The Stonehenge Hoax – The Stonehenge Layer

Extract from the book…………………… The Great Stonehenge Hoax – Conundrum 8 (The Stonehenge Layer)

“Chips are Us”

The Problem

During the limited excavations at Stonehenge undertaken in the early part of the last century, archaeologists were amazed by the number and distribution of the bluestones scattered across the site and lying within the soil. The number of stones was so great that the archaeologists called it the ‘Stonehenge layer.’ Chippings from the faces of the stones (particularly the larger Sarsen stones) would be expected, but the greater number of chippings came from the smaller, less frequent Bluestones, which has baffled the experts even today.

The Solution

Timothy Darvill, Professor of Archaeology at Bournemouth University, has revealed research that he believes shows that Stonehenge was an ancient healing place.  In his book, ‘Stonehenge: The Biography of a Landscape’, the Professor cites that human remains excavated from burial mounds near Stonehenge reveal that many of the buried had been ill before their death.

Darvill also suggests that these remains are not those of local people but of people who had come and travelled from far and wide.  For example, the Amesbury Archer, the name given to one of the identified remains, originated in what is now Switzerland.  The Professor believes that Stonehenge would have been predominantly used during the winter solstice when our ancestors believed it was occupied by Apollo, the Greek and Roman God of healing. (The Stonehenge Hoax – The Stonehenge Layer)

However, I would suggest that it was not the gods alone at Stonehenge that encouraged people from across the known world to travel such vast distances.  Another feature of Stonehenge that still survives today is the legendary Bluestone.

Bluestones are unexceptional, igneous rocks, such as Dolerite and Rhyolite.  They are so-called because they take on a bluish hue when ‘WET’.  Over the centuries, legends have endowed these stones with mystical properties.

The British poet Layamon, inspired by the folklore accounts of 12th-century cleric Geoffrey of Monmouth, wrote in 1215:

The stones are great

And magic power they have

Men that are sick

Fare to that stone

And they wash that stone

And with that water bathe away their sickness

This ancient poem clearly shows that the sick would BATHE away their illnesses.  I find it surprising that Professor Darvill never linked this revealing poem to his hypothesis.  Recently, findings by Professor Mike Parker Pearson of Sheffield University have revealed a smaller version of Stonehenge, confirming the link between Bluestones and WATER. (The Stonehenge Hoax – The Stonehenge Layer)

The BBC reported that:

‘About a mile away from Stonehenge, at the end of the ‘Avenue’ that connects it to the River Avon, archaeologists have discovered a smaller prehistoric site, named – appropriately, after the colour of the 27 Welsh stones it was made of – ‘Bluehenge’.  The newly discovered stone circle is thought to have been put up 5,000 years ago – which is around the same time work on Stonehenge began – and appears to be a miniature version of it.’

Hawley discovered that another exciting aspect of the moat at Stonehenge was the number of ‘craters’ found at the bottom of the ditch.  These craters were large enough to have accommodated quite large Bluestones.   Hawley, in one particular part of the Moat, found a two-metre wide hole which he described as a post hole – this, however, is too big for a post, but it could easily have been a stone hole as its size and shape were similar to the remaining standing Bluestones we see today in front of the Sarsen Stone circle.

It should be remembered that Bluestones aren’t the same size as the Sarsen Stones; they’re much smaller, and an average visitor to the Stonehenge monument may quite quickly scan them without really noticing their presence.  Archaeologists currently believe that their small size is due to damage from souvenir hunters over the years. 

But I propose that they may not have been small when originally brought to Stonehenge, for they have little to no building quality, serving instead as a healing agent to be placed at the edge and in the Moat to initiate their medical remedy.  As an indication of how these stones were initially used, archaeologists have identified a colossal amount of Bluestone chippings covering the entire site at Stonehenge, 3,600 in fact, so many that they call the soil surrounding which contains these shards ‘The Stonehenge Layer’.

I would suggest that just as we enjoy adding a variety of salts to our baths today, so did the Mesolithic people – they would have added a small amount of Bluestone chippings into the moat as they bathed.  Their healing qualities would have been enhanced by chipping the Bluestones and revealing the inner core.

The traditional view of why these quantities of Bluestone chippings are abundant is that they were ‘worked’ upon and reshaped to fit the holes that had already been prepared.  This seems completely illogical – why would anyone in their right mind undertake the gruelling task of working on this burdensome stone to fit into the holes when it would have been so much easier to have dug the chalk soil first to accommodate the shape of the stones?  Another traditional view is that the many chippings found were remnants from ‘dressing’ by reshaping these Bluestones. 

