The Stonehenge Enigma (Prehistoric Britain Book 1)

by Langdon, Robert John

  The positioning of long barrows clearly indicates that they were built at the shorelines of prehistoric rives, because the traditional paths from existing rivers indicate that the processional causeways would have either passed higher ground or overshot the brow of the hill.

  They were, therefore, not ditches but moats.

  The raised groundwater levels will also give you an indication of how the gigantic rocks, weighing over 5 tonnes, got to the top of these hills, as the shoreline at West Kennet was only 50 metres down the track from where the Long Barrow is today. Moreover, when you add the increased groundwater level to this site, the monument takes on a new perspective, for it is in the shape of a ‘longboat’ and, therefore, the moat that surrounds it represents the water.

  The Long Barrow represents the boat culture of this ancient society; they lived in boats and so, when they died, they were sent on their last voyage by boat to the afterlife. Even today, we still have a custom of placing money over a dead person’s eyes as their fare to be collected by the ferryman. Consequently, this also gives us a fantastic insight into the design of the boats used in this period. This boat looks more like a barge than a canoe, with the back end (the stern) being where they steered the craft with a rudder, which means they used sails, not paddles, for power.

  Moreover, a sailed boat would have a greater range than a canoe, which is made only for short distances. The boat’s front was built at an angle, not flat; this is a design meant for manoeuvrability, speed and distance, clearly indicating the ancestors’ knowledge of engineering.

  Consequently, this was NOT a primitive society!

  The alignment of the eight Long Barrows that surround Stonehenge

  The other noteworthy aspect of the Long Barrow is the construction of the end (stern) of the ‘boat’. At West Kennet and other Long Barrows, giant megaliths were used to highlight the entrance to the chambers. They are not necessary to the construction, but they are visible from a couple of miles away. Long Barrows, when first constructed, would have been covered not with grass as today, but with the sub-soil that came from the ditch surrounding the barrow. In the case of West Kennet, it would have been bright white chalk. The most remarkable aspect of Long Barrows is that they have been positioned to present a lengthways ‘side view’ to the river, so as to be seen clearly from the waterways our hypothesis describes.

  We have investigated the eight existing Long Barrows that surround Stonehenge and its sister sites, and found that each one points in a different direction as measured by a compass, but all are aligned to the exact contours of the predicted shoreline. Moreover, not only are these ‘markers’ visible for miles in daylight, but because they are pure white, they can be seen on nights when there is moonshine. Therefore, we can conclude that this society travelled on a 24/7 basis.

  We can now also understand why they placed large Mesolithic stones in the stern of the Long Barrow. This would indicate the direction a boat should take if there was a split in the estuary or navigate back from the destination. We have found that the stern stones on all the long barrow boats from Stonehenge to Avebury all point in the direction of Stonehenge.

  Proof of Hypothesis No. 29

  The eight long barrows that surround Stonehenge were deliberately positioned parallel to the shoreline of the waterways, at no particular compass orientation. Their ‘sterns’ were deliberately constructed to be seen from a distance, to act as a direction indicator.

  Round Barrows

  In our examination of Long Barrows, we have discovered that this civilisation traded heavily with other civilisations, tribes, clans or groups within prehistoric Britain and beyond. Herefordshire businessman Alfred Watkins was sitting in his car one summer afternoon, during a visit to Blackwardine in Herefordshire in 1921, when he happened to consult a local map and noticed that a number of prehistoric and other ancient sites in the area fell into alignments. Subsequent field and map work convinced him that this pattern was indeed a real one. Watkins came to the conclusion that he was seeing the vestigial traces of old straight tracks laid down in the Neolithic Period, probably, he surmised, for traders’ routes. He concluded that after modernisation in the later Bronze and Iron Age periods, the tracks had fallen into disuse during the early historic period. The pattern had been accidentally preserved here and there due to the Christianisation of certain pagan sites that were markers along the old straight tracks. He published these theories in two books.

  Reaction to Watkins’ book ‘The Old Straight Track’ was sharply divided. Many thought he had uncovered a long-forgotten secret within the landscape, and The Straight Track Club was formed to carry out further “ley hunting”, while orthodox archaeologists vehemently dismissed the whole notion. And with a few notable exceptions, this situation still exists today. Later in this section we will show that Watkins was right; not only do these tracks actually exist, but there are two kinds of track. First, the older Long Barrows were markers based on islands and peninsulas within the river routes to known sites; then, after the groundwater subsided, Round Barrows were used for overland routes.

  Round Barrow path from Stonehenge to Quarterley Hill

  Round Barrow path shwing heights of the barrows

  When the groundwater subsided after the Neolithic Period, our ancestors needed a further navigational aid to allow them to find the location over land rather than by river as in the past. These markers are known today as Round Barrows and they are consequently, more frequent than Long Barrows because dense foliage makes the line of sight shorter for someone on foot than for someone taking the same route by boat and secondly, there are more routes by foot, than by river to navigate.

