This weeks essay we look at the Great Prehistoric Migration Hoax that suggests that natural migration moved from the Countries of Asia Minor to britain over many millenium.
We are all well-acquainted with the conventional narrative depicting the migration journey from Asia Minor to Britain, a tale spanning millennia where settlers traversed on foot, carrying with them cultural tools and artefacts, as a seemingly seamless diffusion of humanity. However, this narrative, appealing in its simplicity, is, to put it frankly, devoid of merit. Migration patterns are intricate and resist such straightforward categorisations.
The unfortunate consequence of clinging to this oversimplified notion is the considerable predicament it poses for contemporary archaeologists and historians. The bulk of our historical understanding hinges on this flawed premise, creating a substantial hurdle for those seeking to uncover the complexities of our past. This misguided historical perspective, ingrained in the public consciousness through the educational system, becomes a barrier that stifles the emergence of discoveries and ideas. In the twenty-first century, breaking free from these antiquated concepts is essential for the flourishing of innovative perspectives that can contribute to a more accurate understanding of our shared history.
Presently, we grapple with notions suggesting that pivotal inventions like farming and groundbreaking discoveries, such as the advent of bronze, originated in the region of Asian Minor. The prevailing belief is that the transmission of such knowledge occurred exclusively through the gradual, communal diffusion of these ideas, as communities traversed vast distances over the course of millennia. However, this perspective overlooks a crucial realisation—that basic technology could have significantly augmented communication.
Regrettably, many academics remain ensnared by this simplistic model, shaping their mindset when unearthing artefacts in distant lands like Britain. The consequence is a tendency to either conceal evidence that contradicts this established model or dismiss such findings as anomalies that deviate from the conventional narrative perpetuated in universities. By acknowledging the potential role of enhanced communication technologies, we open the door to a more nuanced understanding of the past, unshackling ourselves from the constraints of an outdated and overly simplistic historical framework.
The oversimplified hypothesis becomes particularly evident in the narrative surrounding the ‘Beaker’ civilization. According to the prevailing account, the Beaker folk, inhabitants of the Late Neolithic–Early Bronze Age around 4,500 years ago in the temperate zones of Europe, derived their name from the distinctive bell-shaped beakers they crafted, adorned with finely toothed stamps. Often referred to as the Bell-Beaker culture, these people were described as warlike, primarily bowmen armed with copper weapons and engaged in an extensive search for copper and gold, which purportedly hastened the spread of bronze metallurgy in Europe. The narrative suggests that, originally from Spain, the Beaker folk rapidly expanded into central and western Europe in pursuit of metals.
This portrayal, however, overlooks a critical aspect – the availability of boats for travel among these Europeans. The impracticality of traversing from mainland Europe to Britain on foot underscores the importance of maritime transport. Consequently, these communities likely had the means to trade their wares well before any migration occurred, with the movement of people potentially emerging as a byproduct of their established trading activities. Failing to acknowledge the role of seafaring capabilities obscures a more comprehensive understanding of the dynamics at play during this period.
Indeed, the historical model of the European colonisation of America in the 17th century serves as a compelling and often overlooked example that challenges the dated perspectives on migration. This empirical evidence, rooted in written history, sheds light on the dynamics of movement and colonisation, showcasing the pivotal role of boats (or in the case of America carts) in facilitating such endeavours.
As highlighted by historical records, early colonists from European kingdoms with well-developed military, naval, governmental, and entrepreneurial capabilities embarked on the colonisation of the New World. The Spanish and Portuguese, drawing on centuries of experience in conquest and colonisation, leveraged their expertise gained during the Reconquista and navigational skills for oceanic voyages. The English, French, and Dutch, while possessing the ability to build ocean-worthy ships, lacked the extensive history of colonisation exhibited by Portugal and Spain. Nevertheless, English entrepreneurs established colonies with a foundation of merchant-based investment that required less government support.
This historical example underscores a critical point often overlooked in the study of migration — the motivations behind the movement of people. In this context, the colonisation of the New World was primarily driven by economic interests, power, and the pursuit of wealth. Failure to recognize these underlying motives represents an anthropological flaw in our historical narratives, which often simplify migration as a mere expansion into new territories. Understanding that migration involves significant time, effort, and resources challenges the notion that people move solely to find new lands to occupy. The fact that the population was relatively small at the time suggests that land occupation was more of a choice than a necessity, further emphasising the complex motivations behind human migration.
