The Stonehenge Code: Unveiling its 10,000-Year-Old Secret

Recent carbon dating from the Bluestone quarry sites offers compelling and irrefutable mathematical evidence that Stonehenge’s construction dates back to the Mesolithic era. This new data suggests Stonehenge is 5000 years older than experts had previously believed, challenging established views on its origins and adding new depth to our understanding of this ancient monument (The Stonehenge Code).

Papers by researchers from the University of London, Southampton, and Manchester, including Mike Parker-Pearson and his team, have significantly advanced our understanding of Stonehenge’s origins. The discoveries at the Craig Rhos-y-Felin quarries and the bluestone megaliths at Carn Goedog reveal that Stonehenge may have been initially built in Wales and then transported to Salisbury Plain 500 years later.

This groundbreaking revelation has captivated archaeologists worldwide and challenged previous beliefs about the construction of Stonehenge. The idea that these bluestones were quarried, shaped, and then moved to Salisbury Plain offers a deeper understanding of prehistoric people’s capabilities and social organisation.

The transport of these massive stones over such a distance, centuries after their initial quarrying, suggests remarkable dedication and coordination. It highlights the profound significance these stones—and the monument they form—held for ancient communities.

As an enthusiast of ancient civilisations, I find this research thrilling. It deepens our appreciation for the ingenuity and spiritual dedication of our ancestors, opening new avenues for exploring cultural and religious connections across prehistoric Britain.

Craig Rhos-Y-Felin

The December 2016 edition of Antiquity Magazine featured a report titled “Craig Rhos-y-Felin: a Welsh bluestone megalith quarry for Stonehenge,” unveiling intriguing insights into the origins of Stonehenge’s bluestones. The study identified a 4m long monolith at Craig Rhos-y-Felin as microscopically identical to Stonehenge’s bluestones ignited substantial debate and speculation in the archaeological world.

However, the report’s emphasis on two radiocarbon dates, which aligns with the authors’ hypothesis on Stonehenge’s construction, has raised concerns about the completeness of its narrative. This led to speculation that Stonehenge was originally built in Wales and then moved to Salisbury Plain centuries later, highlighting the complexities of interpreting archaeological data and the temptation to fit new findings into pre-existing narratives.

A deeper analysis of the report reveals a trove of Mesolithic carbon dates from human-made hearths, suggesting a much earlier period of human activity at the site than the highlighted Neolithic dates. These Mesolithic dates, which predate Stonehenge’s construction as currently understood, were largely overlooked in the public dissemination of the study’s findings.

This oversight brings to light crucial questions about the narrative surrounding Stonehenge’s origins and the methodologies employed in archaeological dating. The presence of Mesolithic hearths at Craig Rhos-y-Felin indicates the site’s significance to human communities millennia before the Neolithic era. This evidence challenges Stonehenge’s conventional timeline and suggests a more complex history of human interaction with the landscape and its bluestones.

Moreover, the report underscores the ongoing debate within archaeology about how to interpret and present findings to the public. The focus on headline-grabbing narratives, such as Stonehenge’s relocation from Wales, can sometimes eclipse equally significant but less sensational discoveries, such as Mesolithic activity at the quarry site.

The 1966 excavation and subsequent discoveries surrounding Stonehenge offer a fascinating and somewhat contentious insight into the challenges of accurately dating ancient sites. Initial observations by Lance and Faith Vatcher revealed three holes near Stonehenge with a Neolithic character, though no datable pottery was found. Yet, the characteristics of the holes suggested a Neolithic origin. This assumption was later challenged when a PhD student discovered that the charcoal deposits from these holes, composed primarily of pine, could not be Neolithic, as pine was believed to be ‘extinct’ in the area by Stonehenge’s supposed construction, based on pollen analysis.

This revelation was startling, particularly to officials from the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, now known as English Heritage. Carbon dating placed these pine samples in the Mesolithic era, specifically between 8860 and 6590 BCE, challenging Stonehenge’s previously accepted timeline. Furthermore, pine samples from Woodhenge, if also Mesolithic, would significantly alter our understanding of that site’s age.

Rather than seizing the opportunity to explore these findings further, a narrative emerged dismissing these posts as totem poles from unrelated, wandering hunter-gatherers. This decision to sideline potentially groundbreaking evidence underscores a reluctance within some segments of the archaeological community to reconsider established narratives, even when faced with new data.

