Archaeologica.org

E.P. Grondine wrote:
I am kind of taken with the image of the first Briton sailing his way up from coastal Africa.

Yes ,I can imagine you would be taken by such a fantasy .
Most of us would have considered the arrival of first humans on what is now Britain would have been on foot and from what is now the near continent , and a very long time before Cheddar man .

I've never seen any evidence that Neanderthals had henges.

Neanderthals didn't build henges .
Nobody who uses the correct definition of the term or understands the subject has ever suggested that they did .

Tiompan wrote:Neanderthals didn't build henges.

Just as I suspected.

It's a welcome change from errors , but you seem to have replaced them with truisms . e.g. “I've never seen any evidence that Neanderthals had henges. “, “henges were not built by Angles or Saxons. “
If you knew the subject ,had read the litertaure , even read and understood the multiple links provided you needn't have wasted the space .
What's next the popes a catholic ?

You want to have a close look at the pyramid .
Note how you inhabit the lower layers and constantly avoid the top i.e. never refute anything , and certainly never " finds the mistake and explains why it's mistaken using quotes " .
Which is exactly what happens to your quotes , time and again .

Tiompan, generally my problems are with people who are unable to see anything on the top the top three levels.

I am still taken with the image of that swarthy gentleman paddling his dugout up to Britain and making landfall.
He steps ashore with wife, children and friends, and after building their huts
they all build a wood henge and celebrate their new home.

Boots on the other foot then EP .
It's the top three levels where you singularly fail round here .

Maybe you should write about a "book" about your fantasy paddler .

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-most- ... thing-ever

I believe we can add the British definition of "henge" to this list.

The correct definition of Henge is applicable world wide .

There is a sad old nut who made up two definitions up that are simply wrong ,that he happens to be American and is unable to understand or refute multiple examples of the correct definition including the very basic error he makes in his own definitions is of no more consequence than his pathetic inability to man up and admit his error .

There are plenty of Americans who know about the subject and are aware of the correct definition .

No smoots .

That awesome idiosyncratic currency that was used prior to 15 February 1971:

Four farthings = one penny
Twelve pence = one shilling
Two shillings = one florin
Five shillings = one crown
Twenty shillings = one pound
The coins and notes include the thrupenny bit, the ha'penny, the sixpence, the two bob bit, the half crown, the ten bob note and so on. But I feel the need to make way for my favourite:
One guinea which is equal to 21 shillings. Note how it is 1/20 more valuable than one pound. It is not issued, but a denomination used mostly in contracts involving land or animals and that cornerstone of British society, horse-racing.

It was also a currency used in pre- revolutionary America .

The guinea was issued , as a coin.

You also missed out numerous others .

"The volume unit the firkin is one quarter of a beer barrel. And one firkin is 72 pints.
Now, if it’s wine that you are holding, stop before boasting to your friends with that new knowledge, because the wine firkin is a different unit.
And some other volume units are the tun, the butt, the kildirkin and the bloody hogshead!"

What I am dealing with here is a fellow who tries to pass himself off as an "archaeo-astronomer",
and that term is a neologism created in an effort to create a little establishment,
who knows absolutely nothing about recent comet and asteroid impacts.

What you are attempting to deal with is your inability to own up to your massive waste of time and space and the production of ever more errors whilst evading the most obvious one .

Archaeoastronomy is a term that is well understood and was coined nearly 50 years ago .
It's yet another subject that your level of understanding is next to nothing .
If there is anything that you could quote where I have said something that might wrong , related to the subject , do mention it . As ever breath will not be held .

By their nature "recent comet and asteroid impacts " are not part of the study of the subject . The clue is in "archaeo " in contrast to "recent" .

You can't help it , you just keep on putting your foot in it , no matter what the error you are are evading .