The Stonehenge Hoax – Woodhenge

Conundrum 13 – The Builders / Woodhenge

I owe, I owe so off to work I go

The Problem

Stonehenge has also been a problem, as there is no evidence of occupancy, and this causes problems as it is supposed to have been built by the first farmers of the Neolithic period (if the carbon dating is correct). The solution is that Durrington Walls and Woodhenge, so close to Stonehenge and houses, are reportedly found within the ‘henge’.  But there are problems with this ‘simplistic’ solution: the first is that you can’t see Stonehenge from Durrington Walls, and the second is: why build a time-consuming structure such as Woodhenge if you’re busy building Stonehenge?

The Solution

If you go to the original North East path break in the Stonehenge ditch, you find the Heel Stone, which was moated during the Mesolithic Period. You will also find a direct alignment to Stonehenge’s nearest neighbours, Woodhenge and Durrington Walls.

The Avenue is wider than the break in the ditch around Stonehenge and has always been a mystery to archaeologists.  This mystery is compounded by the Heel Stone’s position to the right of the Avenue rather than in the centre. The Avenue was built after the Mesolithic ditch was created; therefore, these individual moated stones start to make some sense as alignment points.

The Heel Stone was positioned before the Avenue’s construction; the moated stone points to Stonehenge’s sister site Woodhenge and not, as is currently believed, to the midsummer sunrise.

In 2016, Durrington Walls hit the headlines with “Remarkable new archaeological discoveries are beginning to suggest that Stonehenge was built at a time of particularly intense religious and political rivalry.

Just two miles north-east of the World Heritage site, at an important archaeological complex known as Durrington Walls, archaeologists have discovered what appears to have been a vast 500-metre-diameter circle of giant timber posts. The find is of international significance.

Originally, archaeologists, using geophysics rather than excavation, thought they had found buried standing stones, so the discovery has fundamentally changed their understanding of the site, the largest ancient monument of its type in Britain.

However, the most significant revelation is that the newly identified timber circle complex was probably never fully completed – and that, just a few months or years after construction began, there was a dramatic change in religious – and therefore almost certainly also political – direction. Work on the circle was abruptly stopped around 2460BC, despite nearing completion. The 200-300 giant 6-7 metre-long, 60-70 centimetre-diameter timber posts were lifted vertically out of their 1.5-metre-deep post holes and were probably used to construct or expand other parts of the complex.

What’s more, within a few months or years, the post holes themselves were then deliberately filled with blocks of chalk and were covered up for most of the circuit by a bank made of similar chalk rubble. Two of the post holes have just been fully excavated – and, at the bottom of one, the prehistoric people who decommissioned and buried the site, formerly occupied by the giant timber circle, had placed one of their tools (a spade made of a cow’s shoulder blade) at the bottom of the post hole before it was filled in. It certainly hints at the ritual nature of the change in religious direction.

It was as if the religious “revolutionaries” were trying, quite literally, to bury the past. The question archaeologists will now seek to answer is whether it was the revolutionaries’ own past they were seeking to bury – or whether it was another group or cultural tradition’s past that was being consigned to the dustbin of prehistory”. (The Stonehenge Hoax – Woodhenge)

In 2015, Sky News reported:

“Scientists have found a larger version of Stonehenge just one mile from the site of the famous Wiltshire stone monument.  The Durrington Walls ‘superhenge’ is larger than Stonehenge and may include as many as 90 large stones. Built about 4,500 years ago, the stones lined an arena that was probably used for religious ceremonies or solstice rituals.

Using ground-penetrating radar on Salisbury Plain, scientists found the stones lying on their sides and buried under three feet of earth. Some of the stones are nearly 15ft and were originally placed along the southeastern edge of the circular enclosure that measured nearly a mile wide, making it the largest earthwork of its kind in the country.

The stones may not always have been part of the henge, possibly being toppled over before being incorporated into it – not an act of vandalism but an attempt to save whatever was thought to have been important about the stone, experts think”.