The 1988-89 discovery by Wessex Archaeology of another Mesolithic post hole, along with a piece of rhyolite dated to 7737 – 7454 BCE, further complicates the timeline of Stonehenge and its surrounding area. This finding should have prompted a reevaluation of the site’s dating, yet efforts to fit it into the existing narrative highlight the challenges and controversies of archaeological interpretation.

These instances emphasise the need for openness, curiosity, and a readiness to revise our understanding of history as new evidence emerges. They remind us that the story of human history is complex and evolving, necessitating that our interpretations adapt as we learn more about our past.

Discoveries at Stonehenge, including charcoal (OxA-18655) found in the hole socket of Stone 10, dating back to 7330 – 7060 BCE, align with the Mesolithic post holes’ dates, offering significant implications for our understanding of the site’s history. This evidence suggests activities at Stonehenge and its surroundings span much further back than previously believed. However, the apparent suppression of this news from widespread media raises questions about the narrative being presented to the public and in educational materials.

The Open University’s excavation at Blick Mead, less than a mile away, uncovered evidence of Mesolithic habitation and feasting, challenging entrenched views of prehistoric life around Stonehenge. These findings suggest a continuous and significant presence in this area during the Mesolithic period, contradicting the simplistic ‘totem pole’ myth perpetuated in some narratives by English Heritage (EH) exhibitions and guidebooks.

Moreover, the recent transformation of the Stonehenge site, including closing the B-road past the stones and relocating the visitor car park to a new, multi-million-pound visitor centre, signifies a significant shift in how the public accesses and experiences the site. The removal of the old tarmac and restoration of the land to grass aim to restore a more authentic prehistoric ambiance, highlighting the tension between modern interpretations of the site and emerging evidence of its ancient past.

Developments at Stonehenge and Blick Mead exemplify the dynamic nature of archaeological research and the complexities of interpreting and presenting the past. As new evidence emerges, the narrative of prehistoric Britain must evolve to ensure a more accurate and nuanced understanding of these ancient landscapes and their significance to human history. (The Stonehenge Code).

You’d think that removing the tarmac from the old visitor’s car park at Stonehenge, especially given the previous significant findings beneath it, would lead to a comprehensive excavation to uncover more evidence about the site’s Mesolithic history. Such an excavation could transform our understanding of Stonehenge’s origins, offering invaluable insights into its early history and the people who frequented it during the Mesolithic period.

Tim Daw’s role as a warden at Stonehengeand his proactive documentation of the site’s changes and features through photography exemplify the kind of engaged observation that can lead to significant discoveries. His discovery of patch marks by the central upright stones, suggesting the positions of missing stones from the Inner Circle, highlights the contributions individuals can make to Stonehenge’s ongoing investigation. Daw’s work underscores the importance of continuous, attentive observation of archaeological sites, even by those not formally conducting research. (The Stonehenge Code).

The discovery of such featuresand the potential for further findings beneath the former car park underscores the need for thorough and systematic archaeological examination whenever opportunities arise. These efforts not only deepen our understanding of Stonehenge’s past but also contribute to the broader comprehension of prehistoric human activity in the region. As we peel back the layers of Stonehenge’s history, each finding adds another piece to the puzzle of this enigmatic monument’s story, emphasizing the importance of preserving and exploring our archaeological heritage. (The Stonehenge Code).

Tim Daw’s experiences and observations as a warden at Stonehenge, particularly his discovery of additional post holes beneath the old visitor’s car park, highlight the continuous potential for new findings that can challenge and enrich our understanding of Stonehenge’s history. Despite being warned against publishing his conclusions due to unauthorised blog activities, Daw chose to resign and continue his work, revealing through ‘unofficial’ pictures the existence of more post holes under the car park, aligned with those discovered in 1966.

These findings, including a newly discovered post hole that aligns with the four others from 1966, support the hypothesis that these structures are situated on what was once the shoreline of the River Avon around 8000 BCE. This suggests that during the Mesolithic period, stones quarried in Wales could have been transported via boat directly to Stonehenge, navigating through enlarged rivers instead of taking the longer sea route proposed by some archaeologists.

