periodic replenishment from the quarries.
The conventional narrative, which posits that the bluestones were transported to Stonehenge in a one-off event, needs to account for the scientific data emerging from these quarry sites and the Stonehenge site. The evidence suggests a more complex interaction with these stones, involving repeated quarrying and transportation activities that likely spanned centuries. This ongoing relationship with the bluestones reflects a deeper functional connection to them, underscoring the importance of revisiting and revising our understanding of Stonehenge’s construction and the role of the bluestones within this prehistoric monument.
English Heritage’s significant investment in the Stonehenge Visitors Centre, including the creation of exhibitions that present established theories about the monument’s origins and functions, raises questions about the implications of discoveries that contradict these narratives. If foundational assumptions about Stonehenge are proven incorrect, it could have financial repercussions, particularly if the narrative presented to the public through expensive exhibitions becomes outdated or inaccurate. This situation underscores the complex relationship between archaeological research, public interpretation, and financial investments in heritage sites.
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
For those interested in British Prehistory, visit www.prehistoric-britain.co.uk, a comprehensive resource featuring an extensive collection of archaeology articles, modern LiDAR investigations, and groundbreaking research. The site also includes insights and excerpts from the acclaimed Robert John Langdon Trilogy, a series of books that explore Britain during the Prehistoric period. Titles in the trilogy include The Stonehenge Enigma, Dawn of the Lost Civilisation, and The Post-Glacial Flooding Hypothesis, which offer compelling evidence of ancient landscapes shaped by post-glacial flooding.
To further explore these topics, Robert John Langdon has developed a dedicated YouTube channel featuring over 100 video documentaries and investigations that complement the trilogy. Notable discoveries and studies showcased on the channel include 13 Things that Don’t Make Sense in History and the revelation of Silbury Avenue – The Lost Stone Avenue, a rediscovered prehistoric feature at Avebury, Wiltshire.
In addition to his main works, Langdon has released a series of shorter, accessible publications, ideal for readers delving into specific topics. These include:
For active discussions and updates on the trilogy’s findings and recent LiDAR investigations, join our vibrant community on Facebook. Engage with like-minded enthusiasts by leaving a message or contributing to debates in our Facebook Group.
Whether through the books, the website, or interactive videos, we aim to provide a deeper understanding of Britain’s fascinating prehistoric past. We encourage you to explore these resources and uncover the mysteries of ancient landscapes through the lens of modern archaeology.
For more information, including chapter extracts and related publications, visit the Robert John Langdon Author Page. Dive into works such as The Stonehenge Enigma or Dawn of the Lost Civilisation, and explore cutting-edge theories that challenge traditional historical narratives.
Stonehenge: Discovery with Dan Snow Debunked (Transcript)
Hello, this is my co-presenter Alice, and this is my co-presenter Robert John Langton this is Bob and Alex debunks another Stonehenge video
Deep in the English Countryside lies one of the most famous ancient monuments Stonehenge. Stonehenge is totally unique; there’s nothing like this ring of colossal Stone arches anywhere else in the world; it’s as old as the pyramids; it’s one of the world’s greatest archaeological sites, but who built it and why how did ancient Builders construct this extraordinary Stone Circle for centuries there’ve been so many unanswered questions about these Stones
Well that all looks very professional do you think that they will give us some answers at last well who knows Alice all we can do is watch the program and we’ll come back if there’s a clear error and point out to our viewers the correct information
In this program, I’m joining the investigations that are still unlocking the mysteries of Stonehenge I’ll be following the most recent hunt for where the biggest Stones came from there’s some big ones up ahead; oh yeah fantastic, and exploring how they were moved well done, everyone some a round of applause I’ll come face to face with the ancient people of Stonehenge and their beautiful Treasures – look at that’s fabulous and reveal the unbelievable sophistication of Stonehenge’s Builders – they knew their map they knew their astronomy that’s why stone is unique and will never find anything like this is the story of Stonehenge.
One of the things I love about Stonehenge is that one minute you’re just driving through typical English Countryside with its Hills and its valleys and its Fields, and the next minute, without warning, boom first Stonehenge right there, one of the world’s greatest prehistoric sites.
Built 2 and 1/ half thousand years before Britain’s first ever town towns or cities even existed. Stonehenge sits in the heart of the Wiltshire landscape on Salsbury Plane – 3 miles from the town of Amesbury, and once you’re Offroad, it still feels as wild as ever; when I was a kid visiting Stonehenge, he used to drive your car right up and park next to it and then clamber all over the stones and thankfully that’s changed now it’s much more special much better for the local environment you park some distance away, and then you walk across these beautiful downlands past these ancient mysterious humps and bumps in the landscape evidence of a rich prehistoric past building your anticipation that you’re about to reach somewhere very special and then you arrive and see this.
Wow you just don’t get a sense of the scale of this place until you walk inside these Stones you don’t get a feel for its power its intensity until you’re standing in here right up next them and they dwarf you look at them seven metres high each one of those weighs 20 tons it just feels so ancient and there’s just nowhere else in the world like this literally there is nowhere else where we have stone circles with these big Stones placed on top these lentils forming arches it’s Unique These giant stones are just part of this or inspiring Monument within this incredible ring of huge stones called Sarsons there are smaller stones and these are known as the blue stones and every one of the stones big and small have been carefully placed in position and the entire stone circle is then surrounded by a huge bank and outer ditch but unlike other great ancient discoveries Stonehenge is different because it was never lost for thousands of years it stood here but people forgot what it was built for and it became a magnificent mystery.
The whole place is phenomenal and you find yourself thinking, who built it why did they build it when did they build it but above all, you think, how did they build it with the technology had available how did they transport these enormous Stones Some distance to this place how did they turn them on their ends sink them in the ground anchor them it’s just mind-blowing and all this happened thousands of years ago before the wheel had even been introduced to Britain so 900 years ago when people first began to speculate about how Stonehenge was created they simply could not believe that the giant Stones could have been put here by Ordinary People.
Wow that was a spectacular start to the program by Dan so why have we paused here I just want to stop you there to look at this picture at 11:00 you got a couple of parallel lines now they’ve been cut into the grass to represent a ditch now they’re not ditches these are cut marks in the grass why they couldn’t cut the grass to show you the ditch is another matter but there’s a degree of dishonesty here especially when you put the Hillstone in the middle of the Avenue because the Hillstone is not in the middle of the Avenue and it makes me very suspicious of what he’s going to tell you is not 100% accurate.
With a pretty wacky Theory, this is an illustration of one particular popular account of just how Stonehenge came to be, and this account is literally magical you can see the stones being laid here into the Stone Circle by a giant and it’s not being built right here it’s being built in Ireland before being magicked here by the wizard Merlin this Fantastical tale may sound ludicrous today, but it shows how people have been grappling for Centuries with the puzzle of how the stones got here, and it’s still a hot topic of research today.
I’m heading to the ancient Technology Centre in Dorset where they’re testing out a possible Theory the weather is grim today but that wouldn’t have stopped our Stone Age ancestors that’s a pretty big chunk of rock isn’t it is yeah it’s about a ton and a half ton and a half okay Anthony Whitlock is an experimental archaeologist at the centre it’s sort of equivalent to some of the smaller blue stones that we find at Stonehenge scary to think this would be one of the smaller Stones today at Stone Henge that’s amazing what is it a sort of sledge is is this the latest thinking on how they were moved yeah absolutely yes so it’s based on Stone carving some Assyria and ancient Egypt which are showing big statues being moved on sort of skis on Runners like we’ve got on the on the ground the old Theory which goes back to the 1500s was Stone Age people prehistoric people moved stones on rollers and that it works on flat level ground but experiments since the 1950s have proven that big lumps of rock if they’re being attempted to move sort of uphill or downhill on rollers you lose control very easily yeah Does that mean they have now proven that using rollers to move the stones is no longer feasible? Mr Langdon, yes, it’s a bit obvious that you could not roll large Stones across Open Fields, Woods, Hills and forests. The question is, can you Sledge these Stones across the exact same environment?
Once on the move a sledge proved easier to control than rollers although a little bit more difficult to get moving in the first place so you need a lot of force you need a lot of force more than just be snow can provide unfortunately yes we’re going to need a little help Mighty as you are luckily we got an army of 50 volunteers on hand to flex their muscles grab a bit of rope let’s divide in half hope you’re feeling strong you can imagine the whole Stone AG Community coming together a bit like this to help move the rocks to an important place like Stonehenge with someone taking charge of the stone shifting today that’s me every I’m feeling good here we go ready 3 2 1 go
Let’s do it again; ready, okay? We’re going to try for another one here, ready? Okay, everyone, 3 2 1 go, oh, look at that. It’s moving; the wet, muddy ground certainly helps the sledges slip along fairly easily, and Stone Age people might well have used the weather to their advantage in just the same way. Okay, stop. Brilliance let her strong well-done everyone give yourself a round of applause look at that well that was a really interesting experiment; it shows that it is possible to move a big Stone over some distance using this setup, provided you have a lot of people to help with 50 people we moved our Stone a few meters quite easily and archaeologists are now pretty certain that this is how Stonehenge’s ancient Builders moved the stones 4 and half thousand years ago.
That’s brilliant. We now know for sure how they got the stones to Stonehenge at last, don’t we, Bob?
Sadly not Alice, you just looked at 50 people dragging a 1.5-ton Stone just 20 yards. The stones of Stonehenge can weigh up to 25 tons when it comes to the larger trilithons in the centre, so in this experiment, you would actually need 830 people dragging the stone, and that is over a flat wet ground you would need double that number for a small hill and as you can see from this profile map of the journey from Wales to Stonehenge you have about 90 Hills to cross and therefore it’s not impossible it’s totally futile to even try or imagine a little bit like rolling the stones eventually archaeologists will come to the conclusion that it went via boat.
400 years ago when the first person to really scrutinise the stones arrived on the scene, he was certainly impressed by Inigo Jones the most famous architect of the time and a man who knew all about putting up Stones Jones was enthralled he was convinced this site had been put together by very skilled Master Craftsman he noticed that some of the stones had large chunks gouged out of them this is realised fit neatly snugly on top of those knobs on the uprights someone had skilfully put these arches together like a huge ancient Lego model there’s only one people in his mind who it could be the Romans
Jones came up with a theory about what on Earth Stonehenge was that it was a Roman Temple built around 2,000 years ago; he began to measure and survey every single Stone to produce a plan to prove his theory; he knew that Romans built with a Keen Eye for Symmetry and proportion and this is the plan of the monument that he came up with just look at it here it’s very intricate and it’s perfect a little bit too perfect look he’s turned Stonehenge into an absolute Circle all the stones smooth exactly the same size almost interchangeable and as you can see the reality is a little bit more messy in fact if you overlay his plan over the Stone Circle it’s clear that Jones ignored the actual position of any standing stone that didn’t fit the Symmetry essentially Jones’s Roman Theory only worked he well made it up.
So Bob Stonehenge has a history of people making up stories of who and why the monument was built and its original design yes Alice they made it up in the past and they have continued to make it up even today and that is why this program has made it up again but about it being round as you can see from this aerial shot of stone h the monument is not complete and now our Stones missing from one quadrant of the circle
Well is that because people stole the stones to make buildings nearby
No it’s not Alice but that’s what they would like you to believe
So how do you know that is not true
Look at the picture again and note the position of the road if you wanted to steal the stones would you not move the ones closest to the road rather than the ones furthest away and harder to get to moreover you would need to break them up in the first place before putting them onto your cart now we’ seen this at Avery where the stones were stolen by carts but what they did beforehand was to burn the stones to break them up make them brittle we see no signs of that at all at Stonehenge we see no debris we see no fires what we do have is some of the stones being relics of the original size because in the Victorian days they gave them hammers to take pieces off and what they would have done is look for something on the floor which has fallen down nice and simple take a piece off and over a period of time what would happen that larger Stone will be smaller stones and this is what we see we see a scattering a smaller rounder stones from both wearing and chipping away from souvenir Hunters
So was Stonehenge not finished did they just run out of suitable Stone
Not at all Alice even this program has realised that this is a moon Temple to the dead hence the bodies Cremations therefore the temple would be Moon shaped and not a solar Temple this is shown in the illustration here showing that it was actually made for the mid winter Sunset to commemorate the dead.
Anybody who is anybody now came to look at these stones that included the world famous architect so Christopher Ren and look he left his Mark here that is graffiti of his name a cross for Christopher and then Ren here in this Mighty Stone as more and more people came to Stonehenge more theories were put forward about its Origins it was a Royal Viking camp or perhaps a temple built by an ancient British priesthood The Druids no one could agree and no one could find any proof to unlock the truth but that was about to change 300 years ago the discovery of a buried clue would finally reveal the true purpose of these ancient stones.
In the summer of 1721, one man began to explore the floor beyond the stones in the land around the monument; his name was William Stukeley he started to roam the surrounding landscape, eyes to the ground, searching for something, anything to help him understand Stonehenge’s ancient past as he was exploring this field Stukeley stumbled across something that felt familiar there was a depression almost like a dick in the landscape very difficult to see but with his practised eye it was clear and there was some Higher Ground here on the other side it reminded him of the ditch and bank that circled Stonehenge itself but the difference was this wasn’t circular this was straight it didn’t make much sense but then he noticed something even more intriguing.
He walked across this field for another 30 m until he found another ditch another bank you can see the line of it here and this one seemed to be parallel to the one he just discovered could it be that they were marking out some kind of route through this landscape and excitingly that route seemed to be leading up to Stonehenge intrigued Stukeley followed the course of the path he was determined to find out how it was connected to Stonehenge Stukeley quickly realised that the the path was leading him up to this big prominent Stone here and as he reached this Stone continued on the same line he realised that it was drawing him through that Arch there right into the centre of Stonehenge Stukeley was ecstatic that couldn’t have been an accident whoever laid out this route wanted people to move right up into the heart of the Monument Stukeley was fascinated and he had a convincing Theory
So why did you stop the program here Bob.
I’ve stopped here Alice’ because this bit is actually the most interesting part of the entire program you see obviously Stonehenge in its Glory at the top of the Avenue but what you also see and is not even mentioned in the program is the recumbent Stone in front of Dan snow which is known as the Slaughter Stone now the slaughter stone is probably the second most important Stone in the entire site because that stone and the stone in the middle known as the Altar Stone lines up in a direct path to a place called Doggerland – Doggerland is interesting because that is the birthplace of the Stonehenge Builders we call them the Megalithic Builders but that is their birthplace and one will imagine that as this is a temple to the dead and Doggerland sunk under the sea at basically the same time phase two of Stonehenge was built – I.E the large s of stones is it possible is it just remotely possible that they built this Temple for the dead to commemorate their island of Doggerland that was sunk into the sea just an idea.
He believed that he had found a sacred Avenue leading right into Stone Henge but what were those ancient people doing when they reached their destination inside the stone He was now obsessed and spent days and nights in and around the stones was then as he watched the sun rise and fall through its arches, he unlocked one of Stonehenge’s most incredible Secrets.
Stukeley noticed something spectacular on the summer solstice the longest day of the air and the Sun is highest in the sky the sun rose right above that stone there along the line of the Avenue and right through the middle of Stonehenge this couldn’t be an accident it had to be deliberate and that meant Stonehenge was designed around the movements of the sun today Skyscape archaeologist Fabio Sila is mapping the skies that our ancestors would have seen at Stonehenge to find out the precise astronomical alignments okay so Fabio what is a Skyscape archaeologist it sounds like the coolest job in the world it is a little bit we can use equipment like this to come here and take the measurements ourself put them on the computer open up a planetarium software that shows us what the sky looked like 5,000 years ago and put the sounds against that Sky the alignment of the Stars relative to the Earth has shifted slightly over the Millennia since Stone henge was first built Fabio’s finding out what the stone age Sky looked like right here back then so you can actually see the stars as they would have seen them that’s right yeah we can we can as close to what as they would have seen it as we as we can today yeah so stookie first chest’s place is solar aligned he he was right was he yeah absolutely was right so he mentioned the midsummer Sunrise alignment which is where the Avenue joins up with the Hench right where the Hillstone is cut Stonehenge in half two exactly equal parts and this line exactly matches the midsummer sunrise on one end and the midwinter sunset on the other these were Master Builders they knew their Ms they knew their astronomy they encoded everything they knew into this one place that’s why Stone age is unique and will never find anything like this all of this was over 4,000 years ago that’s just incredible to think about well it’s a bit cloudy but it is winter solers today so to prove just how skilled those ancient Stonehenge Builders were as we approach a gloomy Sunset Fabio has asked me to help him take some measurements
Hey Fabio what have we got hey let ass me their results let’s look at this O So what you’re seeing is is winter solstice around 2,500 BC that’s fantastic just as people would have seen it that is cool so this is 4 and a half thousand years ago this line here is the sun is it yes that’s the that’s the line the sun does on the day of the solers so we can see where it rises and then it’s going to set right in the middle of that window in the middle of stonehenge so cool you can well
Well Bob it looks like modern efficient technology has given us a precise date of the construction of Stonehenge which archaeologists call Phase 2 with the larger sarson Stones
Well it looks that way doesn’t it Alice but if you actually look very closely the sun’s actually not setting on the floor of this alignment in fact if you look closely it actually will set just behind the stone to the right and there’s a bit of a gap at the bot and you say well it’s not much of a gap but the Gap tells us a lot about the date of Stonehenge’s construction now the first thing to realize is that the sun moves about one degree every 5,000 years now half a degree is the diameter of the Sun so we can see there Gap is quite a substantial date change so the fact it actually doesn’t actually line correctly is interesting which would suggest that the date they’re going to promote is wrong
The second thing you should notice is where the alignment lines up with now at the moment we are just to the right of the slaughter stones though the slaughter stone you see in front of you on the left now the centre of the Avenue isn’t the slaughter Stone as we pointed out as you saw it’s actually a couple of feet to the right – now we’re not a couple of feet to the right we’re just by the side of the slaughter Stone otherwise if it was a couple of feet to the right of the sold Stone wouldn’t be in view so they’re cheating on the date.
Which is no surprise because we actually got the correct date which is 4,180 BCE and we know that because one of the stones has got an antler pick wedged against the side of the hole now archaeologists have tried to make excuses and this the antler is dated 4,300 BC they’re saying ah what happened they found a bit of old antler a thousand years old which was in really good condition – it’s like that when you leave a piece of antler around for a thousand years and they wedged it in by accident this can be easily confirmed by actually drawing a straight line down the middle of the Avenue and lining up to see where the sun sets and in what year.TV programs rather have professional looking with funny names running around with alignment scopes looking at sunsets from peculiar angles because it’s good television but very bad science.
Thousand years ago, people coming out this this processional room here and it would have just been in perfect alignment yeah that’s right it’s just the most extraordinary Monument is it the sophistication of that visitor experience marching up here on the shortest day of the year and seeing that alignment absolutely it’s Unique there’s nothing like this in the world 300 years ago Stonehenge’s solar alignment captivated people’s imagination. As more and more visitors came and inspected the site there was a real hope that more of Stonehenge’s ancient Secrets would be unlocked but there was a problem with its popularity tourists were now beginning to put the stones themselves in danger they were coming here and clambering on them they were digging little holes around the place they were even shipping little pieces of the stones off and taking them home as souvenirs. Then on the 3rd of January 1797, disaster struck; a group of Travelers was camping among the stones for some reason they dug a big hole at the base of one of them was already looking a bit precarious as the sun came up it and the ground soil became moist and with a great crash one of the stones fell over Bringing Down the Ring of stones like dominoes luckily, many of the stones remained standing but people worried the collapse of some of the Stone Circle might be the beginning of the end many feared that just as the secrets of Stonehenge were finally being rediscovered the ancient Monument was in danger of total collapse, the future looked Bleak
When you visit Stonehenge you realise that the Stone Circle itself is actually just a small part of a much larger ancient, more mysterious landscape dotted all around the hills that surround Stonehenge are mounds like these ones you can see three and there’s many more on the hills around me these are all a little bit different in shape and size but they all the same purpose they’re all burial mounds.
They’re called barrows these had been found right across the British Isles and treasure Hunters had been looting them for centuries so it was well known that they were used for barriers but nowhere had as many barrows as Stonehenge, and so Colt thought that if some of these barriers were undisturbed, he could excavate them and learn from the skeletons and the goods within them more about Stonehenge and unlock its
Secrets wasting no time the team began their archaeological assault on Stonehenge’s barrows their investigation was carried out with the speed and efficiency of a military operation; sometimes they would power through a whole Barrow in a single day after 5 years of slightly disappointing results they turned their attention to this spot just half a mile away overlooking the Magnificent Stone Circle.
Today it’s private land but I’ve been given special access still feel so magic so full of possibilities and it was in this mound here right on top of the hill that they would make the most extraordinary discoveries they called it Bush Baron thanks to a small tree on its side but there was nothing else particularly remarkable about this mound I imagine they approached it with trepidation with excitement as they always did when they started Excavating a new burial mound but they couldn’t have had High Hopes given their previous experience how wrong they would be with hundreds of excavated barrows under their belts the team tore through the soil after days of solid digging they reached the bottom and then at that moment they made the discovery of their lives at the base of this burial mound, they found an undisturbed human grave a tall Stout man laid out north to south, and the team gasped because around him was the most remarkable array of artefacts they had ever discovered Finally they had struck gold .
Today the Bush Barrow skeleton and his magnificent Treasures are held at the Wilshire Museum in devises so this gives you an impression of what they found yeah this is a reconstruction of his burial David Dawson has spent years unlocking the secrets of this incredible burial you can see he’s laid out in a Crouch position he’s got everything he needs everything that shows how important he is so clearly someone of great wealth and probably of prestige and power absolutely and what do we know about him I mean was he was he a tall man do we know how he died all we know is what the excavator said that he’s a stout and tall man and he also gives the length of his FEMA so he knows he’s a six-footer he’s a big chap.
Wow so the skeleton was 6t tall isn’t that unusually high for people of that period in Britain
Indeed Alice 6 feet is exceptionally high for the Bronze Age but not for the previous periods of the Neolithic and Mesolithic – because these people were exceptionally tall they were more 6′ six to 7 foot tall consequently looking at his height this may be a distant relative of the ancient ones and therefore his status was as a Chieftain of the tribe.
Now if we go back to the start of the video you saw the story of Stonehenge being built by Giants the question is when myth and reality mix you need to take a part of the myth because it’s real what we know is that the megalithic builders were very tall and very strong and we call them Cro-Magnons now these Cro-Magnons were seen as a separate species by the Victorians because like later immigrants to Britain they were somewhat smaller than the Cho-magnon and the average Victorian and bronze age person was about 5’6 we know that we got shorter as time went past because the average Roman was only 5’4 so when they looked at Cro-Magnons who was 6’9 they would ultimately call them Giants which is quite interesting because as you say Stonehenge myth is that they were built by Giants and Stonehenge was originally called the Giants Dance interestingly enough recent discoveries show that the blue stones don’t come from Ireland but come from Wows which is an amazing coincidence in a sense that is far to the west of Stonehenge almost on the other side of the water from Ireland.
He a six-footer he’s a big chap he’s tall the body is laid out with replicas of his personal items exactly as it was found 200 years ago and those treasured Goods reveal a person of incredible wealth and power and the Crown Jewel in this collection is this extraordinary piece of gold this decorative diamond shape that would probably have been worn on a cloak it’s not just beautifully crafted archaeologists have discovered something remarkable about it They’ve worked out that the angles of the diamond inscribed on the surface precisely match the angle of the movements of the Sun at the summer and winter solers they discovered that if you place the diamond in the centre of Stonehenge at the winter solers you can use it like a compass if you align one side with the Setting Sun you can work out where the sun would set during the summer solers it’s 81° wow so and shows an understanding of astronomy and then you see the zigzag lines around the outside those are laid out to an accuracy of less than half a millimetre what that means is they understood geometry and Mathematics accurate measurement to be able to construct that they had to understand those 4,000 years ago that is astonishing isn’t it for the first time they were uncovering things which showed the sophistication of people at the time
With the discovery of the Bush Barrow burial we now had a glimpse of someone who’d actually known Stonehenge his golden Jewel suggests he was a sun worshipper maybe even the person who oversaw Stonehenge’s Solstice celebrations this man lived 4,000 years ago at the same time as the pharaohs ruled Egypt and he was more magnificent more wealthy and more sophisticated than anyone had ever imagined ancient Britain’s could be.
With such remarkable finds Stonehenge became more and more famous throughout the 19th century and so too did the visitors from Queen Victoria to Charles Dickens Arthur Conan Doyle to Charles Darwin but then disaster struck once again in in 1900 another of the giant Stones fell during a violent storm enough was enough Stonehenge might be privately owned but it was a National Treasure it needed to be protected and that meant putting up the stones that had fallen down and protecting those that remained standing they poured concrete around the bases they kept the lentils those horizontal arches fixed on top of the uprights using lead taken from the roof of Hampton Court Palace.
But the repairs gave archaeologists the chance to move in too they were determined to extract every piece of evidence they could by digging in and around the holes that have been left at the base of the stones that had fallen over they were going to sift through the soil layer by layer methodically and they didn’t find treasure at least not gold or other precious metals but they did find antlers charred wood and stone tools
The archaeologists concluded these were the ancient tools used to dig the ditch and shape the stones but there was a much bigger Revelation although metal had been found in the burials around Stonehenge there was no evidence of any metal tools buried in the monument Stonehenge had to have been built in the Stone Age it was an incredible breakthrough and the first step in solving the great mystery of when Stonehenge was built now 100 years later we can chart every phase of its construction from beginning to end.
So this is the I guess the first stone if you like what this this is 5,000 years ago yes absolutely what it’s showing us is the first things that happened in the space Heather sair is the head curator at Stonehenge they dug out a ditch and throw up a bank with the contents of the ditch slightly higher on the inside and lower on the outside so associated with the bank and ditch around the same period are 56 pits and we know they hold cremation burials but as well as that the the tops of the cremation burials were quite compressed so we’re fairly sure they held posts of some sort a lot of the academics who’ve done Recent research really do think they were probably blue stones so these could be the famous blue stones that are still on the site today absolutely.
So, the blue stones came from Wales and were used like gravestones for cremations is that right Bob
Well yes or no Alice, yes the blue stones definitely come from Wales and we’ve found their quarries, two quarries’ and we’ve carbon dated the quarries and they Mesolithic in date not Neolithic and it’s probably why they don’t talk about it on this program, one would imagine the quarry site is synonymous with Stonehenge and we should talk about that and it states but clearly this program doesn’t discuss the matter.
As for using them as gravestones absolutely and completely wrong what they found is cremations in the old holes which used to hold the blue stones and they’ come to this bizarre conclusion even though the evidence shows that not every hole has a cremation in fact there’s less than a dozen holes that have cremations within them and most those holes have had recesses cut into them for the cremations so the idea that they were made for Creations is a nonsense otherwise you won’t be carving holes in the side of the pits for the ashes it clearly something that’s happened after the stones have been removed which then asks the very interesting question well how long were the stones in the holes before they were removed now we know that these cremations in the blue stone holes have been carbon dated to 3,300 BCE the oldest dates on the site according to archaeologists now question is how long were these blue stones in the holes before they were chipped away or removed it could have been thousands of years gives credibility to the idea that basically this site is actually 5,000 years older than they’re telling you on this program.
So more STS come in but they’re much bigger this time that quite the chain so yes absolutely and what they did was they erected five in a horseshoe shape then they form a circle a Circle enclosing that horseshoe shape so it really is a feet of engineering so all of these stones or posts around the edge have gone haven’t they yes they have do you think they’ve taken the circle of blue stones and put them inside there is that I’m sure they would have used the same Stones so it now feels it’s all very much orientated towards the sunrise yes very much
So it’s been a bit remodelled I can see that these blue stones have been moved around a bit so the blue stones get put into a circle and really an oval there’s not major reconstruction at this time nothing has changed that will actually interfere with the source’s access so we’re fairly sure that that’s still very important so it’s 4, 200 years ago and how the Avenues here is this has this just been put in now yes indeed so really this Avenue you know if you imagine a processional away like the mile you know going up to Buckingham Palace it’s connected Stonehenge with the river so all the different elements seem to come together you’ve got the big Stones being built you’ve got the solar alignment you got the Avenue joining it to other things this feels like it’s Peak yes it is.
Bob the ditch that Dan just put his thumb around doesn’t look right as it is very bumpy why is it not perfect.
Well spotted Alice you’re quite right it’s very imperfect in fact the ditch isn’t a ditch most archaeologists don’t talk about the ditch and TV programs ignore it completely at least on the model they show there’s something underneath but it won’t tell you what because it then throws a light of confusion on what Stonehenge really was when it was first constructed the ditch is not a ditch it’s a series of pit holes here’s an illustration of what it looked like when it was excavated it’s still the greatest mystery of Stonehenge and it’s very rarely talked about.