The spread of American colonies from just the east coast to the west shows the motivation factor behind migration coast. Here are some key reasons:
Land Availability: As European settlers arrived on the East Coast, they quickly realized that the region had limited arable land and was becoming crowded. The allure of available land in the western territories motivated people to move westward in search of better opportunities.
Economic Opportunities: The promise of economic opportunities, such as fertile land for farming and the discovery of valuable resources like gold and silver, attracted many individuals and families to move west. The prospect of acquiring land for farming and starting anew was a powerful motivator.
Technological Advances: Improvements in transportation, such as the development of canals, roads, and later the railroad, made it easier for people to travel and settle in the western territories. These advancements reduced the challenges associated with long-distance migration.
Government Incentives: The U.S. government actively encouraged westward expansion through policies such as the Homestead Act of 1862, which provided 160 acres of public land to settlers for a small fee, provided they improved the land by building a dwelling and cultivating crops. This attracted many settlers to the frontier.
Escape from Economic Hardship: Some individuals moved west in the hope of escaping economic hardships or seeking a fresh start. This was particularly true during times of economic downturns or regional crises on the East Coast.
As I explore historical narratives, the distribution of populations from east to west in America emerges as a series of sudden leaps rather than a gradual process. Take, for instance, the bold leap made by the East Coast New England colonies during the California Gold Rush. Over just seven years, there was an astonishing migration of 3,232 miles—a journey equivalent to the distance from Asia Minor to Britain, a span traditionally believed to have taken four thousand years.
This leap of faith was driven by reports of gold in California, sparking a massive upheaval as individuals sought to capitalise on the potential wealth. The allure of prosperity motivated people to traverse the vast expanse of the continent, reflecting how specific events and opportunities could swiftly reshape population distribution.
This intriguing phenomenon prompts me to reevaluate traditional timelines considering recent archaeological discoveries. For example, the presence of an 8,000-year-old boat in the Solent with wheat on board challenges established notions. Wheat, believed to have been introduced to Britain much later, now questions the pace of historical movements and interactions. It’s a reminder that our understanding of history is dynamic, subject to revision as new evidence emerges, and that the narrative of human migration is filled with unexpected leaps and transformative moments.
As someone who has delved into the pages of history, it’s clear that the driving force behind human movement has consistently been the pursuit of prosperity. This very motivation underscores the crucial role that trading played in prehistoric times. Individuals displayed a willingness to traverse great distances in search of the abundant rewards that relocating, whether to America or prehistoric Britain, could offer. Contrary to some contemporary perceptions, the gradual dissemination of cultures and technology wasn’t as linear as we might currently believe.
In reflecting on the past, it becomes evident that the motivation to seek better economic opportunities was a shared aspect of the human experience. The narrative of the slow, methodical spread of cultures and technology was not a conscious effort but rather a consequence of our collective pursuit of better circumstances. The archaeological evidence at our disposal today strongly supports the notion that the exchange of ideas and trading materials occurred in tandem, almost synchronously, across the landscapes of Europe. It’s through this lens of trading ideology that we can better understand the interconnected and dynamic nature of our historical journey.
For information about British Prehistory, visit www.prehistoric-britain.co.uk for the most extensive archaeology blogs and investigations collection, including modern LiDAR reports. This site also includes extracts and articles from the Robert John Langdon Trilogy about Britain in the Prehistoric period, including titles such as The Stonehenge Enigma, Dawn of the Lost Civilisation and the ultimate proof of Post Glacial Flooding and the landscape we see today.
Robert John Langdon has also created a YouTube web channel with over 100 investigations and video documentaries to support his classic trilogy (Prehistoric Britain). He has also released a collection of strange coincidences that he calls ‘13 Things that Don’t Make Sense in History’ and his recent discovery of a lost Stone Avenue at Avebury in Wiltshire called ‘Silbury Avenue – the Lost Stone Avenue’.
Langdon has also produced a series of ‘shorts’, which are extracts from his main body of books:
For active discussions on the findings of the TRILOGY and recent LiDAR investigations that are published on our WEBSITE, you can join our and leave a message or join the debate on our Facebook Group.