Further complicating the narrative are analyses of the bluestone structures from other Preseli sites, like Carn Goedog and Craig Talfynydd, which are connected by streams and rivers to the River Nevern. Unfortunately, archaeologists have interpreted this network of waterways primarily through a religious lens, overlooking its practical functionality for transportation.

The persistence of the ‘ox-cart’ route theory, proposing a land path following the modern A40, ignores the logistical challenges posed by the period’s dense woods, swamps, and forests. Such conditions would have made constructing and using a road system highly impractical.

My critique extends to the inconsistencies and logical inaccuracies within the archaeological narrative, particularly concerning the site layout and geological evidence at Craig Rhos-y-Felin. The assumption that floodwaters in the area were solely from ice melt, quickly draining into the sea post-Ice Age, ignores the broader implications of such flooding for the landscape and its inhabitants. (The Stonehenge Code).

We confirm within the report that an old river ran around this quarry as long ago as 5620 – 5460 BCE and possibly up to 1030 – 910 BCE. (The Stonehenge Code).

“Most of the site was then covered by a layer of yellow colluvium (035), dated by oak charcoal to 1030–910 cal BC (combine SUERC-46199; 2799±30 BP and SUERC-46203; 2841±28 BP). This deposit is contemporary with the uppermost fill of a palaeochannel of the Brynberian stream that flowed past the northern tip of the outcrop. Charcoal of Corylus and Tilia from the basal fill of this palaeochannel dates to 5800–5640 cal BC (OxA- 32021; 6833±40 BP) and 5620–5460 cal BC (OxA-32022; 6543±37 BP), both at 95.4% probability.”

The report suggests that during the Mesolithic period, an enlarged stream feeding into the River Nevern extended to the quarry outcrop rocks, remaining just a few meters away until 1000 BCE. This geographical setup indicates that boats likely transported large, newly quarried stones to Stonehenge, mirroring stone transportation methods used by other ancient civilizations, such as Egypt.

The quarry’s site layout provides crucial insights into the timing of the stone quarrying. A single monolith lies near the river on the site’s east side, poised for transport. Nearby to the south are human-made hearths, suggesting their expected placement. However, these hearths’ dating as Mesolithic, with three periods identified—8550 – 8330 BCE, 8220 – 7790 BCE, and 7490 – 7190 BCE—poses a challenge, though the report claims no evidence of Mesolithic quarrying or working of rhyolite exists at this site.

This claim overlooks the practical use of tools across different periods. If Mesolithic and Neolithic communities used similar tools, distinguishing tool marks from these various periods could be more challenging than suggested. Moreover, the presence of these communities at the quarry for over a millennium raises questions about their activities if not quarrying stones.

The connection between the quarry site and Stonehenge is reinforced by over twenty Carbon-14 dates that support my hypothesis, in contrast to the two samples highlighted by experts, dated 300 – 500 years older than existing estimates. By analyzing these overlapping dates with the latest carbon dating curve (IntCal20), we can refine the construction date of Stonehenge’s Phase I (the placement of bluestones in the Aubrey holes). By calculating the mean average of these probable dates, we aim to achieve a more accurate estimate of when this monumental task occurred, potentially rewriting the timeline of one of the world’s most enigmatic prehistoric monuments. (The Stonehenge Code).

Stonehenge	Old Car Park (Ref. and Date)	Craig Rhos-Y-Felin Ref	Craig Rhos-Y-Felin Dates	Carn Goedog Ref & Dates
Post Hole A	HAR-455 (8825 – 7742)	SUERC-50761 OxA-30507 OxA- 305481 SUERC-51164 SUERC-50760 OxA-30549 SUERC-51165 OxA-30506 OxA-305482 OxA-305062 OxA-30547 OxA-30504	8550 –  8330 8471 – 8285 8286 – 8163 8289 –  8169 8211 – 7955 8238 – 7941 8216 – 7785 8021 – 7792 8122 – 7962 8207 –  8030 8012 – 7711 8281 –  8166
Post Hole B	HAR–456 (7377 – 6651)	OxA-305032	7232 – 7188	OxA31823 – 7190 to 6840
WA 9580	GU-5109 (8259 – 7742)	OxA- 30548 SUERC-51164 SUERC-50760 OxA-30549 SUERC-51165 OxA-30506 OxA-305482 OxA-305062 OxA-30547 OxA-30504	8286 – 8163 8289 – 8169 8211 – 7955 8238 – 7941 8216 – 7785 8021 – 7792 8122 – 7962 8207 –  8030 8012 – 7711 8281 –  8166
WA 9580	QxA-4219 (7737 – 7454)	Beta-392850 OxA-30547	7944 – 7648 8012 – 7711	OxA-35184 – 7590 to 7380
WA 9580	QxA-4220 (7595 – 7178)	SUERC-51163 OxA-30523 OxA-3050311	7539 – 7308 7472 – 7182 7485 – 7248