We know that the more massive Sarsen Stones were dressed on the inner side of the stone circle, as the flake marks are still visible, but there is no evidence to date that the bluestones were also dressed.

Given that archaeologists believe that the Bluestone chips exist only because of the re-working by our ancestors or the results of Victorian souvenir hunters, it would be interesting to compare their number (3,675) to the number of chippings discovered from the softer, easier-to-break, more famous and more plentiful Sarsen Stones, which we know were re-worked. (The Stonehenge Hoax – The Stonehenge Layer)

You would think, proportionately (251 cubic metres of Sarsen Stones v 28 metric metres of Bluestones), there would be a lot more Sarsen stone chipping to Bluestones – but you would be wrong!!  Only 2,173 Sarsen Stone pieces have been found, despite there being over nine times as many Sarsen Stones as Bluestones.

So, assuming there would have been a similar level of interest in Blue and Sarsen Stones by souvenir hunters and an equal amount of reworking of the stones by our ancestors, you would expect to find at least 30,000 Sarsen Stone fragments, but only a paltry 2,173 have been discovered.  Or, if 2,173 Sarsen stone pieces were the norm for both re-working and souvenir hunters, they should have found only 240 bluestone fragments and not the 3,675 (Cleal et al.,1995, pp. 379 – 387).

I can, therefore, very confidently conclude that the Bluestones were deliberately broken up to be used in the moat.  Our ancestors likely believed that once the outer covering of the Bluestones had been thoroughly exhausted, their beneficial properties would diminish, and so they were abandoned.

This is confirmed by Tim Darvill and Geoffrey Wainwright, who stated, “Our excavations within Stonehenge in 2008 confirmed what earlier excavations had hinted at: namely that the Bluestones started to be broken up and chipped away more or less from the time they were set up in each successive arrangement.”

The concept of a prehistoric person bathing away his ills may seem absurd to some, but throughout history, humanity has been attracted to this type of treatment.  For example, during the Roman Empire, some 2,000 years ago, it became commonplace in Britain for every large villa to have a spa.  (The Stonehenge Hoax – The Stonehenge Layer)

Therefore, is it a giant leap to imagine that the origin of such activities could have been introduced at an early period?

When the moat at Stonehenge had eventually dried up in the Bronze Age and could no longer be used as a spa, these smaller Bluestones were abandoned and scattered throughout the site.  The larger Bluestones at the bottom of the dried moat were probably moved to the stone circle, explaining the considerable variation in the shapes and sizes of the stones we see at the Stonehenge monument today. (The Stonehenge Hoax – The Stonehenge Layer)

AI Update (2026)

The Stonehenge Layer Reveals a Remarkable Anomaly

Darvill’s analysis of the Stonehenge Layer provides one of the most important clues yet discovered regarding the treatment of the Bluestones at Stonehenge.

The fragment assemblage is composed approximately of:

• Sarsen: 48%
• Rhyolite: 16%
• Subplanar Rhyolite: 22%
• Spotted Dolerite: 12%
• Palaeozoic Sandstone: 1%
• Mesozoic Sandstone: 1%

Collectively, the Bluestones account for approximately 52% of all identified fragments, while Sarsens account for 48%.

At first glance, this appears unremarkable.

However, when the size of the stones is taken into account, a major problem emerges.

The Sarsens Were Vastly Larger

Stonehenge originally contained approximately:

• 80 Sarsens
• 70–80 Bluestones

At first glance, this appears to be a balanced arrangement.

But the stones themselves were anything but equal.

A typical Bluestone weighs approximately 2–4 tonnes.

A typical Sarsen weighs approximately 20–25 tonnes, with some considerably larger.

In other words, the average Sarsen contains roughly six to ten times more stone than the average Bluestone.

If both groups had simply been shaped and dressed during construction, the Stonehenge Layer should be dominated by Sarsen waste.

After all, there was vastly more Sarsen material available to chip away.

Yet this is not what Darvill found.

Instead, Bluestone fragments occur in almost exactly the same proportion as Sarsen fragments.

Why Is This Important?

The accepted interpretation is that the Sarsens were dressed into shape, naturally producing flakes and chips during construction.

The Bluestones present a different problem.

If they had simply been shaped like the Sarsens, their fragment representation should be far lower because there was far less stone available to work.

Instead, they produce almost the same number of fragments.

The simplest explanation is that the Bluestones were not merely dressed.

They were deliberately broken up.

This conclusion aligns closely with Darvill’s observation that many of the Bluestone fragments appear to derive from activity that occurred almost immediately after the stones arrived at Stonehenge.

