Lidar Investigation – Prehistoric Britain

London – The Thames through time

Posted on May 2, 2026 by admin

The Thames through time

Introduction

This is a journey through time, looking at the prehistoric London (The Thames) through time, Landscape based on the book ‘The Post-Glacial Flooding Hypothesis’ – that contains conclusive and extended evidence of Robert John Langdon’s hypothesis, that rivers of the past were higher than today, which changes the history of not only Britain, but the world. In this extract, we look at the Case Study within the book about the Thames. (The Thames through time ).

Case Study – The Thames

The Lower Thames sequence has been thoroughly studied not only because it is one of the largest river systems in the country but also because of its fortuitous exposure in many of the quarries and recent development programmes in and around London. The Thames was diverted into its current valley during the Anglian period, where it proceeded to lay down extensive gravel deposits before reaching the sea. Archaeological interest in the Thames alluvial deposits and the raised beaches of the south-east coast is also due to the presence of significant Lower and Middle Palaeolithic artefacts and hominin remains within these deposits.

The depositional chronology of the Thames gravel terraces has not yet been universally accepted, and the two significant sequences have been proposed by Gibbard (1985) and Bridgland (1994). This is because the terraces are dated by the artefacts found within them, which are archaeologically dated and not carbon-dated. The problem with this method is that if the area flooded after the original deposits were laid down, the artefacts could have been washed down from upstream and embedded at random.

Traditional View of the Thames River terraces

(The Thames through time)

The modern floodplain of the Lower Thames, downstream of central London, is bounded either by older Pleistocene sands or gravels at the higher levels or by bedrock. The depositional chronology of the Thames gravel terraces has not yet been universally accepted, and the two significant sequences were proposed by Gibbard (1985).

The SBAB model of floodplain evolution proposes that during the early Holocene, multi-channel braided systems stabilised as some channels narrowed and deepened, and others were progressively abandoned over the course of the Holocene (Brown et al. 1994).

The Lower Thames saw a rise of about 15m in relative sea level between c. 10,000 and c. 6000 BP (Rackham and Sidell, 2000; Sidell, 2003b). This would have had a significant effect on the settlement of the outer and mid estuary floodplain. It has been suggested, for example, that settlement areas along the river margin progressively moved to higher ground as the land below was overtaken by the rising water levels (Rackham and Sidell 2000).

During the early Holocene, the Lower Thames floodplain was a complex environment of peat-forming areas, migrating channels and raised eyots (Sidell 2003a). Often, these eyots were the focus of prehistoric occupation, for example, at Runnymede (Needham 1991; 1992), Westminster, Southwark (Bowsher 1991; Dillion et al. 1991; Merriman 1992), and Bermondsey (Sidell et al. 2002). These areas tended to lie at the junction between the higher ground on the edge of an island and the adjacent peat and alluvium, which preserved evidence of human activity that occurred when river levels were lower (Merriman 1992; Sidell et al. 2002).

The investigations carried out for the Jubilee Line extension have suggested that the sand eyots of Westminster and north Southwark did not complete their formation by the early Holocene as initially believed. Still, instead, they formed in the mid-Neolithic (c. 3500 cal B.C.). This could help explain why there is a lack of Early Neolithic occupation in the floodplain (Sidell 2003b).

An extensive number of boreholes (> 1100) have enabled the British Geological Society to map the extent of flooding in the early Holocene, as it left extensive alluvium up to 10m deep in places, showing the long duration of the raised water levels.

BGS Map of London showing in blue the Alluvium deposited at the end of the LGM. We have sectioned off A- G areas to look at their cross-sections.

(The Thames through time)

If we section off (A to G) the Thames and look at the volume and width of the Holocene Thames in comparison to today, we can get an estimation of the discharge of water at its peak during this period.

Increased discharge levels during the Holocene

Cross- Section	Current Width	Holocene Width	Width Increase %	Volume Increase – (Holo. – Present =) Cu.m³	Increase in Volume
A	400m	4,425m	1,100	71,724 – 800 = 70,924	8,866%
B	650m	7,725m	1,188	71,950 – 1950 = 70,000	3,590%
C	731m	8,450m	1,156	128,430 – 2924 = 125,506	4,292%
D	965m	7,644m	792	60,348 – 4825 = 55,523	1,151%
E	1,207m	11,265m	933	90,122 – 7274 = 82,880	7,367%
F	1,125m	5,230m	465	38,622 – 7875 = 30,747	390%
G	1,448m	7,242m	500	58,902 – 11584 = 47318	408%
Average	932m	7426m	797%		3723%

Thames River Cross-Sections A – G

(The Thames through time)

The current average discharge is 65.8 m³/s; therefore, with a 3723% increase in the watershed area, we can estimate that, at its peak, the Thames River discharged 2450 m³/s (0.0025 Gt/s or 1314 Gt per annum).

About the same rate of one of the smaller rivers ‘Susquehanna/Chesapeake River’ (Table 5) in North America – which is minor, in comparison to the eight North American river discharge ratios, which begs the question as the Thames is the largest river in the country, would it not be affected mostly by the meltwater at the end of the last ice age – so, have the scientists got the extent of the alluvium flooding correct?

To investigate further, we need to examine a detailed excavation at the edge of the BGS superficial Alluvium flood map to obtain real evidence of dates and clues about which sediments are present, compared with the ages suggested in past publications.

‘Holocene environmental changes in the Lower Thames Valley’ (Branch et al.,2012) excavated parts of Hornchurch marsh at the edge of the BSG alluvium deposit (Cross-Section D).

The paper suggests that “Palaeoenvironmental data (publicly or in the form of commercial archaeological reports) on these near-surface sediments indicate that following the end of the last glaciation, the lower reaches of the Thames Valley and its tributaries were inundated by the sea, and marine and estuarine sediments accumulated. Since that time, the evidence suggests that sea level continued to rise at a much slower rate as a response to either glacio-eustatic or sedimentary processes”. But the idea of any recent “inundation by the sea” can now be easily rebuked.

The reason for this incorrect interpretation of sediments was that past Geologists believed that the LGM was much smaller than previous ice ages – this has now been disproved by new research at sea level data from the Mediterranean (Rohling et al., 2017) as they could only measure by observation the extent of the ice sheets on the surface of the landmass and took for granted the greater the area, the larger the ice mass by estimation.

