If we now apply the same groundwater table adjustments demonstrated in our Stonehenge case study, we are left with a landscape rendered unrecognisable by groundwater, as the Avebury Circle becomes an island. The most remarkable thing is that Avebury now looks like a sister site to Old Sarum: both are perfectly round islands surrounded by groundwater; both have two inner circles and are aligned to Stonehenge via its moated Station Stones.
The next item of interest is the orientation of the long barrows. If you look at an OS map of Avebury, you can see that the barrows are not all oriented in the same direction. Archaeologists would have you believe that these monuments were only made for the dead but, if that was the case, why don’t they point to a particular direction, such as the sunrise or sunset, or something equally symbolic? From our Mesolithic groundwater map, we can show that East Kennet Long Barrow was the first hill marker you would see if approaching Avebury from the Eastern inlet. Although West Kennet Long Barrow is seen side-on, it would still be visible as a smaller marker, as it had large white stones added to its Eastern entrance to give it greater visibility.
When the groundwater started to recede, as we saw at Old Sarum, our ancestors tried to keep their monument an island by adding ditches. These ditches would have been shallow at first, becoming deeper over the centuries until they were finally abandoned, leaving what we see today.
Proof of Hypothesis No. 35
The Long Barrows around Avebury are built on the shorelines of the Mesolithic waterways predicted by my hypothesis. Not only are they on the shoreline, but their orientation proves that they were used to navigate ships between Avebury and Stonehenge.
This gradual process explains more clearly how and why such a task was undertaken, as the logistical requirements of building the Avebury ditches ‘in one go’ would have been beyond a prehistoric civilisation whose only tools were antler picks and stone axes. Current estimates suggest that it took 1.5 million man hours to build the Avebury monument. In simple terms, that’s 200 people working full-time for 3 to 4 years. This is clearly not plausible. As you will be able to imagine if you have ever visited the site or you understand the requirements of manual labour, it would take a lot more to construct such a large site with such basic tools.
Avebury's three Long Barrows and Orientations
The nearby man-made Silbury Hill contains 248,000 cubic metres of chalk, and would have taken 18 million man hours to construct (Atkinson 1974:128). That’s equivalent to 500 people working full-time for 15 years. Yet we are expected to believe that Avebury’s 125,000 cubic metres of chalk took just 1.5 million man hours to move.
There is just no consistency in archaeological findings; it’s all subjective, and quite frankly wrong!
It’s more likely that these monuments grew over the course of centuries, slowly but surely, the ditches starting at just one metre but getting deeper over the next 5,000 years as the moat was cleaned out, until they reached their final dimensions of 11 metres deep and 22 metres wide. This gradual process would explain another archaeological mystery that the ‘experts’ avoid - with what tools were they built?
Now everyone knows that Stonehenge, Avebury and Old Sarum were cut out of the hard chalk with antler picks - or do we? For if the archaeologists are right, the entire site, must be littered with the broken remains of these objects - but they’re not!
Half of Stonehenge has been fully excavated and found just 82 pieces probably from about 50 full antlers. At Avebury even less - either antlers are the hardest natural tools in the world or what we find are the remnants of tools used after the construction for alterations or to clean out (not cut) the ditches.
So if antler picks didn’t dig the ditches, what did?
Proof of Hypothesis No. 36
The ditches at Avebury are over 11 m deep. The excavated chalk was not used to bank the inner side of the ditch as expected if it was a defensive feature – but on the outside to shelter the circle. Therefore, the only possible reason for such an excavation would be to create a moat for boats to harbour.
Mike Parker-Pearson found strange cut marks in the bottom of a ditch at Durrington in 2008, the cut marks were so thin that they could only be made by a metal blade, like an axe, the only problem is that according to traditional archaeology, this Bronze technology would not be available during this period of the stone age - unless, of course the accepted dating periods of our history are fundamentally wrong and metals were invented long ago and the techniques re-invented in the ‘Bronze Age’. For we now know that the peoples of Europe had Bronze as early as 4600BCE in Bulgaria found in a Gold and Bronze grave - so there is no good reason to believe that the builders of Stonehenge did in fact have Bronze axes to cut the chalk.
Avebury with its high harbour wall is perfect for boats
Back at Avebury, the most interesting aspect of this excavated ‘chalk mountain’ is that we can use it to approximate a date for its construction and therefore the excavation of the ditch the chalk where it originated.
