Leylines (UK) - My findings

[greywolfe]

Leylines are a most curious phenomena first made famous by an author called Alfred Watkins circa 1928. His book "The Old straight Track" was inspired by a vision he had whilst hiking in the county of Herefordshire in the U.K. where he lived.

The vision he had was of the countryside suddenly becoming interlaced with lines that connected old churches and other places of antiquity. As a result of this split seconds insight Alfred undertook a study of the area using maps and made the discovery that many old churches were indeed connected to each other along perfectly straight lines. Many readers of his work became captivated and sought to undertake similar studies of there own. My own interest having been stimulated led me to make an initial study of my neighborhood. I began my studies using a 1 inch to the mile ordinance survey map. First of all I drew a circle around all the churches that I knew to be (a few) centuries old. Then with a ruler I began checking to see if any of these markers formed straight lines obviously using 3 churches as the minimum criteria. Almost immediately I found many 3 church alignments and a fair number of 4 and 5 church lines. The plot thickened when I extended the lines by some 15 miles or so beyond the last confirmed marker of an alignment. I found that if I extended all the alignments that even though they didn't pass through any more churches - some of these extended lines crossed at exact points on the map. I called these points (Ley crossroads). Using these crossroads themselves as a confirmed marker some of the unconfirmed 2 church leys were now confirmed. It was really a Eureka moment to know that I'd discovered ancient knowledge that absolutely nobody else was aware of. There are other markers that frequently occur on leylines such as pieces of perfectly straight modern roads that follow the route of pre-medieval tracks. Lakes and natural markers such as prominent hills are found often found along the lines. Another more quirky finding is if you regard a church as a central point and draw imaginary circular spiral pattern out from that point - then do a similar exercise with a neighboring church or marker - you may find that the nodes of intersection of the spirals unearth further markers that also form Ley-lines. In addition to markers and geometry, place names are extremely useful as confirmation of a Leys existence. Very old place names such as Cole (Coleshill) or White (Whitecross) etc are examples along with Dodd or Bury and so on. A vital feature to include as a marker in any map search are ancient burial grounds or Earthworks. Alfred Watkins was firmly of the opinion that these tracks were devised as a navigational/ transport network from bygone times. Many students since then have proposed a multitude of other solutions to the riddle. I personally think that sections of the system were perhaps used as roads but am convinced that this was not their primary function. There are many curious folk lore legends attached to the lines as any researcher will soon discover. When I actually visited sites I'd identified, all sorts of confirmations started to appear. Most curious were names of old cottages on the alignments such as Coles Farm or Bury Hill. The most famous Ley-line junction is possibly Stonehenge. What stuck me most about visiting Stonehenge was that it is surround by literally hundreds of earth mounds and other Ley features . From the air the miles surrounding Stonehenge look like a 4000 year old metropolis with the henge itself looking almost insignificant within the mass of features that surround it. The fact that churches contribute so heavily in Ley hunting is a little misleading really. It is not the church itself that's important here it's the land upon which it was built. It became usual with the onset of Christianity to build churches on old pagan sites to lure the enthusiasm of the old ways of the people to the new movement. Upon the old Pagan sites there often stood large standing stones (In fact many church yards still have these relics of Paganism). I think (and many others) believe these monoliths to be key to understanding the Ley-line puzzle. The stones it is thought may have been booster stations forming a network or energy management crossing the entire UK ( &other lands beyond). What type of energy connected the sites is open to much debate. Curiously some stones shows signs of cup marks on their surfaces of various diameters that may have served as satellite type dishes sunken into the surface with their diameters devised to control different frequencies. It is my belief that the energy manipulated by the network was gravity itself. As yet scientist have not been able to detect gravity-waves and I'm sure it's because they simply don't exist. I believe that gravity is a product of distorted space time engineered by the presence of mass. As gravity is a very subtle force it seems feasible to me that the mass of a large stone could be sufficient to cause a local micro-gravitational effects that positioning of the stone and (dish) features upon it's surface could be fashioned in such a way as to harness the (energy/space-time ripple). The mass of Ayres rock in Australia is magnificent example of micro-gravitational anomalous events.

