Monday 3 February 2014

How to build a neolithic house

Planning application,751943

Prototype plans,503224

Blog on the build


  1. Congratulations EH, the visitors centre has a scale model of a pig pen /chicken coup!!

    By day they built Stonehenge using wooden joints clearly known form previous sites such as Woodhenge.

    By night they go home to their mud huts and sleep with their animals on the mud floor around a fire that has no chimney (as it would catch the thatch roof alight) and cough all night!!

    Doesn't add up does it - what skilled tradesman would do that if they didn't have too?

    Just an example of the complete nonsense that archaeologists accept as true history!!

    If I was that 'chippy' I would live in a log cabin with a mezzanine first floor (no foot print) with a fire in the centre of the room and a vent in the roof - then put my domesticated animals in the mud hut away from the dangerous bears, wolves and wild cats of the Neolithic period.


  2. Where did the workmen who built the Cologne Cathedral live?
    Or Westminster Abbey?
    Or Saint Basil's?

    "A cobbler's kids go barefoot."


    1. Probably in an Inn with walls and a floor - apparently a guy called Jesus had reserved the mud hut barn for himself and a few 'wisemen'!


  3. Gee - never heard That one before ...

    This is an attempt to replicate House-547 from the recent Durrington Walls examination.
    It's been shown with a high degree of probability that these dwellings were not permanent. The people who lived in them were seasonal workers/celebrants who came far from their regular homes.

    While a little more upscale from 'Camping' as we know it, these were merely huts. Several features do mirror those found elsewhere, but I'm sure that they still had better amenities wherever it was they came from.


    1. I guess the problem I have with 'mud huts' is its timeline!

      You suggest that the Neolithic House is based on Durrington walls which is dated at 2400BC to 2600BC (I believe). As far as I'm concerned that is the Bronze Age not Neolithic! Even you take EH's construction date for Stonehenge (which is way out by well over a thousand years) it was built about 500 before this date.

      The Dorstone Hill house which is Neolithic is more the log cabin I described than the EH nonsense and dates to the true Stonehenge construction period. But nice idea about the temporary shelters for the 'rock concerts' and seasonal hunting (try a wigwam is quicker and portable).

      Yet another example of the shambles that academics have gotten into about timelines and the excuses used to explain their ridiculous 'linear history'.


  4. The Stonehenge of 2,400 or 2,600 BC was the Stone Phase - the actual reason all those people were at Durrington in the first place.
    The Ditch at the site exceeds this date by up to 600 years - deep in the Neolithic - and we have no solid idea yet where or how those people lived.
    (I believe it was slightly West of the site, but maybe that's just me ...)

    Copper tools are strongly hinted at in the record from Durrington, and no one denies that this was the beginning of the Bronze Age.

    Because of the temporary/seasonal nature of the village, it seems to me that the homes there would be built with ready-to-hand materials. Wood logs were not only 'expensive' but difficult to work efficiently.

    In places where there's decent woodland, yes - we'll find more substantial dwellings. But 1) The huts in question weren't year-round. 2) Any substantial timber was probably reserved for the Ceremonial buildings such as the major Circles. Some of this, by the way, is Oak, which must have come from far afield at great effort, as there's no evidence of native Oak forests in the vicinity. Ever.

    The woodlands of the immediate area had been cleared of old-growth, leaving hazel, larch and lots of pine, so all we find are the remnants of small posts used to frame, with the presumption of withies to side- and roof the dwellings.

    Rammed wet chalk makes a perfect, level floor that doesn't burn when cinders fall on it - not that dry firewood sparks that much, or even stays ignited when carried the 12 / 14 feet up to the roof-hole.

    Add a bed-frame, some cupboards and a dump outside the door, and we're good to go.


    1. Oh Neil you just summed up (very successfully) the complete dumbing down and fantasy of modern day archaeology - well done!!

      "we have no solid idea yet where or how those people lived." - Yet EH build mud huts and call them Neolithic, which is, as you now admit, scientifically inaccurate!! (to the west currently there are a large number of pig pens - will future archaeologist confuse those with 'seasonal buildings' in the future?)

      "Copper tools are strongly hinted at in the record from Durrington" actually it would be impossible to tell the material unless you had microscopic traces which the team failed to secure. All we know is that at Durrington Walls there is evidence of 'metal' tools - which makes more sense of this preposterous idea that these chalk excavations were constructed by 'antler picks'.

      There has not been one piece of scientific evidence showing these objects were used in such a fashion - they are either the wrong part of the antler (too weak) or lack the crushing or flint resharpening after the point has been flattened by repeated blows. This only proves that the 'Ages' maintained by present day academics are pure fiction and classical archaeological 'dumbing down' .

