If so, why were they left as inconsistent, variable standing stones – different sizes, different shapes?
We are aware that the larger Sarsen Stones were dressed on the inner side of the stone circle, as the flake marks are still visible - but no evidence to date that the bluestones also were dressed.
Given that archaeologists believe that the Bluestone chips exist only because of the re-working by our ancestors and they are the results of souvenir hunters, it would be interesting to compare their number (3600) to the number of chippings discovered from the softer, easier to break, more famous and more plentiful Sarsen Stones, which we know were re-worked.
You would think, proportionately, there would be approximately the same amount of chippings from each type of stone. Well, only 2170 Sarsen Stone pieces have been found despite there being over nine times more Sarsen Stones than Bluestones (251 cubic metres of Sarsen Stones v 28 metric metres of Bluestones).
So, assuming that there would have been a similar level of interest in Blue and Sarsen Stones by souvenir hunters, and a similar amount of re-working of the stones by our ancestors, you would expect to find at least 30,000 Sarsen Stone fragments, but as already shown a paltry 2170 have been discovered. Or if 2170 Sarsen stones pieces was the norm for both re-working and souvenir hunters - there should be only have been 240 bluestone fragments found not the 3600.
I can therefore very confidently conclude that the Bluestones were deliberately broken up to be used in the moat. Our ancestors are likely to have believed that once the outside covering of the Bluestones had been thoroughly exhausted, the beneficial properties would be diminished and so they were abandoned.
Proof of Hypothesis No. 16
The extensive number of Bluestone chippings, in proportion to Sarsen Stone chippings leaves us to concluded that the Bluestones were deliberately broken up to be used in bathing within the moat.
The concept of prehistoric man bathing away his ills may seem farcical to some, but throughout history it has been shown that mankind has been attracted to this type of treatment. It became commonplace in Britain during the Roman Empire some 2,000 years ago when every large villa had its own spa. So is it really a giant leap to imagine that the origin of such activities could have been introduced at an early period?
When in the Bronze Age the moat at Stonehenge had eventually dried up and could no longer be used as a spa, these smaller Bluestones were abandoned and became scattered throughout the site. The larger Bluestones at the bottom of the dried moat were probably removed to the stone circle, explaining the huge variation in shapes and sizes of stone that we see at the Stonehenge monument today.
But what could be cured with this process?
Many of the diseases and illness of today did not exist in prehistoric times, the weak and deformed would probably die at childbirth and the mortality rate of children was probably high. So only the strong would normally live to an age where bathing was necessary - but what would be the common ailments that this process could cure?
The commonest form of death in prehistoric times would be infections from either injuries or simple cuts that are infected. We have cupboards full of antiseptics, but they did not. We will see later in the book this civilisation attempted with success surgery including amputation of limbs. The only way to survive such procedures will be to use antiseptic, and the best is rock salt.
As strange as this sounds, salt water is a highly effective antibiotic. Apart from organisms evolved to live in salty water, it is highly lethal to a large variety of common microbes. Next time you need to treat a sore throat, try gargling twice a day with a solution made from a teaspoon of common table salt dissolved in 300ml of lukewarm water. You will be amazed at the efficacy of this basic treatment. It goes without saying that salt water can be used as a topical treatment for other bacterial infections - just apply to the affected part for a few minutes at least twice a day.14
Chapter 8 – Bluestones from far away
The most compelling evidence of the rise in water tables during the prehistoric period can be found in the car park of Stonehenge. Ignored by visitors who casually park their cars in the car park, three giant circles - similar to mini roundabouts - are painted on the floor. These painted circles show where post holes were discovered when the car park was constructed, and each measure approximately 1 metre in diameter. Interestingly, and rather ironically, the reason the car park was constructed at its current location as that archaeologists believed that area had no historical relevance –which is far from the truth.
Traditional archaeology describes the posts that would have been placed in these post holes as ‘totem poles’. If this were true, however, why would Mesolithic Man have struggled with using huge trees, approximately 1 metre wide, for the simple purpose of erecting ritual ‘totem poles’. As our ancestors only possessed flint axes and fire, it would seem more plausible that small trees would have been utilised to create these ‘totem poles’, rather than the giant metre wide variety as totem poles were used in North America to mark tribal territories.
If these were markers or religious symbols, would not the builders place them in a position of prominence on top of the valley?
The car park is 10m lower than the Stonehenge site and recent radiocarbon dating by Darvill and Wainwright’s excavations in 2008, have confirmed from charcoal remains that the area on which the Stonehenge monument is situated was in use by 7200 BCE and this was confirmed a couple of years later by a team from the Open University who found an OX tooth eaten at a ‘feast’ that was dated also during the 7th millennium BCE at 6250 BCE, emphasising that is area of Stonehenge was used for other purposes, rather than an isolated site with marker posts.
