Blog Post

The Great Antler Pick Hoax

Introduction

Antler picks, primarily derived from red deer, are frequently cited in archaeological narratives as essential tools used by prehistoric societies for monumental construction and large-scale ditch digging. These tools, often uncovered in association with ancient sites, have been instrumental in dating some of Britain’s most iconic Neolithic and Bronze Age monuments. Despite their prominence in archaeological interpretation, the reliance on antler picks to date sites raises significant methodological and evidentiary concerns. This blog explores the challenges surrounding using antler picks as dating tools, questioning the robustness of current hypotheses. (The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

The Archaeological Evidence Presented Currently

The discovery of antler picks at sites such as Stonehenge, Cissbury Ring, and other prehistoric monuments has long been interpreted as evidence of their use in earth-moving activities. Often found in ditch fills or nearby deposits, these tools have been subjected to radiocarbon dating, providing approximate ages for the associated construction phases.

For example, antler picks are frequently cited as evidence of early activity at Cissbury Ring, a large Iron Age hillfort in Sussex. Radiocarbon dating of these tools has been instrumental in suggesting Neolithic origins for certain phases of the site’s development (Prehistoric Britain). Similarly, the association of antler picks with the construction of henges and other significant monuments has shaped narratives about labour organisation and the technological capabilities of prehistoric communities. (The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

 (The Great Antler Pick Hoax).
(The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

The Problems with This Hypothesis

While the presence of antler picks at archaeological sites is indisputable, their use as definitive evidence for dating or construction activities is fraught with challenges:

  1. Bronze Age Dates for Antler Picks vs. Mesolithic Site Radiocarbon Dates: Many antler picks found at these sites have Bronze Age radiocarbon dates, yet the broader site contexts often yield earlier Mesolithic dates. This disparity suggests that antler picks may have been deposited much later than the initial construction of these monuments. The mismatch in dates raises questions about their relevance to the primary phases of monument construction.
  2. Antler Picks in Abandoned Mines: Evidence from flint mines, such as Cissbury Ring, suggests that antler picks may have been used in later, opportunistic foraging rather than during the primary phases of mining. This pattern aligns with examples from South Africa, where scavengers using inefficient tools later reopened abandoned gold mines. These scavengers left isolated tool marks and scattered debris, much like the occasional antler pick marks in chalk mines.
  3. Localised and Isolated Marks: If antler picks were the primary tools for excavation, one would expect to find consistent and widespread marks in ditches and mining walls. Instead, the marks attributed to antler picks are often localised and inconsistent, suggesting they were the efforts of scavengers rather than evidence of systematic use in construction.

(The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

Lack of Evidence in Large Ditches

 (The Great Antler Pick Hoax).
Cut by antler picks – it’s nonsense!! – (The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

Large ditches, such as those found at henges and causewayed enclosures, are often attributed to the labour-intensive use of antler picks. However, there is a conspicuous absence of direct evidence supporting this hypothesis. Excavations of these features frequently reveal profiles with sharp, clean edges inconsistent with the marks expected from antler tools.

The scale of these ditches also presents a logistical challenge. For instance, the ditches at Avebury and Durrington Walls span several metres in width and depth. The volume of earth removed from such features would have required a level of labour coordination and tool efficiency that antler picks alone seem ill-suited to provide. Moreover, at Avebury, human bones outnumber antler picks in the excavation layers, raising further doubts about the reliance on these tools for large-scale construction. (The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

The Lack of Antler Pick Marks in Ditches

One of the most striking issues is the lack of discernible antler pick marks in the profiles of excavated ditches. If antler picks were the primary digging tools, one would expect to find characteristic striations or impressions consistent with their use. However, such marks are rarely, if ever, observed. Instead, isolated antler pick marks, often attributed to later scavenging activity, align with opportunistic rather than systematic tool use.

This discrepancy has led some researchers to speculate that other tools or methods—such as wooden spades, teamwork, or even fire to soften the ground—may have been employed. The reliance on antler picks as the sole or primary digging tools may represent an oversimplification of prehistoric technological practices. (The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

 (The Great Antler Pick Hoax).
More human bones than Antler picks – (The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

(The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

The Role of Other Tools in Prehistoric Excavation

In addition to antler picks, tools such as stone axes, wooden spades, and even simple digging sticks were likely part of the prehistoric toolkit. Stone axes, for instance, are robust and capable of cutting through roots or chopping through more complex soils. Their durability and cutting power would make them a more practical choice for tasks requiring significant force or precision.

