Introduction

Welcome to our project web site.

The aim of our project is to gather and share evidence that supports a radical new interpretation of various Neolithic monuments. Site excavations and analysis of these monuments has so far failed to deliver consensus on what their original purpose was. 

We propose that the monuments were built to support wide area land surveying. Furthermore, we explain how the designs of the monuments we see today are consistent with surveying methods which do not require metal.

Our prime focus is on causewayed enclosures, tor enclosures, cursuses, bank barrows, stone rows, stone settings, standing stones, large cairns / barrows without primary burial, large stone circles, henges, circle-henges, mega-henges, and mega-barrows (by which we mean Silbury Hill and Marlborough Mound). However, if our ideas gain a footing, timber circles and palisaded enclosures will also be reviewed.

Click on the button to find descriptions of the monuments with information on their sizes, numbers, siting and distribution.

Our suggestions challenge the assumption that these monuments were primarily built for ceremonial or religious reasons. The reader may agree that such assumptions have been made by default in the absence of a compelling alternative explanation. Many would also concur that there is no consensus as to the original purpose (or purposes) of the Neolithic monuments, even though some sites have certainly been used for meeting, settlement, burial, and ceremonies since.

We accept that in some cases – not least Stonehenge – stones were set to mark significant sun and moon rises and sets. However, we will suggest that such stones (except for the levelled stone and its flankers at recumbent stone circles) do not explain the prime original purpose of the monuments, and often reflect later enhancements.

Several authors have noticed that at some sites the monument(s) seem to relate to the landscape. (e.g. Gerrard (.); Weston 2007; Herring 2023; Farnworth et al. 2023). We concur that such links exist and are important. We build upon these author's observations, although we differ on interpretation.

We will offer ideas on how the monuments were used in practice. We understand these tentative ideas are, at best, the start of a journey in experimental archaeology. However, we put them forward because a natural and inevitable challenge to our hypothesis is ask ‘how were each of these monuments actually used?’

This website will evolve with our project. We will seek to quicky improve material which has caused misunderstanding, to address major criticisms that block the project moving forward, and to incorporate and adapt to significant new findings and suggestions made by ourselves or others. However, we hope the reader will understand that, as only a small team, we may not be able to give priority to answering every question or criticism that may arise.

We are gathering a multitude of hints and plausible explanations of the remains. These will reinforce each other to build the case. The whole is more compelling than any single part, and the reader will need to consider the whole to come to their own judgement.

We can already see follow-up projects within Neolithic archaeology to confirm our ideas and to deepen our understanding. We will list these. Our narrative impacts other aspects of pre-history and history too, and so where we recognise that, we will suggest a further project too.

CONTENT updates

Website updates are listed below so you can see what has changed since you last visited.