The conclusion of this study is to show that the last Ice Age was far more significant than previously thought (PCM) as illustrated below in Table 6 and Fig. 30)

Table 6 – (Rohling et al., 20170 Comparison of LGM v PGM by sea-level difference

(Rohling et al.,2009) sea levels over the last 500k years – notice that they are either equivalent or smaller than the LGM

(The Thames through time)

🔍 Validating the 40 Metre Flood Model: A Conservative Benchmark with Room for Expansion

Recent analysis of Thames River terrace data, combined with marine isotope stages (MIS) and global sea-level reconstructions, has confirmed that the highest river terrace associated with the Anglian glaciation (MIS 12) reaches elevations of up to 45–50 metres above the present-day floodplain. These terraces are preserved in locations such as Wimbledon Common, Islington, Dartford Heath, and around the Goring Gap and represent the earliest and most substantial fluvial deposits in the Thames Valley. Their considerable height corresponds with what is now understood to be the largest ice volume of the last 500,000 years, when sea levels were more than 130 metres below modern levels.

In contrast, our working model for reconstructing prehistoric Thames hydrology assumes a maximum flood level of 40 metres above modern—a figure chosen deliberately to provide a conservative and defensible baseline. This height has been used to calculate post-glacial meltwater volume, floodplain extent, and terrace formation through time. Although lower than the peak terrace cuts, 40 metres accurately reflects the likely active flood height during the most extreme meltwater episodes, accounting for factors such as sediment infill, compaction, and subsequent erosion that would have reshaped the original floodplain surface.

Sea level minimum equals Ice On land, and hence the River sizes after it melts – (Case Study – River Thames)

That said, the confirmation of higher terrace cuts opens the door for revising the volume model upwards. If we were to use the 45–50 metre elevation as our baseline for MIS 12, the resulting model would show a 12.5% to 25% increase in total flood volume compared to the current 40 metre assumption. This adjustment could significantly strengthen the case for post-glacial aquifer discharge and explain the massive sediment loads and geomorphic features observed downstream. However, such a shift would require recalibration of all terrace heights and their correlation with glacial episodes, which, while feasible, may introduce new assumptions and reduce the clarity of the proportional model.

In conclusion, the existing 40 metre model remains sound—anchored in observable data and consistent with LiDAR-documented terrace formations. Nevertheless, this model should be viewed as a minimum estimate of post-glacial river height and volume. Future work could explore enhanced modelling scenarios using 45–50-metre benchmarks to test the upper limits of Thames flooding during MIS 12. Such refinements would not undermine the current hypothesis but rather strengthen the argument that prehistoric Britain experienced hydrological conditions far more dynamic and extreme than currently acknowledged in traditional archaeological and geological narratives.

📊 Table: Sea-Level Minima and Estimated River Terrace Heights by Glacial Cycle

Glacial Period	Marine Isotope Stage (MIS)	Approx. Date (ka)	Sea-Level Minimum (m below present)	% of Maximum Ice Volume	Estimated Thames Terrace Height (if MIS 12 = 45 m)
Fifth Glacial (Anglian)	MIS 12	~480 – 430	–130 m	100%	45 m
Penultimate Glacial	MIS 6	~190 – 135	–125 m	96.2%	43.3 m
Last Glacial Maximum	MIS 2	~26 – 19	–120 m	92.3%	41.5 m
Third Glacial	MIS 8	~300 – 245	–105 m	80.8%	36.4 m
Fourth Glacial	MIS 10	~360 – 335	–120 m	92.3%	41.5 m

📚 References

Grant, K.M. et al. (2014). Sea-level variability over five glacial cycles. Nature Communications, 5, 5076. DOI: 10.1038/ncomms6076
Rohling, E.J. et al. (2009). Relative sea-level and climate change over the past 500,000 years. Quaternary Science Reviews, 28(17–18), 1537–1552. DOI: 10.1016/j.quascirev.2009.02.026
British Geological Survey. (n.d.). Quaternary deposits and river terraces of the Thames Valley. Earthwise: The BGS Open Geoscience knowledge base. earthwise.bgs.ac.uk

Dated Geology

This new information has created a problem for Geologists, as their sequences were based on the assumption of more significant ice caps, and consequently, meltwater deposits prior to the last ice age formed the foundations of our geological river terracing.

According to previous publications, only ‘Alluvium’ OIS 1 was laid down on the landscape (as at our Case Study site in the Thames Valley) directly after the last Ice Age, 10k years ago. But there is no evidence that that is true or that the larger rivers would not have washed the previous deposits further down the stream, making these sequences incorrect; consequently, the ‘River Terrace’ Deposits of:

Kempton Park – Taplow – Hackney – Lynch Hill – Boyn Hill and Black Park are Holocene in origin (or a mixture) and not solely Late Pleistocene as suggested in Geology books. In practical terms, when we examine boreholes, we should look for the ‘floodplain Terrance’ to indicate the extent of Holocene flooding and ignore the guestimations of gravel deposits.

Figure 31. Traditionally expressed river terrace deposits by ‘guesstimated’ age

(The Thames through time)

This ambiguity is, in fact, pointed out in BGS’s –‘The stratigraphical framework for the Palaeogene successions of the London Basin, the U.K. where it states that “In some areas, notably the north-eastern part of the London Basin, it has proved difficult to subdivide the strata between the Chalk and the London Clay with confidence” and this view is commonplace through the history of British Geology and hence the constant reclassification as shown in their obsolete terms table.

Figure 32. Obsolete terms are a common occurrence in Geology as modern new methods are incorporated. BGS Superficial Deposits Handbook.

(The Thames through time)

This assumption is also highlighted by Lewin et al. (2005), who state –

“Furthermore, their assumption that floodplain gravels were Pleistocene in age was not supported by dating, and work both on the Thames (Robinson, 1992, Fig. 19.2) and more widely elsewhere (Brown et al., 1994) tends to suggest that late dates for overbank sedimentation may generally be constrained by the fact that the gravels beneath are themselves often of considerably later date than was earlier assumed.”

And concluded with “Overall, the skewed distributions suggest rapid autogenic recycling of older materials, with earlier deposits only being preserved beyond the reach of river activity (e.g. in terraces or floodplains which have not been impinged on by later river migration). The exceptions to this are floodplain environments where localised long-term aggradation has permitted the greater preservation of older Holocene units. To obtain evidence from parts of the Holocene that remain less well known, such sites still require discovery and study, whilst commonplace deposits (notably floodplain gravels) would benefit from the application of dating techniques that are less dependent on the fortuity’s preservation of datable organic materials”.

When we look at Palaeolithic sites on a regional scale, such as in the Thames basin, several general problems become apparent. The first is correlation and chronology. By their very nature, terrace fragments may not be unequivocally traceable down a river system. Ideally, a combination of surveying, stratigraphic description and lithological analysis is required to correlate fragments with key sites where more than one formation is present. None of these methods alone can be relied upon; for example, the same lithological content does not necessarily imply time equivalence, especially where rivers are reworking previous gravel terraces. (Brown et al., 1997)

Until the 1950s, archaeology dated the geology, but it is now increasingly the other way around. From the nineteenth century onwards, the traditional chronology of Northern European Pleistocene terraces was based on a combination of hand-axe typology, stratigraphy and counting climatic episodes back in time or from the top of the sequence down. This methodology was based on the belief that axe typology followed a clear progression from what we perceive as crude or simple to elegant or sophisticated, and that this progression occurred at roughly the same rate across different places. This was allied to the belief that a typology represented a ‘culture’.