Although less durable, wooden spades could be used effectively in softer soils and may have been easier to manufacture in large quantities. Combined with teamwork and systematic labour organisation, these tools could have complemented antler picks in large-scale excavation projects. (The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

When comparing these tools, antler picks would not have been the most suitable choice for digging ditches as deep as 35 feet, such as those at Avebury. Stone axes offer superior strength and are less likely to break under pressure, while wooden spades provide a more ergonomic option for moving large amounts of soil. Antler picks, by contrast, are prone to wear and breakage, making them less efficient for sustained heavy labour. Their primary advantage lies in their availability and ease of manufacture rather than their effectiveness as digging tools. (The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

Comparison of Stone Axes and Antler Picks for Cutting Chalk Bedrock

FeatureStone AxesAntler Picks
DurabilityHigh—capable of withstanding repeated impactsModerate—prone to wear and breakage
EffectivenessEffective at cutting through chalk and harder soilsLimited effectiveness against hard chalk
Ease of ManufactureRequires skill and time to produceEasier to craft with available materials
ErgonomicsHeavier but provides better leverage for cuttingLightweight but less effective for sustained effort
Suitability for DepthSuitable for deeper excavation tasksUnsuitable for large-scale, deep ditches
Overall EfficiencySuperior for cutting and excavation in hard materialsInferior, best used as supplementary tools

Reassessing Radiocarbon Dates and Antler Pick Contexts

One of the most critical oversights in the current antler pick hypothesis is the radiocarbon dating of associated artefacts. While antler picks generally yield Bronze Age dates, the broader radiocarbon contexts of some sites, such as Avebury, suggest earlier Mesolithic activity. This disparity highlights the complexity of site stratigraphy and challenges the assumption that antler picks were contemporaneous with significant construction phases. (The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

Furthermore, the frequency of human bones in the excavation layers at Avebury surpasses that of antler picks, suggesting a ritualistic or commemorative aspect to these sites that is often overlooked. This pattern further diminishes the likelihood of antler picks as primary construction tools, reinforcing their probable role as opportunistic or supplementary implements.

(The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

New Hypotheses and Directions

Given the limitations of the antler pick theory, alternative hypotheses must be developed to explain the construction of monumental ditches:

  1. Integrated Tool Use: A combination of wooden spades, stone tools, and fire-setting techniques could explain the efficiency and scale of prehistoric earthworks. This approach accounts for the lack of visible antler pick marks and the challenges of chalk bedrock.
  2. Specialised Labour: Prehistoric societies may have organised labour into specialised teams, each equipped with tools suited to specific tasks, enhancing overall efficiency.
  3. Ritual Contexts: Antler picks may reflect ritualistic deposition unrelated to practical construction, aligning with the broader symbolic landscape of prehistoric sites.
  4. Temporal Layers of Activity: Recognising the complex, multi-phase use of sites can help untangle the chronological overlap between Mesolithic artefacts and later Neolithic or Bronze Age construction efforts.
 (The Great Antler Pick Hoax).
Bronze Age Shovel which makes the idae of shoulder blades tools a nonsense – (The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

Conclusion

Antler picks remain an iconic element of prehistoric archaeology, offering insights into ancient societies’ material culture and technological ingenuity. However, their role as definitive evidence for dating and interpreting monumental construction is fraught with limitations. The absence of direct associations, lack of tool marks in large ditches, and incongruities in radiocarbon dating highlight the need for a more critical approach. (The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

By embracing multidisciplinary perspectives and exploring alternative hypotheses, researchers can construct a more accurate and nuanced understanding of Britain’s prehistoric past. This shift challenges outdated assumptions and opens new avenues for investigating the ingenuity and adaptability of ancient societies in creating their monumental landscapes.

(The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

Prehistoric Britain: A Study Guide

Short Answer Quiz

  1. What are antler picks, and what were they traditionally believed to be used for?
  2. According to the blog post, what evidence is used to suggest that antler picks were not the primary tool for digging out ditches?
  3. What does the blog post suggest was the primary use of flint mining sites?
  4. What is the evidence that suggests the traditional dating of the monuments based on antler picks might be inaccurate?
  5. What are the primary points about Robert Langdon’s Post-Glacial Flooding Hypothesis?
  6. How does the size of the antlers found at Stonehenge and Avebury compare with the theoretical size needed for effective work?
  7. What are lynchets, and how does the text suggest they have been misinterpreted?
  8. What was the most common find at Avebury, and what is the implication?
  9. Besides antler picks, what other types of tools are discussed in relation to prehistoric digging?
  10. What is the significance of the finding of cut marks in the chalk at Durrington Walls?