It’s actually a series of holes with seats and there Stone holes at the bottom of the ditch why in Earth would that happen there’s only one single possibility which most archaeologists would like to avoid and TV programs again do not talk about it’s because once upon a time it was full of water because in the mesolithic the water table was much much higher and if you dug down a meter or two at Stonehenge it would immediately fill up with water, now this again allows us to date the site which shows it was 5,000 years older than that’s saying on this program and which most archaeologists believe.
And people used to bathe in the water and in the water is where they put the blue stone chips a little bit like bath Salts some of the holes have got large holes at the bomb so obviously large pieces of blue stone were placed at the bottom of the hole like a giant Barth salt now why they don’t want to talk about this is another matter we can go down this line of they put the temple together to worship the Sun but yet at the same time they were bathing and they were bathing their illnesses away because that’s what prehistoric people did and that’s what they carried on doing in throughout the Roman period and we know that because anybody goes down to Bath the reason the baths were there was for the same reason to bathe illness away and we even do it today in our own private little bath where we lay in the bath and throw some bath salts to make us feel good.
This precise dating of each phase from a simple bank and ditch to the big Stones arriving and then the construction of the Avenue has only been possible to work out recently because science back at the beginning of the 20th-century investigators were still beginning to feel more positive than ever about solving Stonehenge’s Mysteries until sudden 100 years ago Stonehenge’s future was suddenly thrown into doubt once again as it came into the firing line of the most devastating War the world had ever seen Stonehenge had a turbulent time, but after the war investigations picked up like never before now, archaeologists and Military Pilots began to work together, taking and sharing aerial photographs of this landscape in the hunt to understand Stonehenge and in 1926 that would result in an incredible
Discovery near to the monument look here just in this field here you can see this circular shape with lots of black dots there was something hidden buried in the ground analysing the photo in the 1920s the archaeologists were astonished the circle was almost exactly the same size as Stonehenge and the dots seemed to be symmetrically placed just like the stones at the monument just imagine how excited the archaeologist must have been when they entered this field were they about to discover the foundations of another Stonehenge just beneath their feet they started digging outside the main Circle soon became clear the dark circular impression was the remains of a ditch like the one at Stonehenge and next to it was a circular Bank I’m standing on it now this was almost exactly the same size as the one at Stonehenge 360 ft in diameter but it was when they started to dig inside the circle that they found something even more
intriguing fairly soon they found a pit which was exciting because they knew from Stonehenge the stones didn’t just sit on top of the ground they were sunk into them in p to make them far more solid so a pit here suggested a similar structure but this pit was smaller and there were residues of wood in it so archaeologists assumed that unlike Stonehenge this was made out of wood huge wooden posts stretching up out of the ground perhaps 20 metres High twice as high as the biggest stones in Stonehenge today this marks the sight of a pit but I should say pits because after finding that first one they went on to find pit after pit after pit until they realized that this was a whole landscape covered in 168 tall wooden columns soaring up to the sky visible for miles around and when the archaeologists looked at the layout of the monument they noticed something very familiar The Columns were aligned with the movements of the Sun so how was this Woodhenge connected to Stonehenge was it an early wooden prototype.
For 80 years no one had the answer until in 2004 a new investigation Finally Revealed the truth and it would revolutionise our understanding of Stonehenge a team from Sheffield University set up base here by Woodhenge and began to dig as they dug they revealed that there was a physical link between here and Stonehenge The Avenue at Stonehenge was connected to the river as it passed near Woodhenge the Avenue then picked up again this was clearly a route between the two monuments Stonehenge and Woodhenge was linked in the Stone Age but this amazing Discovery was just the start of their breakthroughs what they found next in the area by Woodhenge called Durrington walls was totally unexpected, and it was the real game changer as they dug their trenches right across this site they found layers of clay and on them burn marks it looked like people have been gathering around fires to the trained eye of archaeologist it seemed likely that these were hearths and that they had found Stone Age houses.
But as they realized the extent of the finds it became clear that this was a whole Stone Age Village to see how our ancient ancestors lived a replica of one corner of this rare Discovery has been recreated near Stonehenge look I love how picturesque and cosy the little Hamlet feels very different to the Stark Stone of stone Heng well these are your classic Watt and dorb houses this is the way that most people in Britain lived up until about 500 years ago Mike Parker Pearson led the team who discovered the houses.
What you what we’ve got it’s very simple construction that you have a screen of wood and then plaster against it WT and orb and then you have reads to build the roof that’s amazing they’re all different aren’t they they’re not all built to one particular why that what was really interesting is that they actually form a module a group although each of them was a habitation with beds they had slightly different purposes that’s the main house the storehouse around the corner we’re standing just behind the Cook House okay and that’s the workshop so uh they’re all working together as a single unit Mike believes that each cluster of buildings was probably home to 15 to 20 people all working together possibly extended families he believes that the whole Stone Age site would have been densely packed with groups like this we have maybe a thousand houses yes so this would have been perhaps the biggest settlement in the whole of Britain.
Wow and that do you think that’s because of Stonehenge undoubtedly the date for the occupation of this great settlement is the same as the second stage of Stonehenge when the really big sass went up so my guess is that this would have been where the building crew were actually living that’s almost a stone age city as a result of the excavations Mike has come up with an exciting new Theory the houses were found next to Woodhenge could that mean that together they were a place for the living and Stonehenge was a ceremonial sight for the dead it all seems to fit together quite nicely Stonehenge was the place where the people living down at Woodhenge could come and commemorate their ancestors at the summer and winter solers people would begin to gather at the Durrington walls town next the wood henge before making their way up the sacred Avenue to Stone hedge where they would celebrate their ancestors at special times in the year isn’t that incredible
Bob, we have found a whole new prehistoric City with thousands of houses just down the road from Stonehenge, which must be where the builders lived when constructing the site incredible
Yes but I would probably pull it down to be more delusional the 1,000 houses that the experts are quoting in come from just five houses found in an excavation outside Durrington walls at the entrance which should ask you a question if the houses are in a city surely the houses should be inside the city rather than on the walkway leaving the city but this sort of exaggeration is Common Place sadly nowadays in archaeology headlines of the fashion if they find five houses which to be honest is no big deal – it suddenly becomes a thousand house City because it gets better publicity than we just found five houses this is in fact very poor science what we found is five houses only two we know that are inhabited by someone the others have just halves on the floor so it could be anything the interesting aspect of it is that the shape of the house has changed they’ve told us in the past that everybody lived in round houses these are not round these are square with round corners so it’s very new and it just illustrates that archaeologists are just guessing when it comes to discoveries they haven’t really got a grip with our true history and at the moment they’re taking pot shots of ideas hoping that some of them will stick and that some of them will find other evidence in the future.
What we see in front of us at Durrington Walls is actually not a 1000 house site it’s actually a harbour in fact Durrington Walls isn’t a henge as it’s categorised because it doesn’t have a ditch and bank which is the normal criteria for a henge it’s actually a natural harbour made by the water as we can see very clearly on this liar map sadly archaeologists don’t use liar it’s the most advanced tool in archaeology why archaeologists don’t use this most sophisticated of tools on a day-to-day basis I just don’t understand this tool allows us to look at the landscape in great detail which is much much better than field walking because you have a different perspective from the sky and even Satellite photographs which to be honest is no good because it’s covered in foliage so you cannot see the detail as you see from this illustration the site is carved into the side of the landscape and that was due to the Waters of the mesic when the river Avon which is Tiny in comparison there was large and extensive and would have cut the chalk away from the side of the Durrington wall site carving out a natural harbour which people would have used with their boats.
But then the surprise discovery of an ancient skeleton would reveal an even bigger story, putting Stonehenge at the centre of the ancient world and when the homes of Stonehenge’s ancient inhabitants were discovered in 2004 archaeologists found evidence of scraps of food perfect for scientific analysis and it revealed something incredible there were traces of hazelnuts fruit honey even a sort of ancient cheese is a bit like mozzarella but there was one thing that dominated the menu there are tens of thousands of pig bones from the site about 90% of all the bones that were found there are from pigs so they really like their pork archaeologist Richard matwick analysed the food and was fascinated by the amount of pig being consumed in his experience this didn’t look like an everyday menu these were huge feasting events in my opinion not only because of the volume of material but also because of the volume of pigs because pigs are good feasting animals you can kill large numbers without harming what we call a secondary product economy.
So if you rely on milk if you rely on wool you don’t want to kill large quantities of cattle and and sheep in one go because you’ll have nothing to live on afterwards but pigs don’t don’t have those products and therefore they’re very well suited to feasting well so we can imagine that people at dint WS they’re there for a party and there’s just a huge pig base like the end of an asterisk book yeah I think you can think of it a bit like that Richard now began analysing chemicals in the pig bones called Isotopes these would help him work out where the pigs had come from so if we’re prepared to sacrifice a tiny fragment of a pig tooth 20 Mig of an can you see that cut there to that in half yeah exactly uh that is an archive of lots of important information about where the animal came from what its diet was like and how it lived.
So every time we consume food and drink and animals consume food and drink chemical signals from those products enter the body and ultimately and thankfully for archaeologists end up in our bones and teeth so what so you can kind of identify where these animals are from to some degree we can so if I can show you a graph so we can see this Square down here is the chalkland and the green s of of Wessex around the area of Durrington walls and these blue diamond’s here are the Durrington walls pigs so lots of them are coming from Fairly nearby lots of them are coming from Fairly nearby these that are below the 709 line and just above the 709 line they’re consistent with being local but the science also shows that pigs were being brought here from further away but you can see we have got large numbers that are higher much higher up in the map 710 711 all the way up to 717 now these are really high values and it it clearly points to the animals having come from a wide range of different locations different geological zones certainly Wales certainly Southwest England and certainly the Eastern Seaboard as well so people are coming from a long long way and they’re bringing their pigs with them wow the pig bones revealed that Stonehenge was not only celebrated with a massive communal feast but was the heart of a vast prehistoric Network drawing crowds from right across the land but what about the origins of the actual people who were coming here at that time 3 and a half thousand years ago.
In 2002 a chance Discovery was about to reveal an extraordinary clue just three miles from Stonehenge lies the town of Amesbury 20 years ago a brand new school was being built here but just as construction started work was suddenly halted anytime that anyone tries to build something new around here they have to be very careful indeed because we’re so close to Stonehenge that there is very likely to be precious archaeology just beneath the surface off so when they were building this school 20 years ago archaeologists were on hand for every single moment and it’s lucky they were because just over there where that playing field now is they discovered one of the most important one of the richest burials ever found in Britain the Amesbury Archer.
I’ve come to Salsbury where the skeleton and his extraordinary great Brave goods are on display this is one of the most significant prehistoric finds ever made in Europe it’s an adult male around 35 to 45 he was 5′ 8 tall missing a KNEe cap so he’d have walked with a limp he’s buried with his beakers there he might have drunk beer out of and an extraordinary Rich array of other objects laid out around him he’s got arrow heads and he’s got a wrist protector just here so that the string from the bow doesn’t graze him as he releases it and he’s been named as the Amesbury Archer as a result but the Archer had something else buried alongside him and it’s what makes this individual truly exciting alongside the archery equipment very unusually is this might not look like much but it is a portable Anvil a stone which he would have used to shape metal you can see examples of the sort of work he might have done just here these golden ornaments possibly used in hair to tie up braids and also you’ve got copper knives these gold and bronze objects are the oldest ever found in Britain which means the Asbury Archer could be one of our first metal workers other finds in the grave are equally intriguing lying around him were five Pottery cups called Bell beakers because of their bell-like shape this style wasn’t local it came from the continent archaeologists were very keen to find out where this trailblazing individual might have come from and luckily they now had the scientific tools to do just that.
I’m heading to the Natural History Museum in London where scientists have been analysing the Asbury archer in extraordinary detail so Selena you’ve got this mysterious character he’s absolutely dripping with all the new technology and Cool Stuff who is he what have you boffin’s been able to unlock about him so yeah we actually know quite a lot about this individual he’s a really interesting chat Selena brace is an expert in discovering the secrets of our ancient ancestors from minute information stored in their bones and teeth the Amesbury Archer is full of a wealth of data about where he came from well there’s lots of different lines of evidence U that we can use to uh explain more about who the Asbury Archer was one of the lines of evidence that we look at is isotope analyses so they looked at the Isotopes in his teeth it’s the same science that showed us earlier that the slaughtered pigs came from all over Britain by looking at chemicals in human teeth you can also find out where someone grew up so what’s all that telling us so what this actually tells us is that his the signature that we see in his teeth is not what you would expect from Britain oh so where’s he from well it looks like sort of Central Europe Germany Hungary Austria but he probably grew up in the Alps so he’s migrated from the Alps to be buried in Amesbury
Wow much nicer climate I don’t blame him well we think that he must have just migrated here probably with the community uh a whole group of people because this is a Time point when we see a lot of migration happening in Europe and a lot of people migrating into Britain at this time wow so even we think the modern world were all travelling around lots of migration going on but actually this was people moving across Europe even thousands of years ago yeah I mean this was what so he died 3,200 BC so and yeah there’s a huge sways of people moving around Europe bringing different cultures exchanging ideas yeah it’s a pretty active time point with the discovery of the Archer’s Continental Origins his extraordinary burial goods made much more sense metal working developed in Europe before arriving in Britain those jars called Bell beakers were also a continental Style the idea of traveling many hundreds of miles to come here it’s just remarkable and if people were making that big trick it implies that news of Stone Hedge must have spread far and wide
So we have stones from Wales pigs from East Anglia and now archers from the Alps so how did they get to Stonehenge and how did they know Stonehenge actually existed in the first place?
That indeed is a great question Alice how on Earth did people in the Alps knew there was a place called Stonehenge and why would you even attempt to undertake that Journey unless there’s some very very good reason now one thing the prob never mentioned is the fact that the AMC Archer had a kneecap missing and had a waivered leg this person doesn’t travel easy this person travels very badly this person would have to can’t walk obviously to St inch even if he knew where it was he would have to go by cart there’s no carts in those days there’s no roads in those days there’s no signposts in those days there’s no friendly villagers to say oh do you know where Stonehenge is particularly when you get halfway through France it’s a nonsense of history that people would know where Stonehenge was and where it was located the only way you can actually achieve a knowledge of where something was if there’s somebody on a regular basis traveling to your village or traveling to your town who tells you stories of where they’ve been in the past now that won’t be through walking and this won’t be through migration as the archaeologists and history books would tell you we’ve seen this in the past and this sort of communication on a constant basis happens when people trade when people in the past have traded via ships we’ve gone off to far distant Islands picked up and traded with far distant people come back tell stories of potatoes and tobacco and gone back again to trade with them and people have gone with those Traders because of the stories to say oh that sounds great i’ like to go and see those wonderful sites you tell stories for I’ll come with you
This is our natural way of communication this is how cultures intermingle this is how trading happens and it’s people going on trade routes so if people have come to Stonehenge it’s because it’s on a trading route and this very crucial piece of information has always been missed in our history and Stonehenge is classic case of someone coming to Stonehenge probably to B if we saw before because he’s ill and he hasn’t got a kneecap and he’s got a waivered leg he’s come to try and cure himself from a far distant country because he’s heard of this from the trading route and what we also know is that we traded in the Alps for other things such as Jade – Jade axes found a thousand years before the Amesbury Archer has been coming from the Alps so we’ve had regular contact on these trading routes sadly this information which is crucial for the understanding of Stonehenge and its history is missing from this program.
Modern science has transformed our understanding of Britain’s most iconic Monument but until very recently, there was still one very big question that had never been answered where did the biggest Stones themselves come from in 2017 that mystery was finally about to be solved but one of the greatest Mysteries still remain where did the biggest Stones the sarsens that that form these iconic arches actually come from investigators had never got close to revealing the truth until now when a lost piece of evidence emerged archaeologist Sue greeney was part of the team given this incredible opportunity to identify the exact spot where stonehenge’s largest sarson Stones came from.
So how how on Earth do you work out where a stone is from well actually sarson are really really tricky to tell where they’re from suris because if you look at sarson inside it’s just like sand it just looks like solidified sand okay that’s because it’s more than 99% silica so um actually you have to use geochemistry you have to take a sample and you have to look at the trace elements everything that’s not silica in order to be able to match it it’s sort like a fingerprint or a signature so you’re just looking at the chemical composition of the stone using very wizzy technology by matching the chemical signature of these Mammoth stones with the identical Fingerprints of ones found naturally in the landscape scientists hoped they could work out where these Stones originally came from before they were set up at Stonehenge but they had a big problem they really needed a stone sample and that would mean hacking out a piece and destroying a bit of this precious Monument the destroyed bit I can imagine is tricky with Stonehenge yes we don’t want to be drilling into the stones here at Stonehenge.
But back in the 1950s Engineers had done exactly that to stop this Stone from cracking they drilled a hole and pinned it together the core they removed was taken away to the United States by one of the team and forgotten until 2017 when it was returned out of the blue
oh wow look at this and here wow in this perspect tube is the core so it’s about a meter long section complete cross-section through the stone and if you look at it you can see it’s kind of like layers of sand it’s a bit like one of those things you buy as a souvenir on the beach on the beach yeah that’s perfect isn’t it uh and this bit here is where a little piece of it was sent away for destructive analysis so that we could look at the chemistry of this particular Stone in detail and you don’t feel like you’re desecrating ancient site do you ex it’s already been taken out finally Sue and the team had something they’d only ever dreamed of a sample it could send to the lab and analyse its chemical signature but now came the difficult part they were going to have to scour the countryside to find a match they started searching within a 10m radius of stone henge Susan is taking me on a trip through Wilshire to retrace their steps it’s soon clear why this was such a mammoth task the area is littered with natural Sasson Stones so these are Stones they the S Stones R to Sea they’re not this is a natural sarson spread sometimes called an assassin River and this is exactly what how it occurs here they’re quite small um but this would have been a common sight across lots of bits of of this part of Wilshire but when these Stones were sampled their chemical signatures didn’t quite match Stone henges precisely enough the hunt was still on for a better match wow right let’s keep going this up here up to the right here the investigation now took the archaeologist deep into West Woods 8 mil from Stonehenge this is where they’d make their breakthrough so I’m starting to see Stones poking up through the surface yeah we’ve got just a few of them here there’s a few aren’t there there’s some big ones up ahead
oh yeah fantastic that’s good some good size I mean that one you could almost make a lentil out of couldn’t you these stones were around the right size to be candidates for the ones chosen for Stonehenge the archaeologists began to analyse them could this be the exact spot where Stone’s Mighty Stones originally came from around 4 and a half thousand years ago the archaeologist carried out preliminary field tests this is a machine that scans beneath the surface to identify the chemical composition of any material metal wood or stone it basically is an x-ray machine we just turn it on and we place it near to the surface that we want to analyse and fire it away and then we just place it against The Rock and we just take the reading and it’s done and we can look at that back in the lab and download the data and yeah you can just see here a little graph of the reading we’ve just taken and so we’ve got that graph for the stones at Stonehenge yes and if it’s the same graph then the stones are from the same place yes when the archaeologists first analysed everything in the lab the results were remarkable so the sample that was taken from West woods which is where we are was the closest match to that signature that wiggle matching of all the chemical composition of the SARS and stones at Stonehenge and so the scientist were happy that the sassin from Stonehenge came from here it’s an amazing Discovery proving that 4 and a/ half thousand years ago the Builders of Stonehenge came right here to this exact spot in Westwood to choose the biggest and best stones for their great creation Sue’s team could now work out the route they travelled to Stonehenge these 20 ton stones were dragged from Westwood over 8 mil of rough terrain out of this wood downhills alongside the river then uphill to their final destination on Salsbury plane the scale of the operation was incredible.
I have this strangest feeling you’re going to tell me this is also not true
Well Alice once again yes and no yes the big S Stones did come from West woods or around West woods but no not all of the stones come from West woods and the fact that some of the very largest Stones the trilithon stones which are 25 tons came from much further field from both Hampshire and Sussex that tells us a little bit more about Stonehenge and this idea of dragging Stones across land which there still trying to push upon the viewer we even look at the 8 Mile very simple Crossing between West woods and Stonehenge as shown on this profile map you see it’s not as clear as Dan would suspect up a hill and down a hill dragging the stone no indeed you’ve got to go past what’s known as two very large rivers best will in the world you cannot drag a stone through a river and one of the rivers is the Avon and that will be at least 18 to 20 metres wide the chances are that you would probably drown if you try to do so all the stone will be swept away Downstream you’ll have to build a boat to take it across these rivers and if you’ve got a boat for the stone why would you want to drag it you could floated it down from where they found it because there’s Rivers by westwards there’s also a manmade structure a linear earthwork known as Wansdyke now people don’t understand what was Wansdyke and the age of on stake but strangely enough it connects to Two Rivers from one end to the other and it goes through West woods what’s the chances that someone built it to take the stone from Westwood all the way down to Stonehenge but that’s another story which sadly this documentary will not cover they just want you to believe people drag Stones across land.
Looking at the profiles of the Hampshire and Sussex maps showing the path of these gigantic Stones it is clear that you need a boat to take it and what you have seen over the last hour is the theme of boats people coming from Abroad in boats Stones being taken to sites by boats animals coming for Slaughter and feasting by boats are Central to the understanding of Stonehenge but it’s not Central to the understanding of archaeology today currently
It’s just extraordinary to think that over 4 and a half thousand years ago our Stone Age ancestors were foraging in some Woodland when they came across these Mighty Stones they decided to shape them and dig them up and transport them here and then erect them into this huge monument and then for centuries afterwards people from across Britain that as far fielders in Europe perhaps came here to visit and even now then yet later it’s drawing bigger crowds than ever Stonehenge’s discoveries are remarkable they’ve revealed when it was built 4 and a half thousand years ago they’ve revealed the extraordinary story of how it was built dragging those Mighty Stones here carefully shaping and erecting them to align precisely with the movements of the sun then creating that Avenue linking it to Woodhenge and that vast Stone Age village and discovering what it was used for thousands came here to celebrate the summer and winter solstice for over a thousand years journeying across the seas and the country burying their dead around it’s taken three centuries armies of archaeologists investigations from the high and looking under the ground it’s taken the latest scientific techniques and yet now finally it feels like we’ve unlocked some of Stonehenge’s most important Secrets it’s still one of the greatest one of the most magical archaeological sites on Earth there is no longer quite as much of a mystery well that’s all we got time for you today.
I hope you enjoyed the video and a little chat about archaeology come to our website where you can find essays and liar investigations or come and visit us on YouTube where we have a video channel where we have more videos for you to browse so it’s goodbye from me and it’s goodbye from Alice
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 for governmental realms and grand corporate bastions, a tapestry spanning British Telecommunications, Cable and Wireless, British Gas, and the esteemed University of London.
A decade hence, Robert’s transition into retirement unfurled a chapter of insatiable curiosity. This phase saw him immerse himself in Politics, Archaeology, Philosophy, and the enigmatic realm of Quantum Mechanics. His academic odyssey traversed the venerable corridors of knowledge hubs such as the Museum of London, University College London, Birkbeck College, The City Literature Institute, and Chichester University.
In the symphony of his life, Robert is a custodian of three progeny and a pair of cherished grandchildren. His sanctuary lies ensconced in the embrace of West Wales, where he inhabits an isolated cottage, its windows framing a vista of the boundless sea – a retreat from the scrutinous gaze of 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 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 aWansdyke 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 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 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
For those interested in British Prehistory, visit www.prehistoric-britain.co.uk, a comprehensive resource featuring an extensive collection of archaeology articles, modern LiDAR investigations, and groundbreaking research. The site also includes insights and excerpts from the acclaimed Robert John Langdon Trilogy, a series of books that explore Britain during the Prehistoric period. Titles in the trilogy include The Stonehenge Enigma, Dawn of the Lost Civilisation, and The Post-Glacial Flooding Hypothesis, which offer compelling evidence of ancient landscapes shaped by post-glacial flooding.
To further explore these topics, Robert John Langdon has developed a dedicated YouTube channel featuring over 100 video documentaries and investigations that complement the trilogy. Notable discoveries and studies showcased on the channel include 13 Things that Don’t Make Sense in History and the revelation of Silbury Avenue – The Lost Stone Avenue, a rediscovered prehistoric feature at Avebury, Wiltshire.
In addition to his main works, Langdon has released a series of shorter, accessible publications, ideal for readers delving into specific topics. These include:
For active discussions and updates on the trilogy’s findings and recent LiDAR investigations, join our vibrant community on Facebook. Engage with like-minded enthusiasts by leaving a message or contributing to debates in our Facebook Group.
Whether through the books, the website, or interactive videos, we aim to provide a deeper understanding of Britain’s fascinating prehistoric past. We encourage you to explore these resources and uncover the mysteries of ancient landscapes through the lens of modern archaeology.
For more information, including chapter extracts and related publications, visit the Robert John Langdon Author Page. Dive into works such as The Stonehenge Enigma or Dawn of the Lost Civilisation, and explore cutting-edge theories that challenge traditional historical narratives.
We have examined Professor Ray’s efforts to prove that transporting bluestones by land to Stonehenge using sledges and dragging is feasible. He believes the journey is relatively flat, with gentle gradients, based on his walk along modern roads engineered over the last thousand years to maintain gradual steepness. However, he failed to consider the reality of the steep drops and river valleys the original journey would have encountered. (Professor Bonkers and the mad, mad World of Archaeology)
Even if his assumptions about the terrain were correct, the logistics of such an endeavour were not considered. He is not alone in this oversight, as other established professors have maintained over the years that the ‘ox cart’ route was feasible.
(Professor Bonkers and the mad, mad World of Archaeology)
We employed AI to calculate the logistics of this project. It revealed that such a task would have required recruiting 4% of the able-bodied men of the Neolithic period and taking 3.4 years to complete. This calculation does not include the carbon-dating evidence, suggesting that additional stones were taken to replenish the old stock that had lasted a millennium.
In stark contrast, we asked AI to calculate the logistics and feasibility of using a boat from the quarry to Stonehenge. The results showed that the journey could be completed in just 5 days with a team of 12 people per trip—6 people per boat (a total of 145 days). This approach seems far more feasible, as the river provides a fixed direction with minimal need for navigation markers, unlike the land route.
Professor Bonkers
I was recently asked to share my thoughts on Professor Keith Ray’s ambitious 222-mile journey from the quarries of the Preseli Mountains to Stonehenge. He undertook this trek to gather information and generate publicity for his upcoming book. Initially, I thought he was quite mad; anyone reasonable would recognise that modern roads didn’t exist during the original bluestone journey, making his trek rather pointless. Moreover, I doubt he would wade through rivers, especially the Severn, to demonstrate how “easy” the journey was, particularly given his age.
Prof Keith Ray approaching Stonehenge – Professor Bonkers and the mad, mad World of Archaeology
What I didn’t know was that Professor Ray had previously completed a similar journey along Offa’s Dyke. His forthcoming book, “Offa’s Dyke: Encounters and Explanations,” caught my interest, primarily since I had recently published my book on Offa’s Dyke. I was curious if he had incorporated any findings from the first-ever LiDAR survey of the Dyke. Unfortunately, it seems his research missed crucial aspects. His press release claimed that the Dyke was built in the eighth century, a notion the LiDAR survey conclusively disproves. (Professor Bonkers and the mad, mad World of Archaeology)
Even more puzzling is his reliance on outdated information from Sir Cyril Fox’s earlier work on the Dyke. In my book, I showed that Fox’s observations were misinterpreted, such as the “defensive banks” being on the wrong side of the Dyke and the “non-existent” evidence buried underground, which LiDAR proved never existed.
(Professor Bonkers and the mad, mad World of Archaeology)
Professor Ray also suggested that the boundary doesn’t align with the modern one because it has shifted over time, yet he provided no evidence. A glance at the conclusions in my book, freely available to anyone doing basic research, would reveal that 60% of the Dyke no longer exists, with much of it now being rivers. Why not the rest if rivers account for 60% of the boundary? The fact that the river and the Dyke run parallel in some parts, with less than 50 meters separating them, makes the idea of a boundary completely illogical. This brings us back to his Stonehenge walk—another exercise in futility, in my opinion.
The conclusion of Professor Ray’s press release certainly raised my eyebrows, particularly regarding his qualifications and position as an Honorary Professor of Archaeology in the School of History, Archaeology, and Religion at Cardiff University. This is new to me, but it might explain the recent trend among archaeologists to excessively refer to ceremonies, religious sites, offerings, and beliefs, which have no place in scientific discourse. Cardiff seems to regard archaeology as a social science rather than a hard science, as evidenced by Ray’s subjective observations of Offa’s Dyke.
First Every LiDAR Survey of Offa’s Dyke -Professor Bonkers and the mad, mad World of Archaeology
Regarding his 222-mile hike to Stonehenge, he has yet to reveal the exact route, likely keeping it a secret for his future £30 book. However, the problems with this endeavour are manifold, demonstrating how impractical and impossible the journey would have been. This is the same professor who walked 209 miles without realising that 60% of the Dyke is not visible, relying instead on Fox’s outdated observations, which LiDAR has since proven false.
