The Flood
Neolithic  Man
Neolithic  Man Part 2
A History of Britain, Parts of Europe and the Bible Lands to the Romans
Creation to the Romans
Was there a Gap?  The last British Neanderthals? Catastrophism 
and Cave Men
Cave Men in Historic Times The giant race 
of the Formorians
Dating the Exodus Miscellaneous Links Division in the days of Peleg 2247 BC
Ancient Man in Britain Re-evaluation of Ancient Man in Britain

Newton's Revised History of Ancient Kingdoms

Book Reviews
Hu Gadarn Joshua and the Welsh Triads Building Stonehenge Neanderthal origins? Towards a new Chronology After the Flood The Colonisation of Ireland A stone age find by the Author. The Genesis X Files Were the Nordic peoples originally Canaanites?
Brutus and the Trojan War Neanderthal Nephilim? Ice Age

The purpose of this site is a re-evaluation of British/ Irish ancient histories in the light of a creation model; from the creation of the world in 4004 BC through to the flood and post flood ice age and dispersion from Babel through to the stone bronze and iron ages and the Romans. The author rejects any evolutionary theories about the big bang and shows instead how everything was created from the beginning of the world. There is a wide range of discussion on catastrophism to the velekovskian catastrophe of 687 BC and how the North Sea reclaimed land that was previously inhabited by peoples of the bronze; palaeolithic/mesolithic and neolithic industries, and how Britain finally became an island before the introduction of iron working into Britain and Ireland by the melisians in the so-called pre-Roman iron age for which the evidence is very compelling. There is as yet more work to be done for the uprating of this site; and the author has his friends at to notify about this historic moment. Of particular interest is the author's current belief that Brutus who founded Britain with his first colony of ancient Britons founded the bronze industry on Britain with the legend of the sword in the stone, and that either Avebury or Stonehenge could have been the original "Round Table" with its  link to the beginning of the bronze industry on Britain. While the jury is still out on this idea, although circumstancial  it is indeed very compelling And there are other criteria to consider and have examined  before making the crucial decision. 

The author is here interested in Bronze age traditions and vows to carry on the search
or quest into the idea that the "sword in the stone " or the "Lady in the
lake " and swords being thrown into lakes &c is most probably a pagan
tradition and the author here refutes that it has any thing to do with
Arthur and so that ultimately the two mustn't be confused with each other but
that the pagan traditions can most probably be dated back to the bronze age
which started in 2900 AM or for our purposes 1104 BC . The reader will also
find that the author's ideas differ to that of modern so called "scholarship"
and will therefore find that he dates the stone age in Britain and Ireland
at 2520 AM or 1484 BC through to the iron age. this date is more or less in
agreement with modern archaeology and the date for the pre-Roman iron age
for Britain and Ireland is AM 3500 or 504 BC. The reader will find some
interesting pages on the gap theory along with the publication in the
miscellaneous section under the heading of "Miscellaneous" and I would like to
thank my reader's attention for bearing with me in writing the author's
preface and introduction. 

horizontal rule

Subject: Chronology Document and JPG Graph
From: John hext-fremlin
To: Mike Fischer

Dear Mike I am very pleased to announce that your very nicely recorded introduction or forward has been sent to appropriate websites. Cheri Fields and Chuck Misler included although I haven't heard any thing from Chuck or Cheri Fields.

Although I have got the correct date for the Amesbury Archer 2300 BC (1960 BC Ussher) the problem I have with secular scholars is that they insist on calling this period the "Archaeological Early Bronze Age" when quite clearly it is no such thing.

I would have thought that the Phoenicians were fairy instrumental as good candidates for the re-introduction of the Bronze Industry in fact 1421/1365 BC (Hu Gadarn). Yet here we have the Amesbury archer found buried not far from Stone Henge with two copper daggers some gold and 15 flint arrow heads and an absence of bronze artifacts and 1960 BC would be Glacial Maximum.

I have labelled the period Late Neolithic/Early Bronze but by no stretch of the imagination EB1 so in reality this period needs re-labelling and re-defining.