---

Estimating the Original Bluestone Composition

Using Darvill’s fragment proportions, the Bluestone assemblage can be divided approximately as follows:

• Subplanar Rhyolite: 42%
• Rhyolite: 31%
• Spotted Dolerite: 23%
• Palaeozoic Sandstone: 2%
• Mesozoic Sandstone: 2%

Assuming an original total of approximately 80 Bluestones, this suggests:

Stone Type	Estimated Number
Subplanar Rhyolite	~34
Rhyolite	~25
Spotted Dolerite	~18
Palaeozoic Sandstone	1–2
Mesozoic Sandstone	1–2

The pattern is immediately apparent.

Most of the Bluestones appear to have been rhyolitic in origin, with Spotted Dolerite forming a substantial minority and only a small number of sandstone blocks present.

---

Quarry Evidence and Stone-Type Match

The estimated stone distribution aligns remarkably well with the known quarry evidence from Wales.

Confirmed Quarry Site	Stone Type(s)	Approximate Number of Original Stones
Carn Goedog, Preseli Hills	Spotted Dolerite	~20–30 stones
Craig Rhos-y-felin, Preseli Hills	Rhyolite and Subplanar Rhyolite	~30–40 stones

This correspondence is important.

The Stonehenge Layer does not produce a random assortment of rock types.

Instead, the fragment evidence is dominated by exactly the lithologies identified at the known Bluestone quarry sites.

The debris, therefore, appears to preserve a genuine signature of the imported stones rather than representing later contamination or accidental breakage.

---

The Quarry Dating Problem

The quarry evidence presents another puzzle rarely discussed within traditional archaeology.

Radiocarbon dates from the Preseli quarry sites indicate activity extending from approximately the 9th millennium BCE through to the 5th millennium BCE.

In other words, the Bluestones appear to have been extracted and transported for thousands of years.

Then something changed.

By the late Mesolithic, quarry activity appears to decline dramatically, creating a gap of roughly a thousand years before the traditionally accepted construction dates for Stonehenge.

This creates an awkward question.

If the Bluestones were primarily intended as standing stones for the famous monument we see today, why were they being quarried and transported thousands of years before Stonehenge was supposedly built?

And why does quarry activity appear to cease long before the monument reaches its accepted construction date?

The chronology appears back-to-front.

Under the conventional model:

1. The stones are quarried.
2. Quarry activity largely ceases.
3. A substantial gap follows.
4. Stonehenge was then constructed.

Yet the Stonehenge Layer indicates extensive Bluestone fragmentation occurring at the monument itself.

The evidence, therefore, appears to describe a long period of Bluestone use followed by decline, rather than a sudden burst of quarrying immediately before construction.

---

A Different Interpretation

If Bluestones were required for a practical purpose associated with a water-dominated landscape, their importance would naturally decline as water levels fell and river systems stabilised during the late Mesolithic.

Under such a model:

• Quarrying is intensive while the system is needed.
• Bluestones are transported and utilised.
• Water levels gradually fall.
• Demand for replacement stones declines.
• Quarry activity eventually ceases.

The quarry chronology, therefore, appears easier to explain as the decline of an existing system than as preparation for a monument supposedly constructed many centuries or even millennia later.

This does not prove the hypothesis.

However, it does raise an important question:

Why does the Bluestone quarry evidence peak during the Mesolithic and then fade away long before the conventional date assigned to Stonehenge?

---

The Key Observation

The significance of Darvill’s work lies not simply in allowing us to estimate the number and types of Bluestones originally present.

The significance is that the fragment assemblage appears far too rich in Bluestone material relative to the stones’ size.

The Sarsens were enormous.

The Bluestones were comparatively small.

Yet both produced similar quantities of debris.

That should not have happened if both groups were simply being shaped into monuments.

It does happen if one group is being systematically broken into smaller pieces.

The Stonehenge Layer, therefore, appears to preserve evidence that the Bluestones were treated very differently from the Sarsens.

Taken together with the quarry chronology, this suggests that the traditional narrative does not yet fully explain how, when, or why these remarkable stones were transported to Stonehenge in the first place.

Unearth the Astonishing Secrets of Stonehenge (The Stonehenge Hoax)

Video

(The Stonehenge Hoax – The Stonehenge Layer)

The Book

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. (The Stonehenge Hoax – The Stonehenge Layer)

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. (The Stonehenge Hoax – The Stonehenge Layer)

Robert John Langdon (2023) – (The Stonehenge Hoax)

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