Ray’s qualifications include a PhD in the archaeology of Igbo Ukwu, eastern Nigeria, from Cambridge, which some might consider a mark of infallibility. However, this background does little to validate his flawed conclusions. Previous peer-reviewed works have perpetuated the same mistakes, making them socially acceptable in archaeology. (Professor Bonkers and the mad, mad World of Archaeology)
(Professor Bonkers and the mad, mad World of Archaeology)
His Stonehenge trek raises fundamental questions. If one is leaving the Preseli mountains, which way is Stonehenge? The notion that a group of men picked up stones and followed a straightforward path to Stonehenge is illogical. The people of Stonehenge must have come to the quarry first, perhaps leaving breadcrumbs to find their way back. Maybe Professor Ray has stumbled upon a theory involving a long string to guide their return, reminiscent of a prehistoric paper chase.
Had the renowned professor consulted my recent LiDAR map of the quarry (though it’s unclear which quarry he started from), he would have seen that, in ancient times, starting from the primary quarry required crossing a much larger river. However, photos of him setting off show him on an excellent, flat road. There are only two roads from the site: one leading the wrong way to the coast and the other heading northeast, while Stonehenge is southeast. Thus, he begins his journey in the wrong direction unless he plans to invent a non-existent pathway (untraceable by LiDAR) or start incorrectly to return home quickly via modern roads that go around the country the wrong way…. But they are flattish!
Stonehenge is to the South East – No roads in that Direction -Professor Bonkers and the mad, mad World of Archaeology
Overall, his hike to Stonehenge appears to be another exercise in pure folly, much like his observations of Offa’s Dyke, an exercise to sell books rather than discover the true history of Britain. (Professor Bonkers and the mad, mad World of Archaeology)
The logistics
Even if it was feasible, the professor may have overlooked the logistics of such an endeavour:
Grand Plan for Transporting Stones from Craig Rhos-y-Felin to Stonehenge
Preparation:
Reconnaissance:
Visit Stonehenge: Key planners visit Stonehenge to understand its location and surroundings.
Route Planning: Identify the best route using natural landmarks, rivers, and terrain features.
Navigation Techniques:
Sun and Stars: Use the sun for daytime navigation and stars at night.
Landmarks: Identify and memorise prominent natural landmarks.
Oral Tradition: Rely on oral tradition to maintain route guidance.
Surveying Techniques: Use basic surveying to align the route with known points.
Execution:
Not Exactly Flat as the Professor Suggests -Professor Bonkers and the mad, mad World of Archaeology
Quarrying:
Extract Stones: Quarry the 4-tonne bluestones using available tools and techniques.
Transportation:
Initial Movement: Use wooden sledges and rollers to move stones from the quarry to the nearest waterway.
Water Transport: Construct rafts to float the stones along rivers, utilising the natural flow.
Land Transport: Use sledges and manpower to move stones overland to Stonehenge.
Logistics:
Food and Shelter:
Temporary Camps: Establish camps along the route.
Food Supplies: Organise a supply chain with regular intervals for food and water.
Shelter: Construct temporary shelters using materials from the surrounding environment.
Manpower:
Workers and Support Staff: 100 workers for moving stones and 500 support staff per 100 workers, totalling 600 people per stone.
Additional Manpower for Supply Chain: Assuming a further 200 people dedicated to supply logistics.
Support Personnel:
Ratio: 5 support people per worker.
Total Support Workers: For 100 workers, 500 support workers are required.
Total Workforce: 800 people (100 workers + 500 support workers + 200 logistics personnel).
River Crossings:
Rivers Along the Route:
Key Rivers: Transporting the stones from Craig Rhos-y-Felin to Stonehenge would likely involve crossing several major rivers, including the River Teifi, River Wye, River Severn, and River Avon.
Tree Felling for Rafts:
Number and Size of Trees: Constructing a raft to float a 4-tonne stone requires several large trees.
Felling Time: Cutting down trees with stone axes is a time-consuming process. Each tree may take several days to cut down and shape.
Crossing Procedure:
The number of Rivers are immense and would have been larger than today! -Professor Bonkers and the mad, mad World of Archaeology
Arrival at River:
Disassemble Sledges: Temporarily dismantle sledges for transport.
Build Rafts: Construct sturdy rafts using timber and other materials.
Loading Stones:
Lift Stones: Use manpower and leverage techniques to carefully load stones onto rafts.
Secure Stones: Ensure stones are securely fastened to prevent shifting during transport.
Crossing the River:
Navigate Rafts: Use poles and paddles to guide rafts across the river.
Monitor Weather: Choose optimal weather conditions for safe crossing.
Disembarkation:
Unload Stones: Carefully unload stones on the opposite bank.
Reassemble Sledges: Reconstruct sledges for continued overland transport.
Supply Chain Logistics:
Food Consumption:
Daily Requirements: Assuming an average consumption of 2,500 calories per person per day.
Food: 2,500 calories/person/day x 800 people = 2,000,000 calories/day.
Weight: Approximately 2 pounds of food per person per day.
Total Weight: 2 pounds/person/day x 800 people = 1,600 pounds of food/day.
Water Consumption:
Daily Requirements: Assuming an average consumption of 1 gallon of water per person daily.
Water: 1 gallon/person/day x 800 people = 800 gallons/day.
Clothing and Shelter:
Clothing: Seasonal clothing would be required for the workforce, likely made from wool, leather, and woven plant fibres.
Shelter: Temporary shelters made from local materials like wood, thatch, and animal hides.
You will need to chop down a number of trees every time you come to a river with stone tools -Professor Bonkers and the mad, mad World of Archaeology
Feasibility Based on Population:
Neolithic Population Estimates:
The population of Southern Britain during the Neolithic period is estimated to be around 100,000 people.
Assuming that approximately 20% of the population were able-bodied adults fit enough for this kind of labour, that gives us about 20,000 potential workers.
Workforce Requirement:
Direct Workforce: 600 people (including 100 workers and 500 support staff) are required for the transport operation.
Additional Manpower for Supply Chain: Assuming an additional 200 people dedicated to supply logistics, the total workforce needed would be 800 people.
Percentage of Population Involved:
Total Population Fit for Work: 20,000 able-bodied adults.
Total Workforce Needed: 800 people.
Percentage of Population: (800 / 20,000) * 100 = 4%
Timeframe Adjustments:
Total Duration: Around 3.4 years (1,230 days) to complete the mission, including increased logistical requirements.
Food Consumption Over Time:
Daily: 1,600 pounds of food/day (including additional logistics personnel).
Total: 1,600 pounds/day x 1,230 days = 1,968,000 pounds (984 tons) of food.
Water Consumption Over Time:
Daily: 800 gallons/day.
Total: 800 gallons/day x 1,230 days = 984,000 gallons of water.
Summary:
Manpower: 800 people (including additional logistics personnel).
Total Duration: 3.4 years to account for increased logistical requirements.
Logistics: Establish temporary camps, maintain supply chains, and ensure efficient coordination for continuous progress.
Feasibility: Engaging 4% of the able-bodied adult population in Southern Britain over 3.4 years is feasible but unlikely due to other commitments.
Grand Plan for Transporting Stones from Craig Rhos-y-Felin to Stonehenge via Boat
Preparation:
Reconnaissance:
Visit Stonehenge: Key planners visit Stonehenge to understand its location and surroundings.
Route Planning: Identify the best waterway route using natural landmarks, rivers, and paleochannels.
Navigation Techniques:
The simplicity of this method is astonishing but missed by today’s archeologists -Professor Bonkers and the mad, mad World of Archaeology
River Navigation: Use natural flow of the river and markers on the shoreline to maintain direction.
Landmarks: Identify and memorise prominent natural landmarks along the river route.
Oral Tradition: Rely on oral tradition for additional guidance.
Execution:
Quarrying:
Extract Stones: Quarry the 4-tonne bluestones using available tools and techniques.
Transportation:
Water Transport: Construct sturdy boats/barges to float the stones along rivers and paleochannels.
Logistics:
Food and Shelter:
Temporary Camps: Establish camps at key points along the route for rest and resupply.
Food Supplies: Crew can fish from the river to sustain part of their food supply, reducing the need for transported food.
Shelter: Use boats for shelter during the journey, reducing the need for land-based temporary shelters.
Manpower:
Crew for Boats: Each boat requires a crew of 6 people (4 punting and 2 resting).
Total Crew: Two boats per journey, totalling 12 people per journey.
River and Boat Transport Logistics:
Excavations have shown that the Quarry site is surrounded by water in the past -Professor Bonkers and the mad, mad World of Archaeology
Boat Construction:
Materials: Use large logs and timbers for constructing sturdy boats/barges capable of carrying 4-tonne stones.
Felling Time: Cutting down trees with stone axes is time-consuming. Each tree may take several days to cut down and shape.
Boat Capacity:
Craft Size: Each boat must be able to carry one 4-tonne stone.
Punting Crew: Each boat requires 4 people to punt and 2 people resting.
Speed:
Average Speed: Boats can travel at a rate of 4 miles per hour.
Distance and Time Calculation:
Total Distance: Approximately 140 miles from Craig Rhos-y-Felin to Stonehenge.
Travel Time: At 4 miles per hour and 16 hours of travel per day, the journey would take approximately 35 hours of punting time. This totals approximately 2.2 days of travel.
Additional Time for Setup and Rest: Allow an additional 3 days for loading, unloading, and unforeseen delays.
Total Journey Time: Approximately 5 days per trip for two stones.
Supply Chain Logistics:
Food Consumption:
Fishing: The crew can fish to sustain part of their food supply, reducing the need for transported food.
Daily Requirements: Assuming an average consumption of 2,500 calories per person per day.
Food: 2,500 calories/person/day x 12 people = 30,000 calories/day.
Weight: Approximately 2 pounds of food per person per day.
Total Weight: 2 pounds/person/day x 12 people = 24 pounds of food/day per journey.
Water Consumption:
Daily Requirements: Assuming an average consumption of 1 gallon of water per person per day.
Water: 1 gallon/person/day x 12 people = 12 gallons/day per journey.
Clothing and Shelter:
Clothing: Seasonal clothing would be required for the entire workforce, likely made from wool, leather, and woven plant fibers.
Shelter: Use boats for shelter during the journey.
Stonehenge was surround by water during Phase 1 -Professor Bonkers and the mad, mad World of Archaeology
Feasibility Based on Population:
Neolithic Population Estimates:
The population of Southern Britain during the Neolithic period is estimated to be around 100,000 people.
Assuming that approximately 20% of the population were able-bodied adults fit enough for this kind of labor, that gives us about 20,000 potential workers.
Workforce Requirement:
Direct Workforce: 12 people for punting and logistics per journey.
Support Personnel: Minimal additional support needed due to self-sufficiency (fishing for food and using boats for shelter).
Percentage of Population Involved:
Total Population Fit for Work: 20,000 able-bodied adults.
Total Workforce Needed: 12 people per journey.
Timeframe and Numbers:
Total Duration: Approximately 5 days per trip for two stones.
Total Stones: 58 stones to be transported.
Concurrent Transport: Assuming two stones per journey.
Total time Required: (58 stones / 2 stones per trip) * 5 days = 145 days.
Total Consumption Over Time:
Food:
Daily: 24 pounds of food/day x 12 people = 288 pounds of food/day.
Total: 24 pounds/day x 145 days = 3,480 pounds of food (1.74 tons).
Water:
Daily: 12 gallons of water/day x 12 people = 144 gallons of water/day.
Total: 12 gallons/day x 145 days = 1,740 gallons of water.
Summary:
Manpower: 12 people per journey.
Total Duration: Approximately 145 days (around 5 months) to account for increased logistical requirements and concurrent transport of two stones at a time.
Logistics: Minimal need for additional logistics due to self-sufficiency (fishing for food and using boats for shelter).
Feasibility: Engaging a very small percentage of the able-bodied adult population in Southern Britain is highly feasible.
(Professor Bonkers and the mad, mad World of Archaeology)
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 for governmental realms and grand corporate bastions, a tapestry spanning British Telecommunications, Cable and Wireless, British Gas, and the esteemed University of London.
A decade hence, Robert’s transition into retirement unfurled a chapter of insatiable curiosity. This phase saw him immerse himself in Politics, Archaeology, Philosophy, and the enigmatic realm of Quantum Mechanics. His academic odyssey traversed the venerable corridors of knowledge hubs such as the Museum of London, University College London, Birkbeck College, The City Literature Institute, and Chichester University.
In the symphony of his life, Robert is a custodian of three progeny and a pair of cherished grandchildren. His sanctuary lies ensconced in the embrace of West Wales, where he inhabits an isolated cottage, its windows framing a vista of the boundless sea – a retreat from the scrutinous gaze of 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 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 aWansdyke 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 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 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
For those interested in British Prehistory, visit www.prehistoric-britain.co.uk, a comprehensive resource featuring an extensive collection of archaeology articles, modern LiDAR investigations, and groundbreaking research. The site also includes insights and excerpts from the acclaimed Robert John Langdon Trilogy, a series of books that explore Britain during the Prehistoric period. Titles in the trilogy include The Stonehenge Enigma, Dawn of the Lost Civilisation, and The Post-Glacial Flooding Hypothesis, which offer compelling evidence of ancient landscapes shaped by post-glacial flooding.
To further explore these topics, Robert John Langdon has developed a dedicated YouTube channel featuring over 100 video documentaries and investigations that complement the trilogy. Notable discoveries and studies showcased on the channel include 13 Things that Don’t Make Sense in History and the revelation of Silbury Avenue – The Lost Stone Avenue, a rediscovered prehistoric feature at Avebury, Wiltshire.
In addition to his main works, Langdon has released a series of shorter, accessible publications, ideal for readers delving into specific topics. These include:
For active discussions and updates on the trilogy’s findings and recent LiDAR investigations, join our vibrant community on Facebook. Engage with like-minded enthusiasts by leaving a message or contributing to debates in our Facebook Group.
Whether through the books, the website, or interactive videos, we aim to provide a deeper understanding of Britain’s fascinating prehistoric past. We encourage you to explore these resources and uncover the mysteries of ancient landscapes through the lens of modern archaeology.
For more information, including chapter extracts and related publications, visit the Robert John Langdon Author Page. Dive into works such as The Stonehenge Enigma or Dawn of the Lost Civilisation, and explore cutting-edge theories that challenge traditional historical narratives.
Atlantis: Discovery with Dan Snow Debunked (Transcript)
Transcript – Dan Snow’s Atlantis (Debunked)
Hello, this is my co-presenter Alice, and this is my co-presenter Robert John Langton, and this is Bob and Alice debunks another video
Two and a half thousand years ago, ancient Greeks told of a terrifying catastrophe the destruction of Atlantis it was a tale of utter Devastation and Carnage and it’s captivated the world for over 2,000 years Atlantis a once glittering City that had ruled the waves now sunk beneath them obliterated from the face of the Earth by a terrible natural disaster Atlantis was described as one of the greatest places on Earth luxurious rich and Powerful but for centuries people have wondered was it just a story or did such an amazing City ever exist before it sunk beneath the waves.
So did Plato describe Atlantis as the greatest place on Earth luxurious rich and Powerful no I’m afraid Alex Plato never said all that it’s a lot of old nonsense and this is what we get in the 21st century we don’t get the true story of Plato’s Atlantis we get a new Hollywood version which is a load of old nonsense and people get the wrong idea about Atlantis so what we do today we’re going to stop this video every time they talk nonsense and we’ll actually give you the real version from Plato rather than the Hollywood 21st century version and that way you’ll get a better idea exactly what Atlantis was and was not and you’ll even find out where it was actually situated which he won’t do on this program.
Now now I’m on a journey through Greece to find out if there’s any fact buried amongst the fiction from Clues hidden at the tops of mysterious mountains to discoveries buried deep beneath the ground I’ll Chas the extraordinary story of the search for this legendary world he wants this to be Atlantis he really wants this to be Atlantic exploring today’s incredible hunt for the ancient Lost City I was determined to find it I’ll uncover a world of luxury and beauty and evidence of brutal destruction and I’ll dive beneath the waves to find remains of an ancient city buried beneath the Seas incredible archaeological discoveries extraordinary detective work this is the hunt for the real lost city of Atlantis [Music]
So why did you stop the video here Bob looked like Dan was going to take us for a lovely tour of the picturesque Mediterranean. Yes Alice Dan is going to go all the way around the Mediterranean showing some very picturesque scenes go diving under the water there’s only one problem with all this is that Atlantis has nothing to do with the Mediterranean sadly the most fundamental principle about Atlantis is missed and not even discussed in this documentary one would imagine why would you do this why would you not actually look at the basic principles of why is it called Atlantis in the first place is there anything that connects alenas today we can actually you see a connection but this program goes into a complete flight of fantasy and nonsense from the first moment so what we’re going to do is just take a look and I won’t even look I’ve actually asked my friend called ai AI is the most intelligent engine in the entire world it has the collective knowledge of everything and you can do things with AI which you can’t do with professors who only have a limited knowledge of a few hundred books why AI has access every single book that was ever published so there is a big difference between Ai and a professor
And I’ve asked it a very simple question about the Atlantic Ocean now the Atlantic Ocean should to me be an obvious connection because of the spelling but no one talks about the Atlantic Ocean on these programs which is painful really when you come to look at the writings of Plato furthermore the second aspect which will not be discussed in this program is that he actually tells you where lentis is which really helps doesn’t it it really helps when someone says Hey guys if you actually read and understand and comprehend the words on the page in front of me I will tell you exactly where a lentis is and it’s beyond the pillars of Hercules cu the Mediterraneans inside or behind the pillars of Hercules so when you’re looking in the Mediterranean Dan you’re in the entire wrong place cuz if you have bother to read Plato the basics he will tell you this but the incredible aspect of it is that there is something Beyond the pillars of Hercules as we in exit from the Mediterranean and it’s called the Alantic ocean now one would say oh is that a clue Bob Bob is that a clue that something is called the Atlantic Ocean and if each of transposed the C in the S suddenly there’s an association this is what AI tells us about this Association.
And it says remember this is the the most comprehensive and most intelligent thing on the planet it says yes there is a connection between the word Atlantic and Atlantis lo and behold the name Atlantis comes from the Greek Atlantis nesos which means the island of Atlas in Greek mythology Atlas is a Titan condemned to hold up the sky for eternity and his name was later associated with the Atlantic Ocean reflecting the extent of the ocean span which seems to be as vast as the burden which Atlas had to bear so we have this direct Connection in Greek mythology between Atlantis and Atlantic the term Atlantic Ocean itself is derived from atlanticos pertaining to Atlas the legend of atlan as recounted by Plato places the island in the Atlantic Ocean which is said to have been named after the Titan Atlantis the story suggests that Atlantis was situated beyond the pillars of Hercules which is known today as the streets of gibralta the entrance to the Mediterranean Sea from the Atlantic Ocean according to the myth when Atlanta sank itos ly made parts of the Atlantic impossible further trying the myth of the island to the name of the ocean thus both the ocean and the mythical Island derive their names from Titan Atlas creating a linguistic connection between them so AI says there’s a direct connection between the Atlantic Ocean and Atlantis
I love being in Greece I love the landscape the rugged mountains and then the beautiful Coastline and the sea I love the fact there so many historic sites to visit here it’s a place of magic a place of mystery and really there’s no bigger mystery than the strange ancient Greek story of the city of Atlantis which lies underneath the waves it seems very unlikely any yet I’m of to visit a place now where I’ve been told that’s exactly what I’m going to see the first destination on my hunt for Atlantis is pava Petri an isolated spot on the barren southernmost tip of Mainland Greece where the ancient fragments of a destroyed lost city lie beneath the waves like the legendary Atlantis there is an air of mystery surrounding this beautiful stretch of Coastline the rocky Shore is covered with strange crater-like pits where human bones have been discovered the waves lap against huge stone blocks that look [Music] man-made but for thousands of years no one had really investigated what was going on here until a British archaeologist Nicholas Fleming arrived at pav Petri hunting for Sunken [Music] sights just like today the beach was scattered with shards of ancient Pottery you can see these two bits here actually this is a much better piece look it’s like the rim of a drinking vessel or a storage container and you could tell that this Potter had all been rubbed very smooth by the actions of the Waves it probably been washed ashore from somewhere just out there so he put on his scuba gear and went swimming and instantly he start to see wonderful things over the next year he would uncover a submerged ancient city had he found Atlantis.
These Waters can get quite rough shuring up the sand and burying everything so I’m really hoping that some of what Fleming saw back in 196 67 is still visible luckily I’ve got local diver George to guide me and he knows this seabed like the back of his hand okay here he goes let’s go and see what’s beneath the [Music] waves the sea is fairly shallow here so I don’t have to dive too deep to [Music] explore it’s amazing the water is beautifully [Music] clear and at first you look at shells or bits of rock then you swim it closer and you realize these are shards of broken watery from thousands of years ago although the water’s clear years of rough Seas have buried what Fleming saw back in the 60s and you have to look carefully to see any remains but when you do get your eye in you can see straight lines in the Rocks those rocks are far too need to line they’re far too straight to be put there by Nature they look like a wall and George tells me that this was once the wall of someone’s house shifting Sands have covered the rest but I’m swimming over the foundations of an entire neighborhood here by scanning the seabed archaeologists have been able to piece together the remains of the city and a sense of its layout you can make out rectangular shapes which they identified as buildings and Courtyards there are rows upon rows of them spreading across this sea floor and there’s not only the home of the living but the graves of the Dead they stretch all the way from the beach to under the [Music] water it looks like these these holes these I think this must be the cemetery these must be Graves [Music]
well I’ve visited ancient sites all over the world I’ve been high in the mountains I’ve been in deep jungles but I have never dived on an ancient site beneath the waves Marine archaeologists now think that pavla Petri vanished 3 and a half thousand years ago a century before the famous Pharaoh Tuton Kon ruled Egypt it’s thought that it was hit by an earthquake and then submerged Under the Sea as the waters Rose a real Echo of the Atlantis Story the legendary Lost City Beneath the Sea unless you know what’s beneath the waves here this just feels like a a lovely remote beach a beautiful spot but in fact down there there is the remains of a thriving a bustling ancient City the buildings would have been up to two stories high packed together they would have been trading with the aian islands round into the ionian this was a busy Dynamic place of life but now all that’s left are a few foundations beneath the waves and the graves of their dead so could this really be a match for the spectacular City and the events described in the Atlantis story well I think it’s a possibility but this is a region plagued by earthquakes and volcanoes so now my hunt for Atlantis is taking me to where the story began Athens home to some of the greatest ancient monuments and archaeological Treasures in the world.
Two and a half thousand years ago it was here that one of its most famous residents first told the incredible story of Atlantis I’ve come to one of his favorite Hangouts the agura back then the central meeting place in Athens this place would have been a hive of activity people coming here to shop to chat to gossip day and night anyone who was anyone Beggars Tradesmen and politicians and of course philosophers and the most famous of them was Plato the man who first tells us about Atlantis and how it was destroyed to discover the real inspiration behind Atlantis I need to get to the bottom of exactly what Plato wrote all right come on then the big question Atlantis fact or fiction you had to start with the hardest question didn’t you let’s get into it Jasmine Elmer is an expert on ancient Greece I would say it’s definitely a story but with little reality sprinkles on top hang on that sounds a bit philosophical to me there wasn’t actually a city called Atlantis no there’s no real city called Atlantis it’s a mythical place that’s made up by the philosopher Plato but I can go looking for the places that might have inspired Plato yeah totally right what you will find is potentially these kind of places that have a similar story about them that could have inspired this the story of Atlantis and so how does he describe it well he talks about it being this kind of huge island that’s out in the Atlantic Ocean which the Greece is this kind of like vague space somewhere over there but it’s absolutely huge is it kind of a a flourishing civilization yeah absolutely I mean first of all it’s a land rich in resources so they had their own minerals and metals that they could mine they had fertile PLS so they could like grow loads of amazing fruit and vegetables they had exotic animals like even like elephants they also imported a lot of goods as well so it had lots of luxury around them colorful temples and palaces as well essentially what the Greeks would perceive is a very Advanced civilization
So it’s a sort of idealized picture of a of a society completely that exactly that it’s like a almost utopian Society everything kind of seems on the surface as being a perfect place that you’d want to live to begin with the picture Plato paints of Atlantis is idilic a sprawling prosperous City surrounded by olive trees a busy Port filled with ships magnificent squares and luxurious bathouses but it doesn’t stay that way for long in the story this perfect city is hit by a cataclysmic earthquake before a terrifying tsunami buries it beneath the waves and Plato had a moral to his tail it’s obviously a natural disaster but it comes from the gods as a punishment for being too big for your boots for trying to expand and be greedy the atlantans decide that they want to expand their empire and take over and they actually want to invade Athens as well and that’s a big no no for Plato So the message is if you are an advanced civilization and it’s all hunky dory and great don’t get too big for your boots cuz bad things can happen to you like what happens at Atlantis and Plato was living in a society where the Earth does move quite a lot exactly I mean this is what the reality sprinkles was I mentioned earlier on because absolutely the Greeks are living in a world where natural disasters are occurring that’s where you get this kind of modern idea that is a submerged City that we might be able to find CU it’s interesting I’ve just been to pav Petry so there are places around Greece that they would have known about which are underwater yeah exactly I mean that’s an amazing site fantastic like beautiful and so much you can take from it could it have influence Plato it’s possible but it kind of happened around a thousand years before Plato So would Plato know about it maybe but there are definitely these sorts of things happening over Greece that definitely could have inspired playo in his storytelling [Music]
I’m going to rule out pava Petri as a candidate for Atlantis from what I saw it doesn’t feel Grand enough for Tales of its destruction to have survived a thousand years I need a new lead a place that sounds more believable more spectacular 150 years ago there was a breakthrough archaeological Discovery at a place that I think might fit the bill a place on Greece’s largest island to the south of here 99 M from Athens across the aan sea that island is creit and the extraordinary discovery made here late in the 19th century changed everything suddenly people began to wonder if CIT could have been the inspiration ation for Atlantis like Plato’s Island it’s massive covering over 3,000 square miles and in Plato’s time it was the setting for many epic [Music] tales in 1877 a man who was brilliantly called Minos after the legendary King who once ruled over this Island discovered some strange large stone blocks just down there in a place called kosas not much was made of at the time because the island was embroiled in a a bitter wall but word of it did get out and 20 years later a famous British archaeologist arrived in cre he was on a mission to investigate the mysterious finds his name was Arthur Evans Evans spent six years negotiating and haggling to gain permission to investigate the site finally in March 1900 with an army of 30 men he began to dig there was no more time to waste almost at once their efforts were rewarded as they shoved away mountains of dirt from this section here they revealed these huge stone blocks which seemed to be forming a corridor this was the first Glimpse that something Monumental really lay beneath their feet a possible Atlantis.
With mounting anticipation They carried on digging and then just 3 weeks later on the 5th of April 1900 Evans came face to face with something incredible early that morning the team were clearing some dirt off the standing walls and they started to see what looked like an image painted beneath it was damaged but soon features were visible it was a human it was life-sized with Rich red skin slim waist eyes shaped almost like almonds and it was holding a cup nothing like this had been seen before Evan guessed that it was ancient in fact no one had looked into those eyes for 3 and a half thousand years this amazing Discovery was the first Glimpse that an ancient civilization lay lost and buried here just like Atlantis it was the start of a rapid succession of spectacular find after find painted corridors rooms full of magnificent jars and grand staircases and then on April the 13th after eight more days of frenzied back breaking digging the team worked their way to this spot Evans was about to uncover the most remarkable game-changing discovery of his life at first it wasn’t clear what he’d found it was a finely crafted room and there was evidence of beautiful paintings on these walls there were benches along the edges then there were steps leading down to this strange sunken pit that reminded Evans of a communal bath house that you might find in a Roman site but then he made an astonishing Discovery just opposite the pit there was a beautifully crafted chair in evans’s mind suddenly this was not a bathroom this was a throne room the heart of some ancient Royal Palace gradually an incredible lost world was coming back to life before their eyes news of the remarkable discoveries captivated the world with evidence of a royal Throne Room Evans was certain he’d found the Palace of King Minos the legendary Ancient King of creit the archaeologist named the civilization minan after the king but some people began to make another connection could this Lost World actually be the inspiration for Atlantis the Magnificent Island City that had been devastated and pl’s [Music] story there are some very interesting parallels between this place and Plato’s Atlantis first of all kosis is on a huge Lush Island that’s a big tick and then Plato describes a Royal Palace that befitted the greatness of the kingdom it was made up from buildings of Many Colors by blending the stones for the sake of ornament well that could be describing this Palace he also describes how sacred Bulls were allowed to roam free through the palace at Atlantis and there’s one thing you see plenty of here that’s images of [Music]
Bulls as Evans excavated he discovered images of bulls throughout the site even wall paintings of Menan people leaping over the back of charging bulls and this was just the beginning as Evans and his team excavated over 14,000 square meters the parallels between kosis and Plato’s story of Atlantis seemed to grow and [Music] grow Plato described that the size and beauty of Atlantis was astonishing to see just like the enormous complex of grand buildings here in Plato’s story The Royal Citadel in Atlantis is surrounded by Mighty mountains just like kosas and as local expert acrei Katy Georgio is showing me there was even more tantalizing evidence of the similarities the gods of Atlantis were also present here I would like to show you something which is very interesting look at here what we got here that’s like a a trident was the symbol of posidon it was used as an narrow as a symbol showing which way to go okay so like a signpost yeah oh let’s follow us come on let’s go according to Plato Poseidon was the main god on Atlantis he ruled the waves and made Atlantis a Mighty Sea power Plato tells us that its vast Harbor was crowded with Merchant ships and there was a constant D of noise and shouting day and night in the heart of kosas a magnificent building shows that the Minoans also dominated the Seas this is a grand staircase one of the Miracles of the minan architecture that is magnificent it’s huge yes this is the big staircase the grand staircase they made a deep cut to this side of the hill in order to be able to construct two floors lower on this level where we yeah it was a big Warehouse a big economic Center so it’s a place of trade exactly goods from all over the Eastern Mediteranean came in this building from Egypt they imported cotton wheat copper was imported from the island of Cyprus the Greek name Kus Miss copper the island of copper also elephant TKS we found whole elephant TKS they are at the Museum as well as gold from Nubia were the minds of the Egyptian Empire so North Africa.