      "Wood logs were not only 'expensive' but difficult to work efficiently." Wow land ownership has moved from the feudal period to the Neolithic - are you suggesting that they had to buy wood or that a trip to the local forest was 'too far'?? (are these not the same people that brought the bluestones from Wales and carved stone mortise and tenon joints??)

      And the fantasy is when you start talking about 'woodlands' in the Neolithic period. A woodland you see today is a product of about 2000 years of constant land management - woodlands did not exist in the Neolithic period only forests. Go to the non-occupied areas of Canada and try to clear a forest armed with stone axes and you will find out how ridiculous and absurd is this academic version of history.

      The next thing you'll be suggesting is that they dragged the stones for Stonehenge through these forest - and no one in their right mind or an ounce of credibility would suggest such a impossible task!


  5. As ever so many errors in so little text and nothing to support the statements .

    “- woodlands did not exist in the Neolithic period only forests. “
    Evidence from palynology and malacology prove that belief to be wrong .

    “2400BC to 2600BC (I believe). As far as I'm concerned that is the Bronze Age not Neolithic! “
    We don’t base the dating of the various “ ages “ on your “concerns “ . It is perfectly reasonable to describe the period 2600-2400 BC as Late Neolithic . It is futile to provide definite dates for such a complex transition but if you want to be strict about it ,seeing as the BA characterised by the use of bronze provide some dates for the use of copper or bronze or any metals pre 2600 BC in Wessex . Any metals before 2400 BC (approx date for opening up of Ross Island ) from Britain would be interesting

    “There has not been one piece of scientific evidence showing these objects were used in such a fashion - they are either the wrong part of the antler (too weak) “
    Antler tools used on chalk ,mainly for loosening , are well attested for wherever chalk has been extracted in the UK , see various ditches and flint mines . Tines are found embedded in lumps of chalk ,the marks of tines on chalk are found on the sides of ditches that also have the remains of the tools left on the floor of the site being dug . Then try anywhere throughout prehistory wherever deer are found .Too weak , have you ever even handled an antler ?

  6. Look what you've done now Neil!!

    Nurse, Sherlock is awake and out of bed again.....lock the doors.

    "It is perfectly reasonable to describe the period 2600-2400 BC as Late Neolithic " - so late that most 'normal' people would call it "Bronze age", unless your trying to make excuses of course! Or should we call it Early Bronze age so you can link to to Stonehenge 's construction if that helps the nonsense you perpetrate.

    "Any metals before 2400 BC (approx date for opening up of Ross Island ) from Britain would be interesting" - more than 'interesting' Sherlock, it will show that you academics have got it unacceptably wrong again. Even MPP now accepts the 'unacceptable'.

    "Antler tools used on chalk ,mainly for loosening , are well attested for wherever chalk has been extracted in the UK " - wrong again Sherlock, show me one piece of experimental archaeology on youtube (better proof that an academics observations) and you find, NONE not one!! why is that if it is 'well attested' - more nonsense!

    "have you ever even handled an antler ?" - I have two in my shop to show the public how preposterous this archaeological myth really is of digging ditches. Unlike the 'pretenders to knowledge' like yourself I have tried to dig the Chalk of the Southdowns with these especially made tools from a expert who sells them as dog chews - my remit to him was to give me the hardest antler possible for a youtube video I'm in the process of producing to show what archaeological 'bunkum' is accepted as truth and knowledge.

    These antlers are 14" long with a 7" branch 3" in diameter and carry the hardest 'tines' antler section only - bigger than anything found at Stonehenge.

    Guess what? within 6 inches of digging the antler pick had blunted and needed to be sharpened - as you point out "Tines are found embedded in lumps of chalk" when that happens they are useless. Consequently, these should have been hundreds of antlers found at Stonehenge - they have identified 82 - a majority of these antler finds are not even the strong tines part of the antler, they are the 'proximal' section at the top which are even weaker, unless you are cleaning out a moat of pond weed.

    The rest of the antler myth that I debunked will be available in May on my blog site (too busy writing at books at present). Look at '13 things that don't make sense in Prehistoric Times' - currently have three publishers fighting over the rights, who knows my make it 14 and add antlers?

    So back to bed with you Mr Holmes, and put that nice white jacket back-on before you get the nurses into trouble!!


  7. The fact that you are incapable of using antlers for the simple task of losening chalk is hardly surprising . A video of the failure will be a laugh .
    You don't dig with antlers ,you use them to loosen the chalk which is then dug .
    As expected on these rare occasions when you do mention detail , it is wrong ,there were more than 82 antlers found at Stonehenge .

    If you can't come up with any metals before 2400 BC then we forget about your daft idea of ascribing the BA to an earlier date . As noted it is perfectly reasonable to describe the period 2600-2400 BC as late Neolithic ,but as the BA is characterised by the use of bronze to describe that period as BA is not reasonable .