  The incorrectly conceived aspect of Watkins land markers is that they did not run in straight lines, but to the highest ground. This was because the lower ground that had been flooded in the Mesolithic period would still be boggy and wet in some seasons, and therefore impassable. So these tracks are straight, but not ruler-straight as Watkins first believed.

  One of the closest sites to Stonehenge is Quarley Hill to the east, the path between these two sites passes 13 barrows in a 15 km distance. If you stand on top of one of these barrows, you can see the next one in line very clearly. You must also take into consideration that nearly half the barrows have been ploughed out by farmers, and that the mounds would have been at least 30% larger and pure white in colour at time of construction. Even so, they can still be seen as path markers today in some areas, 5,000 years later.

  It is almost impossible to know what information would have greeted a walker in the Neolithic when he reached a Round Barrow, but we still have milestones surviving today and I believe, this is clearly their ancient original form. One can only imagine that somehow the barrow, like a milestone, would give an indication of the distance to be travelled. It should also be noted that the burials within these Round Barrows were placed in them at a later date, which would explain why these barrows do not contain burials, and why at others the dead were buried in strange corners of the barrow and not at the centre as an afterthought.

  Pond Barrows

  Now we have established the use of the majority of prehistoric barrows by our ancestors, we can look at the ‘other’ barrows catalogued by archaeologists, to see what function they had in helping our ancestors navigate from town to town in prehistoric days. Pond barrows’ shape is just as described: ‘pond-like’. And it doesn’t take a genius, now that we have proved that groundwater tables were higher in the past than today, to identify what these structures were – artificial ponds.

  Water, in any civilisation, is critical to survival. Our ancestors were no exception, so when they travelled on foot to other towns or sites, the provision of water was essential. Most pond barrows have the centre dug out, which would have tapped into the groundwater course; this would allow the pond to flood, depending on the tide levels. This tradition continues into modern days by the use of dew ponds, which are of the same size and shape, but relied more on rain water to fill t
he pond.

  Other Barrows

  These barrows are lost, in disrepair, or they are copies from an age after the original barrow builders had left or died.

  Section Three: The Landscape Evidence

  The most compelling evidence for my hypothesis - that prehistoric monuments were built around a flooded environment - can be seen within a detailed topological inspection of ancient sites. The landscape layout of these monuments clearly shows that their entrances and mooring areas were oriented to the shoreline contours of their surroundings. At first glance, due to the considerable age of these monuments, it is difficult to see how the landscape originally looked and this is the reason why archaeologists have obviously overlooked the possibility in the past.

  However, like jigsaw puzzles, once you have assembled the end pieces and the borders, the picture becomes much easier to understand, and this is the case with our most ancient sites: Stonehenge, Avebury, Old Sarum and Woodhenge. The most effective method we have found for locating this evidence is to look at the profiles of these sites, and then their position relative to the landscape. By doing so, ghosts of the original landscape can be found in the contours that have changed little in the last 10,000 years.

  Our research has shown that Stonehenge was not the only monument in this area of the landscape to be affected by the rise in groundwater tables. Three other sites in the general vicinity were similarly affected, all of which indicates that these sites were socially connected by the waterways that once flowed through the area. Consequently, in this section we shall concentrate in detail on these four sites, to allow us to get the best picture on how this civilisation organised itself in this area. It should be remembered that although we are illustrating how the higher groundwater tables affected the Salisbury Plain area, all parts of Britain would have been equally affected. This will allow future investigations to find even more evidence to support our hypothesis.

  Chapter 13 – The Stonehenge Landscape (Case Study No.1)

  Looking at the most important prehistoric site in the UK, Stonehenge, we are asked by archaeologists to consider that it is an astronomical calendar showing the rising and setting of the Sun, Moon, etc. This assumption may be partially correct, but why would you place the site halfway up a valley? If you wish to study the stars, or watch the sun rise and fall, with any great accuracy, you will need to locate your site at the highest point available. So why was Stonehenge built where it is, rather than at the top of the hill just 500 metres away that is 30 metres higher?

  As there is no observational advantage to placing the site in this location, we must therefore look at how it was constructed, as this may give us a clue.

  If we look at a standard Ordnance Survey (OS) map of Stonehenge, it indicates the landscape and topology of the surrounding area by showing the contours of the hillsides. But it does not give you a clear idea of how Stonehenge actually sits in the landscape; for that we need to look at a profile of the area. As we have already shown, we believe that Stonehenge was built on the shoreline of a vast river complex. If we can see evidence of this river complex on the elevation map, and consequently find Stonehenge is sited on the side of a empty ‘Dry River Valley’ on its shoreline, we will have yet another proof of our hypothesis.

