Theory: Stone Age People had Sophisticated Navigation Networks
September 18, 2009 by Lin Edwards
Connected by triangles: Some of the sites created by Stone Age man. Image: DailyMail
(PhysOrg.com) -- A new theory based on studies of locations of large landmarks in Britain, such as stone structures, hill forts and earthworks, suggests they were part of a grid used for navigation around 5,000 years ago, which implies people at the time were not as primitive as previously thought.
The theory, put forward by Tom Brooks, a retired marketing executive turned amateur historian, claims landmarks such as Silbury Hill and Stonehenge were part of a navigation network that allowed people to travel long distances without maps.
Analyzing 1,500 sites in southern England and Wales, Brooks found that all the known sites could be connected to at least two others to make isosceles triangles, which have two equal sides. Some of the triangles have sides greater than 100 miles long, and the equal sides are accurate to +/- 110 yards, which Brooks says could not have happened by chance.
According to Brooks this finding means they were deliberately built landmarks intended to aid in navigation in the world before maps. For short journeys travelers were easily able to walk from one site to another, since many were within sight of each other. For traveling longer distances the routes could be broken up into an interconnected series of short steps.
Brooks said the navigation grid was so accurate and sophisticated that we need to either change our notions about how primitive Stone Age people were, or accept the proposal they received help from extraterrestrial sources, an idea that Brooks does not dismiss.
The editor of British Archaeology magazine, Mike Pitts, is not convinced by the theory, however. He pointed out that Britain was well-populated at the time and there were many earthworks and other archaeological landmarks. Finding patterns is not difficult, and the patterns therefore are not necessarily meaningful.
via DailyMail
© 2009 PhysOrg.com



The fact one would not believe this or think this theory was true means there is at least one person not as smart as those back then. Amateur is a good way to describe him
I find it offensive that this would be presented as science news on a website that purports to specialize in the reportage of science. It is a disservice to the popular understanding of science. The author of such an article must sure be ignorant, indifferent, or contemptuous towards both scientific method and the notion of science journalism. The standards of evidence allowed here would not stand in a detective fiction, let alone in a peer reviewed journal. From the sop thrown to actuality in the final paragraph, it seems clear that both Ms. Edwards and Mr. Derbyshire are completely aware of this.
I have read numerous cultural anthropologies of Native Americans, for instance, and their knowledge of their landscape was astonishing. They could remember, often many decades later, where they had encamped (at the headwaters of such and such river) at a particular time of year, how long they had stayed there, various stories associated with the place, and so on.
Now, when people were migrating into new areas, something which obviously occurred, they might construct primitive markers here and there, but the proliferation of naturally occurring landmarks would surely make this redundant, even then.
Pithy, but I'm not sure I get what you mean?
True.
However when there is no supporting evidence and you start mentioning aliens one has to expect a certain skeptical response from the scientific community. Far better to say I have no supporting evidence at this point and leave it at that. Presenting the "it was aliens" hypothesis only undermines the scientific method.