    Have you forgotten about the
    “- woodlands did not exist in the Neolithic period only forests. “ nonsense , or does that join the long list of unsupported claims that have been shown to be wrong which are quietly forgotten about .

    " Writing at books " ?
    You clearly have no conception of how your "ideas" are perceived by anyone with the slightest knowledge of prehistory ,as for the "humour " give it a rest ,it just makes you look even more pathetic .

    1. "You don't dig with antlers ,you use them to loosen the chalk" Is this where your 'ceremonial' beliefs come into play, you don't strike with the pick you wave it over the chalk and cast a spell to break the chalk magically?? LOL!! Keep taking the tablets.

      "there were more than 82 antlers found at Stonehenge" Table 47 page 425 Stonehenge Cleal et al. So where is the 'well attested' video evidence to your claims?? - Unlucky Sherlock!

      "If you can't come up with any metals before 2400 BC" - tell MPP it was his observations at Durrington, I just endorse them.

      I've ignored most of your comments such as woodlands and 'unsupported claims' nonsense as you are incapable of a qualified argument just the repetitive dull rhetoric of 'prove it, prove it'. But I will agree that you do have the slightest knowledge of prehistory history - but only the slightest! As for humour that comes with intelligence and you only have the slightest piece of that as well.


  8. It makes a change for you to actually produce any data to support your erroneous claims ,sadly you missed p 415 where there is a mention of Newall reporting having found ""more than 100 hundred antlers in the ditch " .
    Look forward to the eating soup with a fork / "digging " with an antler video. Have you failed to notice the clue on p 425 ? i.e. pick not shovel .

    Where is the evidence for metals before 2400 BC ? As always we won't hold our breath . Simply "It is perfectly reasonable to describe the period 2600-2400 BC as Late Neolithic " .
    You have already been told that your commnet “- woodlands did not exist in the Neolithic period only forests. “ is nonsense , that belief from the thirties was refuted long ago and the evidence is in the palynology and malcology for the Stonehenge area , do you need it spelled out ?
    If you can't prove it why make such outrageous claims , there is a whole catalogue of them and every reponse produces more .

    To be fair you have supplied us with plenty of laughs but not quite where you intend them .

  9. "more than 100 hundred antlers in the ditch " - yes that's why they made the nice simple data table - to stop misinterpretation by the 'slightly knowledgeable'! Lots of bits of the same antler is still just one antler not lots. Of the important antlers containing 'tines' - 82 over a period of 1000+ years on just on the 'phase I' ditch 24 and for your evidence - nothing, just dull rhetoric once again.

    Yet academic fools and madmen still believe that ditches were built with 'antler picks'.

    So to sum up your 'arguments' (now i've finished my cup of tea) The EH Neolithic Mud Huts were no longer built in the Bronze Age as you are now calling it 'the incredibly late Neolithic Period' - antler picks are not 'picks' anymore they are now to be known as 'antler wedges' and there are hundreds of antler 'wedges' at Stonehenge, but only 24 strong enough to wedge lumps of chalk bigger than a stone out of non-existed cracks as NOT shown on all these YouTube videos!

    Sounds that you've got yourself a real sitcom here Sherlock - I know let's call it 'Elementary' aka archaeology for idiots?

    Nurse.... Mr Holmes is ready for his sedation.


  10. Are you suggesting that Newall couldn't count antlers ? Over a hundred antlers in the ditch ,then of there were those from stone sockets and who knows how many in the bank . Notice on your list of 82 they are described as "picks " the very tool you suggest doesn't exit then look up at the table and note the others that make up the 118 i.e.the "rakes" and "uncertain " . You have counted only these tools that you suggest didn't exist . Not rhetoric ,facts .
    You are incapable of summarising anything without misunderstanding or misrepresenting ,so don't even attempt to put words into my mouth just quote what I have said , if you find something wrong quote , then refute if you can . .
    The three points (slight pun) you originally got wrong (they increase each posting ) were 1) Antlers were not used as tools in the ditch construction . All the evidence points to their use , the consistent damage to their antlers , tines embedded in chalk lumps , markings on the chalk , the same tools found in the same condition in similar situations . There is no evidence against . Simply because you are incapable of using the tool means nothing , we could have predicted that .What you forgot about the digging was the use of other tools to remove the chalk .

    2)“2400BC to 2600BC (I believe). As far as I'm concerned that is the Bronze Age not Neolithic! “ . The three age system is problematic and can't possibly be precise with periods overlapping , but the comment was made in response to suggesting that the period was Neolithic ,of the two Neolithic makes sense whilst BA doesn't , the BA is characterised by the use of bronze , find some use of bronze in that period and it might make sense ,until then it is wrong .
    3) “- woodlands did not exist in the Neolithic period only forests. “ Another of those wonderful blustery comments that are plain wrong .This seems to have been forgotten about . That belief stems from at least the publication of Cyril Fox’s “the personality of Britain “ it was evidence free then and has long been refuted ,mainly from palynology and malacology . If you need the sources , do ask .
    Do you think that by you being rude and using childish humour others might not respond ?
    If anything , it makes it more likely and makes the collective errors even sadder and the whole even funnier .