Whatever truth is eventually found to be behind the purpose Ley-lines - it's certainly remains the most captivating of mysteries to solve.

[Farmer77]

Great post!

[Abramelin]

In 2004, John Bruno Hare wrote:

"Watkins never attributed any supernatural significance to leys; he believed that they were simply pathways that had been used for trade or ceremonial purposes, very ancient in origin, possibly dating back to the Neolithic, certainly pre-Roman. His obsession with leys was a natural outgrowth of his interest in landscape photography and love of the British countryside. He was an intensely rational person with an active intellect, and I think he would be a bit disappointed with some of the fringe aspects of ley lines today".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ley_line

[Taun]

I have to admit that in the 70's I read a book about Ley Lines and was convinced they were indeed something very special... Until I looked at maps of local areas and realised that a person could easily find 'Ley Lines', almost anywhere....

I still think it's interesting - and fun to see what lines up with what... but it's nothing "special" IMO...

[Abramelin]

80 4-point alignments of 137 random points

[laver]

It is easy to dismiss alignments of sites on the basis of random probability but we should perhaps remember that it is now generally accepted that very ancient sites were aligned to the sun, moon and stars with great knowledge and skill. This must have involved the selection of suitable sites. There is no reason to dismiss the possibilty that this knowledge and skill was not also used in the placement of sites to form alignments or patterns in the landscape.

The geometry used in Stone Age sites has now been demonstrated to be advanced and this would seem to be related to the spiritual beliefs of people at that time but the use of very large and durable stone structures might indicate that it was also intended to be a message for future generations. This message is one we should maybe try and understand and not ignore or dismiss.

[Swede]

The stones it is thought may have been booster stations forming a network or energy management crossing the entire UK ( &other lands beyond).

It is my belief that the energy manipulated by the network was gravity itself. As yet scientist have not been able to detect gravity-waves and I'm sure it's because they simply don't exist.

I believe that gravity is a product of distorted space time engineered by the presence of mass.

A true tribute to the credibility of the "Ley Line" "concept".

.

[Harte]

It is easy to dismiss alignments of sites on the basis of random probability but we should perhaps remember that it is now generally accepted that very ancient sites were aligned to the sun, moon and stars with great knowledge and skill. This must have involved the selection of suitable sites. There is no reason to dismiss the possibilty that this knowledge and skill was not also used in the placement of sites to form alignments or patterns in the landscape.

"Suitable sites" for such alignments have to do with visibility concerning the horizon, and not any bogus, imaginary lines that "cross" at a particular location.

The geometry used in Stone Age sites has now been demonstrated to be advanced

Bullsheet. Period. Extra period.

Harte

[jaylemurph]

Great post!

...for demonstrating the dangers of a poor font choice and lack of paragraph formatting? I and my bleeding eyes certainly agree.

--Jaylemurph

[laver]

"Suitable sites" for such alignments have to do with visibility concerning the horizon, and not any bogus, imaginary lines that "cross" at a particular location.

Bullsheet. Period. Extra period.

Harte

The work of Professor Thom would seem to suggest otherwise or were Stone Age folk incapable of setting out a round circle ?

[shrooma]

The work of Professor Thom would seem to suggest otherwise or were Stone Age folk incapable of setting out a round circle ?

.

maybe if you'd actually read some Thom instead of just skimming a wiki about him, you'd have found that most stone 'circles' are actually ellipses.

being a MUCH harder geometric construct, A. Thom was more concerned about elliptical sites than circles, but of course, you already knew that didn't you, from your years of painstaking research into the subject.

(also, Thom hated the 'mystical' ley-line concept.)

[laver]

.

maybe if you'd actually read some Thom instead of just skimming a wiki about him, you'd have found that most stone 'circles' are actually ellipses.

being a MUCH harder geometric construct, A. Thom was more concerned about elliptical sites than circles, but of course, you already knew that didn't you, from your years of painstaking research into the subject.

