In the recent TV program shown 19-07-10 called “Great British History” namely “King Arthur’s Round Table Revealed” – clearly the table was not revealed, and what has the amphitheatre at Chester they trump up got to do with any round table? So why this continual disingenuous speculation; and I must ask are we British taxpayers paying for academics in their attempts to brainwash us – who clearly despise and racially call us ethnic, Taliban, barbarian ignorant terrorist savages. Apparently from the evidence it can be extrapolated that the Roman (a former Celtic) fort of Deva in Chester was raised to the earth at least twice by the only candidates to do so were the “United Celtic Britons” up to 410 AD, likewise the Britons obliterated Calleva Atrebatum in the south, possibly in a cleansing of the earth ritual in both instances – to destroy any Roman remnants from British soil up to and after 410 AD (including the Roman “slaughter” tether stone they cited). Markedly, anywhere the Roman cowardly killed and crucified any British – the British erected shrines in those places in honour and remembrance of the brave Britons who died for Britain. I see these academics cannot refute the many graves of the invading Romans and Saxons that were wiped out by the British – who were actually honourably buried or allowed to be buried by the British; it was not so for the many British who died at the hands of dishonourable Romans or Saxons though. As historical evidences predict – the possible best defences of the British at this time were in their areas in and around the Silurian, Dumnonii, Brigantes and Cauci regions (which are in the areas of Britain of which the Saxons named Wales, Cornwall, Scotland and Ireland) and understandably using all the “original” British drover roads and systems. Plausibly – King Arthur was a Celt from in or around the Silurian area – within a mostly United Celtic Britain in his time – and apparently the Romans could not keep the British at bay in certain Celtic regions up to 410 AD, and then I am sure that no Saxons or any defecting Roman rabble could have after 410 AD. I see the presenters also try to depict the Celtic Dragon was a Saxon or Parthian icon, but the evidence is paramount that the Celtic Draig Goch extends from the many named islands and the sleeping dragon image of the Preseli hills outcrop of many years BC, and was also a feature of the Celtic hornpipe – is also identified in my book.

Flag of Wales

It amazes me that some presenters and authors always present their theory’s as a matter of fact when clearly they are off the mark in most instances; and will not give the British any credibility of their magnificent early achievements up to and before the Romans and following foreigner invasions (or later achievements even).

Why do media films, authors, and archaeologists, mostly portray and evidence, Roman, Saxon, or Norman, when the clear evidence is – Roman Saxon and Norman archaeology is mostly built over the vast amount of British archaeology and the British existed before, during and after any period of invasion. Why then are archaeologists only interested to schedule a new site to be specifically Roman or Saxon, when clearly the British existed? The Ancient Britons are sometimes called “The Lost Nation” – is the correct description – “The Hidden Nation”?

Related Article: Footprints in the Stone

~

The First Bluestone Experiment

Use this area to tell us of your experiences during the experiment.

How did you get on with it?

We look forward to reading your posts and comments.

Post transferred from the PB Forum

Editor’s Note: The experiment results are now discussed in a book entitled Stonehenge Bluestone II

Note: it is cited in my book Footprints in the Stone pre this program – that very intelligent British people were at this frontline point and settled on the land across the ice-shelf, particularly at the catchment area of the Gulf-Stream running into the west coast of Britain and up against the ice-shelf, bringing in superb fishing etc; whereby a ritual burial was found on the Gower Peninsula of the Red-Man of Paviland – dated at 30,000 BC- to evidence that it is these people who pioneered along this latitude. It seems that my findings and format are now being recognised by certain archaeologists’ – is this the old Roman filch Ploy – of which you can also read about in my book.

Related Article: Footprints in the Stone

I would be interested in any information or stories about different stones and there uses, and what they do…

Post transferred from the PB Forum   

——————–

The Second BBC Timewatch Stonehenge Documentary

The Secrets of Stonehenge – Monday 01 June 2009

Congratulations. At last a comprehensive overview of this important dig and a rational elucidation of the findings. This is a considerable improvement on the previous and much criticised approach taken by the BBC with the first Stonehenge documentary. However, their continued casting of a murky line between conjecture and fact may facilitate an exciting narrative, but unfortunately assumes the audience to be wide-eyed and ill informed, which is not the case.