The EAS exact southern Europe all coming here yeah exactly this was a crossroad the minow clearly had a vast Trade Network just like the atlantans from Plato’s story and like Atlantis the archaeologists also began to realize this was a huge place they estimated that between 25 and 30,000 people lived here and by delving into canosa’s magnificent buildings it also became clear these people lived a life of luxury just like the inhabitants of Atlantis we know from the discoveries is that the upper classes loved the beautiful things women were dressed with elaborated garments juler was worn by both men as well as women they loved wine they loved good food so lots of fish from the sea exactly we found Seafood shells we found fishing hooks so they loved Seafood so if you had wealth it was a good place to live exactly so this was a rich luxurious place there was magnificent buildings here it was powerful it sounds so similar to the way that Plato writes about Atlantis the discoveries at kosas had put creit on the map and they’ also made Atlantis a Hot Topic on February the 15th 1909 an anonymous article was published in the times the title was simply Atlantis and it gives all source of detail about the excavations here in cree and the Atlantis story and draws a direct connection between them it says if the account of Atlantis is to be compared with the history of cre it seems almost certain that here we have an echo of the Minoans and the times said this may very well engaged the serious attention of Scholars and archaeologists and it was absolutely [Music]
Right creit was now firmly in the spotlight to prove that this really was the inspiration for the legendary lost city of Atlantis you can see why people thought they were walking through Atlantis there’s a tickle of a seab breeze coming off the ocean you can see the mountains over there in the background and everything seems to grow here it’s just so abundant Plato describes Atlantis like this he said that it produced and brought to Perfection all those sweet scented stuffs which the Earth produces now Roots herbs trees fruit vegetables all these that hallowed Island as it lay beneath the sun produced in marvelous Beauty and endless abundance reads a bit like a guide book to cre [Music] in his story of Atlantis Plato tells us that Vineyards and Olive Groves flourished producing olive oil and wine for the enjoyment of its people today creit is also a thriving olive oil and wine producer and there’s evidence that’s been this way for thousands of years this isolated Little Chapel is only around 100 years old but it’s built on the foundations of something far older this is a remarkable and ancient wine press and the fields around here are still covered in Vineyards this day and so they’ve been pressing wine up here for Generations it’s unclear exactly how old this is some people locally think it is minoan that means the same era as the palace at kosas but the wine making process is pretty straightforward you bring your grapes in here and people with nice clean feet uh press The Grapes stand on top of them jump on top of them and all of that liquid flows out into the surrounding tubs through this hole here for example and then that grape juice comes pouring out in a huge Torrent from here into this tub ready to be turned into [Music]
Wine creit is believed to be the birthplace of Greek wine production made here on the island for around 5 and a half thousand years I’m visiting one of the Region’s modern Vineyards to find out more about Creek’s wine producing Heritage and why it links this island to the Atlantis story let’s start from the Harvest the Harvest here in crat starts about August to September it’s by hand so you still pick the grapes with your hands there’s no machine yeah we still do it by hand we just scissors yeah and so that’s a tradition that’s been going on for thousands of is maybe they have not scissors maybe they have another way to cut the The Grapes but uh this is the same go the landscape with the heels and the small properties it’s impossible to have Harvest machines but of course there are some parts of the wine making process that have changed a little since the minow so here we have the press machines now this is different for what would have been done in the past because this was all humans doing this in the past right exactly the same idea but no electricity just food footwork just it I don’t think you want my feet anywh near so I think this is a very good system today once the wine is pressed it is stored in these vast stainless steel Vats before it’s bottled and shipped around the world at kosas 3 and a half thousand years ago they used enormous clay jars and there’s evidence they also exported it far and wide Min arms were great exporters so from the ports they went uh in Egypt in Lebanon in Israel especially in these uh countries we found a lot of uh uh paintings uh especially in Egypt uh paintings with uh the appearances of Vineyards or uh jars or wine making and wine life so cron wine is one of the big secret of menow and success is bringing them wealth through trade exactly so they were making a lot of wine a lot of wine and Brilliant wine of course the best the more I learn about ancient creit with its magnificent architecture and its abundant Fields producing all of Nature’s Bounty the more I think it really could be inspiration for Plato’s Atlantis in his story Plato tells us that Atlantis had close contact with Egypt just like the ancient minan on cre this link was yet another detail mirroring the Atlantis story.
So why did you stop the video here Bob we’ve stopped here Alice at halfway because we need to do a small recap because we’ve seen lots of nonsense in the last half hour the main items you should take into consideration is one that Atlantis was not in the Mediterranean we can see that very clearly from the writings actually stated that in the writings but it’s not being quoted or understood this is both by archaeologists and by documentary makers because it’s not good Telly and for archaeologists they’ve got nothing to see because they don’t really understand the location of Atlantis and they sell books about the Mediterranean because it’s easy it’s not right it’s not good science it’s just media garbage sadly now if you actually look at the sites they’re seeing you can comes very very clear that they’re looking at sites of about 3 and a half thousand years old well that’s 6,000 years after Plato stated that Atlantis sunk or started to sink uh it’s not even it’s not even close when it comes to historical timelines the second aspect and which is confuses the more and drives me completely Bon because when I watch these sort of programs is the size of Atlantis Atlantis is huge it’s vast it’s not a small island the city is probably bigger than most of the SW Islands unless Plato is making it all up then the proportions are completely wrong and if he was making it up if it was a story a political story as they ke keep trying to to allude to why make the dimensions of this place enormous why don’t they have risible Dimensions which would fit a small island like crete.
The other thing that doesn’t make sense is that PL actually wrote a political book about an ideal society and it’s called Plato’s Republic now if you want to put a message and that Society they’re in is wrong then you put that message into Plato’s Republic and he did so why talk about atanas at was written after Plato’s Republic now if there’s a political message there which academics seem to be convinced about why didn’t you put it into Plato’s Republic it was a book about politics for goodness sake it’s a complete nonsense so what we got here is we’re looking at Islands which are far too small Atlantis is the size of Libya and and Asia combined now the Asia that Greeks knew at the time was Asia Minor which is turkey basically so Atlantis is the size of turkey and Libya they know Libya quite well they traded with Libya they know Libya is a very big vast country Plato understood the size of Libya and it understood the size of Asia Minor because they traded and knew about them well so when he came to do the proportions he would had to mind the right size and he actually gives exact sizes of the island and the size of the city and one of the aspects when he does do he actually describes the city of valentus which is concentric circles none of the places that they went to are cities of concentric Circle but they don’t talk about that they take in very small parts of the book rather than the book as a whole and come up with a narrative we’re going to now continue on with this not and at the end I’ll summarize and then tell you exactly where the island of Atlantis is so stay tuned.
This link was yet another detail mirroring the Atlantis story and as those parallels grew and grew in the 1960s One Man became captivated he would become one of History’s Greatest Atlantis Hunters his name was spiran marinatos he was a local archaeologist and the curator of the museum in town he became obsessed he spent much of the rest of his career trying to prove this minoan civilization was the basis for Plato’s Atlantis the city that have been wiped off the map marinatos had first visited kosis while while archaeologists excavated in the 1920s he’d been blown away by their beautiful discoveries but he’d also been fascinated by something else they’d [Music]
Unearthed as the team excavated the palace they realized that it had been repaired changed at various points in its lifetime it had obviously been through quite a lot like Atlantis the minoan civilization had vanished almost without trace for thousands of years no one knew why in the story Atlantis had been the victim of a terrible natural disaster but had a natural disaster also wiped out the civilization here marinatos was now on a mission to find out his investigations have been Stu sted by Menan expert Steve Kershaw and what I mean what do you think happened here there’s a palace here that’s been inhabited for 450 years going through all sorts of different phases of Destruction and rebuilding and modification and some of those destructive events were natural the kind of things are earthquakes uh some of them may have been man-made as well and so some of that could just be Accidental Fire it could indeed but marinat really wanted to get to the bottom of this and he’s found traces of volcanic dust on the island so he thinks it’s something volcanic but he doesn’t think that the volcano is on cre he thinks it’s on a nearby Island marinatos wants to prove that a volcanic eruption from a nearby Island had destroyed the minoan civilization here and he had a very specific Island in mind Santorini which lies to just 60 M away and it’s home to an enormous volcano so is marinat looking for this volcano solution a little bit because of his obsession with the story of Atlantis it’s very possible he he knows that story he likes that story and he in a sense wants that story to be true he wants this to be Atlantis he really wants this to be Atlantis but there’s also another reason why marinatos was fascinated by the possible link between CIT and nearby Santorini and that’s because in his story of Atlantis Plato says that Atlantis wasn’t just one Island but made up of several islands he said that the Royal Center was on atlantis’s main island but the docks and harbor were on another could sorini be one of the other Islands mentioned in the story marinatos was thrilled with this Theory and he thought if he could prove it the link between the Minoans cre and Atlantis would be stronger than ever could it be that an enormous eruption out there on Santorini had inspired the story of Atlantis in 1967 he set out on a hunt to find out following Marin aros’s search for Atlantis I’m now heading to the island of Santorini 60 M away across the [Music]
Sea Santorini is home to the biggest and most volatile volcano in the region if you look look at these rock formations this whole island is basically one enormous volcano just 17 years before marinatos arrived Santorini’s volcano had erupted spewing Ash and Fireballs a thousand MERS into the sky in just 6 days 90 billion tons of molten rock was thrown into the air what if an even more violent eruption would occurred 3 and a half thousand years before at the time when the minoan civilization discovered on cre reached its height that could mean that there was a city buried here beneath the [Music] rock a busy City with docks and harbors but where should marinata start his hunt for this lost Port there are 42 Mi of Coastline on this island and that wasn’t his only challenge it’s a fairly daunting Prospect because that Mighty volcanic eruption had blasted millions of tons of volcanic debris into the sky that then fell blanketing this island in layer upon layer of pmus and rock and volcanic ash you can see some of those layers etched out in this Cliff face here so that meant that if there were any ancient ruins here the chances are they’d be under meters and meters of this stuff it must have seemed like Mission imp possible but little did marinatos know on the coast of Santorini he was about to make the greatest archaeological discovery of his life the island of Santorini 1967 the hunt was on to find out if a port city had been buried beneath the ground following a gigantic volcanic coruption 3 and a/2 thousand years ago if they found it it would help prove spiron Marin atos’s theory that this island and neighboring cre could have been the inspiration for the story of Atlantis where a whole series of islands had been obliterated by natural disaster he was on a mission to investigate and now he pin appointed an area to Target 70 years ago an intriguing clue had been found buried near this spot under meters of Ash in 1899 some laborers in a quarry just in land from here started finding some mysterious objects they didn’t know what they were but they thought they looked ancient marinatos was intrigued this was the per perfect position for a port city right on the coast so gathering together a team he started to investigate here he had no idea how deep they’d have to dig the volcanic ash and rock is 30 m high in some places on the island but remarkably on the very first day they made a breakthrough they were digging through stuff just like this here and he was ecstatic when about 4 m down he started to make out the shape of pots and his expert eye they were clearly storage chars and storage chars that look to be exactly the same type and date as the ones he was so familiar with from kosas in [Music] cre but that was nothing because a few days later he would discover an entire buried city he called it aceri
Wow and these are the pots these are the storage jars that he discovered so early on as he started digging he didn’t just discover one or two look there were three rooms full of them so different shapes and sizes different designs on the outside maybe just to look nice and pretty but maybe to indicate that they were designed to store different food stuff some olive oil some perhaps wine what a fantastic start to the excavation over the next 7 years the archaeologists feverishly excavated wall after wall room after room and building after building slowly began to appear from beneath the 3 and a half thousand year old Ash and Rubble and as they dug they began to reveal striking similarities with the story of Atlantis located by the Sea it was almost certainly a port city and just like Atlantis there was evidence that its destruction had started with an earthquake this staircase here look at that finely crafted strongly built stairs and yet they’ve just been snapped in half in an Instant by the shock wave that the earthquake sent through this entire settlement little did the survivors know after that earthquake as they tried to put their lives back in order that was worse to come like Atlantis a once thriving City had been obliterated minow and expert Steve Kershaw is giving me a guided tour of the ruins to show me its past Splendor Steve I always love an archaeological site where you look up at this this was a multistory city wasn’t it it was indeed it’s uh it’s now buried beneath meters and meters of volcanic debris so it’s all it’s all looking a bit gray now but presume would it would it have been whitewash would it been colorful insides and things it would indeed yes the the exteriors would have been plasted over on the inside you’ve got colorful frescos and and what have you amongst the devastation are also details showing the true horror that the people here experienced what an earth of is yeah a couple of beds the imprints of beds and what happened was before the eruption there was an enormous earthquake and the people of the Town were tidying it up so they were stacking the beds trying to tidy the house up maybe pick up loose bricks and things very much so and some of them are protecting bits of pottery as well you’ve got a little tripod cooking pot down there so this is the repair work on the town before the eruption that they never knew was coming what’s happened is that the wood has decayed in the volcanic material and the archaeologists have poured plaster into it to recreate the bed out of the space so the archaeologist found a vacuum they poured plaster in it was a bed shape absolutely absolutely that’s was a moment in time really captured from 3 and a half thousand years ago very much so it takes you right to the heart of people’s real lives and that’s one of the wonderful things that archaeology can do for us.
I think with its impressive multi-story buildings actii had clearly been wealthy just like Atlantis and as more and more of the ancient cities surfaced from the ash the similarities grew even stronger so what what are we looking at here so this is one of the main streets of of the town and you’ve got houses on either side you can just see the remains of the walls then a main street that would have been paved with beautiful flagstones and then the most remarkable thing I think underneath it you’ve got a drainage system but that gutter there that gutter yes that humble gutter is actually a mark of extremely high civilization amazing there’s flushing lavatory systems and that would have all gone into that and flush it out into the sea I mean that wasn’t normal at the time presumably no that is highly sophisticated there’s there’s not many cultures have got that level of water Engineering in their states at this time and and these people have got it down so well and that I guess allows everyone to live together in this crowded way without getting terrible diseases it’s going to help one of the reasons that people have drawn parallels between here and Plato’s Atlantis is precisely this facility with water engineering because the atlantans are kind of the ultimate water Engineers they create bath houses with both cold and hot not just for their Elite classes but for the the rest of the population and indeed not just for the human population but for the horses the beasts of burden and the animals so we have cleanliness pervading atlan so in Plato Atlantis even the animals are clean they are so for Plato and the ancient Greeks Water Management that said you’re an advanced civilization it does indeed yeah and they’re doing it here they’re doing it right there after digging up Acer marinatos was now convinced that his theory was right the combination of kosas Palace on cre and this port city was inspiration for Atlantis it was like Atlantis itself had been found in stone you no longer had to imagine it you could walk through the streets almost sense the people that have once lived [Music]
Here today many of Acer’s finest Treasures lie in Santorini’s archaeological Museum in the town of Thea each one gives a fascinating insight into that lost world and the parallels with the story of Atlantis I love these murals this was painted onto the wall of one of the grandest houses in AC creran it’s such a special thing to have an image of their world painted by the people who actually lived in it just look at this wonderful Island here it’s Lush youve got fantastic detail it’s like trees deer perhaps a lion up there and then my favorite bit this Armada of ships and boats heading out across the sea some of them under oil some of them sail powered some some of them look ceremonial like it’s almost a kind of Festival experience dolphins all around them and they’re arriving in some way that I think looks quite like Santorini Barren Red Cliffs a sense of the volcanic with colored buildings people greeting them this is a wealthy Maritime world a world of color and vibrancy could this settlement at the end here actually be aceri was this what it looked like before it was destroyed in that volcano the other thing that really strikes me when you look at this you look at the animals the richness of the colors the buildings the ships if you did want a picture of Plato’s Atlantis this is pretty much [Music] it many of aqua’s buildings were covered with beautiful frescos that incredibly survived the disaster each and every one seems to strengthen the connection with Atlantis there fisherman proudly holding their catch linking the Minoans to the Sea just like the atlantans in the story like Atlantis and cre aceri was clearly a rich and luxurious place we can see that from their hairstyles their Fashions their jewelry there are exotic animals native to Africa and in Atlantis Plato mentions elephants [Music]
The more I read about Atlantis the more I explore the wonderful archaeology on these islands the more I get a real sense of why people got so excited about the apparent similarities between the Minoans and the story of Atlantis marinatos had discovered that like the atlantans who ruled over several islands the real life Minoans flourish both here and on cre the Minoans too were clearly a massive sea power with connections as far away as Egypt and they suffered an epic natural disaster the idea that these places were the inspiration for Plato’s Atlantis is compelling the problem I have with it is it took place over a thousand years before Plato was writing and we’ve got absolutely no evidence that Plato had ever heard about it in fact there is no account no mention of the destruction Baker in any ancient source at all possibly we’ve lost those sources over the years and possibly it was such an enormous event that it was just talked about handed down from parent to child over the generations so despite all the incredible similarities with Atlantis I’m going to continue my search and luckily there is another Contender through an incredible piece piece of detective work archaeologists have just discovered another lost city on the coast of Mainland Greece perhaps the inspiration for Atlantis lies closer to Plato’s home of Athens and much closer to Plato’s time the archaeologist discovered that Not only was this city destroyed but that destruction was big news in Greece during Plato’s lifetime could this city be the real Atlantis [Music]
Are we not going to watch the program to the very end no Alice we’ve seen enough I think for another half hour Dan will walk around going to other sites in Mainland Greece and suggest this could be the inspiration for Atlantis it’s quite interesting they use the word inspiration inspiration isn’t proof or evidence it just piggy packs on this strange belief that Plato made the whole thing up so are you going to tell us where Atlantis really is Bob okay Alice I shall tell you for any person to claim they know the location of Atlantis they have to qualify by answering five simple questions question one is it in the Atlantic Ocean question two is it bigger than Libya and turkey question three is it 9,000 years ago question four did the landscape have elephants and tigers and question question five was it an advanced civilization and do you have a particular site and location in mind then and the answer to that question Alice is doggerland so does doggerland meet these five criterias doggerland was an ancient L mass that is currently under the North Sea I can’t imagine that Bob how do you know it’s there well Alice now that takes a lot of imagination but it’s absolutely true no one believed it until the middle part of last century when we sered the seabed looking for oil and as well as finding oil we found dog so why do academics still believe Atlantis is in the Mediterranean and this is where we get these strange ideas about Atlantis being in the Mediterranean because the historians at the time of the 20th century had no idea that there was a civilization and a land mass under the North Sea so they thought that Plato made it all up which clearly he did so does doggerland meet all your criteria Bob doggerland qualifies on all five points.
It is in the Atlantic Ocean because doggerland would incorporate all of what we call Great Britain in the past 10,000 years ago the sea levels were much much lower and therefore the North Sea the Irish Sea and the English Channel did not exist it was one large peninsula in the Atlantic ocean the combined landscape of Great Britain and Europe is actually larger than Libya and Asia Minor it had massive flat Plains and mountains as described by Plato we also in northern Europe have things called causeways camps cosway camps are concentric Circle settlements as described Again by Plato doggerland began to sink into the waters 9 and a half thousand years ago it became a small island before it finally vanished under the water some 6,000 years ago which again matches Plato’s timeline for nearly a 100 years the fishing trollers have been collecting Bones from animals of the seabed of doggerland now these bones include would you believe elephants mammoths lions tigers bears all manner of animals which we don’t see in the northern hemisphere today and the icing on the cake for the five aspects that needed to be met before we find Atlantis is an advanced civilization a culture so distinct so unique that it could only be the story portrayed by the Egyptians to Solon and then Plato these were the megalithic builders this civilization existed 10,000 years ago it built monuments that are still visible today around the Northern Hemisphere.
We know one of its great structures as one of the great wonders of the world called Stone Henge this civilization used boats to take the stones to the locations they traded around the world we can see that within the artifacts they traveled throughout Europe this was an advanced civilization for its time and the Greeks would appreciate that because it was very similar in communication skills and building skills to the Greeks and the Greeks saw themselves as an advanced civilization and so Ellis we now know the location of Atlantis and that is doggerland which is now currently under the North Sea this makes a lot more sense for the location of Atlantis which is in the northern hemisphere because the Greeks have this belief system that states that their gods from the north see ceeded their civilization and actually there’s Lines within Plato’s Atlantis that says exactly the same the Egyptian priests tell solom that the alantin came down to the Mediterranean and seated themselves in both the Greek and the Egyptian civilization many years before the Pharaohs they also have this great belief that there was a place called hyperboria where again based in the northern hemisphere where the Greek gods lived this is all this Association that the atlantans were the children of the Gods we also see this in other tows such as Troy this is why the Trojan characters are blue-eyed blonde redheaded these are not Mediterranean people these are people from the north and Atlantis is a tow about a civilization from the Northern Hemisphere about a country that was called Atlantis that was in the Atlantic Ocean and they’re mostly submerged under the North Sea well that’s all we got time for you today I hope you en enjoyed the video and a little chat about archaeology come to our website where you can find essays and liar investigations or come and visit us on YouTube where we have a video channel where we have more videos for you to browse so it’s goodbye from me and it’s goodbye from Alice
PodCast
Author’s Biography
Robert John Langdon, a polymathic luminary, emerges as a writer, historian, and eminent specialist in LiDAR Landscape Archaeology.
His intellectual voyage has interwoven with stints as an astute scrutineer for governmental realms and grand corporate bastions, a tapestry spanning British Telecommunications, Cable and Wireless, British Gas, and the esteemed University of London.
A decade hence, Robert’s transition into retirement unfurled a chapter of insatiable curiosity. This phase saw him immerse himself in Politics, Archaeology, Philosophy, and the enigmatic realm of Quantum Mechanics. His academic odyssey traversed the venerable corridors of knowledge hubs such as the Museum of London, University College London, Birkbeck College, The City Literature Institute, and Chichester University.
In the symphony of his life, Robert is a custodian of three progeny and a pair of cherished grandchildren. His sanctuary lies ensconced in the embrace of West Wales, where he inhabits an isolated cottage, its windows framing a vista of the boundless sea – a retreat from the scrutinous gaze of the Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, an amiable clandestinity in the lap of nature’s embrace.
Exploring Prehistoric Britain: A Journey Through Time
My blog delves into the fascinating mysteries of prehistoric Britain, challenging conventional narratives and offering fresh perspectives based on cutting-edge research, particularly using LiDAR technology. I invite you to explore some key areas of my research. For example, the Wansdyke, often cited as a defensive structure, is re-examined in light of new evidence. I’ve presented my findings in my blog post Wansdyke: A British Frontier Wall – ‘Debunked’, and aWansdyke LiDAR Flyover video further visualizes my conclusions.
For those interested in British Prehistory, visit www.prehistoric-britain.co.uk, a comprehensive resource featuring an extensive collection of archaeology articles, modern LiDAR investigations, and groundbreaking research. The site also includes insights and extracts from the acclaimed Robert John Langdon Trilogy, a series of books exploring Britain during the Prehistoric period. Titles in the trilogy include The Stonehenge Enigma, Dawn of the Lost Civilisation, and The Post Glacial Flooding Hypothesis, offering compelling evidence about ancient landscapes shaped by post-glacial flooding.
To further explore these topics, Robert John Langdon has developed a dedicated YouTube channel featuring over 100 video documentaries and investigations that complement the trilogy. Notable discoveries and studies showcased on the channel include 13 Things that Don’t Make Sense in History and the revelation of Silbury Avenue – The Lost Stone Avenue, a rediscovered prehistoric feature at Avebury, Wiltshire.
In addition to his main works, Langdon has released a series of shorter, accessible publications, ideal for readers delving into specific topics. These include:
For active discussions and updates on the trilogy’s findings and recent LiDAR investigations, join our vibrant community on Facebook. Engage with like-minded enthusiasts by leaving a message or contributing to debates in our Facebook Group.
Whether through the books, the website, or interactive videos, we aim to provide a deeper understanding of Britain’s fascinating prehistoric past. We encourage you to explore these resources and uncover the mysteries of ancient landscapes through the lens of modern archaeology.
For more information, including chapter extracts and related publications, visit the Robert John Langdon Author Page. Dive into works such as The Stonehenge Enigma or Dawn of the Lost Civilisation, and explore cutting-edge theories that challenge traditional historical narratives.
This essay series culminates in a comprehensive analysis of the origins and transportation methods of the stones used at Stonehenge. It features the first detailed LiDAR maps of the areas surrounding the stone sources, enriched by references to research that helped in their identification. These maps critically assess whether the stone sites are situated near ancient roads or along the margins of paleochannels, which are old waterways. The analysis strongly suggests that these waterways were likely the sole means of transporting the stones from their original locations to the previously identified mooring points at Stonehenge. Intriguingly, these mooring points have, until now, been largely overlooked by archaeologists. This conclusion not only underscores the significance of integrating technological advancements like LiDAR into archaeological research but also challenges long-held assumptions about prehistoric engineering capabilities and the ingenuity of our ancestors. (The Stone Transportation Hoax)
Sarsen Stone Identified Locations for Stonehenge
Geochemical fingerprinting
Geochemical fingerprinting has emerged as a pivotal technique in discovering the origins of the Sarsen stones used in Stonehenge. Led by Professor David Nash, an expert in geochemical sediments and environmental change, a collaborative team including Dr. Jake Ciborowski, Dr. Georgios Maniatis, and renowned archaeologists and heritage specialists such as Professor Timothy Darvill, Professor Mike Parker Pearson, Susan Greaney, and Katy Whitaker, embarked on this groundbreaking research.
The process of geochemical fingerprinting involves matching the elemental chemistry of a stone artefact with that of potential source areas. For Stonehenge, this necessitated a two-stage approach. First, the team conducted an initial analysis of the sarsen stones directly at the monument. Subsequently, they performed equivalent analyses on sarsen boulders found naturally across a broad area stretching from Devon to Suffolk.
To accurately determine the elemental chemistry of the Stonehenge sarsens, the team employed a portable X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometer (pXRF). This non-invasive tool was used to analyze all 52 of the remaining sarsen stones at Stonehenge, with each stone subjected to six chemical readings. Dr. Georgios Maniatis spearheaded the statistical analyses, which aimed to identify any patterns or clusters within the collected data.
Recent advances in ‘Geochemical Footprinting’ analysis have significantly deepened our understanding of where the bluestones used in Stonehenge originated from. However, it’s important to note that this method has its limitations, particularly due to the movement of rocks caused by glacial activity and post-ice age water flows, which complicates tracking their origins. Some experts have suggested that instead of being quarried and brought from Wales, the Bluestones at Stonehenge might have been deposited in the area by glaciers. But this hypothesis clashes with geological evidence showing that the glaciers from the last ice age didn’t extend to Stonehenge, having stopped near the Bristol Channel. This contradiction casts doubt on the glacier transport theory and points to the possibility that these stones might have been moved by glaciers from an even earlier ice age, like the Anglian, which happened over 500,000 years ago. However, considering such a vast time frame, it’s highly unlikely that stones from this period would be found on the surface today as they would be buried deep under layers of soil accumulated over thousands of years.
This profile map shows the type of landscape faced by any person wishing to take stones overland to Stonehenge
Additionally, the absence of bluestone erratics (rocks that differ from the size and type of rocks native to the area in which they rest) near Stonehenge further questions the glacier transport idea. The quarry site at Craig Rhos-Y-Felin has been identified as a bluestone source and shows unmistakable signs of ancient human quarrying activities. This evidence directly challenges the notion that the bluestones were simply picked up from places where glaciers left them. The discovery of ancient hearths and quarrying tools, and even a partially quarried bluestone at Craig Rhos-Y-Felin, strongly indicates that these stones were deliberately chosen and transported to Stonehenge. This revelation not only informs us about the methods used by the people who built Stonehenge but also about their ability to organize such a complex logistical operation.
The overland path from Craig Rhos-y-felin to Stonehenge is insane. It goes from 75m OD to 541 OD and crosses 95 valleys – the idea that you can either roll, drag or ox-cart such a route without a road is bonkers!!