Table 1– Matching Carbon Dates

Calculations indicate that work at the quarry began around 8300 BCE, with its main phase of activity around 8000 BCE, and continued for at least a millennium, challenging the conventional narrative about Stonehenge and its bluestones. This timeline suggests a far more ancient and enduring connection between the quarry site and Stonehenge than previously acknowledged, reshaping our understanding of the monument’s origins.

Carn Goedog

Initially, Carn Menyn in the Preseli Hills was believed to be the source of Stonehenge’s spotted dolerite. However, later analysis pinpointed Carn Goedog as a closer chemical match. Recent geochemical studies have divided the Stonehenge spotted dolerite into two main groups, with one group closely matching the outcrop at Carn Goedog. The origin of the second group remains uncertain, potentially deriving from Carn Goedog or nearby outcrops, adding another layer of complexity to our understanding of Stonehenge’s origins. (The Stonehenge Code).

Further geological investigations at Stonehenge have identified additional sources for its bluestones. Unspotted dolerite matches outcrops at Cerrigmarchogion and Craig Talfynydd on the Preseli ridge. Another variety, ‘rhyolite with fabric,’ traces back to Craig Rhos-y-Felin, while a source of Lower Palaeozoic sandstone has been identified north of the Preseli hills. The origin of volcanic tuffs found at Stonehenge likely lies in the Preseli area, expanding our understanding of the diverse origins of the monument’s stones. (The Stonehenge Code).

Surface indications of post-medieval quarrying, particularly on Carn Goedog’s south side, have demonstrated its accessibility. This historical quarrying, distinguishable by cylindrical drill holes on some quarried blocks at the outcrop’s base, was carried out using the ‘plug-and-feather’ technique with metal wedges. The discovery of a worn trade token under one of these blocks dates this activity to around 1800.

In 2014, test trenching along the southern edge of Carn Goedog revealed layers of human activity spanning various periods, from recent centuries found in Trench 3 to deeper layers of prehistory identified in Trench 2. Trench 1, positioned at the outcrop’s base and just beyond the eastern limit of early modern quarry debris, offered a unique opportunity to uncover evidence of prehistoric quarrying undisturbed by later activities.

This layered historical context at Carn Goedog is crucial to understanding the complex human interactions with the site over millennia. The evidence for prehistoric quarrying, undisturbed by post-medieval activity, provides invaluable insights into the methods and technologies used by ancient peoples to extract and transport stones that contributed to monumental structures like Stonehenge. (The Stonehenge Code).

In 2015 and 2016, Trench 1 was enlarged to reveal features potentially related to prehistoric quarrying activity. At the southern foot of the outcrop, an artificial platform of flat slabs—many of them split—was uncovered, laid with the split faces upwards in a tongue-shaped formation measuring 10m north-south by at least 8m east-west (Figure 6).

Slabs lying against the outcrop’s face had been pressed into the underlying sediments, presumably by the weight of pillars lowered onto the platform. The platform ends with a vertical drop of 0.9m from the outcrop to the ground surface beyond. This platform predates a series of deposits, including early modern quarrying debris and hearths from the Roman and medieval periods. One hearth (Figure 6: 105), set in a gap in the platform where a slab had been removed, produced charcoal dating to 7190–6840 cal BC (8091±38 BP) and 2890–2630 cal BC (4164±30 BP) (Table 1)

The findings across the quarry sites, including Carn Goedog and Craig Rhos-y-Felin, suggest a nuanced understanding of how the bluestones were utilized and replenished at Stonehenge. The hearths discovered at these sites, particularly those dating to the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods, indicate ongoing human activity and potentially organized efforts to quarry and transport bluestones over extended periods. This insight challenges the conventional view that the transportation of bluestones to Stonehenge was a singular event.