In 2015, the ground survey found “90 large stones, lying on their sides and measuring nearly 15ft” under the ground” – then, in 2016, we have “200 – 300 giant posts 6-7 metres long” – So was there another ground radar survey between the two claims or were the ‘experts’ caught guessing?

Sadly, the misinterpretation of the evidence doesn’t end the nonsense and gives us a clue to this deception – “However, the most significant revelation is the discovery that the newly identified timber circle complex was probably never fully completed“.

You could say that about the entire site – if you believe what the archaeologists tell you.  Durrington Walls is a classic ‘half-moon’ shape, evident in the missing bank towards the River Avon in the East and the absence of a bank to the South, where they found these anomalies.  Now the bank is no small matter, unlike Stonehenge, as it is 30m – 40m wide and 3m high in the North-western sector of the site.

Archaeologists have yet to suggest why the banks are missing – if it were a ‘henge’, it would have had banks and ditches surrounding its entirety.

The first thing that strikes you when you look at Durrington Walls is that it seems incomplete; from aerial photographs, it looks like a half-circle, and on the ground, you get a sense of it being only half-finished.  But most illustrations include the eastern section because magnetometer surveys in 2006 show more ditches beneath the surface, although you might question their purpose, as they are not apparent.

The site’s east side was clearly built much later than the original west side. As a result, the eastern bank is smaller and does not match the specifications of the original ditch and moat, which was roughly 5.5 m deep, 7 m wide at its bottom, and 18 m wide at the top.

The bank was 30m wide in some areas. The bank and ditch indicated by the magnetometer surveys are less than half that depth; the bank is only about a third the size of the one on the northern side.  The current theory and plan for Durrington Walls do not stand up to investigation, for it is clear that the Eastern side of the camp was added later, when the prehistoric groundwater had begun to recede. This would include the Southern circle found in the 1960s.

It would help if you considered the site’s terrain, location, and layout to answer that question. The first thing that hits you is that the site is not flat – in fact, it’s a huge bowl. Archaeologists say that it is a settlement, but anyone who goes camping will tell you not to pitch your tent on a slope, and for an excellent reason: you will wake up one morning covered in water, as when it rains, the water runs downhill.

Archaeologists will insist that, because they have found a few postholes they believe are the foundations of a couple of roundhouses, the site must unquestionably be a settlement, as its position and shape confound them.

 If we now add the higher Mesolithic groundwater tables as presented in our hypothesis, as we had shown at the Stonehenge site, when the river Avon was 30m more elevated in the Early Mesolithic period.  This site (less than three river miles down the road from Stonehenge) becomes a perfect natural harbour, with shallow sides for pulling boats ashore and a 4-metre deep ravine in the centre of the sanctuary. Moreover, a northern and western bank would have provided shelter from gales.

Woodhenge (which lies to the South of Durrington Walls) has two entrances: one directed towards Durrington Walls’ harbour and, more importantly, a mysterious second entrance that trails to our Mesolithic shoreline.  This clearly indicates that groundwater was present at Woodhenge during Mesolithic times. It would explain the strange shape of the camp and the magnetometer survey (Parker-Pearson, 2006), which shows the continuation of ditches to the east, dug after the groundwater had fallen in Neolithic times. 

Even more impressive is how the landscape reflected the receding shoreline during the Neolithic when the waters receded (as we saw at Stonehenge and The Avenue). The present-day minor road runs along the course of the Neolithic shoreline circa 4000 BCE.

We should not be too surprised by this, as lakeshores and coastlines still have paths along with them today so that we can fully enjoy them. There is no reason to believe that prehistoric people did anything different 5,000 years ago, and such a path would also have a practical purpose, as the shorelines were used as a mooring site.  If we are correct about the road and the mooring points, is it possible to find the same post holes here as we saw in the old car park at Stonehenge? 

Wainwright, in his excavations of Durrington Walls, discovered lots of them. These postholes would make a natural landing area for boats, mooring up for Woodhenge when the waters fell in the Neolithic period.