(The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

Answer Key

  1. Antler picks are tools made from red deer antlers, traditionally believed to be used for excavating soil, quarrying stone, and digging ditches in the construction of prehistoric monuments.
  2. The lack of widespread, consistent marks in the ditches and the fact that the tines (the points of the antlers) all grow the same way, making it difficult to strike chalk cleanly, indicate that antlers were not the primary tool.
  3. The primary use of flint mining sites, such as Cissbury Ring, was not for defense, but for extracting flint for tool-making and trade, as the site’s complex network of mines and ditches suggests industrial activity.
  4. Radiocarbon dating of wood found at Stonehenge suggests older dates than those obtained from antler picks, and the lack of antler picks found at the ditch sites when compared to other artifacts also throws doubt on the dates.
  5. Langdon’s hypothesis suggests that Britain experienced significant flooding after the last Ice Age, which impacted landscapes and settlements, and that the current understanding of the British landscape is affected by these raised river levels.
  6. The blog posts assert the antlers found are often smaller than what would be optimal for leverage and also are not consistently prepared to make the most efficient tool.
  7. Lynchets are terraced formations on hillsides traditionally associated with agriculture, but some have proposed these are actually dykes used to channel the water with the post-glacial flooding.
  8. The most common finds at Avebury were human bones, which questions the theory that antler picks were the primary tool for digging, and suggests ritual rather than practical labor.
  9. The texts mention stone axes, wooden spades, and simple digging sticks as alternative tools used for digging, suggesting a more diverse toolkit than the antler pick theory implies.
  10. The finding of cut marks made by a metal instrument in the chalk at Durrington Walls suggests metal tools were used in construction earlier than traditionally thought, challenging the reliance on antler pick dates.

(The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

Essay Questions

  1. Critically evaluate the traditional interpretation of antler picks in archaeology. How does the new interpretation presented in the source material challenge this view?
  2. Discuss the significance of Cissbury Ring as both a flint mining site and a later defensive structure. How does this case study illustrate the complexity of prehistoric site usage?
  3. Explain Robert Langdon’s Post-Glacial Flooding Hypothesis and its implications for understanding the dating and function of prehistoric monuments in Britain.
  4. Analyze the strengths and weaknesses of using radiocarbon dating on antler picks to establish the construction dates of ancient monuments.
  5. Examine the role of LiDAR technology in challenging or reinforcing traditional archaeological theories, using examples from the provided sources.

(The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

Glossary of Key Terms

  • Antler Pick: A tool made from the shed antler of a red deer, traditionally believed to be used for digging and excavating in prehistoric times.
  • Bluestones: The smaller stones used in the construction of Stonehenge, originally from the Preseli Mountains in Wales.
  • Bronze Age: A period in human history, following the Stone Age, characterized by the use of bronze tools and weapons (traditionally dated in Britain as 2500-70 BCE).
  • Bur: The thickest part of the antler attached to the deer’s head.
  • Dyke: An artificial waterway, often with raised embankments and drainage systems, used to control water. This term has been reinterpreted by the authors as being a channel for transport.
  • Flint: A hard, grey rock used to make tools, weapons, and to start fires during the Neolithic period.
  • Flint Knapping: The process of shaping flint by striking flakes off the stone to make tools
  • Henge: A type of Neolithic monument, typically consisting of a circular bank and ditch, with an entrance.
  • Holocene: The current geological epoch, beginning about 11,700 years ago, following the end of the last Ice Age.
  • Iron Age: A period in human history following the Bronze age marked by the increased use of iron tools and weapons. In Britain it traditionally dates from 700 BCE to 43 CE.
  • LiDAR: (Light Detection and Ranging) Remote sensing technology that uses laser pulses to measure the distance to the earth’s surface, creating detailed maps.
  • Lynchets: Terraced formations on hillsides, traditionally associated with agriculture but reinterpreted as possible dykes used for water control.
  • Mesolithic Period: The Middle Stone Age, characterized by hunting and gathering societies.
  • Megalithic: Large stone structures, usually built during the Neolithic and Bronze Ages.
  • Neolithic Period: The New Stone Age, characterized by the development of agriculture and settled societies.
  • Paleochannel: A remnant of an ancient river or stream channel, often buried beneath sediment.
  • Post-Glacial Flooding: The concept of increased water levels that occurred after the last Ice Age, which had a significant effect on prehistoric landscapes and settlements.
  • Ramparts: Defensive walls, often made of earth, built around fortifications like hill forts.
  • Radiocarbon Dating: A method of dating organic materials by measuring the amount of the radioactive isotope carbon-14 present in the sample.
  • Tine: The pointed projections on a deer antler, specifically the brow, bez and trez.
  • Trez: The third tine on a deer antler.

(The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

Exploring Prehistoric Britain: A Journey Through Time

My blog delves into the fascinating mysteries of prehistoric Britain, challenging conventional narratives and offering fresh perspectives based on cutting-edge research, particularly using 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 visualizes my conclusions. (The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

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, also receive a re-evaluation 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 Camelot. (The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

My research also extends to the topic of 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, suggesting a Mesolithic origin2357. 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 to inform the 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. (The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

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 the astronomical insights of 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. (The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

(The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

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 extracts from the acclaimed Robert John Langdon Trilogy, a series of books exploring Britain during the Prehistoric period. Titles in the trilogy include The Stonehenge Enigma, Dawn of the Lost Civilisation, and The Post Glacial Flooding Hypothesis, offering compelling evidence about 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. (The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

In addition to his main works, Langdon has released a series of shorter, accessible publications, ideal for readers delving into specific topics. These include:

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. (The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

Other Blogs

t

(The Great Antler Pick Hoax).