(also, Thom hated the 'mystical' ley-line concept.)

That is the point ! why make complex geometric forms, and Professor Thom's research indicated they did, when a simple circle is so easy to set out. There must be a reason and Thom indicates that they were demonstrating a knowledge of geometry which does not equate to the accepted view of people at that time. The twin circle with vesica is a design he suggested was used which makes one think of the much larger example found by David Furlong on the Marlborough Downs with his proposed links to the Great Pyramid in Egypt.

If the ancient folk could do this then alignments of sites would be quite a straightforward matter and 'ley' lines are a very real possibility and well worth careful consideration.

NB Please cut out the personal insults; it probably just demonstrates to some UM users your immaturity.

[Swede]

...'ley' lines are a very real possibility and well worth careful consideration.

You have previously been provided with the citation for Williamson and Bellamy, which you apparently have not yet bothered to procure. To reiterate said:

Williamson, Tom and Liz Bellamy

1983 Ley Lines in Question. Littlehampton Book Services Ltd.

Should you question Williamson's credentials, you will find that he is well published in the field of landscape archaeology:

http://www.uea.ac.uk...on#publications

For more lay-oriented evaluations of "Ley Lines":

http://www.skeptical...lines-debunked/

http://www.badarchae...om/?page_id=878

As to Thom: 1) His professional background was in engineering 2) His concepts were not generally considered credible in his own time nor have they received any notable additional support in more recent history. Burl was quite scathing in regards to Thom's "megalithic yard":

http://articles.adsa...000103.000.html

.

[shrooma]

heeere we go again with the 'personal insults' crap. you need to find the 'maturity' to distinguish between an insult and criticism.

as to the Thom thing, did I cite him as a reference?

or was that you....?

it was you wasn't it.

I merely pointed out you were wrong in your findings.

so trying to discredit someone you used as a source doesn't seem all that wise to me.

or mature.

but we've been through this before, haven't we, on another thread, where you cited references, and I showed you the glaring holes in them, to which you tried the same immature deflection tactics as here.

maybe laver, if you can't face criticism of your posts, then public forums might not be your ideal medium.....

[laver]

You have previously been provided with the citation for Williamson and Bellamy, which you apparently have not yet bothered to procure. To reiterate said:

Williamson, Tom and Liz Bellamy

1983 Ley Lines in Question. Littlehampton Book Services Ltd.

Should you question Williamson's credentials, you will find that he is well published in the field of landscape archaeology:

http://www.uea.ac.uk...on#publications

For more lay-oriented evaluations of "Ley Lines":

http://www.skeptical...lines-debunked/

http://www.badarchae...om/?page_id=878

As to Thom: 1) His professional background was in engineering 2) His concepts were not generally considered credible in his own time nor have they received any notable additional support in more recent history. Burl was quite scathing in regards to Thom's "megalithic yard":

http://articles.adsa...000103.000.html

.

Thank you for the references

The problem is that so much of 'established' opinion does not want to consider the possibility of ancient alignments and the geometric layouts of ancient sites because it would mean a complete rethink about ancient times. But the evidence is out there on the landscape in many ways. We do not know were the inspiration to build a site like Stonehenge came from or the skill and motivation to construct it. There were clearly some very wise and influential people behind it over a considerable period of time yet we have been encouraged, no doubt for various reasons, not to consider it.

Professor Thom came up with some interesting proposals which may well prove to be substantially valid when we can see the full picture.

[laver]

heeere we go again with the 'personal insults' crap. you need to find the 'maturity' to distinguish between an insult and criticism.

as to the Thom thing, did I cite him as a reference?

or was that you....?

it was you wasn't it.

I merely pointed out you were wrong in your findings.

so trying to discredit someone you used as a source doesn't seem all that wise to me.

or mature.

but we've been through this before, haven't we, on another thread, where you cited references, and I showed you the glaring holes in them, to which you tried the same immature deflection tactics as here.

maybe laver, if you can't face criticism of your posts, then public forums might not be your ideal medium.....