Chronology

This chronology and methodology have been questioned for a variety of reasons (Green and McGregor, 1980). First, the traditional chronology was at odds with revised Pleistocene chronologies from ocean cores and from new terrestrial sites in North-West Europe, which showed an extremely complex picture of glacial, interglacial, stadial and interstadial stages. The ocean cores, for example, show at least 30 warm/cold cycles, and the terrestrial record has improved through the discovery of more sites and new chronometric dating techniques (Lowe and Walker, 1984; Jones and Keen, 1993).

However, the terrestrial record in Britain still shows major discontinuities in comparison with the ocean record and the much more detailed chronologies from the Netherlands and Germany. A chronology, and it must be noted that there is considerable debate and uncertainty about not only the position of major British stratigraphic units but also the number of pre-Pastonian and post-Hoxnian-pre-Ipswichian climatic cycles present in the British record (Jones and Keen, 1993).

Moreover, given that the river gravel sequences are ‘problematical’, we can now revisit the Holocene ‘Alluvium’ map to see whether the boundaries of the Holocene Thames were even more significant than those shown in the original BGS map.

If we look at the Cross-Section H profile, we see that the area of the Holocene effect increases by at least one mile and is terminated by Boreholes TQ47NE344 and TQ58NW141.

Figure 34. Cross-Section H

(The Thames through time)

BGS map of ‘superficial’ deposits left by the last LGM with cross-section H and the two boreholes (borehole details in Appendix A)

(The Thames through time)

Borehole TQ47NE344 – shows 5.95m of “Brown Silty Sand” before hitting Chalk and TQ58NW141 4.42m of “Loamy Sand and Stones” with a base of “sand and Gravel”.

This increases the Thames Flood Model from a discharge of 2,450 m3/s to 12,250 m3/s, which more accurately reflects the North American Discharge Model.

If we take this new model into account, the Thames valley will look very different to today, with all of the ‘superficial sediments’ being covered by water at the start of the Holocene period, 10 – 6 Ka.

How London probably looked just after the LGM, about 10,000 BCE, with as much water as land and most of it swampy.

(The Thames through time)

We can review the Hornchurch Marshes Paper (Branch et al., 2012) and examine the results to identify outcomes and possible related dates for our new Thames Valley flooding model.

(Branch et al.,2012) Hornchurch marshes investigation

(The Thames through time)

The radiocarbon dates show that the site was inhabited during the early Holocene period “Between −4.15 and −3.83 m O.D., a clay-rich sedimentary unit was deposited probably on the margins of a river channel (floodplain)” This would give us an idea of how much sediment was deposited by the river during the early Holocene, directly after the last ice age. If we look at boreholes around this site and within a few hundred metres of it, those bored lower, we can develop a working hypothesis.

Borehole TQ58SW:1 – the closest to the site (Appendix A) shows the sand and pebbles go down another 12.8m until it reaches “Coloured Sands and Stones”, whilst Borehole TQ58SW762 shows the names of many more segments, including ‘terrace gravel’ that goes down to 12.2m below the surface – which confirms our Holocene water level set at 40′ or 12.2m.

Between −3.54 m O.D. and −1.74 m O.D., the formation of wood peat represents the creation of more terrestrial conditions at the site. The results of the radiocarbon dating indicate that peat formation commenced at c. 6300 cal. Yr B.P. and ceased at c. 3900 cal. Yr B.P. with the onset of estuarine sedimentation.

Closer inspection of the Lithostratigraphic descriptions and Lithology reveals that the site suffered possible flooding about 6800 yr B.P. as silt deposits are found in unit number 2&3 (Figure 36.) after over 3000 years of flooding since the end of the last ice age and a build-up of ‘Grey Silty Clay and fine sand’ as would be expected.

There is then a sequence of peat (an accumulation of partially decayed vegetation or organic matter. It is unique to natural areas called peatlands, bogs, mires, moors, or muskegs) growth as this become a marsh area because of the Holocene flooding as is a majority of Britain (as we have seen in Fig. 25). This marshland lasted for 1200 – 1600 years (Unit number 4 -7, figure 36.).

Then there seems to be a flood period of about 200 years during which the area was inundated with a deposit of Sand and clay, replacing the marshland peat, dated 5750 – 5330 cal yr B.P. We then see another 1500 years as a marshland, with new peat samples, before another river flood at 3800 BP. The carbon dating of this site provides the evidence we require to finally prove that rivers were not only higher in the Holocene/Mesolithic period, but also remained high to such an extent that they periodically flooded into recent history, as we will now further illustrate.

NB. Extract from the Book ‘Post-Glacial Flooding Hypothesis’

PODCAST

Author’s Biography

Robert John Langdon, a polymathic luminary, emerges as a writer, historian, and eminent specialist in LiDAR Landscape Archaeology.

His intellectual voyage has been interwoven with stints as an astute scrutineer in government and grand corporate bastions, a tapestry spanning British Telecommunications, Cable and Wireless, British Gas, and the esteemed University of London.

A decade hence, Robert’s transition into retirement unfurled a chapter of insatiable curiosity. This phase saw him immerse himself in Politics, Archaeology, Philosophy, and the enigmatic realm of Quantum Mechanics. His academic odyssey traversed the venerable corridors of knowledge hubs such as the Museum of London, University College London, Birkbeck College, The City Literature Institute, and Chichester University.

In the symphony of his life, Robert is a custodian of three progeny and a pair of cherished grandchildren. His sanctuary lies ensconced in the embrace of West Wales, where he inhabits an isolated cottage, its windows framing a vista of the boundless sea – a retreat from the scrutinising gaze of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, an amiable clandestinity in the lap of nature.

Exploring Prehistoric Britain: A Journey Through Time

My blog delves into the fascinating mysteries of prehistoric Britain, challenging conventional narratives and offering fresh perspectives grounded in cutting-edge research, particularly LiDAR technology. I invite you to explore some key areas of my research. For example, the Wansdyke, often cited as a defensive structure, is re-examined in light of new evidence. I’ve presented my findings in my blog post Wansdyke: A British Frontier Wall – ‘Debunked’, and a Wansdyke LiDAR Flyover video further visualises my conclusions.