  Stonehenge SW to NE Profile

  The first thing you will notice from an elevation map is that Stonehenge is located about two-thirds of the way up the hill upon which it’s built. If the archaeologists are correct in their assumption, that it was primarily an astronomical calendar, why wasn’t it built on top of the hill just 500 metres away? Especially considering that the builders took the trouble to get stones from 250 miles away in Wales, why would they stop short of the best position?

  Clearly, the monument’s main purpose was not astronomical; or, if it was, there must have been an even better reason for the site’s placement within the landscape! Our hypothesis indicates that the groundwater tables during the Mesolithic construction period would have filled the dry river valley with groundwater 30 m above the existing groundwater table – when this happens, the profile changes dramatically.

  Proof of Hypothesis No.30

  The elevation data shows that Stonehenge was placed three-quarters of the way up a hill, which matches the predicted Mesolithic water tables.

  And so suddenly, the impossible becomes possible, the implausible becomes credible, for these profiles can only indicate one fact – Stonehenge was built on the side of a hill surrounded by water!

  SE to NW Profile

  These amazing features are not just found on a single side of the monument; we can go around the whole circle to see these watery features. I believe these profiles tell the entire story of Stonehenge. A picture is said to paint a thousand words; these pictures show that our most famous ancient monument was once a magnificent feature in the landscape on the edge of a peninsula, surrounded by water. Now that we have proved that water existed at the Stonehenge site during Mesolithic and Neolithic times, we can re-sequence the events and building phases by putting together the clues and proofs discussed in the preceding geological and archaeological sections. This will also allow us to place all the information we have gathered into a logical sequence of events.

  SSW to NNE profile

  We have split the history of Stonehenge into four separate phases; most of the construction of Stonehenge happened gradually over the years. We know from our own experience of old houses that they start as a specified building, and change with time to become something quite different to their original use – hence all the new pub churches! This is the case with Stonehenge. This will also give us an opportunity to summarise what we have learnt to date about this site.

  PHASE I Construction – 8500 BCE to 7000 BCE

  Moat

  As we have shown in previous sections, the first phase of Stonehenge was the construction of the moat, which was originally built as individual pits or baths with internal walls, rather than a continuous deep ditch around the edge of the site. We imagine that these pits had either a large bluestone on the floor of the pit, or chips of bluestone added like bath salts, to obtain the full benefit of the waters.

  The groundwater would have flowed in and out of the pits, as they were below the Mesolithic groundwater table. This flow of water in and out of the baths was dictated by the moon, and was understood by prehistoric man. No doubt this would have added to their sense of wonderment, and made the site even more magical than it appears today. As a testament to the power of the moon, and to help them predict its movements and, therefore, the daily and seasonal tides, the builders dug 56 holes, which we now call Aubrey Holes in honour of their discoverer. They also sent to the Preseli Mountains in Wales for a supply of bluestone megaliths.

  Bluestones – Aubrey Holes

  Bluestones were brought by wooden barges the short distance (just 82 miles) from the Preseli Hills in Southern Wales. The higher groundwater levels would have allowed the transportation of the bluestones via a more direct route compared to the current theories that the bluestones were brought by boats sailing around South West Britain, or were dragged overland for hundreds of miles through forest (which would have been impossible, requiring levels of manpower greater than the estimated population of Britain at that time).

  In the Mesolithic - bring the Bluestones to Stonehenge was a direct route

  Moreover, both these sites would have been on the shorelines of an aquatic forest that covered Britain, and therefore wood for transportation by boat/floater would be plentiful. Prof. Richard Atkinson (Stonehenge , Penguin Books, 1956.) provides an example of how the 7 ton unfinished Altar Stone could be floated on a log boat made of pine with a density in the region of 35 lb/ft3 (560 kg/m3). He calculates that a raft of some 700 cubic feet (20 cu. metres) could carry the stone along with a crew of 12 average men. Such boats do not tend to survive the ravages of time, although an example of this type of boat was found in Derbyshire in 1998, which was dated to circa 1300 BCE. It was 11 m (36 ft) long,
capable of carrying 4 tons (the weight of a Stonehenge bluestone). If you lashed two or more boats together, you could carry much heavier stones.

  An even easier option is to strap sufficient wood to the stone that it becomes buoyant. The same Altar Stone could be floated with just 10 cubic metres of pine – half as much as the boat – if the wood was simply lashed to the stone. This could then be dragged behind two smaller crewed boats for guidance. The stones, when cut, would be brought down to the shore via a ‘log rail’ that used levers to move the stones. Once the stones were deposited at the shore at low tide, logs would be attached to the top and bottom of each stone. As the tide came in, the stone would float on its wooden raft. Men could then stand and punt the stone down river, avoiding rocks and sandbanks.