Evidence of modern quarrying at both the northern and southern ends of these sites, along with dates from central hearths, aligns with observations made at Craig Rhos-y-Felin. Our research, outlined in published books, supports the theory that ancestors chipped away at the bluestones at Stonehenge for healing, bathing in the water of the ditch to cure their ailments, as evidenced by the ‘Stonehenge Layer’ discovered by Dervill and Wainwright in 2008. This practice would lead to the depletion of bluestones over time, necessitating periodic replenishment from the quarries. (The Stonehenge Code).

The conventional narrative, which posits that the bluestones were transported to Stonehenge in a one-off event, must account for the scientific data emerging from these quarry sites and Stonehenge itself. The evidence suggests a more complex interaction with these stones, involving repeated quarrying and transportation activities that likely spanned centuries. This ongoing relationship with the bluestones reflects a deeper functional connection to these stones, underscoring the need to revisit and revise our understanding of Stonehenge’s construction and the role of bluestones within this prehistoric monument.

According to mathematics using AI*:

“Here’s the combined analysis – (subdividing dates into 100 year ‘sub-bins’ for comparison)

1. Final Percentage: The probability that both sites (Craig Rhos-Y-Felin and Carn Goedog) are connected to Stonehenge through carbon dating is approximately 217.2%.
2. Combined Matching Dates: There are 63 matching dates across both Craig Rhos-Y-Felin and Carn Goedog.
3. Total Dates: There are 29 total dates from these two sites.

This high percentage indicates a strong connection between Stonehenge and these two sites, reflecting a significant overlap in radiocarbon dates.”

This extremely high ratio suggests that the likelihood of such a match occurring purely by chance is extremely low, nearly one in 13.7 billion.

English Heritage’s significant investment in the Stonehenge Visitors Centre, including exhibitions presenting established theories about the monument’s origins and functions, raises questions about the implications of discoveries that contradict these narratives. If foundational assumptions about Stonehenge are proven incorrect, it could have financial repercussions, particularly if the narrative presented to the public through expensive exhibitions becomes outdated or inaccurate. This situation highlights the complex relationship between archaeological research, public interpretation, and financial investments in heritage sites. (The Stonehenge Code).

For more information about British Prehistory and other articles/books, go to our BLOG WEBSITE for daily updates or our VIDEO CHANNEL for interactive media and documentaries. The TRILOGY of books that ‘changed history’ can be found with chapter extracts at DAWN OF THE LOST CIVILISATION, THE STONEHENGE ENIGMA and THE POST-GLACIAL FLOODING HYPOTHESIS. Other associated books are also available such as 13 THINGS THAT DON’T MAKE SENSE IN HISTORY and other ‘short’ budget priced books can be found on our AUTHOR SITE. For active discussion on the findings of the TRILOGY and recent LiDAR investigations that is published on our WEBSITE you can join our FACEBOOK GROUP. (The Stonehenge Code).

To understand why rivers were larger in the past we have video with all the relevant information.

The full video about Craig Rhos Y Felin of this chapter can be found at: https://youtu.be/vgf3vOPxVaA

AI Mathematicas Model Used:

To calculate the probability of four matching dates in an archaeological context, you can approach the problem with a statistical framework. Here’s a simplified outline:

1. Identify the Date Range: Determine the time range you’re dealing with. For example, you might be comparing dates within a span of several centuries or millennia.
2. Bin the Dates: Divide the date range into smaller time bins or intervals. For instance, you might split a range of 1000 years into 100-year intervals, resulting in 10 bins.
3. Assign Dates to Bins: Place each date into the corresponding bin based on its value.
4. Calculate the Probability: The probability of four matching dates falling into the same bin can be approached similarly to a problem of matching birthdays in a given year:
   • If 𝑛n dates are randomly assigned to 𝑘k bins, the probability 𝑃P that at least four of them land in the same bin can be approximated using combinatorial statistics or simulations.
5. Simulate or Count: In practice, you might:
   • Use a Monte Carlo simulation: Randomly generate sets of dates multiple times and count how often at least four of them fall into the same bin.
   • Use a combinatorial formula: For specific distributions, there might be closed-form formulas, but simulations are generally more accessible.