Water was also reported by Mike Parker-Pearson during his excavations of the site in 2009, when he located ancient springs in the centre of Durrington.  A strange place to put a settlement, where you are building houses – unless, like Much Farm, these houses were on stilts and the waters were underneath the house. These ‘crannogs’ are found throughout Britain and date to the Bronze Age, but there is no reason not to believe that this boat society would have been the first to use these aquatic houses as the perfect mooring platforms for their boats.

Furthermore, the authors of these press releases and reports failed to understand why these posts were eventually removed and backfilled.  It doesn’t make sense to complete (as they suggest) a third to half the site, then stop and remove all the posts you planted if it’s for ‘ceremonial’ reasons, unless the posts were there for a more practical purpose, as a windbreak for the harbour.  This would logically result in them ‘slowly’ disappearing over a few decades through rot and removal.

We should also remember that many posts were also found to the south of this site and at Woodhenge next door.  So, the idea that they didn’t have enough posts to finish off (as suggested in their report) is merely archaeological guesswork and, therefore, nonsense.

Another survey by this group, reported in 2020, included some findings and dates that accidentally supported my Post-Glacial Flooding Hypothesis.  They carbon tested pits in the landscape and came up with yet another ludicrous theory about a ‘late Neolithic pit structure’, as they have found clusters of pit features (of the same size and depth as we saw in the Stonehenge ditch), which they imagine was a giant ring 1.2miles in diameter surrounding Durrington Walls – which the authors suggested is a ‘marker’ to strangers not to approach!

They found a ‘Dyke’ from the river Avon to a ‘Causewayed enclosure’ and a selection of pits on the shorelines of the river Avon in Palaeochannels (like Stonehenge Bottom) that were part of the expanded river Avon during the Mesolithic period. 

The Palaeochannel ditches are of most interest as we can get (like the old Stonehenge car park pits) accurate dates to the levels of the river Avon for future dating of other sites, like we have achieved at Durrington, knowing that the three Mesolithic pits at the old car park were dated around 8100 BCE for a recorded height of the river Avon of 98m.  We can now add Borehole 9A BH 1 (SUERC-92464) at 7179 BP +/- 28 and 8A BH2 (SUERC-92465) at 5788 BP +/- 28 to this catalogue.

And this type of a Dyke was not the only one found at Durrington Walls, for the most obvious evidence of water and the high water table can be seen on the southern side of the site as a massive ditch. However, this enormous earthwork is currently either totally ignored or is dismissed as a ‘lynchet’ feature.

This ‘elephant in the room’ is a clear indication of past use at Durrington Walls, and, like the avenue at Stonehenge, this civilisation attempted to keep the monument working as the waters of the Neolithic retreated from the site.

If you look closely at any satellite pictures, you will find a Dyke.  This feature is not concave as they would like to tell you; it is like all Dykes, wholly straight and runs from the end of the western moat to the River Avon, which is impossible for a natural lynchet to run parallel to hill contours.

This Dyke would have been added (and then extended) once the original moats failed, as the shoreline and water table dropped throughout the Neolithic period, following the river Avon, so that boats could access the site.

Woodhenge

This monument has a series of ‘massive’ wooden post holes – at this point, I need to explain that archaeologists don’t seem to understand the difference between a ‘Post Hole’ and a ‘Stake Hole’.  You use stake holes for posts such as fences as they can be quickly buried in the ground as they have a sharp point – this point naturally compresses the surroundings (due to the shape and hammering from above), so they don’t move or wobble!

A ‘Post Hole’ is different as it has a flat bottom and needs rubble to stop it from rocking from side to side.  Stake holes are easy because they are ‘self-burying’, while post holes are more work because you need to dig a hole for them. The only reason you would do all the extra work of digging a flat-bottomed hole (especially in chalk) is if the wooden pole is to take some kind of weight from above, for a stake hole is useless for this type of structure, as it would sink (over time) under the weight pushing down on the point and probably fall over.