My work also often challenges established archaeological dogma. I argue that many sites, such as Hambledon Hill, commonly identified as Iron Age hillforts, are not what they seem. My posts Lidar Investigation Hambledon Hill – NOT an ‘Iron Age Fort’ and Unmasking the “Iron Age Hillfort” Myth explore these ideas in detail and offer an alternative view. Similarly, sites like Cissbury Ring and White Sheet Camp receive re-evaluations based on LiDAR analysis in my posts “Lidar Investigation Cissbury Ring through time” and “Lidar Investigation White Sheet Camp,“ revealing fascinating insights into their true purpose. I have also examined South Cadbury Castle, often linked to the mythical Camelot56.

My research also extends to ancient water management, including the role of canals and other linear earthworks. I have discussed the true origins of Car Dyke in multiple posts, including Car Dyke – ABC News Podcast and Lidar Investigation Car Dyke – North Section, which suggest a Mesolithic origin 2357. I also explore the misidentification of Roman aqueducts, as seen in my posts on the Great Chesters (Roman) Aqueduct. My research has also been greatly informed by my post-glacial flooding hypothesis, which has helped explain landscape transformations over time. I have discussed this hypothesis in several posts, including AI now supports my Post-Glacial Flooding Hypothesis and Exploring Britain’s Flooded Past: A Personal Journey

Finally, my blog also investigates prehistoric burial practices, as seen in Prehistoric Burial Practices of Britain and explores the mystery of Pillow Mounds, often mistaken for medieval rabbit warrens, but with a potential link to Bronze Age cremation in my posts: Pillow Mounds: A Bronze Age Legacy of Cremation? and The Mystery of Pillow Mounds: Are They Really Medieval Rabbit Warrens?. My research also includes astronomical insights into ancient sites, for example, in Rediscovering the Winter Solstice: The Original Winter Festival. I also review new information about the construction of Stonehenge in The Stonehenge Enigma.

Other Blogs

2024 Prehistoric Britain Blog Review

8000-year-old Cro-Magnon skull

Vikings, Doggerland, and the Last Survivors of Europe’s Lost Waterworld

South Cadbury Castle – Camelot

Posted on April 1, 2026 by admin

Introduction

In the traditional archaeological interpretation, Cadbury Castle represents a long-lived settlement that developed gradually over several millennia. The earliest evidence of activity dates to the Neolithic period, where pits and postholes associated with pottery and flint finds suggest a small, unenclosed agricultural community. Radiocarbon dating places this early occupation around 3500–3300 BC, indicating that the hill was already being utilised long before the construction of its later defences.(South Cadbury Castle – Camelot)

The site continued to be occupied into the Bronze Age, where evidence of ovens and metalworking activity points to an increasingly organised settlement. By the Iron Age, Cadbury Castle had developed into a substantial fortified enclosure. Around 300 BC, a stone-built enclosure with timber reinforcements was constructed, later expanded into a complex hillfort with multiple ramparts and elaborate defensive systems. Excavations have revealed both roundhouses and rectangular structures, alongside evidence of industrial activity and possible ritual features, suggesting a permanent and socially complex community—often described as “oppidum-like” in character.

South Cadbury Castle - Camelot — South Cadbury Castle – Camelot

During the 1st century BC and into the early Roman period, the defences were further strengthened. Archaeological evidence indicates that the site may have been violently attacked during the Roman conquest of Britain, around AD 43, with signs of burning and destruction uncovered at key प्रवेश points. Following this, the Romans appear to have reused the hilltop, possibly establishing a military presence and later constructing a temple during the 3rd or 4th century AD.

After the end of Roman administration, Cadbury Castle was reoccupied in the post-Roman period, between approximately AD 470 and 580. Excavations led by Leslie Alcock revealed a large timber “Great Hall,” interpreted within the traditional framework as the residence of a high-status Brittonic ruler. The discovery of imported Mediterranean pottery from this phase suggests long-distance trade connections and reinforces the idea of the site as a regional power centre. It is this phase of occupation that has led to long-standing associations with the legendary Camelot of King Arthur.

The site saw later reuse in the early medieval period, including the establishment of a temporary Saxon mint in the 11th century. Across its long history, Cadbury Castle is therefore understood, in conventional terms, as a multi-period fortified settlement—evolving from a Neolithic farming site into a major Iron Age stronghold, later adapted by Roman and post-Roman communities, and ultimately woven into both historical and legendary narratives.

The Problem with the Traditional Interpretation

The conventional explanation of Cadbury Castle presents a familiar story: a hilltop settlement that gradually evolves from a Neolithic farm into a Bronze Age community, then into an Iron Age hillfort, later reused by Romans and post-Roman elites.

It sounds neat. It reads well. But when examined critically, it raises more problems than it solves.

The core issue is methodological.

The site is treated as a continuous “occupation sequence,” yet the evidence presented is not continuous—it is fragmentary, intermittent, and separated by significant spans of time. A pit here, a posthole there, a later rampart above it—all are grouped together and interpreted as a single evolving settlement. In reality, what is being described is not continuity, but repeated reuse of a prominent landscape feature over thousands of years.

This is a fundamental distinction.

Finding Neolithic pits does not prove a Neolithic settlement in the sense implied. It proves activity. The same applies to Bronze Age ovens, Iron Age ramparts, or post-Roman halls. Each represents a moment in time, not necessarily a continuous tradition of occupation.

Archaeology, however, routinely compresses these separate events into a single narrative—effectively averaging the past into a story that feels coherent but is not supported as a continuous process.

Elevation and Function — The Missing Variable

What is consistently overlooked in the traditional model is the most obvious physical characteristic of Cadbury Castle:

Its elevation.

At approximately 153 metres above sea level, the site sits well above the surrounding lowlands, particularly the Somerset Levels to the north. In the conventional interpretation, this is explained purely in terms of defence—height equals visibility, therefore height equals protection.

But this assumption is never tested.

It is simply inherited.

If we step back and apply a physical framework rather than a cultural one, a different question emerges:

Why are the earliest activities consistently located on elevated ground?

This is not unique to Cadbury. Across Britain, early prehistoric activity frequently appears at higher elevations, with later activity progressively occupying lower ground. This pattern is measurable, repeatable, and not dependent on interpretation.

The simplest explanation is not a defence.

It is an environment.

As demonstrated in the broader hydrological model of post-glacial Britain, early Holocene landscapes were characterised by significantly higher groundwater levels and expanded river systems. In such a system, low-lying areas—such as the Somerset Levels—would not have been stable, dry land in the way they are today. They would have been wetlands, floodplains, or standing water environments for extended periods.

Under these conditions, elevated sites like Cadbury Hill are not “defensive choices.”

They are the only viable ground.

Reframing the “Hillfort”

Once elevation is understood as an environmental constraint rather than a defensive preference, the entire interpretation of the site shifts.

The term “hillfort” becomes problematic.

It assumes:

conflict
territorial defence
permanent settlement

Yet none of these are directly proven by the physical evidence alone.