LiDAR Survey
The detailed examination of the Craig Rhos-y-felin quarry, identified over the past decade as the source of Stonehenge’s bluestones, has brought new insights into how these stones might have been transported. Through maps and videos, we can see that in prehistoric times, this quarry was situated along the banks of a large river. Interestingly, there is no evidence of a direct trackway or path leading from the quarry towards England and Stonehenge. The only apparent ancient modification to the surrounding landscape is found to the west, with a road leading towards the coast, which is in the opposite direction of Stonehenge.
Craig Rhos-y-felin – Note that it is on the shoreline of a great river of the past probably full when the quarry was working in the Mesolithic Period
This observation leads to the speculation that perhaps this road was used to transport the stones to the coast, from where they could have been shipped around the coast to the River Avon. However, this theory raises questions about its practicality, given that the quarry itself is already located on a river. It would arguably have been easier and more logical to transport the stones directly downriver by boat from the quarry.
The only route overland is going West the Road (7-miles) going NE goes to Aberywstyth in Mid-Wales
If this coastal route was utilised in the past, it might suggest that it was a contingency plan, possibly adopted during periods when the river’s water level was too low to support the transportation of heavy loads like the 4-tonne bluestones. This hypothesis points to a level of adaptability and resourcefulness in our prehistoric ancestors, demonstrating their ability to modify their strategies in response to environmental challenges. It also underscores the importance of considering the dynamic nature of ancient landscapes and waterways when studying prehistoric transportation methods.
The only possible signs of stones coming out of the Quarry (not by boat) is going West – to the Coast
The Sarsen Stones
The mystery surrounding the origin and transportation of the sarsen stones used in Stonehenge is indeed complex and intriguing. These stones are widely dispersed across the Salisbury Plain and beyond, in regions that were not covered by ice sheets during the last Ice Age. This distribution pattern challenges the notion that they were moved by glacial activities.
A prevalent theory posits that the sarsen stones originated from West Woods near Avebury, implying that they were manually transported to Stonehenge. However, recent observations have cast doubt on this theory. Many of the sarsen stones are found within paleochannel riverbeds, as opposed to being in rock outcrops. Paleochannels are the remnants of ancient rivers or streams that have since become dry or extinct. The presence of sarsen stones in these old riverbeds suggests a different narrative for their movement.
The implication is that these stones were likely carried by floodwaters during the Ice Age, rather than being manually quarried and dragged from nearby sources. This natural transportation method would have been quite powerful, as meltwater from retreating glaciers could move large stones considerable distances. This theory aligns with the geological and hydrological dynamics of the post-glacial landscape.
This map shows that picking just the nearest Sarsen stone was not required and clearly had purpose – this suggest a structural or property requirement
Understanding this potential mode of transportation helps in piecing together the prehistoric landscape of the region. It highlights the role of natural forces in shaping the environment and potentially assisting ancient peoples in their monumental architectural endeavors, such as the construction of Stonehenge. As research continues, our understanding of these processes and the ingenuity of ancient cultures in utilizing their environment will undoubtedly evolve.
AC Smith most detailed Avebury map shows that all sarsens are found in Dry River Valleys (Paleochannels)
West Woods – Wiltshire (23.2 km)
The traditional narrative suggesting that all the Sarsen stones used in Stonehenge came from a single location, specifically West Woods, has indeed been a subject of debate and reevaluation in recent years. This theory, which fits a simpler narrative of ancient people physically dragging massive stones across the landscape, has been popular partly because it aligns with the image of prehistoric societies as ‘hunter-gatherers’ – presumed to be primitive and motivated by superstitious or ceremonial reasons that modern understanding struggles to grasp.
However, this perspective underestimates the sophistication and capabilities of these ancient people. The construction of monumental structures such as Stonehenge, Avebury, and Woodhenge attests to a significant level of knowledge and skill in engineering and construction. These achievements were not replicated until the arrival of the Romans, who introduced similar levels of engineering expertise, including advanced boat building techniques.
The AC Smiths West Wood Sarsens are scattered from their max location down the Paleochannels to Wansdyke
Recent research and discoveries suggest that the transportation and construction methods used by these prehistoric societies were far more advanced than previously thought. The precise alignment of stones in these structures indicates a deep understanding of astronomy, geometry, and physical engineering. Additionally, the widespread distribution of the Sarsen stones and their presence in paleochannel riverbeds suggest that these societies might have utilised natural forces and waterways, hinting at a sophisticated understanding of their environment.
This growing body of evidence challenges the simplistic narrative of these ancient peoples as merely ‘simple-minded’ or solely driven by superstition. It opens up a broader perspective of their societies as innovative, resourceful, and capable of complex planning and execution. Acknowledging this complexity not only gives a more accurate representation of their abilities but also provides a richer understanding of human history and the development of technology and knowledge over time.
Even the shortest route known to transport these stones is through with difficulty, as the 12 valleys and 14 peaks shown on this map testify.
Wansdyke
Coincidences in archaeology can be quite fascinating, often leading to new insights or unexpected connections between different sites and historical periods. The case of West Woods, identified as the source of most of the Sarsen stones used in Stonehenge, intersecting with the ancient earthwork of Wansdyke, which you have extensively researched and proposed to be a canal, is a prime example.
Such intersections are not just mere coincidences but can provide valuable information about the landscape’s use and significance across different periods. If West Woods was the source of the Sarsen stones, it suggests that the area held considerable importance for the people who built Stonehenge. Research into Wansdyke as a canal adds another layer to this, indicating that the area might have been a significant hub of activity, perhaps even a transportation route in prehistoric times.
The discovery of the origin of the Sarsen stones at West Woods and its proximity to Wansdyke can offer insights into the logistics of transporting these massive stones. If Wansdyke was indeed a canal or part of a waterway system, it might have been used to facilitate the movement of these stones. This would align with theories suggesting that waterways played a crucial role in the transportation of megaliths.
Such findings are a testament to the complex and sophisticated nature of prehistoric societies. They challenge our understanding of these cultures and encourage a deeper exploration of their technological capabilities and interactions with their environment. Your work and similar research in archaeology are crucial in piecing together these intricate historical puzzles, offering a more nuanced view of our ancestors’ lives and achievements.
Wansdyke has now been proven to be Prehistoric in date – so was it built to transport these stones?
The LiDAR maps shows that there are no roads going south to take these stones by either rolling, sledging or ox-carting. Ths Lidar map also shows in addition as route for stones to Avebury either by Wansdyke or the Kennet to the North.
Bramdean – Hampshire (53.3 km)
The discovery of a new archaeological site at Bramdean is indeed intriguing, especially considering the etymology of the name ‘Bramdean,’ which is indicative of a dry river valley or a paleochannel. Such geological features are significant as they often hint at a landscape once rich in waterways, which is crucial for understanding ancient transportation methods.
The presence of a large Sarsen stone, similar to the 50-tonne trilithons of Stonehenge, at this site raises important questions about how such massive stones were moved. The sheer size and weight of these stones would have indeed posed a considerable challenge to ancient transportation methods. As you pointed out, the logistics of moving such a stone using sledges or rolling them on tree trunks seem impractical, if not impossible, without sinking or breaking the sledges. Moreover, the technology for a cart capable of handling such weight was not developed until the Roman period, suggesting that these stones were likely transported by water.
We have added the water levels at the time of Stonenehge construction to addd visability and direction of boat travel (towards Stonehenge)
LiDAR maps of the area around Bramdean, particularly near the quarry site at the base of the dean, reinforce this hypothesis. The absence of any roads leading westward from the quarry site to Stonehenge supports the theory that overland transport was not used for these massive stones. Instead, it seems more probable that boats were employed for their transportation, utilizing the ancient waterways that once defined the landscape. The discovery that the quarry site at Bramdean was also used for a local stone circle at a later date adds another layer of historical significance to the area. It indicates that this site was not only a source of materials for Stonehenge but also held local importance for the construction of other megalithic structures.
This new site at Bramdean, therefore, offers valuable insights into the prehistoric landscape and the methods used by ancient peoples in their monumental construction projects. It highlights the importance of considering the natural environment and the technological capabilities of these societies in our archaeological interpretations.
Ditchling – East Sussex (127 km)
The logistics of transporting stones to Stonehenge indeed present extraordinary lengths and complexities. The journey of the bluestones, spanning approximately 220 km, is particularly notable. Their value and uniqueness, attributed to their specific properties (as detailed in this blog Prehistoric Britain), make their transportation a subject of significant interest. While Bluestones are recognised for their distinct qualities, the widespread distribution of Sarsen stones challenges the assumption that they were merely chosen for their physical suitability for construction. This raises the question of whether there was more selective criteria involved in their sourcing.
One aspect that remains under-discussed in academic circles is the method by which these stones were identified and selected for transportation. If we adhere to the ‘hunter-gatherer’ model, it would imply that groups of people roamed vast areas in search of specific stones. This leads to several questions: Were there multiple groups involved in this search? If so, how did they communicate their findings to each other, and how did they navigate back to Stonehenge without established pathways?
The traditional notion of on-foot exploration and gathering of stones encounters significant logistical challenges, particularly regarding navigation and coordination. However, the use of waterways and boat transport offers a more plausible solution. Rivers provide natural pathways with restricted access and direction, making it relatively easier to return to the starting point of the journey. From my own investigations, it’s evident that prehistoric people utilised markers, such as Long Barrows, placed on edges and high horizons. These served as simple navigational aids, a feature that overland travel lacked until the advent of signposts.
This understanding suggests that water transport was not only a practical choice for moving the stones but also a means of overcoming the challenges of navigation and coordination. The use of natural waterways and strategically placed markers would have greatly facilitated the transportation process, showcasing the ingenuity and resourcefulness of the people involved in the construction of Stonehenge. Such insights continue to reshape our understanding of prehistoric societies, revealing a level of sophistication and planning that goes beyond the simplistic narratives often associated with ‘hunter-gatherer’ cultures.
LiDAR Map
LiDAR map reveals that there is no sign of any road that could have taken this Sarsen stone west to Wiltshire or Stonehenge, instead this stone is found again in a Paleochannel which suggest that it went south and then west along the coast to the River Avon then Stonehenge.
The Altar Stone – Northwern England maybe even Scotland (min 367 km + )
The case of the Altar Stone at Stonehenge and the findings at Mesolithic sites like Blick Mead indeed present intriguing archaeological paradoxes. The Altar Stone’s distinct geological makeup, differing from the other Sarsen stones, has led to a long-standing belief that it originated from Wales or Devon. Recent insights, however, suggest its origins might be as far north as Scotland. This uncertainty reflects the challenges faced in geology and archaeology, particularly due to limited funding and the slow pace of rock sampling. It highlights a significant gap in our understanding of prehistoric stone sourcing and transportation.
The discovery that cattle bones found at Blick Mead, near Stonehenge, likely originated from Northern England or Scotland adds to this complexity. The traditional explanation that these animals were herded over 350 km is overly simplistic and neglects to consider the practical challenges of such a journey. This situation underscores a broader issue in archaeology: the tendency to rely on conjecture in the absence of concrete evidence and a reluctance to revise long-standing theories.
The suggestion that boats were used for transportation during this period challenges the prevailing academic notion that significant boat usage did not emerge until the Bronze Age. Acknowledging the use of boats in the Mesolithic period would necessitate a reevaluation of the understanding of prehistoric societies, particularly the categorization of these populations as solely ‘hunter-gatherers.’ Such an admission implies a more advanced level of technological and navigational knowledge than previously attributed to these early societies.
The resistance to integrating the idea of boat transportation into the narrative of prehistoric Britain reflects a broader issue within academia: the challenge of reconciling new empirical evidence with established theories and classifications. As more evidence emerges, there may be a growing need to reassess and potentially redefine our understanding of early human societies, their capabilities, and their technological advancements.
LiDAR Map
As we do not have an exact location we can not look around the site to see for signs of roads – what is very evident is that there is no road over 335 km going to Stonehenge.
Theories of Transportation
The theory that the stones could have been moved over frozen rivers during the ice age is intriguing but fraught with logistical issues. The absence of a significant human population capable of organising such an endeavour, coupled with the challenges of moving heavy stones over potentially thin ice, makes this theory less plausible. Additionally, the radiocarbon dating of Stonehenge would be significantly off if the stones had been transported at the end of the ice age.
LiDAR, or Light Detection and Ranging, is a remote sensing technology that uses laser light to densely sample the earth’s surface, creating highly accurate topographic maps. It has revolutionised archaeological surveys by uncovering features difficult or impossible to see from the ground or through traditional surveying methods. Regarding Stonehenge and the transportation of the stones used in its construction, LiDAR technology offers invaluable insights into the landscape and potential transport routes used by ancient peoples.
There is only one road out of Stonenege and that goes down to Stonehenge bottom were the Avon used to flow
LiDAR Evidence and Stonehenge
LiDAR has been instrumental in mapping the landscape around Stonehenge, revealing details that have remained hidden for millennia under vegetation or soil. This technology has the potential to identify old riverbeds, trackways, and other features that could suggest routes for transporting the massive sarsen stones and bluestones used in the monument’s construction. However, despite its capabilities, LiDAR has not yet provided definitive evidence of prehistoric roads or paths leading directly from the quarries to Stonehenge.
Key Findings from LiDAR Surveys
No Prehistoric Roads from Quarries: LiDAR surveys have not discovered any signs of engineered roads or paths originating from the bluestone quarries in Wales or the locations where sarsen stones are found. This absence challenges theories that rely on overland transportation of the stones using rollers, sledges, or ox-carts across vast distances and rugged terrains.
Ancient Waterways and Paleochannels: LiDAR is a significant tool for identifying ancient waterways and paleochannels. These features are crucial for understanding the prehistoric landscape, suggesting that rivers and watercourses may have played a significant role in transporting the stones. The larger rivers identified by LiDAR, which would have been navigable in the past, support the theory that water transport was a feasible and preferred method for moving the stones.
Atkinson proved with just four small school boys that 4-tonne stone can easily be moved by boat down to the river Avon
Landscape Features: LiDAR has revealed the complexity of the landscape through which any transportation route would have had to navigate, including valleys, dense forests, and waterlogged areas. This detailed mapping underscores the logistical challenges faced by ancient builders, further questioning the practicality of solely land-based transport methods.
We have now found empirical evidence of boat yards in which catamaran design is made to carry large weights in Wales dating back to the Bronze Age and beyond
Implications of LiDAR Evidence
The evidence from LiDAR surveys, particularly the absence of prehistoric roads and the emphasis on natural watercourses, suggests a revaluation of how the stones were transported to Stonehenge. The lack of direct routes from quarries to the site and the identification of navigable ancient rivers and paleochannels lend weight to theories prioritising water transport. This perspective aligns with the understanding that ancient peoples were highly adept at utilising their natural environment to achieve monumental feats of construction.
The Altar Stone is now suspected of coming from as far as Scotland as its Geo signature is not available down south (I would guess Doggerland for obvious reasons) but even if it just came from the Yorkshire Dales the idea of l, and transportation is pure nonsense
The West Woods Fallacy (AI Analysis)
How One Stone and a Convenient Narrative Redefined the Origins of Stonehenge’s Sarsens
Introduction
For years, the origin of Stonehenge’s massive sarsen stones remained a mystery cloaked in chalk dust and speculation. Then in 2020, a landmark study finally “solved” it, identifying West Woods in the Marlborough Downs as the primary source for these iconic megaliths. The evidence? A chemical match between one stone — Stone 58 — and that nearby sarsen outcrop.
Cue headlines, documentaries, and a triumphant narrative: “Mystery solved!”
However, like many archaeological conclusions, this one may be based more on convenience than certainty. Because buried beneath the celebration lies a nagging contradiction: not all the sarsens match. Some fragments don’t even come close. And those that don’t? They point to places far beyond the tidy West Woods story.
Stone 58: The Golden Child
Stone 58 earned its fame by being the only standing sarsen to have been cored and sampled internally. From that precious sliver, researchers extracted a high-resolution chemical signature using advanced ICP-MS and ICP-AES analysis.
Then came the leap: surface readings (via pXRF) from the other ~50 sarsens were similar enough to Stone 58 to assume they shared a common origin. That origin was matched to West Woods, 25 km to the north.
And so, Stone 58 became the poster child for a new orthodoxy: “Most of the sarsens came from West Woods.”
But Then Came the Fragments…
Fast-forward to 2024, and a new geochemical study of over 1,000 excavated fragments (debitage) from around Stonehenge throws a significant, ancient wrench into the theory.
Of these, 54 were chosen for detailed chemical analysis. The results?
– 22 of them didn’t match Stone 58 at all. – Three matched sarsen outcrops from Bramdean, Hampshire. – One matched Stoney Wish, near Ditchling, East Sussex — a whopping 123 km away.
This isn’t minor variation. This is concrete evidence of stones brought from multiple distant locations.
The Paradox of Proximity
The paradox is this:
If the builders of Stonehenge were willing and able to transport giant stones from Sussex and Hampshire, why is so much weight given to West Woods simply because it’s closer?
The logic is circular: – West Woods is nearby. – Stone 58 matches West Woods. – Other stones look like Stone 58 (on the surface). – Therefore, the other stones must be from West Woods.
It’s a classic case of assumption baked into methodology. Convenient? Yes. Definitive? Not even close.
What This Means
The so-called West Woods majority theory is based on:
– One sampled stone – Surface-level comparisons (not internal chemical analysis) – A limited number of sarsen outcrops tested
Meanwhile, real geochemical matches from other sites prove that the builders sourced stone from a much wider area, and possibly for symbolic, ceremonial, or practical reasons that we do not yet understand.
To crown West Woods as the sole or even dominant origin ignores this diversity. It reduces a complex prehistoric logistics network to a matter of nearest-is-best.
Conclusion: A Fallacy in the Forest
The West Woods theory is not without merit. But calling it the primary source of Stonehenge’s sarsens is premature — and dangerously close to mythmaking.
We should not let the story of one stone — however well-sampled and conveniently located — override the chorus of contradictory evidence now emerging from Sussex, Hampshire, and beyond.
The West Woods Fallacy is a warning: that even in science, narratives can calcify faster than the stones they seek to explain.
“Ah yes, of course! Let’s ignore the troublesome little detail that some of the stones came from over 100 kilometres away, because — heaven forbid — we’d have to admit our tidy theory is more of a hunch with a postcode than a proven fact. Mustn’t let a few rogue rocks spoil the brochure!”
— Basil Fawlty, if he did geoarchaeology
Based on the analaysis of the report –
T. Jake R. Ciborowski, David J. Nash, Timothy Darvill, Ben Chan, Mike Parker Pearson, Rebecca Pullen, Colin Richards, Hugo Anderson-Whymark,
Local and exotic sources of sarsen debitage at Stonehenge revealed by geochemical provenancing,
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, Volume 53, 2024, 104406,
Robert John Langdon, a polymathic luminary, emerges as a writer, historian, and eminent specialist in LiDAR Landscape Archaeology.
His intellectual voyage has interwoven with stints as an astute scrutineer for governmental realms and grand corporate bastions, a tapestry spanning British Telecommunications, Cable and Wireless, British Gas, and the esteemed University of London.
A decade hence, Robert’s transition into retirement unfurled a chapter of insatiable curiosity. This phase saw him immerse himself in Politics, Archaeology, Philosophy, and the enigmatic realm of Quantum Mechanics. His academic odyssey traversed the venerable corridors of knowledge hubs such as the Museum of London, University College London, Birkbeck College, The City Literature Institute, and Chichester University.
In the symphony of his life, Robert is a custodian of three progeny and a pair of cherished grandchildren. His sanctuary lies ensconced in the embrace of West Wales, where he inhabits an isolated cottage, its windows framing a vista of the boundless sea – a retreat from the scrutinous gaze of the Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, an amiable clandestinity in the lap of nature’s embrace.
Exploring Prehistoric Britain: A Journey Through Time
My blog delves into the fascinating mysteries of prehistoric Britain, challenging conventional narratives and offering fresh perspectives based on cutting-edge research, particularly using LiDAR technology. I invite you to explore some key areas of my research. For example, the Wansdyke, often cited as a defensive structure, is re-examined in light of new evidence. I’ve presented my findings in my blog post Wansdyke: A British Frontier Wall – ‘Debunked’, and aWansdyke LiDAR Flyover video further visualizes my conclusions.
For those interested in British Prehistory, visit www.prehistoric-britain.co.uk, a comprehensive resource featuring an extensive collection of archaeology articles, modern LiDAR investigations, and groundbreaking research. The site also includes insights and extracts from the acclaimed Robert John Langdon Trilogy, a series of books exploring Britain during the Prehistoric period. Titles in the trilogy include The Stonehenge Enigma, Dawn of the Lost Civilisation, and The Post Glacial Flooding Hypothesis, offering compelling evidence about ancient landscapes shaped by post-glacial flooding.
To further explore these topics, Robert John Langdon has developed a dedicated YouTube channel featuring over 100 video documentaries and investigations that complement the trilogy. Notable discoveries and studies showcased on the channel include 13 Things that Don’t Make Sense in History and the revelation of Silbury Avenue – The Lost Stone Avenue, a rediscovered prehistoric feature at Avebury, Wiltshire.
In addition to his main works, Langdon has released a series of shorter, accessible publications, ideal for readers delving into specific topics. These include:
For active discussions and updates on the trilogy’s findings and recent LiDAR investigations, join our vibrant community on Facebook. Engage with like-minded enthusiasts by leaving a message or contributing to debates in our Facebook Group.
Whether through the books, the website, or interactive videos, we aim to provide a deeper understanding of Britain’s fascinating prehistoric past. We encourage you to explore these resources and uncover the mysteries of ancient landscapes through the lens of modern archaeology.
For more information, including chapter extracts and related publications, visit the Robert John Langdon Author Page. Dive into works such as The Stonehenge Enigma or Dawn of the Lost Civilisation, and explore cutting-edge theories that challenge traditional historical narratives.
Introduction — Three mathematical proofs that force Post-Glacial Flooding
This article presents three independent mathematical proofs that fundamentally constrain what early Holocene Britain could have looked like. None relies on archaeology. None relies on interpretation. All three are based on physical limits that cannot be negotiated away. (Stonehenge: Borehole Evidence)
Taken together, they do not suggest post-glacial flooding — they require it.
Proof 1 — Sea-level rise without ice: the discharge paradox
High-resolution global sea-level records show that sea level continued to rise by tens of metres after major glacial melting had already ended. When a natural discharge baseline is applied, the observed sea-level rise exceeds what residual ice melt or rainfall could plausibly supply by orders of magnitude — in some intervals by tens of thousands of times.
This creates a hard paradox in the traditional model: if the ice was gone, where did the water come from?
(Stonehenge: Borehole Evidence)
The only physically viable source is delayed drainage from a saturated post-glacial landscape — groundwater, aquifers, and high water tables releasing stored meltwater over millennia. This is not conjecture; it follows directly from mass balance. The sea-level data demands a prolonged freshwater contribution long after ice retreat, and that contribution could only have passed through river systems vastly larger than those of the present day.
This is not a stylistic argument. It is a volumetric one.
Proof 2 — Ice-volume scaling and the 90% terrace rule
Independent Red Sea sea-level records demonstrate that the Last Glacial Maximum (MIS 2) reached approximately 90–92% of the absolute maximum ice volume attained during MIS 12. When ice volume is treated proportionally — rather than categorically — this has an unavoidable geomorphological consequence.
River terrace systems respond to threshold base-levels, not to labels like “LGM” or “earlier glaciation”. If the deepest ice-volume maximum corresponds to the highest preserved terrace (T10), then a system operating at ~90% of that volume must raise rivers automatically to one terrace tread lower (T9). No hydrological modelling is required. This follows directly from proportional scaling.
This is the 90% terrace rule: not an assumption, not a correlation, but a proportional inevitability.
Any model that keeps LGM rivers confined to modern-scale valleys while accepting the ice-volume data is physically inconsistent.
The third proof is empirical and local — and it does not care about either of the first two.
Using borehole matrix data alone, and treating Ordnance Datum height as the primary independent variable, we show that water-related deposits beneath Stonehenge are not randomly distributed through chalk. When analysed by elevation rather than depth, multiple sediment types cluster repeatedly at the same heights across independent boreholes.
These clusters resolve into discrete elevation zones, and their statistical strength is sufficient to reject a random chalk environment (≈170 : 1 against chance). This demonstrates that subsurface water behaviour was controlled by elevation, not by isolated pits, faults, or localised solution features.
This is direct physical evidence that coherent water systems were operating at specific heights within the landscape.
(Stonehenge: Borehole Evidence)
Why these three proofs matter together
Each of these results stands on its own. None depends on the others.
Sea-level mass balance proves excess freshwater discharge
Ice-volume scaling proves how high water systems must have reached
OD-normalised boreholes prove where water actually operated
When three independent mathematical constraints all point in the same direction, the conclusion is no longer optional.
This is not a reinterpretation of archaeology. It is a rewriting of boundary conditions.
Early Holocene Britain was not a dry chalk landscape with small rivers and symbolic monuments. It was a high-water world, shaped by inherited saturation, delayed drainage, and elevation-controlled flooding — and any historical narrative that ignores this is not incomplete, but physically impossible.
OD-Normalised Borehole Evidence: Establishing Elevation Control
(Stonehenge: Borehole Evidence)
Before any interpretation of Mesolithic structures, postholes, or function, it is necessary to establish a single foundational point:
Does the subsurface beneath Stonehenge behave randomly with depth, or does it respond systematically to elevation (OD height)?
To answer this, the borehole dataset was analysed using OD height as the primary independent variable, not borehole depth, not location, and not archaeological expectation.
This distinction matters. Depth varies from borehole to borehole. Elevation does not.
Phase 1 — OD height normalisation (methodological foundation)
Each borehole was reconstructed into a height-centric dataset by:
Converting all logged matrix thicknesses to OD start and end heights
Assigning a midpoint OD to each water-related matrix band
Excluding zero-thickness and zero-band entries (absence is handled separately)
This produces a dataset of events in shared vertical space, allowing direct comparison between boreholes with different ground levels.
At this stage:
No interpretation is applied
No shoreline hypothesis is invoked
No dating assumptions are used
This is a purely mechanical transformation.
(Stonehenge: Borehole Evidence)
Height-frequency of water-related matrix activity (0.5 m OD bins)
OD height (x-axis) vs number of boreholes recording activity (y-axis)
Using 0.5 m OD bins, we counted how many boreholes record any water-related matrix activity at each elevation.
If deposits were random or purely local, the result would be:
flat
noisy
unstructured
Instead, the data shows:
repeated clustering at specific OD heights
multiple boreholes responding at the same elevations
clear rejection of random vertical distribution
This demonstrates that elevation, not location, controls behaviour.
At this point, the only defensible statement is:
Water-related matrix activity beneath Stonehenge is height-dependent, not randomly distributed.
No shoreline claim is required to reach this conclusion.
(Stonehenge: Borehole Evidence)
Focused height-frequency plot (OD bins where ≥2 boreholes overlap)
Phase 3 — Matrix concurrence by elevation
Having established that activity clusters by height, the next test is whether different materials respond to the same elevations.
Each OD bin was therefore analysed for matrix concurrence:
shells
gravels
sands / silts / marls
organic staining
solution features
Independent depositional processes do not produce multi-material concurrence at fixed elevations across multiple boreholes.
Yet that is exactly what the data shows.
(Stonehenge: Borehole Evidence)
Stacked physical matrix activity by OD height
Each bar = number of boreholes Each colour = physical matrix type
Lay takeaway: Different materials, same height, same system.
(Stonehenge: Borehole Evidence)
Matrix concurrence by OD height
Number of distinct matrix types occurring at the same elevation
Phase 4 — Discrete elevation zones
Adjacent OD bins with repeated multi-material concurrence were grouped into continuous elevation zones, without smoothing or averaging.
This yields a small number of discrete, vertically constrained zones (typically 0.5–1.0 m thick) where deposition repeatedly occurs across boreholes.
These zones:
cut across site boundaries
ignore borehole identity
exist only by elevation
This is landscape-scale behaviour.
(Stonehenge: Borehole Evidence)
Discrete elevation zones derived from OD-normalised matrix concurrence
Phase 5 — Strength of elevation control (ranking)
Each elevation zone was ranked using a transparent metric:
Zone strength = number of contiguous bins × number of concurrent matrix types
This produces a clear hierarchy:
a small number of dominant elevation zones
many weaker, transient ones
This ranking is descriptive only. No mechanism is assumed.
(Stonehenge: Borehole Evidence)
Relative strength of discrete elevation zones
What is established at this point (and nothing more)
Before mentioning postholes, boats, or shorelines, the OD-first analysis establishes the following facts:
Water-related deposits beneath Stonehenge are not randomly distributed
Behaviour is controlled by elevation
Multiple materials respond to the same height bands
These responses resolve into discrete elevation zones
Random chalk deposition is rejected as an explanation
Everything that follows — including Mesolithic postholes — must be evaluated within this established elevation-controlled system, not in isolation.
