Stonehenge Mystery Deepens As Altar Traced To Scotland

well if im not mistaken monte , your genetically isolated theory about people in these islands doesn't hold any water according to that article and others I have read.

Correct me if im wrong , but you appear to believe early humans came to these islands after the last ice age , some 10 000 years ago , got cut off when Doggerland flooded , built Stonehenge and scara brae , and have remained genetically isolated ever since taking on new ideas and technology but not new people. 

That article completely debunks that claim ,which as  I said , is a sort of rehash of the island race theory.

 The original humans who came here were either almost universally replaced , or wiped out and overwhelmed , by the beaker people who came here some half a millenia after Stonehenge was built , and thousands of years after Doggerland flooded.

 This fits in with what we know , our history archaeology and myths and legends.. It shows how the majority of us genetically descend from the European beaker peoples , as do much of the people in western Central Europe , and would fit in with how. and when the original Celtic language , a sort of Proto Goidelic , came here first , followed by the spread of p Celtic  , then later invaders and migrations. 

 if im not mistaken , genetically both the Celts , and the germanic peoples descend from the beaker peoples. So this fits in with our history of these islands and migrations from Europe , that brought the people ,  technology and languages that overwhelmed the existing people who were here.

 

here's what you wrote ...







your implication is clear from what you wrote numerous times on the previous threads , that essentially the neolithic people are the genetic ancestors of todays uk population .


here's what my article said..  


blogs.ucl.ac.uk/researchers-in-museums/2019/02/24/migration-event-when-did-the-first-humans-arrive-in-britain/
 so what you are now claiming is contrary to what you earlier implied. 



clearly the article suggests otherwise . 



so what would you suggest? that there were that few humans living here prior to the beaker migration or invasions that their contribution to the peoples of these islands modern DNA is so negligible that it only accounts for 10% ?

However you spin it monte , your theory doesn't actually hold any substance , either archaeologically , historically , linguistically or genetically. 



 

without a doubt. I think once you go beyond the realm of scholastic research , covering the last two thousand years , you are then into the realm of educated guesswork. 

to get back to knowledge of areas further away and trade with them in neolithic times you originally said..


I disagree with that.  we know from archaeological finds that stone axe heads in neolithic times have been found in britian that were traded from as far away as the alps. so im not sure why people in Stonehenge wouldn't know about the north of scotland , but people in mainland britian in neolithic times traded in stone axes with ireland and as far away as the Alps in Europe.? 


link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10816-019-09438-6 

 

Stonehenge was built in six stages between 3000 and 1520 BCE, during the transition from the Neolithic Period (New Stone Age) to the Bronze Age. the first stone axe heads were traded 4000 bc , within the time frame mentioned? 

www.britannica.com/topic/Stonehenge

250,000 people lived on the British Isles at the time.
Only a very small number would be required to sail it down the coast and up the Avon.
Once at the end of the Avenue it could be moved by just a few dozen men.