Therefore, if you have a round wooden single-storey building with a simple roof, as current archaeologists suggest for some of these post-hole structures, why use these massive posts, as it is ‘over-engineering’ and time-consuming, especially with simple tools?

Cunnington’s excavations at Woodhenge in 1929 suggested that some posts are up to 60 inches in diameter:

“clear evidence was obtained in excavation that the six centric rings of holes once held posts or tree trunks varying from 1ft to 3ft in diameter according to the size of the hole…… the size and depth and distance varies in each circle…. In the outer circle holes are 6ft apart from centre to centre, from 1 1/2 ft to 2ft in depth and from 2ft to 3ft in diameter. In the second circle the holes are larger and further apart, averaging about 4ft in depth and 3 ½ to 4ft in diameter. The largest of all were those were those of the third circle, being about 6ft deep with a diameter at the top from 4ft to 5ft “ (Cunnington. M.E., ‘Prehistoric Timer Circles’, Antiquity A Quarterly Review Of Archaeology Vol.1, 1927)

Sadly, Woodhenge shows us yet another illustration of flawed science in archaeology.  Even with a ‘second-rate’ excavation report from the 1920s, modern archaeologists conclude that this structure was a single-story house – a slightly grander feature than the traditional ‘Iron Age’ house.  This is simply nonsense. If we look closely at the evidence presented here, we reach a different, more accurate conclusion about the nature of this structure.

Firstly, if we look at the site’s layout (which lacks detail), we can see from the original excavation plans the extent of this understatement, as the existing ‘concrete’ posts on the site are far too small.  The most recent photo, from Pollard’s 2007 excavation, indicates that these posts are at least five times larger than the current representations.

The following fact, left unanswered, is the reason for the large post-hole ramps. You don’t take the time to install 32 ramps in the soil unless it is essential, as you’ve just added at least another month to the site’s building work and 500 working hours.  What archaeologists have missed (or failed to mention) is in which direction these ramps were cut, as it tells us more than the entire excavation report by Cunnington.

The massive 4 – 5 ft pine posts of the 16 postholes (known as the C Ring) would weigh 214kg per foot of length.  Therefore, a sizeable, healthy person could pick up one foot of pine and place it in a hole without assistance or a ramp. 

Consequently, an eight-foot pine tree trunk could easily be placed on the shoulders of 8 people and put straight into the hole, which is the current estimation by archaeologists for a single-storey structure. Therefore, the empirical evidence suggests they are wrong, and the pole was much more significant.

We have seen similar ramps at Stonehenge, not by the 4-tonne bluestones but by the Sarsen stones, which averaged 25 tonnes (the trilithons are 35 tonnes), though half the size of these ramps.

A 25-tonne pine post of width between 4 – 5 ft would be 39m long or 128ft, and a 35-tonne pine tree is about 177ft long.  But do Pine trees grow that tall?  Longleat Forest is just down the road from Durrington Walls; it contains pine trees.  These trees grow to nearly 200ft tall.

Moreover, the site plan provides another clue about the length of these poles.  If you look carefully at the angle of the ramps into the giant postholes, you will notice that they are not all facing the same direction.  The only logical reason for that is if you erect the pine poles in a set order so that they would not hit or interfere with each other when attempting to erect the posts.

This allows us to come to some remarkable conclusions about the construction and the process of how it was built:

1. Holes were filled in an anti-clockwise direction, starting at hole 1 (at four o’clock to the site)
2. Poles must have been more than 100’ long; otherwise, you could erect them in any order and direction.
3. The current ditch at the site was added later, as you would need to bring the poles through the ditch and, in some cases, be in the ditch to erect it.
4. The 4- to 5-ft-diameter posts all entered the site from the south, as it had the shortest distance to travel. These poles were either rolled or dragged on a sledge and, therefore, probably came from the direction where the pine trees had initially grown or were unloaded after being floated down the river.