The Mesolithic Postholes Revisited: A Shoreline Written in the Subsurface
1. Start with the result, not the story
Before discussing postholes, boats, or shorelines, one question has to be answered first:
Does the subsurface beneath Stonehenge behave randomly, or is it structured by elevation?
Using borehole matrix data alone, we tested this explicitly.
Within a ±5 m vertical window centred on 92.6 m OD, we identified 16 independent water-related matrix bands (shells, gravels, sands, organics, solution features) across multiple boreholes.
Assuming a random chalk environment, the probability of this clustering occurring by chance is approximately:
1 in 170
(Stonehenge: Borehole Evidence)
This calculation is deliberately conservative:
a broad vertical range was allowed,
independence was assumed,
and no archaeological assumptions were used.
At this point, the null hypothesis of random deposition is rejected. Elevation control is established mathematically.
That is the foundation.
2. What the matrix data actually shows at the 92.6 m level
When constrained to the ±5 m envelope (87.6–97.6 m OD) around the Mesolithic posthole elevation, the borehole matrix data records:
Shell fragments in at least six independent boreholes, including R18, which directly spans 92.6 m OD.
Cobbles at 91.3–93.3 m OD (R158), indicating higher-energy water at precisely the same level.
Pebbles and gravels repeatedly intersecting the envelope across multiple boreholes.
Sand / silt / marl, organic staining, and solution features overlapping the same vertical band.
This is not a single material, not a single borehole, and not a single event. It is a multi-material, multi-borehole water-active vertical zone.
Importantly, this conclusion does not rely on dating, artefacts, or interpretation — it is derived solely from subsurface data.
(Stonehenge: Borehole Evidence)
3. Why seasonal water matters (and why this strengthens the case)
Groundwater behaviour at Stonehenge is not static. Measured seasonal variation approaches 10 m between summer lows and winter highs.
In such a system, a shoreline does not exist as a razor-thin line. It exists as a vertical operating margin, repeatedly inundated and exposed.
That is exactly what the matrix data records:
shells accumulating during prolonged low-energy inundation,
gravels and cobbles during higher-energy phases,
organic staining and solution features from sustained saturation.
The ±5 m envelope is not a weakness in the argument — it is precisely what a seasonally fluctuating water margin predicts.
4. The Mesolithic postholes in the old car park
The Mesolithic posts uncovered in the former Stonehenge car park sit at approximately 92.6 m OD.
Traditionally, these have been treated as isolated features, detached from any wider environmental context.
That position is no longer tenable.
The postholes:
sit inside a statistically non-random water-active vertical zone,
coincide with shell-bearing horizons in R18,
align with gravel and cobble transport in nearby boreholes,
and lie exactly where a seasonally stable water margin would be usable.
If these posts were placed in a dry chalk landscape, the matrix evidence should be absent or randomly distributed. It is neither.
(Stonehenge: Borehole Evidence)
5. What this does — and does not — claim
This analysis does not claim:
a harbour,
permanent deep water,
or year-round navigation.
What it does demonstrate is far more fundamental:
The Mesolithic postholes sit at a statistically significant, elevation-controlled water margin, documented independently in the subsurface.
Interpreting such posts as mooring, landing, or waterside structures is therefore no longer speculative — it is the most parsimonious explanation consistent with both archaeology and geology.
(Stonehenge: Borehole Evidence)
6. Why this was missed
Traditional archaeological interpretation focused on:
surface features,
isolated trenches,
and typological expectations.
The borehole data existed, but it was never:
normalised by elevation,
analysed statistically,
or tested against a null model of randomness.
Once that is done, the landscape beneath Stonehenge resolves into a hydrologically structured system, not a dry ceremonial plateau.
7. The key takeaway
16 water-related bands within ±5 m of 92.6 m OD
~170-to-1 odds against random occurrence
Multiple materials, multiple boreholes
Direct overlap with Mesolithic posthole elevation
This is not a reinterpretation driven by imagination. It is a conclusion forced by the data.
(Stonehenge: Borehole Evidence)
Update: Independent C14 Shell Dates Now Support the Borehole Evidence (2026)
Since this article was first written, an important additional dataset has become relevant to the Stonehenge Bottom borehole evidence.
The evidence comes from the Durrington Walls pit-circle investigation published in Internet Archaeology. During that work, shell samples were recovered from large pit-like features around Durrington Walls and submitted for radiocarbon dating. These shell samples produced finite Holocene radiocarbon results rather than meaningless “millions of years old” geological dates.
This matters because one of the common objections to the Stonehenge Bottom borehole evidence has always been simplistic:
“These shells are just ancient chalk fossils.”
That objection is no longer sufficient.
The Durrington evidence demonstrates that shell-bearing material within the Stonehenge landscape can produce measurable Holocene radiocarbon results. These results do not automatically date the construction of a pit, monument or ditch, but they do show that shell material in these deposits cannot simply be dismissed as irrelevant fossil contamination.
The Durrington shell dates included:
SUERC-92464 from feature 7A: 7179 ± 28 BP, calibrated to approximately 6080–5990 cal BC.
SUERC-92465 from feature 8A: 5788 ± 28 BP, calibrated to approximately 4710–4550 cal BC.
SUERC-92466 from feature 8A: 4988 ± 28 BP, calibrated to approximately 3930–3870 or 3810–3690 cal BC.
These dates are highly significant because they fall within the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods — exactly the timescale relevant to post-glacial water change, river expansion, groundwater fluctuation and the wider environmental history of the Stonehenge landscape.
The original authors were cautious about these shell results. They argued that the shell dates should not be treated as direct dates for the digging of the Durrington pit features, because shell carbonate may be affected by geological calcium or reservoir effects. That caution is correct.
But it does not weaken the hydrological argument.
It strengthens it.
If shell samples are affected by old carbon, geological calcium or waterborne carbonate, then that is not a reason to ignore the shells. It is a reason to investigate the water system that produced the problem.
Reservoir effects are hydrological evidence.
Geological calcium movement is hydrological evidence.
Shell-bearing sediments are hydrological evidence.
Carbonate contamination is hydrological evidence.
In other words, even when the shell dates are rejected as direct construction dates, they still point to the same missing subject: water.
This is exactly what the Stonehenge Bottom boreholes have already been showing.
The borehole data records shell fragments across multiple independent boreholes within the same critical elevation band. Within approximately ±5m of the 92.6m OD horizon, shell fragments occur in at least six boreholes. In SU14SW62, the shell-bearing horizons directly cross the 92.6m level. Other materials — gravels, cobbles, sands, silts, organic staining, peat and solution features — also overlap this same vertical zone.
That is not a random fossil scatter.
It is a dense, repeated, multi-material hydrological band.
The Durrington shell dates now add a second layer of evidence. They show that shell-bearing deposits within the Stonehenge landscape can contain Holocene environmental signals. They also show why hydrology must be placed at the centre of the interpretation.
The important point is not that every shell date directly dates a flood.
It does not.
The important point is that shell-bearing deposits, carbonate effects and dated aquatic or semi-aquatic material are all part of the same environmental problem. They cannot be separated from groundwater, river behaviour, sediment movement, valley flooding and post-glacial landscape change.
This is why the borehole evidence at Stonehenge Bottom should not be dismissed.
The boreholes show repeated shell-bearing and water-affected horizons.
The Durrington C14 results show that shell material in the wider Stonehenge landscape can produce Holocene dates.
Together, they challenge the traditional dry-land model.
They suggest that the Stonehenge landscape was not a static chalk upland, but a dynamic post-glacial hydrological system affected by changing groundwater, river expansion, seasonal wetness, sediment transport and retreating water levels.
This also has major implications for Stonehenge itself.
If Stonehenge Bottom contained a long-lived water-active zone, then the Avenue, the Mesolithic postholes, the borehole shell horizons, the chalk solution features and the relationship with the River Avon must all be re-examined.
The Durrington shell dates do not replace the borehole evidence.
They support it.
They show that the argument is no longer based only on borehole logging. Independent radiocarbon-tested shell material from the wider Stonehenge landscape now points in the same direction: the prehistoric environment was wetter, more chemically active and more hydrologically complex than the standard archaeological interpretation allows.
The conclusion is simple.
The shells are not the problem.
The missing hydrology is.
DATA– Summary and Details
Borehole BGS ID’s
📊 MATRIX MATERIALS WITHIN ±5 m OF 92.6 m OD
(87.6–97.6 m OD envelope)
OD ranges shown are only the portions that lie inside the envelope.
🟢 SHELL FRAGMENTS
These boreholes contain shells within 87.6–97.6 m OD:
SU14SW24 (P1) Shells 95.12–96.12 m
SU14SW48 (R4) Shells 95.90–97.60 m
SU14SW52 (R8) Shells 96.80–97.60 m
SU14SW53 (R9) Shells 89.40–97.60 m
SU14SW56 (R12) Shells 90.40–92.40 m
SU14SW62 (R18) Shells 87.60–96.50 m ✅ crosses 92.6 m directly
SU14SW64 (R20) Shells 97.60 m (upper edge)
👉 At least 6 independent boreholes contain shells within ±5 m of 92.6 m. This is no longer arguable as “isolated”.
🟡 PEBBLES / GRAVEL
SU14SW48 (R4) — 87.6–95.9 m
SU14SW52 (R8) — 87.6–96.8 m
SU14SW56 (R12) — 87.6–90.4 m
SU14SW64 (R20) — 87.6–97.6 m
SU14SW100 (R158) — 93.3–97.6 m
🟠 COBBLES
SU14SW100 (R158) — 91.3–93.3 m ✅ direct overlap with pole level
🔵 SAND / SILT / MARL
SU14SW65 (R21) — 92.9–97.6 m
SU14SW66 (R22) — 95.1–97.6 m
🟣 ORGANIC STAINING / PEAT
SU14SW26 (P3) — 92.48–97.48 m ✅ almost exact coincidence with 92.6 m
⚫ SOLUTION FEATURES / VOIDS
SU14SW66 (R22) — 87.6–94.1 m
✅ FACTUAL SUMMARY (NO INTERPRETATION)
Within ±5 m of 92.6 m OD:
Shell fragments occur in 6+ boreholes
R18 shells explicitly span the pole elevation
Cobbles (R158) sit directly on the target height
Gravels, sands, organics, and solution features all overlap
This is a dense, multi-material, multi-borehole water-active band
Borehole Matrix Data
Boreholes Used in This Analysis
This section draws on 22 boreholes from the Stonehenge Bottom and immediate surrounding slopes. Together, they form a vertically stacked, laterally distributed dataset spanning valley floor, interior basin, transport corridors, chemical circulation zones, and upper saturation limits.
Boreholes included:
SU14SW24 (P1)
SU14SW25 (P2)
SU14SW26 (P3)
SU14SW48 (R4)
SU14SW52 (R8)
SU14SW53 (R9)
SU14SW56 (R12)
SU14SW59 (R15a)
SU14SW60 (R16)
SU14SW62 (R18)
SU14SW63 (19A)
SU14SW64 (R20)
SU14SW65 (R21)
SU14SW66 (R22)
SU14SW91 (R132)
SU14SW99 (R157)
SU14SW100 (R158)
SU14SW101 (R172)
(Additional shallow or control boreholes are referenced where relevant in the matrix summary.)
Why These Boreholes Matter – Simple Summary
Each borehole samples a different functional part of the same hydrological system. None are interpreted in isolation.
Valley floor / deep basin cores
P2 (SU14SW25) and R172 (SU14SW101) These show extreme saturation and dissolution, with over half (and in one case almost all) of the stratigraphy water-affected. They define the deep, long-term flooded core of the system.
Interior basin and basin walls
R12 (SU14SW56), P1 (SU14SW24) These record sustained standing or slow-circulating water with massive chalk dissolution, fine sedimentation, and organic accumulation. They represent the stable interior of the flooded landscape.
Oscillatory interior zones
R9 (SU14SW53), R4 (SU14SW48) High event counts with thinner layers show repeated rises and falls in water level. These boreholes capture the dynamic pulse of the system rather than its depth.
Chemical dissolution cores
R8 (SU14SW52), R22 (SU14SW66), R132 (SU14SW91) Dominated by chalk paste, flint sand, and solution features, these show prolonged saturation and internal circulation, not transport or surface runoff.
Transport corridors
R157 (SU14SW99) and R158 (SU14SW100) Gravel- and cobble-dominated records with large average event sizes identify where water moved through the system, not where it ponded.
Marginal retreat and downslope contraction
R15a (SU14SW59), R16 (SU14SW60) These document declining water levels and reduced event frequency, marking the retreat phase of post-glacial flooding.
Upper saturation limits
P3 (SU14SW26), R21 (SU14SW65), 19A (SU14SW63) Despite elevations above 105–109 m OD, these boreholes still record gravel transport, organics, solution features, and shell events. They define the maximum vertical reach of the system.
Pole-height control and convergence
R18 (SU14SW62) This is the statistical anchor. Shells, flood indicators, and event density all converge at ~92.6 m OD, making it the clearest marker of a persistent post-glacial water surface rather than an isolated anomaly.
Why This Dataset Is Important
Taken together, these boreholes show:
Water activity across all elevations, not just valley bottoms
Ordered transitions from deep saturation → transport → retreat
Repeated, fine-scale events incompatible with single floods
Convergence at specific OD levels, especially ~92.6 m
This is not a collection of wet patches. It is a coherent, vertically structured, long-lived hydrological system recorded independently across multiple boreholes.
The borehole SU14SW62 (R18), located at Stonehenge Bottom, provides one of the most internally coherent and statistically dense records of post-glacial water activity yet identified beneath the Stonehenge landscape.
With a borehole depth of 51.0 m and ground level at 96.50 m OD, the dataset captures both shallow and deeper hydrological signatures across a substantial vertical profile.
1. Density of Water-Related Events
A total of 133 material bands are recorded, of which 135 water-related horizons are identified once zero-depth and repeated indicators are included. This immediately rules out any interpretation based on a single flooding episode or isolated depositional phase.
Instead, the data indicates:
Repeated, episodic water interaction
Long-term fluctuation of groundwater levels
Multiple phases of reworking rather than primary deposition
The average measured event thickness of just 0.07 m further supports this: these are not large catastrophic layers, but numerous fine-scale hydrological events accumulating over time.
2. Cumulative Thickness vs Borehole Depth
The cumulative thickness of water-affected material is 9.31 m, representing 18.25% of the entire borehole.
For a borehole exceeding 50 m in depth, this is a significant proportion and strongly suggests that water activity was not confined to a single stratigraphic zone but recurred repeatedly through the subsurface sequence.
This percentage is particularly notable given the chalk geology, where undisturbed sequences would normally be expected to show far lower reworked or solution-affected proportions.
3. Material Composition and Hydrological Signature
The matrix breakdown shows a clear dominance of materials associated with water transport, saturation, and solution:
Pebbles / Gravel:
32 bands
3.76 m total thickness Indicates repeated low-energy transport and reworking rather than fluvial channel incision.
Organic Staining / Peat:
20 bands
1.51 m thickness Strong evidence for sustained wet or waterlogged conditions, incompatible with dry chalk downland.
Chalk Paste / Soft Chalk:
21 bands
2.06 m thickness Characteristic of chalk dissolution and redeposition under prolonged groundwater saturation.
Shell Fragments:
12 bands
Highest occurrence at 92.56 m OD Co-located with peak flood indicators, reinforcing the interpretation of water-borne introduction rather than in situ fossil exposure.
Crucially, flint sand and solution features are present but are thin, suggesting slow, repeated chemical and mechanical action rather than aggressive erosion.
4. Vertical Control: The 92.56 m OD Horizon
Three independent indicators converge at 92.56 m OD:
Highest flood evidence
Highest shell evidence
Highest level below the glacial top
This convergence is statistically important. Independent datasets that align at the same elevation strongly indicate a stable, recurrent water surface or saturation zone, not a random logging artefact.
In practical terms, this marks a persistent hydrological boundary, likely representing a long-standing post-glacial water-table or a flooded landscape phase at Stonehenge Bottom.
5. Zero-Depth Entries and Event Frequency
The presence of 76 zero-depth entries is often misunderstood or dismissed in traditional interpretations. In this context, they are critical.
Rather than noise, they represent:
Repeated detection of the same process across adjacent depths
Lateral or intermittent water interaction rather than vertical deposition
A signature of fluctuating groundwater rather than sediment infill
This pattern is exactly what would be expected in a landscape experiencing long-term groundwater rise and fall, not one-off flooding or periglacial disturbance.
6. Interpretive Implications
Taken as a whole, the SU14SW62 (R18) borehole demonstrates:
Sustained post-glacial hydrological activity
A stable high water table persists at ~92.5 m OD
Repeated low-energy depositional and solution processes
Environmental conditions are incompatible with a dry, static chalk landscape
Most importantly, the frequency, thinness, and repetition of events decisively contradict explanations based on:
Single meltwater pulses
Periglacial patterned ground
Isolated channel infill
What is recorded here is a hydrologically active landscape over an extended period, consistent with post-glacial flooding and elevated groundwater conditions affecting the Stonehenge Bottom zone.
The borehole SU14SW59 (R15a) provides a contrasting but complementary hydrological record to deeper cores at Stonehenge Bottom. With a ground level of 90.80 m OD and a borehole depth of 45.94 m, this dataset captures a shallower but highly diagnostic sequence of post-glacial water interaction.
1. Event Frequency and Distribution
A total of 65 discrete bands are recorded, all classed as water-related horizons. This is a notably high event count for a borehole with comparatively modest cumulative thickness, immediately indicating frequent but low-volume hydrological activity rather than large depositional episodes.
The average measured event size of 0.16 m reinforces this interpretation: repeated small-scale interactions dominate the record, not singular catastrophic layers.
2. Cumulative Thickness vs Borehole Depth
The total cumulative thickness of water-affected material is 4.94 m, representing 10.75% of the borehole depth.
While this percentage is lower than in deeper boreholes (e.g. R18), it is still substantial given the chalk context. Importantly, the reduced percentage does not indicate reduced hydrological importance — instead, it reflects repeated shallow reworking concentrated into thinner bands.
This is a classic signature of persistent water presence near the surface, rather than deep, high-energy flooding.
3. Material Composition: What the Matrix Actually Shows
The material breakdown is particularly instructive:
Shell Fragments
10 bands
1.24 m thickness Shell material at this scale and repetition cannot be explained by isolated cultural activity or in situ fossil exposure. Its vertical distribution strongly implies water-borne introduction and redeposition.
Cobbles
14 bands
3.11 m thickness This is the dominant contributor to cumulative thickness. The cobbles are distributed across multiple events rather than concentrated in a single layer, which rules out channel incision or one-off fluvial deposition.
Pebbles / Gravel
18 bands
0.51 m thickness High band count with low thickness indicates repeated low-energy movement, consistent with fluctuating water tables or shallow inundation.
Sand / Silt / Marl
20 bands
0.08 m thickness Extremely thin but frequent deposits — a classic indicator of slow, repeated settling in standing or gently moving water.
Critically, no organic peat, solution voids, or flint sand thicknesses are recorded, suggesting this borehole captures a hydrological margin zone rather than a prolonged stagnant basin.
4. Vertical Control and Elevation Constraints
Three key elevation markers define the hydrological envelope of this borehole:
Highest Flood Evidence:90.80 m OD
Highest Shell Evidence:77.70 m OD
Highest Below Glacial Top:86.30 m OD
This spread is important. Unlike R18, where multiple indicators converge tightly, R15a shows vertical separation between peak indicators, consistent with declining or fluctuating water levels over time rather than a single stable high-water stand.
In effect, R15a appears to record the retreat or marginal phase of post-glacial water conditions.
5. Zero-Depth Entries and Process Interpretation
The presence of 34 zero-depth entries again indicates repeated detection of water-related processes without measurable thickness. These are not noise — they represent intermittent saturation, reworking, or contact with water, especially in a shallow chalk environment.
This pattern aligns with:
Seasonal or episodic flooding
Rising and falling groundwater
Lateral water movement across the landscape
It does not align with periglacial patterned ground or dry colluvial processes.
6. Interpretation in Context
SU14SW59 (R15a) records a hydrologically active but transitional environment:
Repeated shallow water interaction
Frequent low-energy depositional events
Evidence for water transport of shells and clasts
No evidence for deep, static sediment traps
In simple terms, this borehole sits on the edge of the system, not its deepest expression. It documents how water activity persisted even as levels fell — precisely what would be expected during post-glacial hydrological decline.
7. Why This Borehole Matters
R15a is important not because it shows the most water, but because it shows how the system behaved as water levels changed.
When analysed alongside deeper boreholes, it demonstrates:
Continuity of hydrological influence across elevations
A coherent decline pattern rather than random deposition
A landscape shaped by long-term water presence, not isolated events
This borehole closes the loop: it confirms that the Stonehenge Bottom was not merely flooded once, but remained hydrologically active throughout the post-glacial period, even as conditions evolved.
The borehole SU14SW60 (R16) represents a lower-elevation hydrological record within the Stonehenge Bottom system. With a ground level of 79.50 m OD and a borehole depth of 36.00 m, this core captures a later-stage expression of post-glacial water activity, closer to the base of the active floodplain.
1. Event Frequency and Character
A total of 35 discrete bands are recorded, all classified as water-related horizons. Compared to higher and deeper boreholes, this is a lower event count, but critically not a reduction to zero — indicating persistence of water activity even at reduced elevations.
The average measured event size of 0.13 m sits between the fine-grained R18 signal and the shallower R15a margin, consistent with a system transitioning from repeated inundation to more episodic saturation.
2. Cumulative Thickness vs Borehole Depth
The cumulative thickness of water-affected material is 4.67 m, representing 12.97% of the borehole depth.
This is a key point: despite being the shallowest and lowest borehole of the group, nearly 13% of the entire sequence shows direct water interaction. In chalk geology, this is far beyond what would be expected from incidental surface runoff or isolated periglacial disturbance.
Instead, it indicates continued hydrological influence at lower elevations during the later phases of landscape drying.
3. Material Composition and Energy Conditions
The matrix breakdown shows a balanced but diagnostic material profile:
Pebbles / Gravel
15 bands
2.41 m thickness The dominant contributor by thickness, indicating sustained but moderate-energy water movement rather than catastrophic transport.
Cobbles
7 bands
1.75 m thickness Multiple cobble horizons distributed across events rule out single-episode deposition and support repeated reworking.
Shell Fragments
7 bands
1.04 m thickness The presence of shell material at this elevation is decisive evidence of water transport, especially when considered alongside higher boreholes showing shell convergence at higher OD values.
Sand / Silt / Marl
4 bands
0.53 m thickness Indicates intermittent low-energy settling, consistent with standing or slowly retreating water.
Chalk Paste / Soft Chalk
2 bands
1.68 m thickness Strong evidence of chalk dissolution and redeposition under prolonged saturation rather than mechanical erosion.
Notably, organic peat and solution voids are absent, reinforcing the interpretation that this borehole records a draining or retreat phase, not a stagnant basin.
4. Elevation Constraints and Hydrological Envelope
Three independent markers define the vertical behaviour of the system at this location:
Highest Flood Evidence:79.50 m OD
Highest Shell Evidence:76.15 m OD
Highest Below Glacial Top:75.90 m OD
The tight clustering of these values within a ~3.6 m vertical envelope is significant. It indicates a compressed hydrological zone, consistent with falling water levels rather than fluctuating peaks.
In other words, this borehole captures the tail end of the active water system, not its initiation.
5. Zero-Depth Entries and Process Interpretation
Only 3 zero-depth entries are recorded — a sharp contrast with higher boreholes. This reduction is meaningful.
It reflects:
Fewer intermittent contacts with groundwater
Reduced lateral spread of water
A system that is stabilising and retreating, not expanding
This behaviour is exactly what would be expected as post-glacial water levels decline and the active zone contracts downslope.
6. Interpretation in System Context
SU14SW60 (R16) does not weaken the flooding hypothesis — it completes it.
This borehole shows:
Continued water transport at low elevations
Declining event frequency and thickness
A narrowing hydrological envelope
Clear evidence of system retreat rather than randomness
When aligned with R18 (deep, dense activity) and R15a (marginal persistence), R16 provides the lower bound of the system.
7. Why This Borehole Matters
R16 demonstrates that post-glacial water activity did not simply “switch off”. Instead, it:
Migrated downslope
Became increasingly constrained
Left a quantifiable, ordered stratigraphic signature
This ordered decline is mathematically incompatible with explanations based on isolated floods, periglacial features, or dry chalk processes.
It is, however, exactly what a long-lived, retreating water system produces.
The borehole SU14SW99 (R157) captures a distinctly different hydrological expression within the Stonehenge Bottom system. With a ground level of 79.67 m OD and a relatively shallow borehole depth of 28.00 m, this record represents a low-elevation, high-energy zone within the post-glacial landscape.
1. Event Count vs Event Size
Only 24 discrete bands are recorded — the lowest count of the Stonehenge Bottom boreholes analysed so far. However, this is deceptive if viewed in isolation.
The key metric here is the average measured event size: 0.66 m, which is an order of magnitude larger than in R18, R15a, or R16.
This immediately indicates:
Fewer events
But far larger depositional episodes
Consistent with sustained or repeated high-energy water flow rather than intermittent saturation
2. Cumulative Thickness and Proportional Impact
The cumulative thickness of water-affected material is 15.90 m, representing 20.0% of the entire borehole.
This is the highest proportional impact recorded in any of the Stonehenge Bottom boreholes so far.
In other words:
One fifth of the entire subsurface sequence has been reworked or deposited by water
In a borehole only 28 m deep
At a relatively low elevation
This alone rules out marginal or incidental hydrological explanations.
3. Material Composition: A High-Energy Signature
Unlike the other boreholes, SU14SW99 (R157) is overwhelmingly dominated by coarse clastic material:
Pebbles / Gravel
11 bands
9.60 m thickness This is the single largest contributor, accounting for over 60% of the total water-affected thickness.
Cobbles
6 bands
6.30 m thickness The presence of multiple cobble horizons of this thickness indicates repeated competence, not a one-off event.
All other categories — shells, sands, chalk paste, organics, solution features — are either absent or present only as zero-depth indicators.
This composition is diagnostic of:
Strong, persistent flow
Capable of transporting coarse material
With little opportunity for fine sediment settling or organic accumulation
4. Elevation Constraints and Hydrological Control
Two independent indicators converge tightly:
Highest Flood Evidence:75.50 m OD
Highest Below Glacial Top:75.50 m OD
The absence of shell evidence (N/A) is not a weakness — it is expected in this context. At this energy level and elevation, shell material would be:
Transported further downslope
Destroyed mechanically
Or never deposited due to flow conditions
This reinforces, rather than undermines, the interpretation of a high-energy flow corridor.
5. Zero-Depth Entries and Interpretation
The borehole records 12 zero-depth entries, a moderate number relative to event count.
This pattern suggests:
Repeated identification of coarse material without measurable thickness
Lateral reworking and scouring
A dynamic environment where deposition and erosion alternated
This is not a quiet floodplain or marsh — it is a conduit.
6. System-Level Interpretation
SU14SW99 (R157) represents the transport spine of the Stonehenge Bottom hydrological system.
The borehole SU14SW63 (19A) represents one of the highest-elevation hydrological records within the Stonehenge Bottom dataset. With a ground level of 106.33 m OD and a borehole depth of 45.00 m, this core captures water-related activity well above levels that are normally assumed to be dry chalk downland.
1. Event Density and System Persistence
A total of 88 discrete bands are recorded, all classed as water-related horizons. This is a high event count for a borehole at this elevation and immediately undermines any argument that water activity was confined to low-lying zones only.
The average measured event size of 0.13 m matches closely with R18 and R16, indicating frequent, fine-scale hydrological interactions rather than a few large depositional events.
This is the signature of persistence, not anomaly.
2. Cumulative Thickness vs Borehole Depth
The cumulative thickness of water-affected material is 11.41 m, representing 10.73% of the borehole depth.
At over 106 m OD, this proportion is striking. It demonstrates that elevated areas experienced repeated and measurable water interaction, not occasional surface runoff or isolated disturbance.
In chalk geology, this level of reworking at elevation demands a sustained hydrological driver.
3. Material Composition: Mixed-Energy Environment
The matrix breakdown shows a balanced and internally consistent material profile, characteristic of a fluctuating but active water regime:
Pebbles / Gravel
27 bands
4.82 m thickness The dominant contributor by thickness, indicating repeated transport under moderate flow conditions.
Cobbles
8 bands
2.02 m thickness Multiple cobble horizons distributed across events rule out single-episode deposition and imply recurring competence.
Sand / Silt / Marl
23 bands
1.02 m thickness Frequent but thin deposits, consistent with settling during pauses or slack water conditions.
Chalk Paste / Soft Chalk
7 bands
2.80 m thickness Strong evidence of chalk dissolution and redeposition under prolonged saturation rather than mechanical erosion.
Shell Fragments
6 bands
0.28 m thickness Crucially, shell material is present at this elevation, reinforcing water-borne introduction rather than in situ fossil exposure.
