Stonehenge’s The Lost Circle Revealed – DEBUNKED

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Further Reading

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:

• The Ancient Mariners
• Stonehenge Built 8300 BCE
• Old Sarum
• Prehistoric Rivers
• Dykes, Ditches, and Earthworks
• Echoes of Atlantis
• Homo Superior
• 13 Things that Don’t Make Sense in History
• Silbury Avenue – The Lost Stone Avenue
• Offa’s Dyke
• The Stonehenge Enigma
• The Post-Glacial Flooding Hypothesis
• The Stonehenge Hoax
• Dawn of the Lost Civilisation
• Darwin’s Children
• Great Chester’s Roman Aqueduct
• Wansdyke

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.

Other Blogs