The Stonehenge Hoax – Stonehenge’s Location

June 13, 2026 Trebor2510

Contents

1 Conundrum 9 – Stonehenge’s Location
- - 1.0.1 The Problem
  - 1.0.2 The Solution
2 The Enigmatic Location of Stonehenge
3 Borehole data that supports a Flooded Stonehenge Bottom
4 Video
- 4.1 Synopsys
5 The Book
6 Biography
- 6.1 Exploring Prehistoric Britain: A Journey Through Time
- 6.2 Further Reading
7 Other Blogs

Conundrum 9 – Stonehenge’s Location

The Problem

Archaeologists fail to mention, in their many publications and documentaries, the mystery of Stonehenge’s location in the landscape. One would imagine that such a massive undertaking and monument would be placed in the most prominent position in the landscape, such as atop a hill. The elevated position would help showcase its magnificence and support its astronomical function, as it would be clear of trees and foliage, which it currently encounters during times such as the Solstice celebrations.

The Solution

Looking at the most important prehistoric site in Britain, 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 in an area where trees would obscure your view? If you wish to study the sunrise and sunset with any great accuracy, would you not choose a site at the highest available point?

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 – especially considering that the builders took the trouble to get stones from 200 miles away in Wales, for what possible reason would they stop short of obtaining the best setting?

As there is no observational advantage to placing the site here, we must conclude that access to the area was paramount. If we look at a standard Ordnance Survey (OS) map of Stonehenge, it outlines 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 sits in the landscape; for that, we need to look at a profile of the area. (The Stonehenge Hoax – Stonehenge’s Location)

Profile of Stonehenge (east to west) and the Palaeochannel that it sits beside – (The Stonehenge Hoax – Stonehenge’s Location)

Amazingly, these profiles of Stonehenge show that it was built on the shoreline of a vast river complex. We can see this evidence on any elevation map, where we find that Stonehenge is sited halfway up a ‘Dry River Valley’ (Palaeochannel) known as ‘Stonehenge Bottom’.

Stonehenge with the River Avon as it would have looked in 8000 BCE – (The Stonehenge Hoax – Stonehenge’s Location)

My Post-Glacial Flooding Hypothesis and case study on the River Avon indicate that groundwater tables during the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods were as high as river terrace T9 (Egberts et al., 2019), at 100m. This would mean that the river Avon would have filled the dry river valley with groundwater to a depth of 30m above the existing groundwater table – when this happens, the profile changes dramatically.

Avon River Terraces – (The Stonehenge Hoax – Stonehenge’s Location)

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

Profiles of Stonehenge in the Landscape North to South and NW to SE – (The Stonehenge Hoax – Stonehenge’s Location)

These remarkable features are not found on a single side of the monument; we can see them around the entire circumference. I believe these profiles tell the entire story of Stonehenge. A picture is said to be worth a thousand words; these pictures show that our most famous ancient monument was once a magnificent feature of the landscape on the edge of a peninsula, surrounded by water. Now that we have shown that water existed at the Stonehenge site during the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods, we can resequence the events and building phases.

LiDAR Map of Stonehenge Bottom showing Dry River Valley – (The Stonehenge Hoax – Stonehenge’s Location)

How Stonehenge would have looked in the Mesolithic period – (The Stonehenge Hoax – Stonehenge’s Location)

** End of Extract **

The Enigmatic Location of Stonehenge

Positioned atop a chalk plateau, Stonehenge’s location is not merely a matter of chance. The monument is situated near a dry river valley known as Stonehenge Bottom. In the Mesolithic era, this valley was not dry but featured an active tributary fed by natural springs that flowed south to the River Avon.

(The Stonehenge Hoax - Stonehenge's Location) — Mesolithic Stonehenge’s water levels – (The Stonehenge Hoax – Stonehenge’s Location)

This proximity to water sources likely influenced the builders’ choice of location, providing both practical resources and possible ceremonial significance.

Stonehenge Bottom: A Historical Junction

Stonehenge Bottom, also referred to as Stonehenge Fork, is a deeply incised valley that predates the monument itself. Historically, it served as a significant road junction, which some suggest may have influenced the builders’ decision to construct Stonehenge at this particular site.

Archaeological Oversights

The complex interplay of natural and man-made features around Stonehenge has occasionally led to archaeological oversights. The presence of Stonehenge Bottom, with its historical significance and changing environmental conditions, may have obscured certain archaeological features, leading to misinterpretations or missed discoveries. The valley’s transformation from a wet environment in the Mesolithic to its current dry state adds layers of complexity to archaeological investigations.

The Stonehenge Tunnel and High Water Table Challenges

Modern infrastructure projects near Stonehenge have faced significant challenges due to the area’s unique geology and hydrology. The proposed A303 road tunnel aimed to divert traffic away from the monument, thereby restoring its tranquil setting. However, the project encountered complications due to the high water table and naturally occurring fissures in the surrounding landscape. These conditions necessitated the installation of extensive drainage and settlement facilities to manage water flow without causing environmental harm.