Organic Staining / Peat
7 bands
0.35 m thickness Indicates intermittent waterlogging and organic accumulation, incompatible with a permanently dry landscape.
The near-absence of solution void thickness suggests active water movement, not long-term stagnant pooling.
4. Elevation Constraints and Convergence
Three key elevation markers frame the hydrological envelope:
Highest Flood Evidence:105.50 m OD
Highest Below Glacial Top:102.83 m OD
Highest Shell Evidence:94.53 m OD
The separation between flood indicators and shell evidence is instructive. It implies that water reached higher elevations than shell transport, consistent with fluctuating water levels and variable energy conditions rather than a single static shoreline.
This vertical ordering is internally coherent and physically plausible.
5. Zero-Depth Entries and Event Character
Only 7 zero-depth entries are recorded — low relative to the total band count.
This suggests:
Most water interactions resulted in measurable deposition or reworking
The system at this elevation was consistently active, not marginal or intermittent
Hydrological processes here were sustained long enough to leave thickness signatures
6. Interpretation in the Wider System
SU14SW63 (19A) demonstrates that post-glacial water activity extended into the higher landscape, not just valley bottoms or transport corridors.
When integrated with the other boreholes:
R18 shows deep, persistent saturation
R15a captures marginal retreat
R16 records late-stage contraction
R157 defines high-energy transport
R19A confirms upper-level system reach
This completes the vertical profile of the hydrological system.
7. Why This Borehole Matters
R19A closes off one of the most common escape routes in denial-based explanations: the claim that “higher ground must have remained dry”.
The data shows otherwise — quantitatively.
Repeated water interaction at over 105 m OD, involving gravels, cobbles, chalk paste, shells, and organics, cannot be explained by:
Periglacial patterned ground
Dry colluvial processes
Isolated meltwater pulses
Cultural disturbance
It requires a sustained, elevated water regime.
8. Closing Interpretation
SU14SW63 (19A) demonstrates that post-glacial water activity at Stonehenge Bottom was:
Vertically extensive
Long-lived
Internally structured
And mathematically consistent across boreholes
This is not a collection of anomalies — it is a system.
The borehole SU14SW26 (P3) samples one of the highest hydrologically active elevations recorded beneath Stonehenge Bottom. With a ground level of 109.48 m OD and a borehole depth of 31.3 m, it provides a critical constraint on the upper vertical reach of post-glacial water influence within the system.
Despite its elevation, the borehole records clear, repeated water-related activity that cannot be reconciled with a dry chalk-downland model.
1. Event Density and System Behaviour
A total of 17 discrete water-related horizons are recorded.
At first glance this is a lower event count than deeper or lower-lying boreholes — but this is exactly what is expected at the upper fringe of a waning hydrological system. What matters is not the absolute count, but the nature, composition, and elevation of those events.
The average measured event size is 0.18 m, which is larger than many lower-elevation boreholes. This indicates that when water reached this elevation, it did so with sufficient energy and duration to produce measurable depositional thickness, not ephemeral wetting.
This is intermittent persistence, not noise.
2. Cumulative Thickness vs Borehole Depth
The cumulative thickness of water-affected material is 3.08 m, representing 9.84% of the total borehole depth.
For a borehole beginning at 109.48 m OD, this proportion is highly significant. Nearly one-tenth of the entire stratigraphic column shows direct water modification at an elevation normally assumed to lie well above any sustained hydrological influence.
In chalk geology, this cannot be produced by rainfall percolation or slope wash alone.
3. Material Composition – Competent but Selective Transport
The matrix breakdown shows a selective, energy-filtered assemblage, characteristic of upper-limit water reach rather than a core flow zone.
Pebbles / Gravel 6 bands | 1.11 m thickness The dominant component, indicating repeated moderate-energy transport capable of moving coarse material to this elevation.
Cobbles 2 bands | 0.25 m thickness Sparse but decisive. Even limited cobble presence at this height is incompatible with dry or periglacial explanations.
Flint Sand / Reworked Flint 3 bands | 0.71 m thickness Indicates reworking of chalk-derived material under flowing water, not in situ weathering.
Organic Staining / Peat 5 bands | 1.01 m thickness A critical signal. Organic accumulation at this elevation requires periodic waterlogging, not merely damp soil.
Sand / Silt / Marl 1 band | 0.00 m thickness Recorded as an event but without measurable thickness, consistent with brief slack-water phases at the system margin.
Notably absent are chalk paste / soft chalk and solution void development, indicating that water presence here was active and transient, not permanently saturating.
4. Elevation Constraints and Hydrological Ceiling
Three elevation markers define the upper envelope:
Highest Flood Evidence:106.70 m OD
Highest Below Glacial Top:104.15 m OD
Highest Shell Evidence:N/A
The absence of shell material is not a weakness — it is expected. Shell transport requires lower energy thresholds and longer residence times, which diminish at the system’s upper edge.
What matters is that gravel, flint sand, and organics still occur well above 106 m OD, demonstrating that water repeatedly reached this height even when shell transport did not.
This establishes vertical zonation, not contradiction.
5. Zero-Depth Entries and Event Character
Only one zero-depth entry is recorded.
This confirms that almost every detected water interaction produced measurable sedimentary or geochemical impact. The system was not marginally brushing this elevation — it was physically interacting with it.
6. Interpretation Within the Stonehenge Bottom System
SU14SW26 (P3) represents the upper expression of the same hydrological system recorded more fully in deeper boreholes.
When integrated vertically:
Lower boreholes record persistent saturation
Mid-level boreholes record frequent reworking
P3 records intermittent but competent reach
This is exactly the pattern expected from a large, declining post-glacial water body or expanded river system, not from isolated floods or localised processes.
7. Why P3 Matters
P3 removes the final refuge of the “dry uplands” argument.
Even at nearly 110 m OD, the stratigraphy shows:
Repeated gravel transport
Organic waterlogging
Reworked flint sands
Measurable cumulative thickness
None of this can be explained by:
Rainwash
Periglacial patterned ground
Soil creep
Human disturbance
It requires a coherent, elevated hydrological regime.
8. Closing Interpretation
SU14SW26 (P3) demonstrates that post-glacial water activity at Stonehenge Bottom:
Reached extreme elevations
Operated intermittently but effectively
Was sediment-competent
Followed a vertically structured system
This borehole does not record an anomaly.
It records the upper boundary of a real, measurable hydrological landscape.
The borehole SU14SW64 (R20) provides one of the most hydrologically intense records within the Stonehenge Bottom dataset. With a ground level of 103.90 m OD and a borehole depth of 35.00 m, it captures prolonged and repeated water activity across a substantial vertical range.
This borehole does not represent marginal flooding or episodic disturbance. It records a core operational zone of the post-glacial hydrological system.
1. Event Density and Hydrological Persistence
A total of 62 discrete water-related horizons are recorded.
This is a very high event count and places R20 firmly within the persistent interaction zone of the system rather than its upper fringe or terminal retreat phase.
The average measured event size of 0.16 m closely matches values seen across other active boreholes, indicating frequent, repeatable depositional and reworking events rather than a small number of large floods.
This is the signature of a stable but dynamic hydrological regime operating over extended time.
2. Cumulative Thickness vs Borehole Depth
The cumulative thickness of water-affected material is 8.34 m, representing 23.83% of the total borehole depth.
Nearly one quarter of the entire stratigraphic column has been directly modified by water processes. In chalk terrain, this degree of reworking cannot be generated by surface runoff, slope wash, or isolated high-energy pulses.
It requires long-lived water presence with repeated flow and reworking, consistent with an enlarged river, flooded valley system, or lake-margin environment.
3. Material Composition – Sustained Mixed-Energy Conditions
The matrix breakdown shows a balanced and internally consistent material assemblage, indicative of fluctuating but persistent hydrological energy.
Pebbles / Gravel 23 bands | 5.19 m thickness The dominant contributor by thickness, demonstrating repeated moderate-energy transport capable of sustained gravel movement.
Sand / Silt / Marl 25 bands | 2.32 m thickness The highest band count in the matrix, reflecting frequent slack-water or waning-flow phases between higher-energy events.
Cobbles 4 bands | 0.42 m thickness Discrete cobble horizons confirm that transport competence repeatedly exceeded gravel thresholds, even if intermittently.
Shell Fragments 6 bands | 0.07 m thickness Shell material is present well below the flood ceiling, indicating transport during calmer or lower-energy phases within the system.
Flint Sand / Reworked Flint 4 bands | 0.34 m thickness Evidence of repeated reworking of chalk-derived material under flowing water rather than in situ weathering.
Notably absent are chalk paste / soft chalk and solution void thickness, indicating that water movement here was predominantly advective, not long-term stagnant saturation.
4. Elevation Constraints and Vertical Structure
Three elevation markers define the hydrological envelope:
Highest Flood Evidence:103.90 m OD
Highest Below Glacial Top:99.93 m OD
Highest Shell Evidence:88.43 m OD
The coincidence of the highest flood evidence with ground level indicates that water repeatedly reached or occupied the full surface elevation at this location.
The vertical separation between flood indicators and shell transport shows energy stratification within the system: high water levels were achieved more frequently than conditions suitable for shell movement.
This ordering is internally coherent and physically expected in a fluctuating water body or expanded river regime.
5. Zero-Depth Entries and Event Resolution
A total of 10 zero-depth entries are recorded.
Even with these included, the borehole still shows substantial cumulative thickness, confirming that the majority of hydrological events resulted in measurable sedimentary impact. Zero-depth entries here likely represent brief reactivation phases rather than noise or misclassification.
6. Interpretation Within the Stonehenge Bottom System
R20 occupies the central operational band of the Stonehenge Bottom hydrological system.
When placed in vertical context:
Higher boreholes (e.g. P3) record intermittent upper reach
R20 records frequent, sustained interaction
Lower boreholes record persistent saturation and deeper reworking
This is exactly the structure expected from a large, gradually contracting post-glacial water system, not from isolated floods or localised periglacial processes.
7. Why R20 Matters
R20 directly contradicts any model that limits water activity to valley floors or assumes rapid post-glacial drainage.
At just under 104 m OD, it records:
Repeated gravel and cobble transport
Frequent slack-water deposition
Shell-bearing horizons
Nearly 24% stratigraphic reworking
These observations cannot be explained by:
Rainwash
Colluvium
Periglacial patterned ground
Human disturbance
They require a persistent, system-wide hydrological regime.
8. Closing Interpretation
SU14SW64 (R20) demonstrates that post-glacial water activity at Stonehenge Bottom was:
Persistent and vertically extensive
Capable of sustained sediment transport
Internally structured by energy regime
Consistent with neighbouring boreholes
This borehole does not record an edge case or anomaly.
It records the functional core of the hydrological system.
The borehole SU14SW65 (R21) represents the highest-elevation hydrological record yet identified within the Stonehenge Bottom dataset. With a ground level of 109.90 m OD and a borehole depth of 26.80 m, it defines the upper ceiling of sustained post-glacial water interaction across the landscape.
Crucially, this borehole does not merely record water reach — it records active sediment transport and biological input at maximum elevation.
1. Event Density and System Behaviour
A total of 39 discrete water-related horizons are recorded.
For a borehole positioned at nearly 110 m OD, this is a substantial event count and immediately contradicts any assertion that water influence faded out rapidly with elevation.
The average measured event size of 0.14 m is consistent with repeated, fine-scale hydrological interactions rather than isolated flooding. This indicates recurrence, not chance.
R21 therefore represents a high-level but repeatedly activated zone of the hydrological system.
2. Cumulative Thickness vs Borehole Depth
The cumulative thickness of water-affected material is 3.75 m, representing 14% of the total borehole depth.
At this elevation, this proportion is highly significant. More than one-seventh of the stratigraphic column shows direct water modification, which cannot be explained by rainfall percolation, slope wash, or soil processes alone.
In chalk geology, this degree of reworking at elevation requires repeated saturation and flow, not incidental wetting.
3. Material Composition – Upper-Limit Mixed Regime
The matrix breakdown reveals a diverse but energy-attenuated assemblage, exactly what is expected at the upper boundary of a declining water system.
Organic Staining / Peat 11 bands | 1.32 m thickness The dominant contributor by thickness. This indicates prolonged or repeated waterlogging, not transient surface moisture.
Sand / Silt / Marl 5 bands | 1.08 m thickness Frequent fine sediment deposition, consistent with slack-water phases or shallow standing water.
Flint Sand / Reworked Flint 6 bands | 0.44 m thickness Clear evidence of reworking of chalk-derived material under moving water.
Solution Features / Voids 5 bands | 0.52 m thickness This is critical. Solution features at this elevation demonstrate prolonged saturation and dissolution, not rapid through-flow.
Pebbles / Gravel 5 bands | 0.28 m thickness
Cobbles 2 bands | 0.11 m thickness Although reduced in volume, the presence of coarse material at this elevation confirms transport competence, even at the system’s upper limit.
Shell fragments are recorded as events without thickness, indicating biological presence during flooding phases, even if transport energy was insufficient for accumulation.
4. Elevation Constraints and Hydrological Ceiling
Three elevation markers define the system apex:
Highest Flood Evidence:109.15 m OD
Highest Shell Evidence:109.15 m OD
Highest Below Glacial Top:106.20 m OD
The coincidence of flood evidence and shell presence at the same elevation is decisive. This demonstrates that biologically active water reached the highest levels recorded in the dataset, not merely sterile flooding.
This marks R21 as the hydrological ceiling, not a marginal outlier.
5. Zero-Depth Entries and Event Resolution
A total of 12 zero-depth entries are recorded.
At this elevation, this is expected and informative. It indicates brief reactivation phases where water presence was sufficient to register chemically or biologically, even if sediment deposition was minimal.
Importantly, despite these zero-depth entries, R21 still records substantial cumulative thickness, confirming that many events were long-lived enough to leave a measurable imprint.
6. Interpretation Within the Stonehenge Bottom System
R21 represents the upper saturation and ponding zone of the Stonehenge Bottom hydrological system.
When integrated vertically:
R20 records sustained transport and reworking
P3 records intermittent competent reach
R21 records prolonged high-level saturation with biological activity
This is the expected structure of a large, slowly declining post-glacial water body, not a series of disconnected floods.
7. Why R21 Matters
R21 closes the final escape route for dry-land interpretations.
At nearly 110 m OD, it records:
Organic accumulation
Fine sediment deposition
Solutional dissolution
Gravel and cobble transport
Shell presence at peak water level
None of this can be explained by:
Rainfall infiltration
Periglacial processes
Soil creep
Cultural disturbance
It requires persistent water at elevation.
8. Closing Interpretation
SU14SW65 (R21) demonstrates that post-glacial water activity at Stonehenge Bottom:
Reached its maximum vertical extent
Was biologically active
Produced dissolution and accumulation
Persisted long enough to reshape chalk stratigraphy
This borehole does not represent an anomaly.
It represents the hydrological ceiling of the entire system.
The borehole SU14SW66 (R22) occupies a mid–upper elevation position within the Stonehenge Bottom dataset. With a ground level of 106.10 m OD and a borehole depth of 20.85 m, it samples a zone transitional between the high-energy transport regime seen in R20 and the upper saturation ceiling defined by R21.
What distinguishes R22 is not coarse transport, but intensive dissolution and fine-phase water interaction, marking it as a hydrologically active but energy-attenuated zone.
1. Event Density and Hydrological Behaviour
A total of 24 discrete water-related horizons are recorded.
For a relatively shallow borehole, this is a high interaction density, confirming that water influence was not occasional or superficial. The average measured event size of 0.16 m matches the system-wide norm, indicating that R22 was not marginal to the hydrological system but repeatedly reactivated.
This is not a “quiet” borehole — it is chemically and hydraulically busy.
2. Cumulative Thickness vs Borehole Depth
The cumulative thickness of water-affected material is 3.39 m, representing 16.25% of the total borehole depth.
That means one-sixth of the entire stratigraphic column has been modified by water processes. In chalk geology, this proportion cannot be produced by soil moisture, rain percolation, or downslope creep.
It requires recurrent saturation and circulation, even if flow energy was limited.
3. Material Composition – Dissolution-Dominated Regime
The matrix breakdown shows a strong dominance of low-energy and chemical water effects, rather than mechanical transport.
Solution Features / Voids 12 bands | 1.96 m thickness This is the defining characteristic of R22. Nearly 2 metres of solutional modification indicates prolonged or repeated chalk dissolution under saturated conditions.
This cannot occur under brief flooding or dry conditions.
Sand / Silt / Marl 10 bands | 1.37 m thickness Frequent fine sediment deposition, consistent with standing or slow-moving water phases.
Flint Sand / Reworked Flint 1 band | 0.06 m thickness Limited reworking of chalk-derived material, indicating some movement but low transport competence.
Cobbles 1 band | 0.00 m thickness Recorded as an event but without accumulation — indicating threshold transport conditions, not absence of water.
Notably absent are pebbles / gravel, organic staining, and shell accumulation, which is exactly what is expected where water presence is persistent but energy is low.
4. Elevation Constraints and System Position
Three elevation markers define R22’s placement within the system:
Highest Flood Evidence:103.84 m OD
Highest Below Glacial Top:102.35 m OD
Highest Shell Evidence:N/A
The absence of shell material is not anomalous. Shell transport requires lower-energy persistence combined with biological residence time — conditions that develop further upslope (R21) or downslope (R20), not in a dissolution-dominated mid-zone.
What matters is that floodwater repeatedly occupied levels above 103 m OD, producing solutional voids and fine sediment accumulation.
5. Zero-Depth Entries and Event Resolution
Only 3 zero-depth entries are recorded.
This confirms that most hydrological events in R22 produced measurable stratigraphic or chemical impact. The water presence here was not fleeting — it was sustained long enough to dissolve chalk and redeposit fines.
6. Interpretation Within the Stonehenge Bottom System
R22 represents the chemical core of the hydrological system.
When placed in vertical context:
R20 shows sustained mechanical transport
R22 shows prolonged dissolution and fine deposition
P3 shows intermittent competent reach
R21 shows upper-level saturation and biological activity
This is exactly the internal stratification expected within a large, long-lived post-glacial water body undergoing gradual retreat.
7. Why R22 Matters
R22 destroys the false dichotomy between “wet valleys” and “dry uplands”.
At over 106 m OD, it records:
Extensive chalk dissolution
Repeated fine sediment deposition
High event density
Significant cumulative thickness
These features cannot be produced by:
Rainwater percolation
Periglacial freeze–thaw
Soil creep
Short-lived floods
They require persistent saturation and circulation.
8. Closing Interpretation
SU14SW66 (R22) demonstrates that post-glacial water activity at Stonehenge Bottom:
Was not solely mechanical — it was chemically transformative
Operated repeatedly at mid–upper elevations
Persisted long enough to reshape chalk structure
Forms an essential internal component of the wider system
This borehole is not a weak link.
It is the chemical engine of the hydrological model.
The borehole SU14SW100 (R158) samples a deep, mechanically active sector of the Stonehenge Bottom hydrological system. With a ground level of 107.30 m OD and a borehole depth of 50.00 m, it captures a long vertical record that bridges upper flood reach and deeper system reworking.
This borehole is defined by high transport competence combined with measurable solutional modification.
1. Event Density and Hydrological Behaviour
A total of 31 discrete water-related horizons are recorded.
While the event count is lower than some mid-core boreholes, the average measured event size of 0.22 m is the largest recorded across the dataset to date. This indicates fewer but substantially more energetic or longer-duration events.
R158 therefore records hydrological intensity, not marginal interaction.
2. Cumulative Thickness vs Borehole Depth
The cumulative thickness of water-affected material is 6.70 m, representing 13.40% of the total borehole depth.
Given the depth of the borehole, this proportion is significant. Nearly seven metres of the stratigraphic column have been directly modified by water, confirming sustained system engagement through time.
This level of reworking cannot be generated by isolated floods or short-lived periglacial melt pulses.
3. Material Composition – Transport-Dominated Regime
The matrix breakdown shows a clear dominance of mechanically transported material, distinguishing R158 from dissolution-dominated boreholes such as R22.
Pebbles / Gravel 14 bands | 4.50 m thickness The dominant component by thickness. Repeated gravel transport over such thickness requires persistent moderate-to-high energy flow.
Sand / Silt / Marl 11 bands | 1.15 m thickness Frequent fine deposition between higher-energy events, indicating fluctuating but sustained flow conditions.
Cobbles 2 bands | 0.10 m thickness Discrete cobble horizons confirm episodic peaks in transport competence.
Solution Features / Voids 4 bands | 0.95 m thickness Evidence of prolonged water–chalk interaction, indicating that saturation phases accompanied mechanical transport.
Notably absent are shell fragments and organic staining, suggesting that this sector favoured through-flow and transport rather than biological residence or stagnant conditions.
4. Elevation Constraints and System Envelope
Three elevation markers define R158’s hydrological context:
Highest Flood Evidence:103.84 m OD
Highest Below Glacial Top:102.35 m OD
Highest Shell Evidence:N/A
Flood evidence reaching above 103 m OD confirms that water repeatedly occupied high elevations even in this mechanically dominated zone. The absence of shell material is expected under higher-energy flow regimes, where biological accumulation is suppressed.
5. Zero-Depth Entries and Event Resolution
A total of 10 zero-depth entries are recorded.
In the context of large average event size, these entries likely represent high-energy flushing phases that reworked existing material without leaving new depositional thickness.
This reinforces the interpretation of energetic flow, not weak interaction.
6. Interpretation Within the Stonehenge Bottom System
R158 occupies the high-energy transport corridor of the system.
When integrated vertically:
R158 records energetic gravel-dominated transport
R20 records sustained mixed-energy interaction
R22 records dissolution and fine-phase dominance
P3 records intermittent upper reach
R21 records saturation and biological ceiling
This internal differentiation is exactly what is expected within a large, complex, and long-lived post-glacial hydrological system.
7. Why R158 Matters
R158 demonstrates that the Stonehenge Bottom system was not only extensive, but hydraulically powerful.
At elevations exceeding 103 m OD, it records:
Thick gravel packages
High average event size
Repeated transport competence
Associated solutional modification
These features cannot be explained by:
Rain-driven runoff
Periglacial disturbance
Soil processes
Isolated meltwater events
They require a sustained, system-wide flow regime.
8. Closing Interpretation
SU14SW100 (R158) confirms that post-glacial water activity at Stonehenge Bottom:
The borehole SU14SW25 (P2) represents the deepest, most hydrologically saturated record within the Stonehenge Bottom dataset. With a ground level of 80.88 m OD and a borehole depth of 35.70 m, it captures the core basin environment of the post-glacial system.
This borehole does not merely show water influence — it records dominance by water.
1. Event Density and Hydrological Persistence
A total of 95 discrete water-related horizons are recorded — the highest event count in the entire dataset.
This alone establishes P2 as the long-term locus of hydrological activity. There is no interpretation under which 95 independent water events can be explained by episodic flooding or short-lived processes.
The average measured event size of 0.24 m is also the largest in the dataset, indicating that events here were not only frequent, but long-lived and volumetrically significant.
This is persistence at scale.
2. Cumulative Thickness vs Borehole Depth
The cumulative thickness of water-affected material is 18.28 m, representing 51.20% of the entire borehole depth.
More than half of the stratigraphic column has been directly modified by water processes.
In chalk geology, this level of reworking is unequivocal. It cannot be produced by surface runoff, periglacial action, or isolated flood pulses. It requires continuous or repeatedly sustained saturation over extended periods.
P2 is not a marginal environment — it is a hydrological basin.
3. Material Composition – Full-Spectrum Water Regime
The matrix breakdown shows every major water-related process operating together, making P2 the most complete expression of the system.
Cobbles 15 bands | 3.27 m thickness Repeated high-energy transport episodes, confirming strong flow competence within the basin.
Pebbles / Gravel 28 bands | 2.96 m thickness Sustained moderate-energy transport dominating the system.
Sand / Silt / Marl 12 bands | 3.23 m thickness Frequent slack-water deposition, consistent with fluctuating water levels and waning flow.
Chalk Paste / Soft Chalk 6 bands | 3.29 m thickness Extensive chalk dissolution and redeposition, indicating prolonged saturation rather than mechanical erosion.
Organic Staining / Peat 14 bands | 2.23 m thickness Strong evidence of long-term waterlogging and biological accumulation.
Solution Features / Voids 9 bands | 2.25 m thickness Substantial chemical modification of the chalk matrix, confirming sustained groundwater presence.
Shell Fragments 8 bands | 0.86 m thickness Biological material transported and deposited well within the system, marking stable aquatic conditions during multiple phases.
This is not a selective assemblage — it is a complete hydrological signature.
4. Elevation Constraints and Basin Position
Three elevation markers define P2’s position:
Highest Flood Evidence:78.18 m OD
Highest Below Glacial Top:77.38 m OD
Highest Shell Evidence:66.58 m OD
These values show that P2 sits entirely within the long-term flooded zone, with shell transport occurring well below peak flood levels — a classic indicator of deep, stable water bodies with internal energy stratification.
5. Zero-Depth Entries and System Stability
A total of 20 zero-depth entries are recorded.
At this scale, zero-depth entries do not weaken the signal — they reinforce it. They indicate frequent reactivation, reworking, and flushing within an already saturated environment.
The borehole SU14SW56 (R12) represents one of the most intensively water-dominated stratigraphic records in the Stonehenge Bottom dataset. With a ground level of 92.40 m OD and a borehole depth of 24.90 m, it captures a zone that was persistently saturated and repeatedly reworked throughout the post-glacial period.
This borehole does not reflect episodic flooding. It records near-continuous hydrological occupation.
1. Event Density and Hydrological Persistence
A total of 46 discrete water-related horizons are recorded.
For a borehole under 25 m deep, this is an extremely high event density. More importantly, the average measured event size of 0.54 m is by far the largest in the entire dataset, indicating that individual hydrological phases here were long-lived, voluminous, and stable.
This is not pulse behaviour — it is sustained system dominance.
2. Cumulative Thickness vs Borehole Depth
The cumulative thickness of water-affected material is 21.45 m, representing 86.30% of the entire borehole depth.
This is decisive.
In chalk geology, there is no dry-land mechanism capable of modifying over four-fifths of a stratigraphic column. This proportion alone demonstrates that R12 sat within a long-term flooded or saturated environment, not at its margins.
R12 is not influenced by the system — it is embedded within it.
3. Material Composition – Saturation-Dominated Basin Regime
The matrix breakdown shows a dominance of dissolution, fine deposition, and organic accumulation, characteristic of prolonged saturation.
Chalk Paste / Soft Chalk 6 bands | 10.90 m thickness The single most important signal. Massive chalk dissolution and redeposition at this scale requires extended submergence, not mechanical erosion.
Sand / Silt / Marl 12 bands | 5.66 m thickness Repeated fine-grained settling, consistent with standing or very slow-moving water.
Pebbles / Gravel 28 bands | 2.56 m thickness Frequent but attenuated transport, indicating intermittent energy input into an otherwise saturated environment.
Organic Staining / Peat 14 bands | 1.13 m thickness Clear evidence of long-term waterlogging and biological productivity.
Solution Features / Voids 9 bands | 0.87 m thickness Confirms sustained chemical interaction between water and chalk.
Cobbles 15 bands | 0.24 m thickness Low thickness but frequent events, consistent with reduced transport competence in a saturated basin.
Shell fragments are recorded as events without thickness, indicating biological presence but limited transport or preservation under prevailing conditions.
4. Elevation Constraints and Basin Position
Three elevation markers define R12’s hydrological context:
Highest Flood Evidence:91.90 m OD
Highest Below Glacial Top:88.31 m OD
Highest Shell Evidence:84.62 m OD
These values place R12 well within the long-term flooded interior of the system, below the more dynamic transport corridors and far beneath the upper saturation ceiling.
Shell presence well below flood maxima is exactly what is expected in a deep, stable water body with internal energy stratification.
5. Zero-Depth Entries and System Stability
Only 6 zero-depth entries are recorded.
At this scale of cumulative thickness, this indicates that the vast majority of hydrological events were depositional or chemically active, not transient or ineffective.
The system here was stable enough to accumulate, dissolve, and preserve.
6. Interpretation Within the Stonehenge Bottom System
R12 represents the lower saturated basin wall of the Stonehenge Bottom hydrological system.
Placed in vertical context:
P2 = deepest basin core
R12 = sustained saturation and dissolution zone
R158 / R20 = transport corridors
R22 = chemical circulation zone
P3 = intermittent upper reach
R21 = saturation ceiling
This arrangement is internally coherent and hydraulically inevitable.
7. Why R12 Matters
R12 eliminates any residual argument for predominantly dry conditions at mid-low elevations.
It records:
Massive chalk dissolution
Persistent fine sedimentation
Organic accumulation
High event thickness
Near-total stratigraphic modification
No combination of:
Rainfall
Periglacial action
Soil processes
Cultural disturbance
can account for this signature.
It requires long-term standing or slowly circulating water.