Oh dear !! Someone with a problem, methinks......

[Swede]

Thank you for the references

The problem is that so much of 'established' opinion does not want to consider the possibility of ancient alignments and the geometric layouts of ancient sites because it would mean a complete rethink about ancient times.

The above is little more than the regurgitation of "positions" that have been expressed by the various New Age charlatans (and other fringe "authors") which would appear to be the basis for your own misguided perceptions. As evidenced by the previously referenced publications by Williamson (and numerous others), the legitimate study of landscape archaeology is hardly an ignored topic.

Nor are those involved in archaeological research "in fear" of proposing a re-evaluation of prior understandings. Archaeological research is inherently based upon new data and more informed interpretation. This aspect is well evidenced to even the casual observer.

Your various contributions are clearly reflective of one who has a minimal understanding of the depth and extent of qualified research. You would appear to have a limited grasp of cultures, timelines, technologies, population movements, and genetics, to name but a few

Am unsure if you actually spent the time to investigate the sources recently provided. If not, kindly input your personal data into the following:

http://www.tomscott.com/ley/

.

[laver]

The above is little more than the regurgitation of "positions" that have been expressed by the various New Age charlatans (and other fringe "authors") which would appear to be the basis for your own misguided perceptions. As evidenced by the previously referenced publications by Williamson (and numerous others), the legitimate study of landscape archaeology is hardly an ignored topic.

Nor are those involved in archaeological research "in fear" of proposing a re-evaluation of prior understandings. Archaeological research is inherently based upon new data and more informed interpretation. This aspect is well evidenced to even the casual observer.

Your various contributions are clearly reflective of one who has a minimal understanding of the depth and extent of qualified research. You would appear to have a limited grasp of cultures, timelines, technologies, population movements, and genetics, to name but a few

Am unsure if you actually spent the time to investigate the sources recently provided. If not, kindly input your personal data into the following:

http://www.tomscott.com/ley/

.

Just to quote what I said in full

Thank you for the references

The problem is that so much of 'established' opinion does not want to consider the possibility of ancient alignments and the geometric layouts of ancient sites because it would mean a complete rethink about ancient times. But the evidence is out there on the landscape in many ways. We do not know were the inspiration to build a site like Stonehenge came from or the skill and motivation to construct it. There were clearly some very wise and influential people behind it over a considerable period of time yet we have been encouraged, no doubt for various reasons, not to consider it.

Professor Thom came up with some interesting proposals which may well prove to be substantially valid when we can see the full picture

The 'experts' do not know all the answers and to meerly dismiss people who come up with other ideas as a bunch of 'charlatans' is a very narrow minded approach. Sites like Stonehenge are totally out of context with much that we know about the societies that existed when they were being designed and constructed but they are out there on the landscape and demonstrate knowledge, skills and motivation that cannot as yet be explained. We can see that an unknown intelligence was behind many sites in the UK and elsewhere so it is an unexplained mystery at this moment in time.

All ideas should be carefully considered even if they challenge 'established' opinions.

[Swede]

1) ..."charlatan",,,

2) Sites like Stonehenge are totally out of context...

3) We can see that an unknown intelligence was behind many sites...

4) All ideas should be carefully considered even if they challenge 'established' opinions.

Re: 1:

char·la·tan (shärl-tn)

n.

A person who makes elaborate, fraudulent, and often voluble claims to skill or knowledge; a quack or fraud.

[French, from Italian ciarlatano, probably alteration (influenced by ciarlare, to prattle) of cerretano, inhabitant of Cerreto, a city of Italy once famous for its quacks.]

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

charlatan [ˈʃɑːlət^ən]

n

someone who professes knowledge or expertise, esp in medicine, that he does not have; quack

[from French, from Italian ciarlatano, from ciarlare to chatter]

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

.