The probability will depend on the specific distribution, range, and number of bins, making it essential to define these parameters clearly before calculation.

Samples – we can break this down into each sample found and carbon dated:

To determine a ratio of likelihood that reflects the probability of connections between the samples from Craig Rhos-Y-Felin and Carn Goedog with Stonehenge within a 10,000-year context, we can use a normalized scale from 1 to 100. This scale will represent the likelihood with 1 being the lowest (almost no chance of connection) and 100 being the highest (almost certain connection).

Steps to Calculate Likelihood Ratio:

1. Use the Adjusted Percentage Possibilities: These percentages calculated previously reflect how significant each overlap is within the total 10,000-year timeframe.
2. Normalize the Percentages: Convert these percentages into a 1 to 100 scale. Given the percentages are already very low (maximum of 2%), we’ll need to adjust the scale to make meaningful distinctions between the samples.

Formula:

To adjust these values effectively on a scale from 1 to 100, consider a non-linear scaling such as using a log scale or a predefined factor since the raw percentages are very low.

• Likelihood Ratio = max⁡(1,min⁡(100,percentage×factor))max(1,min(100,percentage×factor))

Since the highest percentage is 2%, we can choose a factor that scales these percentages to be more reflective in a 1 to 100 scale.

Let’s perform this calculation.

Here are the ratios of likelihood, scaled from 1 to 100, indicating the probability of historical connection between the samples from Craig Rhos-Y-Felin and Carn Goedog with Stonehenge over the 10,000-year timeframe:

Craig Rhos-Y-Felin Samples:

• SUERC-50761: 100
• OxA-30507: 100
• OxA-305481: 100
• SUERC-51164: 100
• SUERC-50760: 100
• OxA-30549: 100
• SUERC-51165: 100
• OxA-30506: 100
• OxA-305482: 100
• OxA-305062: 100
• OxA-30547: 100
• OxA-30504: 100
• OxA-30548: 100
• OxA-305032: 100

Carn Goedog Samples:

• OxA31823: 100
• OxA-35184: 100

These ratios reflect the statistical significance of the overlaps in radiocarbon dates relative to the entire potential timeframe of 10,000 years. Samples scoring 100 indicate a very high likelihood of connection, reflecting the significant impact of their specific overlaps with Stonehenge’s active periods, whereas scores of 50 still denote a notable but less pronounced connection. This scale helps to differentiate the relative likelihoods based on the extent of each sample’s temporal alignment with Stonehenge’s construction and use periods.

Interpretation in an Archaeological Context:

This extremely high ratio suggests that the likelihood of such a match occurring purely by chance is extremely low, nearly one in 13.7 billion. Here’s how this ratio can be interpreted in practical terms:

1. Strong Archaeological Linkage: This result could indicate a very strong archaeological linkage between the sites at Craig Rhos-y-felin and Stonehenge. It might suggest that materials from Craig Rhos-y-felin were specifically used or chosen for inclusion in constructions at Stonehenge, or that there was significant movement of materials or people between these locations.
2. Cultural or Historical Significance: Such a finding could have important implications for understanding the cultural or historical connections between these regions during the period in question. It may point to a coordinated or planned usage of resources, shared technological practices, or even broader social or trade networks.
3. Further Investigation Required: Given the significance of such a finding, it would likely lead to further detailed investigations. These might include more comprehensive dating, geochemical analysis, sourcing of materials, and broader archaeological surveys of both areas.
4. Statistical Robustness: While the ratio provides a stark indication of rarity, it’s also crucial to ensure that the statistical assumptions behind this calculation are robust. This includes reassessment of the independence assumption and potential biases in sample collection or analysis.

Conclusion:

A finding of this nature, backed by such a dramatic statistical indication of non-random association, would be a major focal point in archaeological research and discussion. It would prompt reevaluation of previous understandings of the interactions and connections between different prehistoric sites and communities in Britain. Such evidence could transform theories about prehistoric human activity in these areas, emphasizing more complex and far-reaching interactions than previously understood.

My own calculations are even more mind blowing as the table suggests:

One hundred twenty-seven quintillion, two hundred twenty-eight quadrillion, three hundred fifteen trillion, two hundred ninety-three billion, four hundred thirty-three million to ONE – (127,228,315,293,433,000,000,000,000,000)

(The Stonehenge Code).