The ramparts, for example, are interpreted as defensive structures—but this is an assumption based on form, not function. Earthworks can serve multiple purposes: hydraulic control, stock management, boundary demarcation, or even phased landscape modification.

At Cadbury, the presence of multiple ramparts is often cited as evidence of increasing conflict. But an alternative explanation is equally plausible: staged construction responding to changing environmental conditions, particularly shifting water levels and drainage patterns.

The traditional model selects one interpretation—warfare—without excluding others.

The Illusion of Continuity

Perhaps the most significant issue is the illusion of continuity created by archaeological phasing.

Cadbury Castle is presented as:

Neolithic → Bronze Age → Iron Age → Roman → Post-Roman → Saxon

But this is not a continuous timeline of occupation.

It is a list of disconnected events.

Between these phases lie gaps—sometimes centuries, sometimes longer—where no evidence of sustained activity exists. These gaps are rarely emphasised, because they disrupt the narrative of an “important settlement.”

Instead, the site is framed as persistently occupied, when the evidence more accurately supports periodic reuse of a prominent, strategically located landscape feature.

In other words, the hill is important.

Not necessarily the settlement.

A Simpler Model

If we remove the assumption and focus only on physical constraints, a more economical explanation emerges:

Early activity occurs on high ground because low ground is unstable or flooded
Sites are reused over time because elevated locations remain reliable as conditions change
Earthworks reflect adaptation to landscape conditions, not necessarily warfare
Later cultures reinterpret and reuse earlier features without preserving the original function

This model requires fewer assumptions and aligns with measurable environmental behaviour.

It also explains why sites like Cadbury Castle appear repeatedly in the archaeological record across different periods without requiring continuous occupation.

Maps

1800s OS Map

GE Satellite Map

LiDAR Map

Investigation

Site Flyaround

South Cadbury Castle Flyaround

Site Flyover

South Cadbury Castle Fly Over

Lidar Map showing Bronze Age

South Cadbury Castle – with Bronze Age Water Levels

LiDAR Map showing Mesolithic Period

South Cadbury Castle with Mesloithic Water levels

Defence Strategy 101

Roman Defence System

Roman defences (of the same period as the ‘Iron Age’ ), we notice the ditches were relatively small and narrow. These ditches were called ‘Ankle Breaker’ as the purpose was for the assailant to fall into the ditch (usually containing pointed wooden stakes to either injure or kill the assailant) or to at least break their ankle from the fall, making them immobile. These ditches would be 3 to 4 m wide and about 2m deep and could be dug quickly.

The soil excavated from the ditch would be placed on the defensive side to elevate the defenders, allowing them to look down and fight their attackers from a higher position. Simply standing on elevated ground without a barrier would make defenders easy targets. Therefore, they built fortifications using wooden stakes or stone for more permanent and substantial defences. These fortifications provided cover from spears, arrows, or stones while looking down into the conflict zone. This basic defensive strategy has remained unchanged for thousands of years, as seen with the Normans, who used castles and moats. The moats slowed down assailants, allowing defenders to use crossbows effectively against anyone attempting to cross the deep waters.

Classic Roman Fort With Ditch and Palisade

Lidar Maps of Sth Cadbury Castle Show No Defences

Banks

The banks at South Cadbury Castle show no signs of palisades on top of the bank at any stage before the Roman occupation, which brought stone to the very top of the site. The other four banks appear to be quite flat, as if they have been used for walking upon rather than holding any defensive wooden structures or ‘foxholes.’

Importance and Use of Foxholes in Defense

Concealment and Protection: Foxholes are small, dug-out trenches or pits used by soldiers to provide cover and concealment. They protect defenders from enemy fire and other dangers. By being below ground level, soldiers can remain hidden and minimize their exposure to enemy attacks.

Historical Use: Throughout history, foxholes have been a crucial part of defensive strategies in various military contexts: While the term “foxhole” is modern, the concept of digging protective pits or trenches has been used in various forms throughout history. In ancient battles, soldiers would dig pits to defend against archers and other ranged weapons.

Advantages of Foxholes

Reduced Visibility: Soldiers in foxholes are less visible to the enemy, making it harder for attackers to target them.
Protection from Spears, Rocks and Arrows: Being below ground level the size of the target is greatly reduced.
Stability for Firing: Foxholes provide a stable firing position, allowing soldiers to fire and use their weapons more accurately.

South Cadbury Castle Context

The absence of evidence for palisades or foxholes at South Cadbury Castle before the Roman occupation suggests a different use or purpose for the banks. Instead of being purely defensive, the flat banks must have served other functions.

Ditches

Looking at the construction of the ditches at South Cadbury Castle, we notice that it has no defensive features as expected from a so-called ‘Iron Age Fort’. The ditches are far too broad to be defensive (15m to 30m wide) compared to Roman ‘Ankle Breaker’ of 2m to 3m. The maps show no sign of a wooden or stone barrier, and archaeological excavations have found no evidence of post holes or defensive pits on the banks. Moreover, the Ditch is banked on the wrong side to be defensive, as if it has been built to encase a watery moat. This outside bank would protect any assailants attacking, giving them ample bank coverage. The internal aspect of the Ditch shows no sign of any wooden defensive poles or post holes as seen in Roman Ditches and is designed without internal walls allowing assailants from using the Ditch as cover and the facility to wander around the circumference undercover, testing the weaknesses in the defence. Therefore, as a defensive feature, these types of ditches on so-called ‘Iron Age Forts’ are fundamentally flawed and commonplace.

The LiDAR Maps also show that the ditch of the ditches indicate that they were built for water, as shown by the blue on these images – this then allows us to look at the design of the earthwork in detail, which shows that the banks have been cut by not roads but other ditches. These ditches that cut across the circumference moats cut into them that, suggest that if water had been contained in these ditches, then the vertical dykes could have been used to gaol boats up from the bottom of the dyke ditch to one of these upper moat levels. These same LiDAR maps also show how the soil was distributed to the outside of the moats to enhance and make the feature deeper.

South Cadbury Castle – Banks on the outside to keep in the Water

Water Table

This hypothesis of using these ditches as moats can only be proven if we find the natural springs that could have fed these earthworks in the past. We know from our studies into rivers, such as The Thames and Avon, that they were both much higher and of greater volume in the past, and this height was retained for thousands of years after the last ice age. This enhanced height and volume is reflected and caused by a higher water table. Within these water tables, natural springs are formed, and water leaks into the land, creating rivers and streams. Although we do not have geological information that allows us to trace past springs, we find existing springs in this location (still active today), which suggests our hypothesis is correct.