If my hypothesis is correct, these post holes housed posts which had no ritual connotations, as associated with ‘totem poles’, but were in fact functional mooring posts for boats. They were utilised for unloading cargo, and moreover, they could be used as simple lifting devices, created by placing a similar sized cross beam across their top, through use of a simple mortise joints, as we see clearly on Stonehenge lintels.
This lifting device could have been used to raise stones from boats during high tide by simply tying the stones to the cross beams. As the tide receded, the boat holding the stone would naturally lower in the water, lifting the stone ‘like magic’ into the air. This is the first example of a hydraulic lift, which shows the level of sophistication in our ancestors thinking. The stone could then be lowered to either a sledge or rollers placed under the cross beam for the 50m journey to the top of the hill.
NB. At the time of print of this second edition, this process has been recreated by the Discovery Channel in the UK at Poppit Sands, in Cardigan, West Wales for a film to be shown in 2013.
Proof of Hypothesis No. 17
The post holes in the Stonehenge car park are approximately 1m in diameter and dug in a line, would reflect a shoreline, if the water table was higher. The only reason to construct post holes is to bear weight from above to allow the mass to dissipate within the hole. This proves that the holes were used as mooring stations with a cross piece being used as an ancient crane.
My hypothesis allows us to now construct a map of Britain during Mesolithic times. Taking for granted that Britain consisted of a series of smaller islands and large waterways. Therefore, a more direct path existed from the Preseli Mountains in Wales to the shores of Stonehenge.
Archaeologists have always calculated that in order to obtain the Bluestones, our ancestors had taken a very long and dangerous boat trip around the coast of South West Britain to an outlet in the South that allowed boats to travel up the River Avon or to the banks of Somerset in the North, and had then dragged the stones some 50 miles South, to their resting place in Salisbury Plain.
Clearly my hypothesis now enables us to understand how they could have easily travelled on the direct water route between South Wales and Somerset to bring these stones to Stonehenge and how easy it was for them using tidal hydraul
ics to place these stones carefully on to boats for the journey. To confirm our theory, another post hole was found in an extended part of the visitors’ centre in 1989 by the company, Wessex Archaeology. The dating of this post hole proves the 1966 dates to be accurate.
But before we look at this date a more important point should be made about Stonehenge, archaeology and the science of ignorance, as the findings of this book have been available to anyone with an enquiring mind to find. Yet the establishment maintains a false story of our ancient history and this can be seen by its traditional and out dated conventions of dating sites. To illustrate this let’s look at what happened when these post holes were found and how the establishment has and still is trying to resist change.
Proof of Hypothesis No. 18
The increased water tables in Mesolithic Britain would have made it a far easier task to move the Bluestones by boat, via a direct water route from the Preseli Mountains in Wales.
CASE STUDY - An inconvenient truth
In 1935 a car park was created to the north of the A344 road from Amesbury to Devizes, some 100m north-west of Stonehenge, so that visitors’ cars would not hinder traffic. Although the area stripped of turf and soil was examined by W.E.V. Young, an experienced excavator who worked with Alexander Keiller at Avebury, no features were found. The car park was later doubled in size but as the experts assumed that no activity would be in that area, there was no record of archaeological work undertaken.
Q. Why did Young not notice four, one metre post holes - not exactly small are they?
Q. If four massive features were ‚missed’ what other features were ‚overlooked’ or destroyed?
Q. If W.E.V. Young was just a 'poor’ archaeologist, why did he become the curator of the Avebury Museum?
However, in 1966 when it was again extended (so that it was by this time four times the size of the original), a series of circular features cut into the chalk bedrock, and set roughly in line, were observed. Excavation was undertaken by Faith Vatcher, at that time the much-respected curator of the Avebury Museum, with her husband Major Lance Vatcher.
They discovered that three of the features were substantial post-holes cut into the ground, while a fourth was the place where a tree had once stood. Whereas tree-throws are commonly found on the chalk of this area, these pits were more unusual. There is no record of whether the area where the new visitor facilities were to be placed was investigated by the Vatchers. However, when these facilities were also enlarged in 1988, a fourth post hole was discovered.
Ronald Hutton (in ‚Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles’ 1991) mentions that neither Stonehenge nor Mesolithic experts took much interest in the discovery, maybe because it didn’t fit into their ideas of how things had been in the area. This is probably why after taken samples of the Post holes the samples were sealed up and sent into an achieve without being carbon dated to verify the Late Neolithic date they suggested in the report.
Q. Why did Vatchers not send away the samples for carbon dating?
Q. If the fourth pit was a tree hole and this area was a forest, where are the others in the car park?
Q. If they found three pits in a row, why did they not follow the line and find the post hole found in 1988?
These were skilled archaeologists that went on to further their career excavating other sites, writing books and lecturing. The mystery of the post-holes would have remained hidden away if it was not for the enquiring mind of a graduate Susan Limbrey, who realised that Pine wood would not be growing in the Boreal Period of Stonehenge. At that point in 1975 two of the three carbon samples were carbon dated.