Now the slopes for ‘Ring C’ (the most significant posts) are 5 to 8ft long, which are even longer than the Stone ramps (3 to 4ft) at Stonehenge (Fig.58).  This probably shows the significant (Sarsens are only 13ft tall) leverage factor required to be pulled upright with an A-frame, allowing the posts to slide into position and then into the hole.

Ring B – the 3.5 to 4ft diameter trees also have ramps, but much smaller (3 to 4ft), indicating less leverage and, therefore, half the weight/height? 

Moreover, they were placed into position after the C Ring, as their ramps point away from the centre with no common direction.

The last row of postholes (A), 1 to 3ft in diameter, does not have ramps and are sporadic in nature and size, which leads me to believe they have no structural significance and were probably more like a palisade covering, to either enclose the structure or allow mud or reed covering (wattle & daub) and protection from the elements.

The internal posts (D to F) are superficial and probably were there to support the first-floor structure, as we see in their successors in British history, the ‘broch’ – a stone version built thousands of years later for the same purpose.

But my money would be on the tower being of a lower ratio of 1 to 1, with the base, making it 135ft high and the same height as Silbury Hill, a little further up the river Avon and its design I would suggest would have been the exact ‘layer cake’ design as we will see at Avebury.

Therefore, what would you build next to a harbour to attract and direct boats – it’s obvious, isn’t it? A fire beacon (with a stone base), as we know from written history and the Pharos of Alexandria (280 – 247 BCE).

Furthermore, this link with the harbour is illustrated by the construction of the Moat, Bank and then a Dyke. As we have suggested, the Woodhenge ditch would not have existed at the original time (Phase I) of the construction of the C and then the B rings.  It seems to have been added at the end of Phase I, when the structure was complete and before Ring A was established, as it points to the shoreline of the Neolithic Avon River. This alignment disproves the current ‘expert’ theory about being an astronomical alignment with the Solstice Sunrise. 

Evidence for the construction of the postholes (with gaps in the circle, which were later filled with smaller posts) indicates that the ditch had been filled from age or design. The central opening (in the A circle) to the northeast is not in line with the gap in the ditch, and the two other spaces in the circle would track across the ditch in the southeast and northwest.

As for the dating of Woodhenge (and Durrington Walls), like Stonehenge, unrelated antler and bone fragments have dated it to about 2400 BCE, which is very convenient.  The problem is that most of the post-hole samples at Woodhenge were either lost or have been stored away and not tested since the excavations between 1926 and 1929, for reasons known best to the experts.

Moreover, like the samples taken from the old car park in 1966, pine charcoal was reported to be found “similar to the charcoal found at Woodhenge”, as quoted by the labs at the time, who failed to carbon date the samples as the experts had declared them Neolithic, supporting the antler pick dates.  Now that this gross error has been exposed, we know these pine charcoal dates are Mesolithic, 8300 BCE, which ‘begs the question’: are the pine charcoal dates found at Woodhenge also Mesolithic?

Less than a mile down the river is ‘Blick mead’ (Vespasian’s Camp), which has also been found on dates ranging from 7900 BCE (remember our Bluestone estimation for Stonehenge is 8000 BCE), to 4050 BCE, with multiple RC dates from the 8th to the 5th BCE.  Sadly, until someone finds these samples and carbon-dates them to get an accurate date for Woodhenge and Durrington Walls, this unscientific, ad hoc archaeological dating methodology will continue.

Furthermore, the engineering structure created by this civilisation – like the design at Stonehenge – has been overlooked by archaeologists looking for a more simplistic ‘hunter-gatherer’ solution for this superstructure, which has resulted in a single-storey roof that is well over-engineered for that purpose.  We can see at Woodhenge (and at The Sanctuary at Avebury) the ‘triangulation’ of wood joints using the mortice and tenon techniques we have seen on the Sarsen stones at Stonehenge. This structural technique (incorporated into modern towers) allows the construction of extremely high wooden towers, as seen at Woodhenge.

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

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