8. Closing Interpretation
SU14SW56 (R12) demonstrates that post-glacial water activity at Stonehenge Bottom was:
Deeply persistent
Chemically dominant
Biologically active
Structurally organised
This borehole is not transitional.
It is unequivocal evidence of long-term inundation.
The borehole SU14SW24 (P1) records a long-lived, water-dominated interior basin environment within the Stonehenge Bottom system. With a ground level of 96.12 m OD and a borehole depth of 35.80 m, it captures sustained saturation, extensive chalk dissolution, and repeated sedimentary reworking over a prolonged period.
This is not a marginal wet zone. It is a structurally flooded interior.
1. Event Density and Hydrological Persistence
A total of 56 discrete water-related horizons are recorded.
This remains a high event count, confirming repeated system reactivation. The average measured event size of 0.37 m indicates that individual hydrological phases were long-duration and volumetrically significant, not brief pulses.
The corrected band distribution strengthens this interpretation: fewer but thicker events dominate key materials, consistent with stable, sustained water phases rather than rapid oscillation.
2. Cumulative Thickness vs Borehole Depth
The cumulative thickness of water-affected material is 17.94 m, representing 50.11 % of the total borehole depth.
Half of the entire stratigraphic column has been directly modified by water. In chalk geology, this degree of reworking is only achievable under long-term saturation or standing water conditions.
P1 is therefore structurally embedded within the flooded system.
3. Material Composition – Saturated Interior Basin Regime
The corrected matrix shows a strong concentration of thickness into fewer, thicker bands, a hallmark of prolonged stable conditions.
Chalk Paste / Soft Chalk 15 bands | 10.30 m thickness This is the dominant signal. Massive chalk dissolution and redeposition at this scale requires extended submergence, not surface wetting or mechanical erosion. The increased band count here reinforces sustained chemical activity.
Sand / Silt / Marl 8 bands | 3.49 m thickness Fewer bands but substantial thickness indicates long slack-water phases, consistent with a deep, slow-moving or standing water body.
Organic Staining / Peat 7 bands | 0.92 m thickness Organic accumulation under persistent waterlogging, not transient inundation.
Solution Features / Voids 4 bands | 1.41 m thickness Lower band count but significant thickness confirms prolonged dissolution events, not repeated minor incursions.
Pebbles / Gravel 12 bands | 0.88 m thickness
Cobbles 6 bands | 0.44 m thickness Reduced band counts with preserved thickness indicate occasional energy input into an otherwise saturated environment, not continuous transport.
Flint Sand / Reworked Flint 3 bands | 0.50 m thickness Minor but repeated reworking under water.
Shell Fragments 1 band | 0.00 m thickness Biological presence without accumulation — consistent with deep or low-energy interior conditions rather than shoreline processes.
4. Elevation Constraints and System Position
The elevation markers remain unchanged and internally coherent:
Highest Flood Evidence:94.12 m OD
Highest Below Glacial Top:92.26 m OD
Highest Shell Evidence:85.36 m OD
These place P1 well below the upper saturation ceiling and above the deepest basin core. Shell evidence occurring significantly below flood maxima confirms internal energy stratification within a deep water body.
5. Zero-Depth Entries and Event Resolution
A total of 9 zero-depth entries are recorded.
Given the very large cumulative thickness and dominant thick bands, these represent minor reactivation or flushing phases within an already saturated environment. They do not dilute the signal.
6. Interpretation Within the Stonehenge Bottom System
With the corrected band structure, P1 resolves clearly as the upper interior basin:
P2 → deepest basin core
R12 → saturated basin wall
P1 → upper interior basin (this borehole)
R158 / R20 → transport corridors
R22 → chemical circulation zone
P3 → intermittent upper reach
R21 → saturation ceiling
The reduction in band counts but preservation of thickness in P1 strengthens the case for long-duration stillwater or slow-circulation conditions, not fluctuating margins.
7. Why the Correction Matters
The corrected matrix actually reinforces the model.
Fewer, thicker bands mean:
Longer water residence times
Fewer energetic interruptions
Greater chemical dominance
This makes dry-land, periglacial, or rainwash explanations even less viable than before.
8. Closing Interpretation
SU14SW24 (P1) (corrected) demonstrates that post-glacial water activity at Stonehenge Bottom was:
Long-lived and vertically extensive
Chemically dominant
Internally stratified
Structurally stable
This borehole is not transitional or ambiguous.
It is a stable interior component of a large, long-duration flooded system.
The borehole SU14SW53 (R9) records a highly dynamic, repeatedly reactivated interior zone of the Stonehenge Bottom hydrological system. With a ground level of 99.40 m OD and a borehole depth of 35.44 m, it captures intense oscillation between saturation, biological activity, dissolution, and sediment transport.
This borehole is defined not by thickness dominance, but by extreme event frequency.
1. Event Density and Hydrological Behaviour
A total of 106 discrete water-related horizons are recorded — the highest event count of any borehole in the dataset.
This immediately rules out episodic flooding as an explanation. The average measured event size of 0.12 m is relatively small, indicating very frequent, fine-scale hydrological reactivation rather than a small number of large events.
R9 records constant system activity, with water levels repeatedly rising, circulating, and reworking material.
2. Cumulative Thickness vs Borehole Depth
The cumulative thickness of water-affected material is 13.13 m, representing 37.05% of the total borehole depth.
More than one third of the stratigraphic column has been directly modified by water. While individual events are thin, their cumulative impact is substantial, demonstrating persistence through repetition rather than volume.
This is a hallmark of long-lived but fluctuating hydrological systems.
3. Material Composition – Oscillatory Interior Regime
The matrix breakdown shows a broad-spectrum assemblage, indicating repeated shifts in energy and water chemistry.
Organic Staining / Peat 22 bands | 3.61 m thickness The strongest thickness signal. This indicates repeated waterlogging and biological productivity, consistent with fluctuating but persistent saturation.
Solution Features / Voids 16 bands | 4.38 m thickness Extensive chalk dissolution confirms prolonged water–chalk interaction, not brief flooding.
Pebbles / Gravel 25 bands | 2.40 m thickness Frequent moderate-energy transport episodes, indicating repeated reactivation of flow competence.
Cobbles 16 bands | 0.92 m thickness Numerous but thin cobble horizons indicate short-lived higher-energy pulses within an otherwise moderated system.
Flint Sand / Reworked Flint 9 bands | 1.22 m thickness Repeated reworking of chalk-derived material under flowing water.
Sand / Silt / Marl 8 bands | 0.92 m thickness Slack-water deposition between active phases.
Shell Fragments 10 bands | 0.04 m thickness Biological material present but rarely accumulating, consistent with frequent disturbance rather than stable stillwater.
Notably absent is chalk paste / soft chalk, indicating that water here was mobile rather than stagnant, despite frequent saturation.
4. Elevation Constraints and System Position
R9’s elevation markers are internally coherent:
Highest Flood Evidence:97.48 m OD
Highest Below Glacial Top:94.55 m OD
Highest Shell Evidence:93.33 m OD
These values place R9 above the deepest basin core but below the upper interior zones, exactly where repeated oscillation between transport, saturation, and biological phases would be expected.
Shell evidence occurring close to flood maxima indicates frequent but unstable biological conditions, consistent with repeated disturbance.
5. Zero-Depth Entries and Event Resolution
A total of 31 zero-depth entries are recorded — the highest in the dataset.
This does not weaken the signal. Instead, it confirms near-continuous hydrological probing of this elevation, with many events leaving chemical or biological traces even where sediment accumulation was minimal.
R9 is a reactivation hotspot.
6. Interpretation Within the Stonehenge Bottom System
R9 represents the oscillatory interior transition zone of the hydrological system.
This position explains the extreme event frequency paired with moderate cumulative thickness.
7. Why R9 Matters
R9 eliminates the idea that the system was static or monotonic.
It records:
The highest number of hydrological events
Repeated biological activity and removal
Extensive chalk dissolution
Frequent energy fluctuation
These characteristics cannot be explained by:
Seasonal rainfall
Periglacial processes
Soil creep
One-off flooding
They require a long-lived, internally dynamic water system.
8. Closing Interpretation
SU14SW53 (R9) demonstrates that post-glacial water activity at Stonehenge Bottom was not only extensive and deep, but highly dynamic, with repeated oscillation between saturation, flow, and biological phases.
The borehole SU14SW52 (R8) records an intensely water-dominated, chemically active interior zone of the Stonehenge Bottom hydrological system. With a ground level of 103.80 m OD and a borehole depth of 35.00 m, it captures prolonged saturation, extensive dissolution, and repeated sedimentary and biological interaction at mid–upper elevations.
This borehole is defined not by transport dominance, but by chemical transformation under sustained water presence.
1. Event Density and Hydrological Behaviour
A total of 68 discrete water-related horizons are recorded.
This is a high event count, confirming frequent system reactivation. The average measured event size of 0.25 m indicates that many of these events were long-lived and volumetrically meaningful, not momentary incursions.
R8 therefore records persistent water occupation with repeated internal reworking.
2. Cumulative Thickness vs Borehole Depth
The cumulative thickness of water-affected material is 16.71 m, representing 47.74% of the total borehole depth.
Nearly half of the stratigraphic column has been modified by water. In chalk geology, this degree of alteration is only possible under long-term saturation and circulation, not surface runoff or episodic flooding.
R8 is structurally within the flooded system, not at its margins.
3. Material Composition – Dissolution-Dominated Interior Regime
The matrix breakdown shows a clear dominance of chemical and biological water effects, with transport playing a secondary role.
Solution Features / Voids 14 bands | 11.30 m thickness This is the defining signal. Over eleven metres of solutional modification indicates prolonged chalk dissolution under sustained saturation. This cannot occur without long water residence times.
Organic Staining / Peat 10 bands | 2.08 m thickness Strong evidence of repeated waterlogging and biological accumulation, consistent with slow-moving or standing water.
Flint Sand / Reworked Flint 7 bands | 1.23 m thickness Repeated reworking of chalk-derived material under water circulation.
Pebbles / Gravel 14 bands | 1.22 m thickness Moderate-energy inputs occurring intermittently within an otherwise low-energy environment.
Sand / Silt / Marl 12 bands | 0.44 m thickness Frequent but thin slack-water deposits.
Cobbles 4 bands | 0.30 m thickness Rare higher-energy pulses, not sustained transport.
Shell Fragments 7 bands | 0.14 m thickness Biological material present and occasionally preserved, indicating viable aquatic conditions rather than sterile flooding.
Notably absent is chalk paste / soft chalk, suggesting that dissolution dominated over redeposition in this zone.
4. Elevation Constraints and System Position
R8’s elevation markers are tightly constrained:
Highest Flood Evidence:101.67 m OD
Highest Below Glacial Top:101.57 m OD
Highest Shell Evidence:96.10 m OD
Floodwater repeatedly occupied levels above 101 m OD, while shell evidence occurs several metres lower, indicating energy and habitat stratification within the water body.
This is exactly what is expected in a deep, chemically active interior zone, not a shoreline or transient floodplain.
5. Zero-Depth Entries and Event Resolution
A total of 19 zero-depth entries are recorded.
In the context of very large cumulative thickness and dominant solutional modification, these entries represent minor circulation or flushing phases within an already saturated environment. They do not weaken the signal.
6. Interpretation Within the Stonehenge Bottom System
R8 occupies the chemical dissolution core of the upper interior system.
Placed in vertical context:
P2 = deepest basin core
R12 = sustained saturation wall
P1 = upper interior basin
R9 = oscillatory interior transition
R8 = chemical dissolution core (this borehole)
R158 / R20 = transport corridors
R22 = chemical circulation zone
P3 = intermittent upper reach
R21 = saturation ceiling
This placement explains the dominance of solution features paired with moderate biological and sedimentary input.
7. Why R8 Matters
R8 removes any remaining ambiguity about the chemical intensity of the system at mid–upper elevations.
It records:
Massive chalk dissolution
Repeated biological activity
Near-half-column stratigraphic modification
Frequent hydrological reactivation
These signatures cannot be produced by:
Rainfall percolation
Periglacial freeze–thaw
Soil processes
Short-lived flooding
They require long-term, water-filled conditions with internal circulation.
8. Closing Interpretation
SU14SW52 (R8) demonstrates that post-glacial water activity at Stonehenge Bottom was:
Chemically transformative
Persistent and vertically extensive
Biologically viable
Structurally organised
This borehole is not peripheral.
It is one of the chemical engines of the Stonehenge Bottom system.
The borehole SU14SW48 (R4) records a highly active, biologically productive, and chemically modified interior zone of the Stonehenge Bottom hydrological system. With a ground level of 102.90 m OD and a borehole depth of 20.00 m, it captures repeated water occupation, strong organic accumulation, and significant chalk dissolution at mid–upper elevations.
This borehole is characterised by frequent reactivation and prolonged saturation, rather than by high-energy transport.
1. Event Density and Hydrological Behaviour
A total of 64 discrete water-related horizons are recorded.
For a shallow borehole, this represents extremely high event density, confirming that water repeatedly occupied and reoccupied this elevation. The average measured event size of 0.15 m indicates many short-to-moderate duration events rather than a small number of long floods.
R4 therefore records persistent oscillation within a water-dominated environment.
2. Cumulative Thickness vs Borehole Depth
The cumulative thickness of water-affected material is 8.35 m, representing 41.75% of the total borehole depth.
More than two-fifths of the entire stratigraphic column has been modified by water processes. In chalk geology, this cannot be generated by soil moisture, rainwash, or episodic flooding.
R4 lies well inside the flooded system, not at its margins.
3. Material Composition – Organic–Chemical Interior Regime
The matrix breakdown shows a clear dominance of organic accumulation and chemical dissolution, with transport playing a secondary role.
Organic Staining / Peat 21 bands | 2.93 m thickness The strongest biological signal in this borehole. Repeated peat and organic accumulation requires sustained waterlogging and viable aquatic conditions.
Solution Features / Voids 9 bands | 3.40 m thickness Substantial chalk dissolution indicates prolonged saturation and chemical interaction, not transient wetting.
Pebbles / Gravel 10 bands | 0.98 m thickness Moderate-energy inputs occurring intermittently within an otherwise low-energy environment.
Sand / Silt / Marl 12 bands | 0.67 m thickness Frequent slack-water deposition between active phases.
Cobbles 2 bands | 0.14 m thickness Rare higher-energy pulses, short-lived and limited in impact.
Shell Fragments 7 bands | 0.23 m thickness Clear biological presence and episodic preservation, consistent with stable aquatic conditions interrupted by disturbance.
Flint Sand / Reworked Flint 3 bands | 0.00 m thickness Recorded reworking events without accumulation, indicating threshold-level energy conditions.
Notably absent is chalk paste / soft chalk, suggesting dissolution dominated over redeposition.
4. Elevation Constraints and System Position
R4’s elevation markers are tightly constrained and informative:
Highest Flood Evidence:98.38 m OD
Highest Below Glacial Top:98.38 m OD
Highest Shell Evidence:94.31 m OD
Floodwater repeatedly reached just below 100 m OD, while shell evidence occurs several metres lower. This separation reflects energy and habitat stratification within the water body, not marginal flooding.
5. Zero-Depth Entries and Event Resolution
A total of 18 zero-depth entries are recorded.
In the context of high event density and substantial cumulative thickness, these represent frequent circulation or flushing phases within an already saturated environment. They reinforce, rather than weaken, the interpretation of near-continuous hydrological activity.
6. Interpretation Within the Stonehenge Bottom System
R4 occupies a biologically active interior shelf zone of the hydrological system.
Placed in vertical context:
P2 = deepest basin core
R12 = sustained saturation wall
P1 = upper interior basin
R9 = oscillatory interior transition
R8 = chemical dissolution core
R4 = organic-rich interior shelf (this borehole)
R158 / R20 = transport corridors
R22 = chemical circulation zone
P3 = intermittent upper reach
R21 = saturation ceiling
This position explains the dominance of organic material and solution features with limited transport energy.
7. Why R4 Matters
R4 demonstrates that biologically productive, chemically active water bodies extended well into the mid–upper elevations.
It records:
Persistent peat and organic accumulation
Extensive chalk dissolution
Repeated water reactivation
Significant stratigraphic modification
These signatures cannot be explained by:
Rainfall infiltration
Periglacial freeze–thaw
Soil processes
Short-lived floods
They require long-term water presence with ecological stability.
8. Closing Interpretation
SU14SW48 (R4) demonstrates that post-glacial water activity at Stonehenge Bottom was:
Biologically viable
Chemically transformative
Vertically extensive
Internally structured
This borehole is not peripheral.
It is a living shelf within the Stonehenge Bottom water system.
The borehole SU14SW91 (R132) represents one of the most internally saturated and hydrologically dominated records within the Stonehenge Bottom dataset, despite its comparatively shallow depth. With a ground level of 105.69 m OD and a borehole depth of just 16.00 m, this core captures an extreme expression of post-glacial water interaction in elevated chalk.
What makes R132 exceptional is not scale — but intensity and completeness.
1. Event Density and System Dominance
A total of 19 discrete bands are recorded, all water-related horizons.
At first glance this may appear modest compared to deeper cores, but the crucial point is proportional dominance:
96.69 % of the entire borehole is water-affected
Only one zero-depth entry is recorded
Average measured event size: 0.82 m — the largest mean event thickness in the Stonehenge Bottom dataset
This is not a record of frequent minor incursions. It is a record of long-lived, high-impact hydrological phases.
2. Cumulative Thickness vs Borehole Depth
The cumulative water-affected thickness is 15.50 m out of 16.00 m total depth.
That ratio is decisive.
At over 105 m OD, almost the entire subsurface column has been modified by water processes. In chalk terrain, this degree of penetration cannot be produced by:
surface runoff
periglacial wash
seasonal groundwater oscillation
It requires sustained saturation and repeated recharge, sufficient to restructure the chalk fabric itself.
3. Material Composition: Saturation-Led Regime
Unlike transport-dominated cores, R132 shows a dissolution-dominated hydrological signature.
Chalk Paste / Soft Chalk
8 bands
8.02 m thickness
This is the dominant component by thickness and unequivocal evidence of long-term chalk dissolution and re-precipitation, not mechanical erosion.
Flint Sand / Reworked Flint
8 bands
6.20 m thickness
Indicates in-situ breakdown and redistribution of flint under water-saturated conditions rather than energetic transport.
Minor Clastic Inputs
Pebbles / Gravel: 0.63 m
Sand / Silt / Marl: 0.65 m
Cobbles: absent
The near-absence of coarse material confirms that this was not a high-energy flow corridor, but a persistently wet chalk environment.
4. Absence of Organic and Void Signatures
Two absences matter here:
Organic staining / peat: 0.00 m
Solution voids: 0.00 m
This combination is critical.
It indicates:
continuous flushing rather than stagnant pooling
saturation without long-term organic accumulation
dissolution occurring within a dynamically active water column, not a sealed void system
In other words, water was present and moving, but not ponded.
5. Elevation Constraints
Three elevation markers tightly constrain the hydrological envelope:
Highest Flood Evidence: 102.69 m OD
Highest Below Glacial Top: 102.19 m OD
Highest Shell Evidence: N/A
The proximity of flood evidence to the glacial top marker confirms that water interaction occurred immediately beneath post-glacial surfaces, not as a later deep groundwater phenomenon.
Shell absence is expected in a low-energy saturation regime, and its absence here strengthens — not weakens — the interpretation.
6. Event Character and Temporal Behaviour
With:
the largest average event size in the dataset
almost total borehole saturation
minimal event fragmentation
R132 records fewer but longer-lasting hydrological phases compared to event-rich but thinner sequences such as R9 or R8.
This is the signature of prolonged high water tables, not episodic flooding.
7. Interpretation in the Wider System
R132 occupies a crucial position in the Stonehenge Bottom hydrological model:
R9 / R8 show high-frequency interaction
P1 / P2 show thick multi-phase flooding
R18 / R16 show deep saturation
R132 shows near-complete shallow saturation at elevation
Together, these define a vertically continuous post-glacial water system, extending from valley base to upper chalk.
8. Why This Borehole Matters
R132 is devastating to any model that relies on:
“dry chalk downland”
shallow, inactive vadose zones
purely localized water effects
At >105 m OD, the chalk was not only wet — it was reworked almost in its entirety.
That cannot be explained away.
9. Closing Interpretation
SU14SW91 (R132) demonstrates that post-glacial water activity at Stonehenge Bottom was:
vertically pervasive
long-duration
dissolution-driven
structurally transformative
This borehole does not represent an anomaly.
It represents the upper saturation limit of a coherent hydrological system.
And like the others, it fits — mathematically and physically — into a single, unified post-glacial water model.
The borehole SU14SW101 (R172) records an extreme, low-elevation saturation environment within the Stonehenge Bottom hydrological system. With a ground level of 76.48 m OD and a borehole depth of 30.10 m, it captures one of the most chemically dominated and volumetrically saturated sequences in the entire dataset.
This borehole represents the deepest and most persistent flooded expression of the system.
1. Event Density and Hydrological Behaviour
A total of 18 discrete water-related horizons are recorded.
As with R132, the significance lies not in event count but in event magnitude. The borehole is dominated by very thick individual phases, indicating long-lived water occupation rather than frequent oscillation.
The stratigraphy reflects few interruptions and long residence times.
2. Cumulative Thickness vs Borehole Depth
The cumulative thickness of water-affected material is 29.15 m, representing almost the entire borehole depth.
Only a negligible portion of the column shows any evidence of non-water modification. At this elevation, such dominance is impossible to explain through surface processes or groundwater fluctuation alone.
R172 was structurally submerged for most of its depositional history.
3. Material Composition – Deep Saturation and Dissolution Regime
The matrix is overwhelmingly dominated by chemical water–chalk interaction, with transport playing a secondary role.
Chalk Paste / Soft Chalk 8 bands | 18.45 m thickness This is the defining signal. Over eighteen metres of chalk paste indicates prolonged dissolution and redeposition under continuous saturation. This is incompatible with episodic flooding or periglacial activity.
Flint Sand / Reworked Flint 2 bands | 3.10 m thickness Substantial in-situ breakdown and redistribution of flint under water-saturated conditions.
Sand / Silt / Marl 1 band | 3.10 m thickness A major slack-water depositional phase, consistent with deep, low-energy water.
Pebbles / Gravel 4 bands | 3.80 m thickness
Cobbles 1 band | 0.70 m thickness Limited but present transport energy, likely during early or transitional flooding phases.
Notably absent are organic staining, shell accumulation, and solution void thickness, indicating deep, persistent water with limited biological productivity and minimal exposure.
4. Elevation Constraints and System Position
R172’s elevation markers are unambiguous:
Highest Flood Evidence:49.48 m OD
Highest Below Glacial Top:49.48 m OD
Highest Shell Evidence:N/A
This places R172 firmly within the deep basin core of the Stonehenge Bottom system. Shell absence is expected in such conditions and reinforces interpretation of depth and persistence rather than marginal flooding.
5. Zero-Depth Entries and Event Resolution
Only 1 zero-depth entry is recorded.
This confirms that nearly every hydrological phase produced measurable chemical or sedimentary modification, consistent with a permanently flooded environment.
6. Interpretation Within the Stonehenge Bottom System
R172 occupies the deepest saturation core of the entire system.
Placed in vertical context:
R172 = deepest basin core (this borehole)
P2 / R12 = basin interior saturation
P1 = upper interior basin
R9 / R4 = oscillatory and biological interior zones
R8 = chemical dissolution core
R132 = upper deep-saturation cap
R158 / R20 = transport corridors
R22 = circulation zone
P3 = intermittent upper reach
R21 = saturation ceiling
R172 anchors the lower boundary condition of the model.
7. Why R172 Matters
R172 closes the system mathematically and physically.
It demonstrates that:
The lowest elevations were persistently submerged
Chalk dissolution operated at scale
Water depth and residence time were extreme
Dry-land interpretations are untenable at system scale
This borehole removes any remaining argument that the Stonehenge Bottom sequence represents isolated wet patches.
8. Closing Interpretation
SU14SW101 (R172) demonstrates that post-glacial water activity at Stonehenge Bottom was:
Deep
Persistent
Chemically transformative
Vertically continuous from basin floor to saturation ceiling
This borehole is not just evidence.
It is the foundation of the entire hydrological model.
CONTROL BOREHOLES – RX508A, RX507 and RX510A
We introduced a control.
Borehole RX510A, RX508A, and RX507, drilled on high ground between Stonehenge and Woodhenge, approximately 1.5 km from Stonehenge Bottom, provide a clean baseline against which all valley-floor boreholes can be tested.
And the result is unambiguous.
RX510A shows a thin surface veneer, followed by structurally intact white chalk from ~4.5 m depth downward, continuing monotonously with no stacked gravel, no shell horizons, no marl bands, no chalk paste, no void systems, and no repeated reworking. In short: exactly what dry, stable chalk on an interfluve should look like.
This matters because the accusation has never been that “chalk exists” or that “chalk can be intact”. Everyone agrees on that.
The real question has always been spatial: where is chalk intact, and where is it not?
Valley-floor boreholes at Stonehenge Bottom show a very different signature: repeated gravel and cobble horizons, shell material, marl and silt bands, chalk paste and softening, voids and solution features, and—critically—these features are stacked vertically, not confined to a single horizon.
RX510A demonstrates that these features are not regional, not universal, and not an artefact of logging practice. They are absent on nearby high ground drilled by the same industry, to the same standards, in the same project corridor.
That single fact destroys the claim that the Stonehenge Bottom record is a “misreading of chalk”.
If periglacial freeze–thaw alone were responsible, we would expect comparable disruption on exposed highs. We do not see it. If chalk weathering were purely inherited from deep geological time, we would expect continuity across topography. We do not see it.
If the illustrations were “fantasy”, a control borehole would contradict them. It does not — it validates them.
What RX510A actually shows is something far more uncomfortable for traditional narratives: Water-affected chalk is spatially constrained, intensifying toward the valley floor and diminishing rapidly toward the ridges.
That is not an interpretation.
That is geometry, repetition, and measurement.
This is also why the recent mathematical cross-section analysis matters. Once water-affected thickness is quantified rather than described, subjectivity largely disappears. Descriptions can be debated; percentages and cumulative thickness cannot.
The irony here is hard to miss. Critics argue that these illustrations “bear no resemblance to reality” — yet when presented with a borehole that does match their expectation of chalk reality, it ends up strengthening the case they are trying to dismiss.
RX510A is not a problem for the Stonehenge Bottom hypothesis.
It is the control that proves it.
The blog already publishes full line-by-line borehole descriptions for anyone who wants to check the data themselves. No one is being asked to take this on trust.
This is what scrutiny actually looks like.
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 for governmental realms and grand corporate bastions, a tapestry spanning British Telecommunications, Cable and Wireless, British Gas, and the esteemed University of London.
A decade hence, Robert’s transition into retirement unfurled a chapter of insatiable curiosity. This phase saw him immerse himself in Politics, Archaeology, Philosophy, and the enigmatic realm of Quantum Mechanics. His academic odyssey traversed the venerable corridors of knowledge hubs such as the Museum of London, University College London, Birkbeck College, The City Literature Institute, and Chichester University.
In the symphony of his life, Robert is a custodian of three progeny and a pair of cherished grandchildren. His sanctuary lies ensconced in the embrace of West Wales, where he inhabits an isolated cottage, its windows framing a vista of the boundless sea – a retreat from the 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 also receive a re-evaluation based on LiDAR analysis in my posts Lidar Investigation Cissbury Ring through timeand 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. 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
For those interested in British Prehistory, visit www.prehistoric-britain.co.uk, a comprehensive resource featuring an extensive collection of archaeology articles, modern LiDAR investigations, and groundbreaking research. The site also includes insights and excerpts from the acclaimed Robert John Langdon Trilogy, a series of books that explore Britain during the Prehistoric period. Titles in the trilogy include The Stonehenge Enigma, Dawn of the Lost Civilisation, and The Post-Glacial Flooding Hypothesis, which offer compelling evidence of ancient landscapes shaped by post-glacial flooding.
To further explore these topics, Robert John Langdon has developed a dedicated YouTube channel featuring over 100 video documentaries and investigations that complement the trilogy. Notable discoveries and studies showcased on the channel include 13 Things that Don’t Make Sense in History and the revelation of Silbury Avenue – The Lost Stone Avenue, a rediscovered prehistoric feature at Avebury, Wiltshire.
In addition to his main works, Langdon has released a series of shorter, accessible publications, ideal for readers delving into specific topics. These include:
For active discussions and updates on the trilogy’s findings and recent LiDAR investigations, join our vibrant community on Facebook. Engage with like-minded enthusiasts by leaving a message or contributing to debates in our Facebook Group.
Whether through the books, the website, or interactive videos, we aim to provide a deeper understanding of Britain’s fascinating prehistoric past. We encourage you to explore these resources and uncover the mysteries of ancient landscapes through the lens of modern archaeology.
For more information, including chapter extracts and related publications, visit the Robert John Langdon Author Page. Dive into works such as The Stonehenge Enigma or Dawn of the Lost Civilisation, and explore cutting-edge theories that challenge traditional historical narratives.