Pit A HAR-455 9130+/-180 BP corrected to 8820BCE to 7730BCE
Pit B HAR-456 8090+/-140 BP corrected to 7480BCE to 6590BCE
Q. When they found the wood was Pine, why did they not know that Pine only grew in this area in the Mesolithic?
Q. Why were only 2 of the 3 samples carbon dated?
Q. Once the date was verified why was the car park not closed and dug up to see what else was missed?
Thirteen Years later a fourth post hole was discovered by Martin Trott, a young graduate of Southampton University who at the time was working for Wessex Archaeology (later he joined the Inland Revenue.) The four pits were all roughly circular, 1.3m to 1.9m in diameter, and 1.3m to 1.5m deep, and appear once to have held substantial posts c.0.75m in diameter. Unlike the Vatcher’s pits, Trott’s was found to have been re-cut at a much later stage and subsequently deliberately back filled.
Q. Did the other three pits have this detail and was not accurately reported?
Only a few undiagnosed flint flakes and other remains were incorporated into the fill of the pits. However, charcoal from the fills was found to be solely from pine trees. More surprisingly, radiocarbon dates obtained from this charcoal suggest that the pits had been dug between 8090BCE to 7090BCE.
Post Hole 9580 QxA-4220 8400+/- 100 BP corrected to 7580-7090BCE
QxA-4219 8520+/- 80 BP corrected to 7700-7420BCE
GU-5109 8880+/- 80 BP corrected to 8090-7690BCE
Q. As this find would verify the astonishing finds of the 1960’s, why was a junior member of the archaeology community responsible for the excavation?
Q. This post hole was used for over 400 years, so where is the evidence of settlements (houses) in this area?
Q. To cut down a tree then dig a hole then stand the post upright using stone tools would have taken weeks - where are the camp fires and stone tool flints from sharpening the axes?
According to the book - Stonehenge in its landscape; Snail shells and pollen grains preserved in the fill suggest that the pits were cut in woodland. Taken together, the disposition of soil layers within the pits, the pine charcoal, radiocarbon dates and snail shells provide sound evidence that during the Early Mesolithic a group of people erected stout pine posts in the middle of a mature pine and hazel (Boreal) woodland.... „They are likely to be individual uprights, perhaps reminiscent of those American Indian (totem poles)”(Cleal et al 1995, 43-56).
Although Mesolithic sites normally produce evidence for light structures, such as shelters, huts or hearths, the lack of these features in the Stonehenge Car Park is without parallel.
Q. American Indian ‚totem poles’ are placed on a plain so they can be seen from a distance - why were they buried in a forest?
Q. Why place the ‚totem poles’ in a valley when there is high ground just 50 metres away?
And if we use the average date for the construction of these post holes the frequency and alignment just makes the current explanation of these features a complete nonsense. The ‚experts’ would have you believe that: Post A would be planted in about 8275BCE - then some 385 years later they planted WA 9580 (75 metres away), returning 855 years later Post B is then planted next to Post A in an alignment with Post C (who’s date may never be known), leaving no trace of occupancy as this is a traditional hunter-gather ceremonial meeting spot.
Q. Pine is softwood and would rot in less than 25 years, how did they know where to plant the second, third and forth post?
Q. If they kept coming back year after year to the same spot, why is there no evidence in the car park unlike other sites?
Q. As the post had rotted, why cut a new hole, why not use the old hole?
The 'experts’ would have you believe that the same type of hunter-gathers returned to the same spot some 4,000 years later (as the post holes are not dated beyond 7000BCE) by complete chance (as all the totem poles had rotted away) to build the first phase of Stonehenge!!
Clearly this version of events just does not stand up to scrutiny. The history of the site including the original discovery shows that an attempt has been made to ‚brush the evidence under the carpet’ or to dismiss the findings as superficial to the story of Stonehenge, as any other conclusion will embarrass the ‚experts’ and English Heritable that has spend so much time and money convincing the public that they known exactly what happened in prehistoric times at Stoneh
enge.
The one thousand year variation in dates could be due to the posts being replaced as ‘the mooring station’ over a period of time. Of course, this would have varied from post to post depending on wear and tear and only fragments of the very final post in each hold would have remained - hence explaining the variation of dates.
Proof of Hypothesis No. 19
The post holes found in the car park at Stonehenge have been dated between 8500 BCE to 7500 BCE. These holes lay on the exact position and height of the prehistoric low tide shoreline. This not only proves existence of water but also proves the date of Stonehenge’s first construction.
The Stonehenge Enigma (Prehistoric Britain Book 1) Page 9
