Felsenmeer is located roughly midway between the cities of Mannheim and Frankfurt in
western Germany. The nearest town of size is Bensheim, which is approximately 10km to its

Screen Shot 2018-04-03 at 12.01.44.png



Felsenmeer is a formation of large loose boulders / rocks which run up a single re-entrant that eventually forms a saddle between two parts of a ridge feature.

Modern geology tells us:-

“A blockfield (also spelt block field) felsenmeer, boulder field or stone field is a surface
covered by boulder or block-sized angular rocks usually associated with alpine and subpolar
climates and periglaciation. Blockfields differ from screes and talus slope in that blockfields
do not apparently originate from mass wastings.

They are believed to be formed by frost weathering below the surface.   An alternative theory
suggests that modern blockfields may have originated from chemical weathering that
occurred in the Neogene when the climate was relatively warmer. Following this thought the
blockfields would then have been reworked by periglacial action.” (Revolvy 2018).

i.e…they are not sure?


The Legend for Felsenmeer is that the stones were stockpiled by two warring Giants.
There is an interesting point which does arise from this legend however and that is the
mention of giants.

Every recorded civilisation throughout ancient history has giants featured in it. In most, if
not all, the myths are linked to the large megalithic locations in each region. Again the fact
that a common link runs through all of the apparently unconnected pan global societies,
which have huge unexplained megaliths at their centre, cannot be dismissed because of the
seemingly unrealistic possibility.

Is the giants theory something I believe?
It is a very difficult subject to comprehend but there is evidence of outsized skeletal
remains being found and also some photographic evidence from early explorers in the
Americas. Alternative theories have suggested that the Smithsonian institute is a major
player in hiding remains found globally, but obviously this is hearsay without stronger
evidence to support it.

It is a subject I find as hard as anyone else to accept, but I will not close my mind to the
possibility when there is evidence out there that just hints it may have a factual base?
If you wish to find out more on this theory, please see the link below which is a good place
to begin any further reading;


As my travel continues I will mention this fact at each site at which the myth of giants is told.


It is instantly obvious that large stone workings have happened at Felsenmeer and this is
attributed to the Roman Empire. Across the whole bolder field you can see cut marks on a
vast number of boulders and blocks. The museum gives a detailed explanation of how the
large boulders were quarried, split and transported using the basic tools we ascribe to the
craftsmen of this time.



I came to Felsenmeer having seen it mentioned on the website www.megaliths.org, which is
a superb site that lists thousands of locations world wide that have signs of a forgotten past.
Felsenmeer was listed as a site which may show signs of advanced machine tooling and was
described as a place that required further investigation.


On first arrival at Felsenmeer I was sceptical about the possible claims and was of the
opinion that the site was natural and ‘influenced by Roman workings’, as is stated in the mainstream writings. As I pushed further up the hillside I did see a number of things which made me understand why it was at least considered that questions need to be asked about the true history?

1) Whilst an initial glance at the field makes you think it is a random boulder field, the
more you look at its layout, the more you can see what appears to be at least some
resemblance of order in the way the boulders are ‘stacked' or 'grouped’. Without
knowing what has been done to the boulders in recent times, to make the area safe
or from a preservation perspective, it is hard to attribute this to any particular

2) The idea that the field may have been ‘created’ has some support, in that across the
field you can find stones, with obvious cut marks, at the bottom of the pile of rocks.
Obviously attempting to cut a rock at the bottom of the pile would be pointless, how
this has happened raises questions. It has to be that either the cut boulders were
once clear from the actual boulder field and were cut then discarded onto the pile or
that other blocks were piled up onto of them? I do not see any other logical reason
for this phenomenon?

3) As you look at the cut marks on many of the rocks it does seem as if there is a
uniformity of depth to all of the gouge marks. Mainstream states wedges were
hammered into the blocks in a line which eventually caused the rock to split along
that line, which seems a logical and doable method. 



The marks are too uniform which suggests that an equal amount of pressure was being applied to each ‘wedge’ as it drove into the boulder. If they were hammered in they would not
all reach identical depth, each would be different and would be defined by the
individual hammering them. The uniformity may suggest that pressure came from
one source which was applied to each of the cutting surfaces equally and at the
same time; this indicates a possible mechanical influence? The cut marks reminded
me of the marks left by a bucket on the front of a mechanical digger as it bites into
its work area?

4) There are many sites to either side of the boulder field that seem to be the remains
of structures, with the cut boulders looking as though they have been stacked like
bricks. There does not appear to have been any excavation carried out at the
location at all and further investigation of these structures would be invaluable.

5) Whilst studying some of the boulders with the visible cut marks you would be
forgiven for considering if at some point in the distant past, the block was a more
uniform shape (ie square). It does not take a lot of imagination to see that the
blocks could have been exactly that and have since lost some of their original shape
overtime due to erosion?

6) At the top of the field (above the abandoned cut column lying on its side) there is a
lump of rock that was obviously cut with a blade. The cut mark of where the blade
bit into the rock at the bottom of its cut is clearly visible and the rock along the cut is
as smooth as glass. Mainstream explains this with a blade mounted between two
posts and stones tied to it with rope to apply pressure along the cutting edge. Again
as I am no stone mason I cannot question this with authority, but as a layman I do
not see this method producing the finish that can be seen literally ‘cast in stone’. I
cannot see this cut mark coming from anything else other than a fast moving cutting
surface (but maybe this is what I’m wanting to see?)


Felsenmeer is intriguing and definitely warrants different thoughts and perspectives about
what it actually is. Mainstream geology itself is split on how it is considered to have been
formed and the many conflicting phenomena around the site cannot be ignored, simply
because they don’t fit into a previously accepted concept.

It is a site worthy of a visit from any alternative thinker and may well have a vast number of
surprises yet to be discovered, which may change the perception of what it actually is or