Would one consider an individual who charges gullible individuals a fee for a medical diagnosis that utilizes a demonstrably fraudulent "machine" to fit the above definitions? Or an individual who attempts to verify and "prove" the presence of "Ley Lines" via the utilization of dowsing? Not to mention the sales of books directed at the ill-informed/naive.

Re: 2: In what manner? Your qualified documentation for this absolutist statement? Please do provide such documentation.

Re: 3: Your qualified documentation for this bold proclamation?

Re: 4: 1) Not all "ideas" are of equal value, particularly when they are not supported by credible data. 2) As previously presented, such "ideas" have been professionally addressed and found to be without credible substantiation.

You have repeatedly been presented with relatively detailed information/references that demonstrate that your elaborate personal fantasy lacks verifiable substance.

May it not be time for you to provide credible references for your postulations rather than floundering about with personal-rationalization rhetoric?

.

.

[laver]

Re: 1:

char·la·tan (shärl-tn)

n.

A person who makes elaborate, fraudulent, and often voluble claims to skill or knowledge; a quack or fraud.

[French, from Italian ciarlatano, probably alteration (influenced by ciarlare, to prattle) of cerretano, inhabitant of Cerreto, a city of Italy once famous for its quacks.]

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

charlatan [ˈʃɑːlət^ən]

n

someone who professes knowledge or expertise, esp in medicine, that he does not have; quack

[from French, from Italian ciarlatano, from ciarlare to chatter]

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

.

Would one consider an individual who charges gullible individuals a fee for a medical diagnosis that utilizes a demonstrably fraudulent "machine" to fit the above definitions? Or an individual who attempts to verify and "prove" the presence of "Ley Lines" via the utilization of dowsing? Not to mention the sales of books directed at the ill-informed/naive.

Re: 2: In what manner? Your qualified documentation for this absolutist statement? Please do provide such documentation.

Re: 3: Your qualified documentation for this bold proclamation?

Re: 4: 1) Not all "ideas" are of equal value, particularly when they are not supported by credible data. 2) As previously presented, such "ideas" have been professionally addressed and found to be without credible substantiation.

You have repeatedly been presented with relatively detailed information/references that demonstrate that your elaborate personal fantasy lacks verifiable substance.

May it not be time for you to provide credible references for your postulations rather than floundering about with personal-rationalization rhetoric?

.

.

1. When is a 'charlatan' not a 'charlatan' ? Many professors come up with theories about the origins and uses of a site like Stonehenge based on guesswork. They have and do come up with all sorts of ideas; are they 'quacks' too? No just people with ideas and proposals.

It sounds to me as if a 'charlatan' in your book is someone who proposes something that you personally don't agree with which seems to me a narrow minded point of view.

2. The construction of Stonehenge with the use of massive blocks, 50 tons or more, and the use of mortise and tenon joints is out of context with what we know about the simple construction of dwellings or other buildings at that time.

3. There must have been an 'intelligence' behind many sites of the ancient world who would seem to have been the motivation behind their construction but certainly had skills and knowledge to direct the considerable number of workers involved. In Egypt this would seem to have been an elite group but in the UK there does not seem to be the evidence available yet to establish who these people were.

4. Since we do not yet know how and why ancient sites were created in particular locations 'professional' opinion is often just guesswork based on what we do know. The work of someone like Professor Thom indicates possibly advanced geometric knowledge in the layout of ancient sites which may have been dismissed by many 'experts' on the basis that it does not fit with what we know. That of course does not take account of things we do not at present know and that is obviously a great deal.

Alignments of sites is either fact or fiction, if they align they align and it is just a matter then of whether this alignment is coincidental or part of some design.

[Harte]

2. The construction of Stonehenge with the use of massive blocks, 50 tons or more, and the use of mortise and tenon joints is out of context with what we know about the simple construction of dwellings or other buildings at that time.

Nah.

Believe what you want, but don't include anyone else in that "we."

The thirty sarsen stones of Stonehenge were dressed and fashioned with mortise-and-tenon joints before they were erected between 2600 and 2400 BC.