Reevaluating Stonehenge’s Significance

The intricate relationship among Stonehenge’s location, its surrounding landscape features such as Stonehenge Bottom, and the area’s geological conditions highlights the monument’s enduring complexity. These factors not only influenced the site’s original selection but also continue to impact both archaeological understanding and modern-day preservation efforts. As research progresses, a deeper appreciation of how natural landscapes and human activities intertwine at Stonehenge will undoubtedly emerge, offering richer insights into this ancient marvel.

Borehole data that supports a Flooded Stonehenge Bottom

Stonehenge Boreholes id — Borehole BGS IDs

📊 MATRIX MATERIALS WITHIN ±5 m OF 92.6 m OD

(87.6–97.6 m OD envelope)

The OD ranges shown are only those that lie within 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 the immediate surrounding slopes. Together, they form a vertically stacked, laterally distributed dataset spanning the 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 is 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 records 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 documents 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 are 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.

Audio Blog

Unearth the Astonishing Secrets of Stonehenge (The Stonehenge Hoax)

Video

Synopsys

Stonehenge, a timeless enigma etched in stone and earth, has stood as a formidable puzzle challenging the intellects of archaeologists and historians alike. Despite the myriad attempts, including books, TV programs, and academic conferences, the secrets of these ancient stones and their encircling ditches have proven elusive. Against this backdrop, we scrutinise the existing thirteen hypotheses, each presenting its narrative but collectively lacking a coherent thread.

In adopting the deductive reasoning akin to Sherlock Holmes, we endeavour to weave these disparate threads into a unified tapestry that not only unravels the mystery of Stonehenge but also shakes the foundations of established academic narratives. This intellectual journey may induce some discomfort as we challenge conventional perceptions and invite a reevaluation of our understanding of the past. Apologies are extended in advance for any cognitive dissonance, but the pursuit of truth and reason mandates an unfiltered presentation of the facts.

So, fasten your seatbelts for an expedition into the archaeological unknown.

As we navigate this intellectual rollercoaster, be prepared for a revelation that might reshape our understanding of Stonehenge and question the foundations of our historical narratives. The dawn of a new archaeological era awaits promising insights that could leave even the most curious minds astonished. As we delve into this intellectual rabbit hole, be ready for a revelation that could astonish Alice.

Robert John Langdon (2023) – (The Stonehenge Hoax)

The Book

Biography

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

His intellectual voyage has been interwoven with stints as an astute scrutineer in government and grand corporate bastions, a tapestry spanning British Telecommunications, Cable and Wireless, British Gas, and the esteemed University of London.

A decade hence, Robert’s transition into retirement unfurled a chapter of insatiable curiosity. This phase saw him immerse himself in Politics, Archaeology, Philosophy, and the enigmatic realm of Quantum Mechanics. His academic odyssey traversed the venerable corridors of knowledge hubs such as the Museum of London, University College London, Birkbeck College, The City Literature Institute, and Chichester University.

In the symphony of his life, Robert is a custodian of three progeny and a pair of cherished grandchildren. His sanctuary lies ensconced in the embrace of West Wales, where he inhabits an isolated cottage, its windows framing a vista of the boundless sea – a retreat from the scrutinising gaze of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, an amiable clandestinity in the lap of nature.

Exploring Prehistoric Britain: A Journey Through Time

My blog delves into the fascinating mysteries of prehistoric Britain, challenging conventional narratives and offering fresh perspectives grounded in cutting-edge research, particularly LiDAR technology. I invite you to explore some key areas of my research. For example, the Wansdyke, often cited as a defensive structure, is re-examined in light of new evidence. I’ve presented my findings in my blog post Wansdyke: A British Frontier Wall – ‘Debunked’, and a Wansdyke LiDAR Flyover video further visualises my conclusions.

My work also often challenges established archaeological dogma. I argue that many sites, such as Hambledon Hill, commonly identified as Iron Age hillforts, are not what they seem. My posts Lidar Investigation Hambledon Hill – NOT an ‘Iron Age Fort’ and Unmasking the “Iron Age Hillfort” Myth explore these ideas in detail and offer an alternative view. Similarly, sites like Cissbury Ring and White Sheet Camp receive re-evaluations based on LiDAR analysis in my posts “Lidar Investigation Cissbury Ring through time” and “Lidar Investigation White Sheet Camp,“ revealing fascinating insights into their true purpose. I have also examined South Cadbury Castle, often linked to the mythical Camelot56.

My research also extends to ancient water management, including the role of canals and other linear earthworks. I have discussed the true origins of Car Dyke in multiple posts, including Car Dyke – ABC News Podcast and Lidar Investigation Car Dyke – North Section, which suggest a Mesolithic origin 2357. I also explore the misidentification of Roman aqueducts, as seen in my posts on the Great Chesters (Roman) Aqueduct. My research has also been greatly informed by my post-glacial flooding hypothesis, which has helped explain landscape transformations over time. I have discussed this hypothesis in several posts, including AI now supports my Post-Glacial Flooding Hypothesis and Exploring Britain’s Flooded Past: A Personal Journey

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