  11. For anyone who doesn’t already know or is interested in what happens when grown ups use antlers , a couple of quotes from the past .
    In an experiment in 1875 at Cissbury general Pitt-Rivers noted “In order to ascertain the exact mode of working the chalk by the prehistoric men .I made a set of deer horn tools similar to those turned up in the diggings .Out of a pair of antlers I made two picks one mandril ,two wedges ,and five tine punches .
    Cutting off the tines with a flint took me from five to ten minutes, and the best mode of making the wedges was found to be by grinding them on a wet sandstone. Commencing with a surface of hard, smooth chalk, and taking the work turn about with one of the men, I found that we made an excavation 3 feet square and 3 feet deep in an hour and a half, consequently, by continuous labour, and sufficient reliefs, it would have taken us twelve hours to form the longest gallery found, viz 27 feet.
    The experimental earthwork on Overton Down : P.A.Jewell . Whether used as a pick or hammered in or levered , the antler pick proved to be an astonishingly efficient tool in practised hands .
    The worker with modern hand tools averaged 3.58 cubic feet of earth per man hour, the worker with primitive tools 3 cubic feet per man hour. From “ The experimental earthwork on Overton Down “ : P.A.Jewell

    1. And the YouTube evidence is................?

      The reason I wanted 'real' evidence is that archaeologist lie and exaggerate to meet their own biased criteria. Even these figures you quoted are wildly wrong (your maths is as faulty as your logic)!

      Pitt-rivers excavated at 27 cubic ft of chalk ( 3 x 3 x 3 ) in 90 minutes i.e. 18 cubic ft per hour - Jewell 3 cubic feet per hour. Lol, what a lot of nonsense!!

      Give it up Sherlock, when your in a hole (dug either with pickaxe or antler) stop digging!!


  12. Lol . A total failure , yet again to answer to the facts . No mention of the errors about your attribution of the period 2600-2400 BC to the BA.
    The error re. " “- woodlands did not exist in the Neolithic period only forests. “ . The error about getting the the numbers wrong about the antlers at Stonehenge . Have you ever got anything right ?
    The humour , unconscious of course ,gets a look in with the expectation of a vid of Pitt Rivers on You tube . Do let us know when you post yours .
    Your attemopts at avoiding the evidence are equally hilarious .When confronted with clear eveidence about the antlers you can't see it and when others point out how practical it is , you accuse them of lying . And pseudo what ever you are don't ? Maybe you just make stuff up.
    All you are ever capable of when confronted with your multiple errors is to reply "nonsense " with a dash of sub teen "humour " . Never any evidence . Stick to sandwiches and cleaning Davis , hopefully you won't confuse the hoover bags with the ham ,then the digs might stop ,but continue to push fantasies and others will point out the problems .
    Don't forget if you spot any errors remember to use quotes and provide evidence to refute them if you can . Just sticking out your tongue doesn't cut it among the grown ups .

  13. " ... this guy's gotta be from Brighton ..."

    Bobby Boy ─
    You're like the malevolent Evangelist who cherry-picks quotes from the Bible to persuade the weak-minded away from their purses.

    Now, I told you with due respect some time ago that if you try and shovel fish-guts into a tank full of sharks, you're gonna get bit.
    And here you've gone and made a complete fool of yourself ... again.

    Have you ever even Heard of peer-review?

    I think it's best if you hobble back to the small but fawning cabal of sycophants at the neighborhood Senior Center and report the findings on your dismal attempt at trenching chalk with an antler pick.

    Is "Turkey-In-The-Straw" the back-track of your U-Toob vid?

    1. "if you try and shovel fish-guts into a tank full of sharks, you're gonna get bit."

      Well Neil its "like being savaged by dead sheep" to be honest!

      As for 'peer review' half of you are delusional the other can't even add up, what is there to review, apart from the degree of Alzheimer?


  14. The E.H. chiildren's guide to Silbury might have been useful prior to the you tube vid .Scroll down to the caption where Dave /Davis ? (did the writer know something we didn't ,if not pretty prescient ) is getting lesson one .

    1. "we were no match for their untamed wit"

      Geo did you not go under the name of Wayne before?.... you'll get that Sherlock in a couple of weeks time!


  15. Davis , as always a total inability to respond with any meaningful content to your multiple highlighted errors .

    All we get is a childish obsession with names ,and that is all we will ever get . Stick to cleaning offices and making sandwiches .