This is an ancient joint and has been found joining the wooden planks of the "Khufu ship" a 43.6 m long vessel sealed into a pit in the Giza pyramid complex of the Fourth Dynasty around 2500 BC. The oldest known use dates from the Early Neolithic Linear Pottery culture, where it was used in the constructing of the wooden lining of water wells.

Source for both

"Early Neolithic Linear Pottery Culture - 5500–4500 BC. Source

1. When is a 'charlatan' not a 'charlatan' ?

Your #2 bullet point is a good illustration of what is meant by the term "charlatan."

Harte

[laver]

Nah.

Believe what you want, but don't include anyone else in that "we."

Source for both

"Early Neolithic Linear Pottery Culture - 5500–4500 BC. Source

Your #2 bullet point is a good illustration of what is meant by the term "charlatan."

Harte

2. The construction of Stonehenge with the use of massive blocks, 50 tons or more, and the use of mortise and tenon joints is out of context with what we know about the simple construction of dwellings or other buildings at that time.

To clarify I did of course mean buildings in the same area of similar date which I understand were of simple construction and not made of 50 ton blocks with special joints.

The use of the term 'charlatan' is derisory which in my opinion is extremely unfair to people like Professor Thom who carried out considerable work on hundreds of sites and came up with proposals. Just because someone does not agree with his findings is no excuse for calling him a 'quack'. Many professors and others have speculated on sites like Stonehenge which must be a good thing as no one knows, as yet, the 'intelligence' behind them.

[Harte]

2. The construction of Stonehenge with the use of massive blocks, 50 tons or more, and the use of mortise and tenon joints is out of context with what we know about the simple construction of dwellings or other buildings at that time.

Source?

Regarding these stones:

Each standing stone was around 4.1 metres (13 ft) high, 2.1 metres (6 ft 11 in) wide and weighed around 25 tons

Source

What, did they do two at a time or something?

Is your point that dwellings were not made out of 25 ton stones joined with mortise and tenon joints?

Well, the Egyptians didn't live in pyramids either.

The use of the term 'charlatan' is derisory which in my opinion is extremely unfair to people like Professor Thom who carried out considerable work on hundreds of sites and came up with proposals. Just because someone does not agree with his findings is no excuse for calling him a 'quack'. Many professors and others have speculated on sites like Stonehenge which must be a good thing as no one knows, as yet, the 'intelligence' behind them.

Okay.

But I was calling you a quack in my remark.

Harte

[laver]

Source?

Regarding these stones:

Source

What, did they do two at a time or something?

Is your point that dwellings were not made out of 25 ton stones joined with mortise and tenon joints?

Well, the Egyptians didn't live in pyramids either.

Okay.

But I was calling you a quack in my remark.

Harte

I do not profess to know how or why ancient sites were laid out but I was pointing out that nobody else does either, they speculate and come up with theories which does not make them all 'quacks'. You say...

'Well, the Egyptians didn't live in pyramids either.'

That would appear to be the case but the motivation behind the building of many ancient sites is a mystery and they exhibit great skill and knowledge. In examples like Stonehenge and the Great Pyramid it is not at present clear where this knowledge came from let alone the motivation behind it.

This topic is about geometric alignments in the landscape and given that there is so little information available on the placement and design concepts of ancient sacred sites would seem a quite valid line of research.

[Swede]

1. When is a 'charlatan' not a 'charlatan' ? Many professors come up with theories about the origins and uses of a site like Stonehenge based on guesswork. They have and do come up with all sorts of ideas; are they 'quacks' too? No just people with ideas and proposals.

It sounds to me as if a 'charlatan' in your book is someone who proposes something that you personally don't agree with which seems to me a narrow minded point of view.

2. The construction of Stonehenge with the use of massive blocks, 50 tons or more, and the use of mortise and tenon joints is out of context with what we know about the simple construction of dwellings or other buildings at that time.

