After studying the culture and history of my country, Wales, for over 30 years, I have come to the conclusion that mainstream archaeology in the UK is
suppressing the true history of this country. Why? I couldn't say, but maybe it goes back to when it was thought best to restrict nationalist
feelings among the Welsh to stop them revolting, like outlawing their language and restricting their knowledge of their own history. Welsh history is
still not taught in schools in Wales, we are taught the kings and queens of England, even though 90% of them had nothing to do with wales. We had
kings and princes long before England even existed.
DNA research done in the last few years of haplogroup R1b
has shown that the Welsh are
the only remnants of the original inhabitants of Britain and our DNA is genetically distinct from the rest of the UK. The DNA evidence proves that as
a people we were never conquered as there is very little outside interaction with us. This means no roman, no Viking, no Saxon or Norman, no beaker
people and certainly no lost tribe of Israel in their genetic makeup. Even the Welsh language is proof of not being conquered, if you can speak and
read welsh then you would have no trouble understanding someone speaking Old Welsh from over a thousand years ago. How many other languages can you do
So why do British archaeologists feel the need to invent groups of people to explain their research? Like the beaker people and other theoretical
peoples? It feels like they don't believe the Welsh were capable of making the advances in technology that have been found in Britain.
At one time the lands of the Welsh covered the whole of Britain, from Scotland to Cornwall. There is evidence of the original people of the island;
in what is now called Wales, stretching back over 40,000 years. The oldest human burial in the UK was found in wales. The Red Lady of Paviland is a
skeleton found in the Gower area of Wales buried in a cave. The skeleton was originally thought to be a woman, because of the grave goods, but later
tests have shown it was a man. It gets its name from the fact it was covered with red ochre before being buried. The skeleton was found with what
has been identified as wands and bracelets of ivory, along with a mammoth’s skull. The goods suggest someone of status and probably some type of
religious person, maybe a priest. Ornamentation on the grave goods has dated this burial to before the last period of glaciation, i.e. 25,000 BC.
They were able to bury their dead within a religious context, with ornamented goods, yet they are not capable of making a beaker with a few lines on
So this is my attempt to unravel the lies fed to us by the archaeologists of Britain. starting with the stones of Wales.
All over the UK there are standing stones, stone circles, tombs and chambers. All attest to the knowledge and skill of the original inhabitants of
this island. It stands to reason that if the original inhabitants of the island were the Welsh, then they made them, not some imaginary people who
came from elsewhere.
Take Stonehenge as an example, one of the best feats of engineering undertaken by the ancient inhabitants of Britain. It is well known that the blue
stones came from south wales. It is also thought that the stones were probably in use in Wales before being transported to their present site. Now
British archaeology will have you believe that some mysterious people went to wales, took the stones and transported them across wales, across what is
now England and erected them where they now stand, all without even the smallest reaction by the welsh they belonged to. Really? The Welsh just let
them take stones that were so special to them they transported them across Britain to Stonehenge and erected them by hand? Complete rubbish. It
would be like the French buying Stonehenge now and coming over and saying they were now going to take it down and transport it back to France. It
wouldn't happen, and the stones mean nothing to us now.
Do you really think that the most violent and war ready tribes in the whole of Britain at that time would allow that to happen? The tribes of South
Wales were so vicious and violent that they were never defeated in battle and the most powerful kings, princes and warlords in Britain came from this
area. The romans only ever invaded north wales properly, they never dared to invade south wales, and they held the local tribe in the area I live,
The Silures, with the highest respect because of their ferocity and were the only tribe named in their annals. They had small outposts and marching
camps but nothing major further into south wales than Caerleon. The Vikings only attacked the south coast of what is now wales once, they were
defeated. Not even the English kings with their powerful armies could defeat them, south wales was the only part of wales left to the Welsh princes
to rule, as they were the only ones who could control the tribes living in the area. It costs less lives, money and time to assimilate than to
Yet you want me to believe the stones were taken without a fight? This only leaves the possibility that it was the Welsh who took them there. There
are stone circles all over wales, I personally know of 31, not as big as Stonehenge, but they are there. So the welsh were building stone circles,
yet they didn't build Stonehenge, with stones from Wales?
Now the standing stones across Britain are numerous, yet most of those found in wales are deemed to be Christian or roman in origin. I believe they
are much older. The thing is, most were described during the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th when everything was labeled
Christian and the myths and legends of wales were romanticized so much they have no basis in reality. I have translated many welsh manuscripts and
they bear no relation to what is published as the Mabinogion, they have been romanticized out of all proportion and bear no resemblance to the
Just because a stone has a cross on it, doesn't mean it is Christian. The cross in Christianity didn't become associated with it until the 2nd
century. It didn't come into widespread use until at least the 4th century, they thought it was abhorrent and symbolized pain and suffering. Crosses
as decoration have been used for thousands of years. So how can stones that were around before the romans came to Britain be Christian?
Do any of these look anything like Christian?
Not to me they don't.