South Cadbury Castle showing Springs still in existence

Dykes

As we have already suggested, the lack of defensive features shows that this is far from being a fortification; instead, it was used as a trading site with moats to facilitate the mooring of boats. The transportation to these moats was achieved by other earthworks called Linear Earthworks (also known as Dykes). Dykes were introduced when the river shorelines of the Prehistoric fell with the water table, and they wanted to continue to use these established trading sites rather than having to build new sites at a lower level. So, Dykes were built (like roads) to transport goods to market and also minerals extracted from the many quarries which uncommonly surround these Dykes. Here in South Cadbury Castle, we see not only Dykes feeding the local quarry sites but also placed on the side of this Trading site to allow access to the moats for the boats coming off the rivers, ready for unloading/loading.

Slipway built to feed the moats in the upper levels with trading boats

Two Possible Slipways – one connecting directly to a Dyke

To reinforce the use of this site as a trading The site as a trading place has a second vertical earthwork identified through LiDAR technology. This secondary slipway is distinguishable from the initial structure by its lack of connection to a dyke or river. The slipway appears to traverse from the lowest moat up to the top of the site. While photographs may provide a visual reference, the full extent and significance of this feature are best understood through LiDAR models, which enhance the landscape to reveal these historical elements with greater clarity.place, a second verticle earthwork has been identified via LiDAR technology is a secondary slipway, distinguishable from the initial structure by its lack of connection to a dyke or river. This slipway appears to traverse from the lowest moat up to the top of the site. While photographs may provide a visual reference, the full extent and significance of this feature are best understood through LiDAR models, which enhance the landscape to reveal these historical elements with greater clarity.

The Dykes seen on the LiDAR map are concentrated on the quarry in the East of the Site

Dating the Site

Archaeologists are puzzled by the unexpected dates of this site at South Cadbury Castle, the site that was originally thought to be Iron Age from its classification. Therefore, the discovery of Neolithic pits at the site challenges their previously held beliefs about its functions. However, instead of reconsidering their perceptions, they instead provided speculative explanations for these out-of-time artifacts and features. For example, they have described a bank beneath the Iron Age defenses as a “lynchet or terrace derived from early ploughing,” even though there is no carbon dating evidence to support this claim. In reality, this site is likely to be Neolithic, and the ‘lynchets’ could be Mesolithic banks, indicating its true age.

The discovery of the Bronze Age shield is also an indication of the status of the site and its trading routes – as only one has been found, this would indicate that it was part of the trading or personal ownership of someone in the 10th Century BC at this site. This suggests that this was trading could have been at a much earlier date than current archaeologists suggest, which could too have been with the Mediterranean and a possible source of this unusual artefact, as indicated by the other finds from the late saxon period.

Function of the site

The fact that in the East of this site is one of the largest quarries in Somerset and that the Saxons used the fort as a mint just over a thousand years ago proves that the site’s function was a mineral extraction and trading point. This extraction goes back to the Mesolithic period shown on LiDAR maps with a natural harbour by the Quarries and then Dykes to the Trading site as the prehistoric waters fell. No doubt (as the banks are found not to be defensive), the fort was fortified later during the Roman period with Stone as it was to keep the valuable minerals safe but not as a defensive barrier of warfare as suggested. This would explain the minor disturbances and deaths at a single gate as raiders would have attempted to steal the valuable minerals it contained in its workshops, as described by archaeologists.

PodCast

Author’s Biography

Robert John Langdon, a polymathic luminary, emerges as a writer, historian, and eminent specialist in LiDAR Landscape Archaeology.

Exploring Prehistoric Britain: A Journey Through Time

Other Blogs

2024 Prehistoric Britain Blog Review

8000-year-old Cro-Magnon skull

Vikings, Doggerland, and the Last Survivors of Europe’s Lost Waterworld

The Great Chichester Hoax – A Bridge too far?

Posted on May 26, 2025 by admin

Introduction

It seems I’ve once again stirred up some controversy among the old archaeology club members of Chichester. A few years back, there was quite a buzz in Chichester when they unearthed a Roman Villa complete with a bathhouse. Eager to contribute, I headed to the site with my drone, hoping to capture aerial shots. However, my offer was turned down, perhaps due to the slew of questions I posed to the lead archaeologist. I was particularly intrigued by the water sourcing and drainage for the bathhouse, especially given the presence of the prehistoric dyke that ran through the park. Yet, they seemed to disregard the sizable bank at the edge of the cricket ground. (The Great Chichester Hoax – A Bridge too far?)

The Great Chichester Hoax - A Bridge too far? — The Dyke (green) next to the bank (orange) in Priory Park

Roman Drain

Now, they’ve uncovered another segment that I firmly believe is part of the Roman drainage system, connecting to the Dyke in a direct line. However, they’ve made a somewhat surprising claim—they think it’s a bridge to the Motte and Bailey castle (but that’s another story, as it’s a fire beacon). Unfortunately, from the photographs, it appears relatively small and insufficient to be a bridge. Nevertheless, this small group of amateurs called in the local press, who then informed the BBC to tout this as a historical find, even though it’s yet to be fully excavated—an oversight I’ve dubbed “The Great Chichester Hoax.”

Sadly, this scenario reflects the current state of archaeology. Some quickly accept sensational claims simply because they’re featured on the BBC, ignoring scientific facts. It’s disappointing to see more propaganda overshadowing genuine archaeological inquiry. (The Great Chichester Hoax – A Bridge too far?)

Motte and Bailey?

Living and commuting past this site every day while attending university in recent years (and yes, to disappoint the sceptics, I do hold an Honors Degree in History), I couldn’t help but be amused by the public information board proclaiming it as a classic Motte and Bailey structure from the Norman period. Now, I never doubted its use during the Norman era, especially with the remains of Greyfriars Monastery, the Guildhall, at its base. This chapel had undergone modifications over the years, providing ample evidence for dating the site to this period. But was the mound of Norman origin knowing that a Dyke was nearby? There was a question that the local archaeological club did not wish to explore it seemed.(The Great Chichester Hoax – A Bridge too far?)

Undiscovered Dyke

What fascinated me most, however, was the massive bank on the edge of the Cricket Green, which had been paved over and led towards the mound and the eastern wall of the Guildhall. It almost seemed as if the building was strategically placed by the ditch of the Dyke. Yes, the presence of the Dyke was painfully obvious, yet its existence was never mentioned on the historic plaques or in the online information or countless books about Roman Chichester.(The Great Chichester Hoax – A Bridge too far?)

In response to the BBC article and Facebook blog, I (helpfully) pointed out these observations again and even provided one of my unique LiDAR maps of the area (which they had never possessed or consulted). I was, consequently, taken aback by their dismissive response, insisting that their experts were correct in their assessment of the site and the supposed new bridge (which had grown to over 15 meters, now supposedly the size of the moat—identified by ground penetration surveys, but frustratingly, not published anywhere for verification). I countered that this assessment was likely incorrect, as LiDAR would have easily detected such a massive ditch, as evidenced by the much smaller Dyke ditch of about 2 meters wide visible in the LiDAR map.(The Great Chichester Hoax – A Bridge too far?)