3. There must have been an 'intelligence' behind many sites of the ancient world who would seem to have been the motivation behind their construction but certainly had skills and knowledge to direct the considerable number of workers involved. In Egypt this would seem to have been an elite group but in the UK there does not seem to be the evidence available yet to establish who these people were.

4. Since we do not yet know how and why ancient sites were created in particular locations 'professional' opinion is often just guesswork based on what we do know. The work of someone like Professor Thom indicates possibly advanced geometric knowledge in the layout of ancient sites which may have been dismissed by many 'experts' on the basis that it does not fit with what we know. That of course does not take account of things we do not at present know and that is obviously a great deal.

Alignments of sites is either fact or fiction, if they align they align and it is just a matter then of whether this alignment is coincidental or part of some design.

Amazing. You were specifically requested to provide credible documentation that would be supportive of your overt statements. And the above is your response.

1) That you would appear to be incapable of distinguishing between a charlatan and a credible researcher is disturbing to say the least. Additionally, professional researchers do not generally base their interpretations on "guesswork", but rather on the available data. In the case of megalithic monuments such as Stonehenge, there is a notable amount of data that is the product of many decades of qualified investigation. Merely a few examples:

Ancient Site Was Devoted to Death: Stonehenge May Have Been Cemetery for Rulers

Bruce Bower. Science News, Vol. 173, No. 19 (Jun. 21, 2008), p. 13

Suburb of Stonehenge

Bruce Bower. Science News, Vol. 171, No. 5 (Feb. 3, 2007), p. 67

The Genesis of Megaliths: Monumentality, Ethnicity and Social Complexity in Neolithic North-West Europe

Andrew Sherratt. World Archaeology, Vol. 22, No. 2, Monuments and the Monumental (Oct., 1990), pp.147-167

Dating the British Stone Circles: A Provisional Chronology for the Geometrical Designs of the Megalithic Sites is Based on Evidence from Architecture, Carbon-14, and Artifacts.

Aubrey Burl. American Scientist, Vol. 61, No. 2 (March-April 1973), pp. 167-174 [Note: Evaluation of this reference will benefit from the utilization of modern ¹⁴C calibration programs (CALIB, OxCal)].

Parker Pearson, M. and Chamberlain, A. and Jay, M. and Marshall, P. and Pollard, J. and Richards, C. and Thomas, J. and Tilley, C. and Welham, K.

2009 'Who was buried at Stonehenge ?', Antiquity., 83 (319). pp. 23-39.

Solving Stonehenge:The Key to an Ancient Enigma

Anthony Johnson.Thames & Hudson, London, 2008

Parker-Pearson, M. and Cleal, R. and Marshall, P. and Needham, S. and Pollard, J. and Richards, C. and Ruggles, C. and Sheridan, A. and Thomas, J. and Tilley, C. and Welham, K. and Chamberlain, A. and Chenery, C. and Evans, J. and Knüsel, C. and Linford, N. and Martin, L. and Montgomery, J. and Payne, A. and Richards, M. P.

2007 'The age of Stonehenge.', Antiquity., 81 (313). pp. 617-639.

2) Harte has already quite adroitly addressed your various concerns in regards to this inaccurate statement. You should also bear in mind the following:

• There are literally many hundreds of megalithic monuments and structures scattered across western Europe (not to mention Gobekli Tepe, etc.).
  
• The earliest of the European megalithic structures date to circa 7000 BP.
  
• The earliest megalithic structures of the British Isles date to circa 5700 BP
  

Thus, we have a long cultural precedent for megalithic structures and alignments. It should also be noted that these constructions would not appear to be limited to a singular cultural element.

3) Please see references in (1). Additional qualified references are readily available. Your reference to "an intelligence" is remarkably vague. Would you be attempting to imply that the human cultural elements responsible for the construction of the various European megalithic structures were incapable of simple geometric patterning and the organization of labor?

4) A paragraph of inconsequential prattle. For a contemporary review of Thom's research, see Aubrey Burl above, (1).

.