We know the original height of chalk bank as we know how much chalk was removed from the ditch in front of the mound. On average the ditch is 11m deep and 22m wide - which means that for every metre excavated 132m2 was transferred to the bank. The chalk mound is much narrower than the ditch from which it was excavated. Therefore, the bank would be higher than the ditches depth - my calculation shows that the bank would be therefore 15m high at least but as the chalk in the ground had been compressed over time and the bank would have contain more air gaps the likelihood is that the bank was 20m high at the time of completion.
For our calculation, if we take the smaller value of 15m then we see that there is only 7m left today (on average on the banks that still exist or have not been cut in recent times). We know from monitoring the erosion levels of chalk soils to be a nett loss of 1mm per annum (let loss takes into consideration both water erosion of the chalk and soil deposits dropped through rain) This simple calculation gives us the answer of the bank being built AT LEAST 8,000 years ago - about 6000BCE.
Proof of Hypothesis No. 37
The erosion of the chalk banks at Avebury give us an indication the approximate date the monument’s ditches were first constructed. At 1mm per annum this indicates the ditches were built BEFORE 6000BCE.
Eventually, when Avebury lost all of its groundwater, our ancestors built Silbury Hill as the new landing site to the complex. Silbury Hill is the largest man-made island in Europe, and was set at the end of the Neolithic waterway. Composed mainly of chalk and clay excavated from the surrounding area, the mound stands 40 metres (130 ft) high and covers about 5 acres. As we have already seen, it would have taken 18 million man hours to deposit and shape this vast pile of chalk and earth on top of the natural hill that forms Silbury’s foundation. The base of the hill is circular, 167 metres (548 ft) in diameter. The summit is flat-topped and 30m (98ft) in diameter.
Neolithic Avebury and Silbury Hill
At this point, to maintain the link to Avebury, the Sanctuary was created and a stone causeway was introduced from the landing site at the end of the peninsula to Avebury. It should be noted that the original track went North East from the Sanctuary. This path would have taken our ancestors around the groundwater and over the hill to a place called Falkner’s Circle, which has now been destroyed, but once overlooked Avebury. From this stone circle, the path went down to the existing stone avenue toward Avebury. This stone avenue, like the one at Stonehenge, has a strange kink in its design, as if it went in a different direction before being changed at a later date. The kink shows that the original path led to Falkner’s Circle, and we believe this was the route our ancestors used in the Neolithic Period.
Proof of Hypothesis No. 38
Silbury Hill was constructed during the Neolithic Period, once the waters had subsided. The location of the hill is at the end of the waterway predicted by my hypothesis. With its close connection to the Sanctuary mooring site, it represents a continued connection between Stonehenge and Av
ebury.
Chapter 16 - Woodhenge and Durrington Walls a structure by a harbour (Case Study No.4)
If you go to the original North East path break in the Stonehenge ditch and look to the Heel Stone, which was moated during the Mesolithic Period, you will have a direct alignment to Stonehenge’s nearest neighbours, Woodhenge and Durrington Walls. The fact that the Avenue is wider than the break in the ditch around Stonehenge 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. As shown in our Stonehenge case study, 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 clearly positioned prior to the Avenue’s construction; the moated stone points to Stonehenge’s sister site Woodhenge and not, as is currently believed, to the midsummer sunrise.
The first thing that strikes you when you look at Durrington Walls is that it seems incomplete; it looks like a half-circle from aerial photographs, and from the ground you get a sense of it only being half finished.
But most illustrations include the Eastern section, because magnetometer surveys show that under the surface there are more ditches although you might question their purpose, as it is not obvious. The Eastern side of the site was clearly built much later than the original West side. The East 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 30 m 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 of the size of that on the Northern side. The current theory and plan of Durrington Walls simply does not stand up to investigation, for it is clear that the Eastern side of the camp was added at a later date, when the prehistoric groundwater had started to recede. This would include the Southern circle found in the 1960s.
So what was its original use?
Durrington Walls with the harbour wall highlighted
To answer that question, you must look at the site’s terrain, position and layout. 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 a very good reason: you will wake up one morning covered in water, as when it rains the water runs downhill! So, were Mesolithic people completely stupid? If this was an encampment, the houses would flood frequently.
Archaeologists will insist that, because they have found the foundations of a couple of roundhouses, the site must unquestionably be a settlement – this is because they are dumbfounded by its position and shape. If we now add the higher Mesolithic groundwater tables as discussed in our other case studies, the site becomes a perfect natural harbour, with shallow sides for pulling boats ashore and a 4 metre deep ravine in the centre of the harbour that would have provided shelter from gales.