- 1003037 – Ditch 530yds (484m) SW of Stitchcombe Farm
- 1003254 – Linear earthwork NW of Sidbury camp
- 1003726 – Earthwork 360yds (328m) NW of Warren Copse
- 1003769 – Grim’s Bank: section extending 560yds (510m) in Pennsylvania Wood, Ufton Park
- 1003784 – Wansdyke: section 610yds (560m) NW of Wernham Farm to 250yds (230m) SW of New Buildings
- 1003804 – Dray’s Ditches See also LUTON 1
- 1004534 – Dray’s Ditches See also BEDFORDSHIRE 1
- 1004719 – Wansdyke: section from S of Furze Hill to Marlborough-Pewsey road
- 1004736 – Section of the Wansdyke
- 1005373 – Grim’s Bank: section extending 300yds (275m) in Church Plantation
- 1005374 – Grim’s Bank: section extending 880yds (795m) in Old Warren
- 1005375 – Grim’s Bank: section extending 470yds (430m) in Little Heath
- 1005376 – Grim’s Bank: Section extending SW 900yds (825m) from New Plantation, Ufton Park, to a point 250yds (230m) SE of Rectory
- 1005377 – Grim’s Bank: section extending 420yds (400m) in Old Park and Raven Hill, Ufton Park
- 1005386 – Wansdyke (now Bedwyn Dyke), section 530yds (490m) on W side of Old Dyke Lane
- 1005389 – Grim’s Bank: section extending 240yds (220m) E of Padworth Gully
- 1006958 – Boundary ditch E of Near Down
- 1006977 – Ditch on Boydon Hole Farm
- 1006981 – Grim’s Ditch: section 1 mile long E from Southfield Shaw to Streatley parish boundary
- 1006982 – Grim’s Ditch: two sections in Portobello Wood, Holies Shaw and High Holies Wood Gap
- 1007136 – Bishop’s Dyke (Cumbria)
- 1007525 – Three (Cross) Dykes on Middle Hill – Kidland Forest Northumberland
- 1008274 – Cross dyke, 200m south east of Hosedon Linn
- 1008275 – Cross Dyke South East of Uplaw Knowe
- 1010988 – Hadrian’s Wall and Vallum from A6071 to The Cottage in the case of the Wall, and to the road to Oldwall, for the Vallum, in wall miles 57, 58 and 59
- 1010990 – The Vallum between the road to Laversdale at Oldwall and Baron’s Dike in wall miles 59 and 60
- 1010992 – Hadrian’s Wall and Vallum between the field boundary west of Carvoran Roman fort and the west side of the B6318 road in wall mile 46
- 1011396 – Cross dyke, South of Campville
- 1014695 – Hadrian’s Wall Vallum between Mill Beck and the field boundary east of Kirkandrews Farm in wall mile 69
- 1014708 – section of the north Oxfordshire Grim’s Ditch at Model Farm on the Ditchley Park Estate
- 1016860 – Scot’s Dike
- 1017288 – Wansdyke and associated monuments from east of The Firs to the eastern side of Tan Hill
- 1017736 – Cross Dyke and two building foundations at Copper Snout
- 1020643 – North east of Buttington Farm
- Britain’s Linear Earthworks (Dykes) Gazetteer
- Dawn of the Lost Civilisation
- LiDAR Mapping Service – Contact Page
- Prehistoric Bedfordshire Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric Berkshire Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric Buckinghamshire Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric Cambridgeshire Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric Cheshire Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric Cornwall Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric County Durham Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric Cumbria Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric Derbyshire Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric Devon Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric Dorset Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric Durham Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric Essex Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric Gloucestershire Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric Hampshire Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric Herefordshire Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric Kent Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric Lancashire Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric Leicestershire Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric Lincolnshire Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric Middlesex Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric Norfolk Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric Northamptonshire Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric Northumberland Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric Oxfordshire Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric Shropshire Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric Somerset Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric Suffolk Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric Surrey Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric Sussex Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric Warwickshire Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric Wiltshire Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric Worcestershire Canals (Dykes)
- Prehistoric Yorkshire Canals (Dykes)
- The Post Glacial Flooding Hypothesis
- The Stonehenge Enigma