Report on the 1855 excavation

Moreover, I reminded them that this site had been excavated initially back in 1855, and the lead archaeologist, Thomas King, had reported that the mound was, in fact, a Roman tumulus. While it may have been repurposed or utilised in some way during the Norman period, it certainly does not fit the classic Motte and Bailey castle mound. How could Roman artefacts find their way into a mound supposedly built 600 years after the Romans had left? Their response was a concocted tale about scattered debris from the Roman period being accidentally left at the top of the mound as they built it from the spoil at the bottom and subsequent moated area. This notion seemed highly improbable to me. After all, one would assume that Thomas King, who conducted the formal investigation into the Greyfriars Church and mound by excavation in an attempt to find any connectivity between the two features and potential connections, would not arrive at such an unexpected conclusion based solely on a few scattered fragments of debris.(The Great Chichester Hoax – A Bridge too far?)

Fire Beacons

So, to further their understanding of Roman beacons, I included additional information they may not have been aware of. I suggested that if they were genuinely interested in the archaeology of the mound and its historical significance, they should consider visiting Lewes, just down the road—a place where I’ve lived and conducted surveys. In Lewes, they would find not one but two fire beacons. Interestingly, both have been misidentified again! The Trump, a mound serving as a fire beacon for the Cluny Monastery, was crucial in guiding ships from France into a safe harbour.

Lewes

I also mentioned another site associated with a real motte and bailey castle, Brack Hill. Initially thought to be part of the Norman Castle, recent finds of Roman artefacts suggest it dates back to pre-Norman times, possibly even Roman or earlier, serving as a fire beacon. This aligns with the historical context, as the town would have been a harbour, with The Brack situated right on the shoreline of the prehistoric river.

Cluny Monastry

Their response was rather dismissive, claiming that the Lewes Trump was not a fire beacon but nothing more than a garden feature— a mere 75 feet high and 140 feet in circumference. However, I argued that this seemed implausible for a mere “garden feature,” especially considering its location at the edge of the monastery’s grounds. I suggested they study a LiDAR map, which would reveal that The Trump, formerly known as The Mount, sits on the prehistoric shoreline of Lewes. Adjacent to it is another ancient site, the “dripping pan,” a salt production site for the Cluny Monks, requiring constant saltwater. This, I argued, provides empirical evidence supporting its role as a fire beacon—guiding French-origin ships off the English Channel to safe harbours and the monastery.

Unfortunately, my contributions were met with silence, as they seemed more interested in celebrating their historic bridge discovery rather than engaging in meaningful archaeological discussions, as they considered the matter closed. It’s disappointing to see archaeologists shut down debate and ignore valuable information, promoting unsupported propaganda instead of evidence-based inquiry. This closed-minded approach is a stark departure from authentic scientific practice, contributing to the devaluation of archaeology as a subject and the subsequent decline of related courses due to this ‘dumbing down’.(The Great Chichester Hoax – A Bridge too far?)

It is crucial to remain open to new interpretations and theories that might differ significantly from traditional views. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Still, it does require us to question and reassess historical assumptions, ensuring our understanding of the past is as accurate as possible.

(The Great Chichester Hoax – A Bridge too far?)

Other Blogs

2024 Prehistoric Britain Blog Review

8000-year-old Cro-Magnon skull

Vikings, Doggerland, and the Last Survivors of Europe’s Lost Waterworld

(The Great Chichester Hoax – A Bridge too far?)

Mesolithic Stonehenge

Posted on January 5, 2025 by admin

Introduction

Mesolithic Stonehenge

Using LiDAR to examine Stonehenge reveals a surprising detail: the monument isn’t situated at the highest point in the landscape. Instead, it lies midway down a slope, despite nearby elevated sites like Vespasian Camp, near Blick Mead, where the Open University uncovered Mesolithic fire pits with evidence of cooked meat. This raises an intriguing question: why was Stonehenge built in this seemingly less advantageous location?

LiDAR technology offers a compelling way to answer this. By creating a detailed 3D landscape model, LiDAR highlights terrain features far more effectively than traditional OS maps or on-site surveys, where important details can easily be overlooked. From a virtual vantage point approximately 100 feet above the ground, facing south, it becomes clear that Stonehenge is perched on the edge of what is now a dry valley. However, during the Mesolithic period, this valley was far from dry; it was an active waterway fed by natural springs, which flowed southward into the River Avon. (Mesolithic Stonehenge)

Blick Mead - Mesolithic Stonehenge — Blick Mead – Mesolithic Stonehenge

These springs were fueled by a high groundwater table, a feature characteristic of post-Ice Age conditions when meltwater replenished underground aquifers. Springs are categorized by their flow rate, with the most productive reaching up to 2,800 litres per second. Evidence suggests that during the Mesolithic, the “Stonehenge Bottom” valley was home to multiple springs, collectively discharging a significant volume of water into the River Avon. Modern core samples taken while surveying the proposed Stonehenge tunnel have confirmed this. The core data revealed that the water table in this area was significantly higher than previously estimated, forcing the tunnel design to be revised and deepened—at a cost of millions. This finding directly challenges the long-held views of archaeologists who have advised on Stonehenge’s historical groundwater levels, casting doubt on their previous peer-reviewed conclusions. (Mesolithic Stonehenge)

Stonehenge Bottom - Mesolithic Stonehenge — Stonehenge Bottom – Mesolithic Stonehenge

Using LiDAR simulations, we can reconstruct how this water would have shaped the landscape. Archaeological evidence indicates that the water table—and thus the river’s shoreline—was approximately 30 meters higher than today, flooding the valley up to the old Stonehenge car park at 97 meters above sea level. This hypothesis is supported by discoveries made during the construction of the old car park in 1966, where three large post holes were uncovered. These holes cut into the chalk bedrock around 9,000–10,000 years ago and contained silt and sand indicative of a shoreline environment. (Mesolithic Stonehenge)

Stonehenge Bottom in the Mesolithic - Mesolithic Stonehenge — Stonehenge Bottom in the Mesolithic – Mesolithic Stonehenge

Radiocarbon dating of pine charcoal from the base of these post holes dates their use to approximately 8,300 BCE. Additionally, more post holes have been discovered in the same area, forming a peculiar alignment. Five such holes have been identified, all dating to the same early Mesolithic period. Intriguingly, these dates align with hearths found at Craig Rhos-y-Felin, the quarry believed to be the source of Stonehenge’s Bluestones. Further supporting this connection is the discovery of hearths at another Bluestone quarry, Carn Goedog, also carbon-dated to approximately 8,400 BCE. These findings strengthen the case for a sophisticated network of activity linking Stonehenge to its quarry sites in Wales. (Mesolithic Stonehenge)