Durrington Walls N to S cross section
Woodhenge has two entrances: one clearly directed towards Durrington Walls camp and, more importantly, a mysterious second entrance that trails to our Mesolithic shoreline. This is a clear indication that groundwater was present at Woodhenge during Mesolithic times. Not only would it explain the strange shape of the camp, but also the magnetometer survey showing a ditch dug after the groundwater had fallen in Neolithic times. Even more interesting is how the landscape reflected the receding shoreline over 5,000 years at this site. The present-day minor road runs along the course of the Mesolithic shoreline circa 6000 BCE.
We should not be too surprised by this, as lake shores and coastlines still have paths along them today so that we can fully enjoy them. There is no reason to believe that prehistoric man did any different 8,000 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 type of post holes here as we found in the car park at Stonehenge?
Unbelievably, yes, it is!
Proof of Hypothesis No. 39
Durrington Walls shows clearly that it was originally constructed not as an encampment, but as a harbour. The V-shaped floor and sloping profile is perfect for mooring ships and boats, and the high banks on three sides would give shelter. This also proves that the waterline in the Mesolithic Period was at the height proposed by my hypothesis.
Post holes (mooring posts) found at the Mesolithic shoreline
Wainwright, in his excavations of Durrington Walls, discovered lots of them. Without the shoreline, which we have added in blue in the diagram below, they really do not make much sense. But as soon as the groundwater is added, their function becomes obvious: they held mooring posts, for that is the natural landing area for boats coming to and from Stonehenge.
Proof of Hypothesis No. 40
During excavations in 1966 at Durrington Walls, the post holes of a mooring station were found on the Neolithic shoreline predicted by my hypothesis.
Conclusion
In this last section, we look at the civilisation that built these monuments that have survived 10,000 years, and we try to understand their culture and technology. In doing so, we are connecting with our ancestors and, probably for the first time, attempting to understand their ways and methods
Section Four - An Ancient Civilisation
In this section we will try to illustrate what kind of culture could organise and build such enormous monuments that lasted ten thousand years. We have shown that these monuments were not constructed ‘overnight’ by hundreds of workers slaving without rest to reach their endeavours, but by a more controlled, gradual construction process over many hundreds or even thousands of years as their culture and society grew.
The way to measure the greatness of our prehistoric ancestors is through the longevity of their civilisation, for time shows that they had a stable and structured society that kept faith with the same ancient traditions as their forefathers for many thousands of years, like the Native North Americans Indians before our technological civilisation invaded their land. Consequently, this may be our second measure to the differences in our cultures, for today we seek to advance through technology, as we believe the better the technology, the better and greater the civilisation.
But is that really true?
Archaeologists date history by technological phases and not by cultural values; Stone Age, Bronze Age and Iron Age are the main prehistoric evolutionary time periods. This type of technology-focused dating implies that Stone people were more primitive than the Iron Age people because they had LESS lethal metal weapons. This is deeply misleading. Today, our governments can destroy whole continents just by pressing a switch to launch rockets that can kill millions of innocent faceless people.
Is this really progress and a sign of a great civilisation?
Isn’t there more honour and a greater ‘morality’, as a human being, when looking into your enemies’ eyes and, in that brief moment, judging whether they are guilty of a crime you deem so serious as to justify taking their life? So, when we evaluate historic civilisations, we must also evaluate our own values and judgements. For if we do not we may fail to understand the true nature of these cultures of the past.
Chapter 17 - The Megalithic Builders
Open any book about prehistory that has been published in the last 100 years, and you will get a ‘stereotypical view’ of fur-clad cavemen who lived before and after the last ice age 12,000 years ago, chipping away with flint stone tools, eating raw meat and each other. This primitive basic lifestyle supposedly lasted until the Bronze Age in about 2500 BCE, when they cut down all the trees and built strange monuments to appease and worship the gods. The British tribes were then gradually civilised and re-educated by the influences of trade, and later by more advanced invading civilisations that had developed in mainland Europe from the influences from the
Middle East. This (in a nut shell) is the current ‘Out of Africa Theory’, which eventually arrives in Britain and a civilisation in the form of farming and living in mud huts with their pigs and goats.
The Stonehenge Enigma (Prehistoric Britain Book 1) Page 15