The concluding revelations of the documentary, that Stonehenge was a monument to the ancestors and that the Bluestones arrived at the site at its inception are extremely interesting. I must agree with the team’s analysis of the long awaited excavation of one of the Aubrey holes, that the Bluestones were indeed used to construct the first phase of Stonehenge. (Rather than arriving much later as unconvincingly stated in episode one)

I would also agree that there is some ground to suggest that Stonehenge may have functioned as a monument to the dead, although this is a far from substantiated claim. It should be mentioned that these ideas are neither new, nor spawned by the Time Team archaeologists as the documentary purports, as the ideas surfaced in a book published in 2008 and were perhaps published earlier elsewhere.

I would like to mention here that it is often the painstaking and important research of unsupported amateurs, which provides the critical and periodic sparks that rekindle our interest in this fascinating story of rediscovery, yet the accolade is always placed within the fervent grasp of the professionals who have the facility to ‘prove’ and lay claim to any new ideas that they choose to pursue.

One such amateur, David Jones, has produced an admirable work that examines the evidence left by the Ancient Britons to leave his readers in no doubt that these people were key pioneers of science, education and advanced social concepts. His book takes a serious, long awaited and logical look at our forgotten past and his blog can be found here.

BBC Timeteam Stonehenge Documentary I

First posted on the preselibluestone.com website

The First BBC Timewatch Stonehenge Documentary

Having waited patiently for the much hailed BBC Timewatch documentary to reveal the evidence that Stonehenge was built as a centre of healing, I can only express my deep disappoinment at their outlandish and wholly unfounded conclusions.

Don’t get me wrong, I am happier than the average chappie to believe that Bluestone has special properties. I have long had connections with people who consider that the stone can be used for healing and spiritual communication purposes, but aren’t archaeologists supposed to be scientists?

To claim that the bones of the famous Amesbury Archer provide evidence for their hypothesis is like saying that someone buried in London must have been on their way to Wembley Stadium to seek a cure, because they happened to have died of multiple ailments around the time that the stadium was built.

As for the explanation regarding the preponderance of Bluestone chippings found in the dig, drawing the conclusion that these stones were chipped away by the sick and maimed (and then abandoned) is quite nonsensical. Without doubt, Stonehenge was an important centre with at least one very important purpose, and visitors may well have succumbed to the urge to take a souvenir, but speculation is one thing and proof is another.

One much more logical explanation would be that the Bluestones were dressed on-site while the much larger sarcen stones were largely pre-worked before moving them, which would have made transportation much easier.

Onward now to the equally unsupported claim that Stonehenge was started 2,300 years BC, and not 2,600 BC, as was previously thought. The evidence put forward for this startling claim is that several pieces of organic material found beneath the Bluestone that was excavated all dated to that period. Remarkably, in the same documentary they inform us that the Bluestones have been erected on the site several times (something that we already knew), having been removed from the site altogether during one phase of redesign. I would not dispute that organic material entering the hole at the time of digging could be used for dating purposes, but surely all they have managed to do is date the last time that the stone was erected, not the time of the arrival of the Bluestones at the Wiltshire Downs!

Frankly I find all the so-called revelations surprising, particularly as the idea that the Bluestones have healing powers did not germinate in ‘archaeological circles’ in the first place. Perhaps the experts should be quietly reminded, it was only a matter of a few years ago that the archaeological community stood shoulder to shoulder behind the now discredited theory that the Bluestones were brought to Wiltshire by glacial activity.

BBC Timeteam Stonehenge Documentary II

First posted on the preselibluestone.com website

I spent a little time in May at Pentre Ifan.

Its energy is so very peacefully powerful.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

There is an interesting passage on Pentre Ifan written in 1911 by W.Y. Evans Wentz, author of The Tibetan book of The Dead, in his book The Fairy Faith in Celtic countries:

“The region, the little valley on whose side stands the Pentre Ifan cromlech, the finest in Britain, is believed to have been a favourite place with the ancient Drulds. And in the oak groves (Ty Canol Wood) that still exist there, tradition says there was once a flourishing school for neophytes, and that the cromlech instead of being a place for internments or sacrifices was in those days completely enclosed, forming like other cromlechs a darkened chamber in which novices when initiated were placed for a certain number of days….the interior (of Pentre Ifan) being called the womb or court of Ceridwen. ”

source

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Bright Blessings

~Cassandra

Post transferred from the PB Forum