There is however the idea that metal bronze iron steel and gold were available immediately after the flood being the fact that Noah and sons brought metal working through the flood with them but when some technology was lost at Babel bronze would become a rare commodity and I do not have a problem with the idea that while most Neolithic farmers hunters and gatherers were still making tools from flint I don't doubt that some members of the community might have adopted the Bronze industry although at this time very rare.

Most Young earth creationists believe the Bronze industry was re-introduced about 1500 BC or 1421/1365 BC after the Ice age meltdown in Britain. What label Mike in conclusion should we label this period in the absence of bronze artifacts? John

Dear John,

You make some good points and certainly know more about
this problem than I, or most others, do.

I would offer this, that creationists recognize specific regions
more than mainstream scientists tend to. For fossil plants
and animals, that means different ecosystems of climate,
fauna and flora in different parts of the world in ancient times
rather than declaring one climate and ecosystem for the
world during an "era". For the question of metal "ages",
it seems reasonable that after Babel, metal-working skills
and the availability of ores were unequally distributed among
the dispersed peoples. That would eventually lead to clashes
of armies and societies with different levels of achievement.

So from this perspective, you are right to label a region by its
level of development locally, rather than using a time period
to assign a label to all societies.


horizontal rule

The Amesbury Archer

Dear Mike have you ever heard of the Amesbury Archer who was found buried in a grave with a copper dagger and a cash of flint arrow heads, and is supposed to have come from Switzerland according to conventional archaeologists and is conventionally dated by them at 2300 BC which translates to Ussher timeline of 1960 BC which they call the "Early Bronze age".

However I don't doubt for a minute that there were some bronze artifacts during that time period although rare as metal working was available immediately after the flood. Darrell White has informed me that it was Hu Gadarn who re-introduced the Bronze industry back into Britain about 1421/1365 BC contemporary with the Firbolgue.

Is it not a nonsense for conventional archaeologists to dub this period (1960 BC) as they see it as "Early Bronze age"? when in reality they were mostly making tools and weopens out of flint, this then is in reality what I would call Late Neolithic/Early Bronze. I would reject the terms "chalcolithic" and "Mesolithic" as evolutionary Rubber Goal posts as Bill Cooper rightly refurs to these terms and this author accepts the labels Palaeolithic and Neolithic/Bronze /iron and steel as convenient labels ownly in respect of Hunter-gatherers and farmers.

I would like to send you a conversion chart which I have drawn up with Darrell' s help of an evaluation done by me showing the conventional dates matching up to Ussher going back to 2295/2265 BC which in conventional calibrated terms is about 3900 BC to 4000 BC which I think might interest you.

I know the Amesbury archer arrived from France when Albion was defeated by Nimrod's general in 2038 BC according to Darrell and was a son of Sidon and was the brother of Cichol Gricenchos who built Skara Brae about 2189/2188 BC after the dispersion from Babel in 2191 BC.

Can you Mike please try and find out for me the name of the Amesbury archer and how does he fit into creation history and do we have a name for him more importently? John


The Amesbury Archer was an ancient warrior who lived so long ago it’s impossible to determine with any certainty who he was or which tribe he was from. He could have been from the time of Albion, but the whole thing about Albion is speculative, it comes from the early chapters of Holinshed’s Chronicles which are wholly or partly based on Annius of Viterbo.

I wouldn’t spend too much time on this, I think you won’t find out much beyond what is already known.

Dear Mike yes I think you are right. At least we have some sought of picture of him being as it were from the time of Albion son of Sidon. Darrell and I have speculated that Albion and his cananite Phoenicians could indeed have been responsible for the first construction of Stone Henge 2038 BC.

What is indeed most interesting about the Amesbury Archer are the Flint arrowheads found buried with him and the copper dagger. As I have said before that given bronze iron and steel technology was available immediately after the flood it would not be surprising to find at least a few bronze artifacts in this time period ca 1960 BC (Conventional dating 2300 BC) although rare as a lot of the technology was lost after the dispersion ca 2191 BC until it's re-introduction by Hu GADARN 1421/1365 BC.

Darrell thinks that Albion could have had some Neanderthal people in his team. It has been said that the Neanderthals were good marriners who probably learned the skills from Sidon, John


horizontal rule