Stonehenge Old Car Park - Mesolithic Stonehenge — Stonehenge Old Car Park – Mesolithic Stonehenge

The old car park is located 10 meters lower than Stonehenge, and further dating evidence from charcoal within the Sarsen circle (confirmed by Darvill and Wainwright in 2008) suggests the site was in use as early as 7,200 BCE. This strongly connects the Mesolithic post holes, possibly used as mooring points for boats, to the later development of Stonehenge. The post holes may have supported cross-beams, functioning as primitive yet effective lifting mechanisms. Boats tied to these beams could utilize the natural rise and fall of the river’s tides to lift heavy stones effortlessly. This would mark an early use of hydraulic lifting principles, demonstrating the ingenuity of Mesolithic communities. (Mesolithic Stonehenge)

Post Hole A Matches Quarry Hearth Date - Mesolithic Stonehenge — Post Hole A Matches Quarry Hearth Date – Mesolithic Stonehenge

Despite this compelling evidence, mainstream archaeologists often dismiss the idea of a higher River Avon during the Mesolithic. Instead, they suggest these post holes housed “ceremonial totem poles” erected by random hunter-gatherers. However, this explanation is riddled with logical flaws. The post holes are over a meter wide, implying the use of enormous pine trees, which would have required significant effort to fell with stone tools—an unlikely endeavour for mere ceremonial markers. Furthermore, the poles were periodically replaced over more than a thousand years, suggesting a practical rather than symbolic, purpose. (Mesolithic Stonehenge)

Bluestone lifting device - Mesolithic Stonehenge — Bluestone lifting device – Mesolithic Stonehenge

The discovery of modern core samples in the Stonehenge Bottom Valley only adds to the scepticism regarding traditional archaeological interpretations. For decades, experts advising on Mesolithic groundwater levels have underestimated the height of the water table in the region. The recent core sample findings confirm my hypothesis of a higher water table and highlight the limitations of earlier studies. These experts, whose opinions were once considered definitive, now find their conclusions undermined by hard data—data that has already necessitated expensive revisions to modern engineering projects. (Mesolithic Stonehenge)

Modern Core Samples show Ground Water in the Area – Mesolithic Stonehenge

LiDAR and archaeological evidence together paint a picture of Stonehenge as part of a peninsula surrounded by water in its early days. This watery context may hold the key to understanding why this iconic monument was built where it stands today. The valley would have provided a natural harbour, making it an ideal location for landing heavy stones transported by boat. The site’s proximity to abundant water resources also suggests that it may have held significant practical and symbolic value for the people who built it.

It’s time to reconsider long-held assumptions about Stonehenge. The combination of LiDAR, modern core samples, and radiocarbon dating has provided a richer, more nuanced understanding of its landscape and early history. These findings challenge traditional narratives and open the door to exciting new interpretations about how and why this monumental site was created. (Mesolithic Stonehenge)

The Stonehenge Book

Video

(Mesolithic Stonehenge)

Synopsys

Stonehenge, a timeless enigma etched in stone and earth, has stood as a formidable puzzle challenging the intellects of archaeologists and historians alike. Despite the myriad attempts, including books, TV programs, and academic conferences, the secrets of these ancient stones and their encircling ditches have proven elusive. Against this backdrop, we scrutinise the existing thirteen hypotheses, each presenting its narrative but collectively lacking a coherent thread.

In adopting the deductive reasoning akin to Sherlock Holmes, we endeavour to weave these disparate threads into a unified tapestry that not only unravels the mystery of Stonehenge but also shakes the foundations of established academic narratives. This intellectual journey may induce some discomfort as we challenge conventional perceptions and invite a reevaluation of our understanding of the past. Apologies are extended in advance for any cognitive dissonance, but the pursuit of truth and reason mandates an unfiltered presentation of the facts.So, fasten your seatbelts for an expedition into the archaeological unknown.

As we navigate this intellectual rollercoaster, be prepared for a revelation that might reshape our understanding of Stonehenge and question the foundations of our historical narratives. The dawn of a new archaeological era awaits promising insights that could leave even the most curious minds astonished. As we delve into this intellectual rabbit hole, be ready for a revelation that could make Alice astonished.(Mesolithic Stonehenge)

Robert John Langdon (2023) – (The Stonehenge Hoax)

FREE LiDAR Maps

Here is the perfect resaerch resource for any bidding arcaheologist – 3D LiDAR Maps – there are free and can be downloaded by clicking the Right Site of the Mouse and saving it to your hard Drive for closer inspection, with you PC/Mobile reader software. (Mesolithic Stonehenge)

FREE Stonehenge LiDAR 8K Map

FREE Stonehenge LiDAR water Map

FREE Stonehenge LiDAR 3D Map

Exploring Prehistoric Britain: A Journey Through Time

My blog delves into the fascinating mysteries of prehistoric Britain, challenging conventional narratives and offering fresh perspectives based on cutting-edge research, particularly using LiDAR technology. I invite you to explore some key areas of my research. For example, the Wansdyke, often cited as a defensive structure, is re-examined in light of new evidence. I’ve presented my findings in my blog post Wansdyke: A British Frontier Wall – ‘Debunked’, and a Wansdyke LiDAR Flyover video further visualizes my conclusions.

My work also often challenges established archaeological dogma. I argue that many sites, such as Hambledon Hill, commonly identified as Iron Age hillforts are not what they seem. My posts Lidar Investigation Hambledon Hill – NOT an ‘Iron Age Fort’ and Unmasking the “Iron Age Hillfort” Myth explore these ideas in detail and offer an alternative view. Similarly, sites like Cissbury Ring and White Sheet Camp, also receive a re-evaluation based on LiDAR analysis in my posts Lidar Investigation Cissbury Ring through time and Lidar Investigation White Sheet Camp, revealing fascinating insights into their true purpose. I have also examined South Cadbury Castle, often linked to the mythical Camelot56.

My research also extends to the topic of ancient water management, including the role of canals and other linear earthworks. I have discussed the true origins of Car Dyke in multiple posts including Car Dyke – ABC News PodCast and Lidar Investigation Car Dyke – North Section, suggesting a Mesolithic origin2357. I also explore the misidentification of Roman aqueducts, as seen in my posts on the Great Chesters (Roman) Aqueduct. My research has also been greatly informed by my post-glacial flooding hypothesis which has helped to inform the landscape transformations over time. I have discussed this hypothesis in several posts including AI now supports my Post-Glacial Flooding Hypothesis and Exploring Britain’s Flooded Past: A Personal Journey

Finally, my blog also investigates prehistoric burial practices, as seen in Prehistoric Burial Practices of Britain and explores the mystery of Pillow Mounds, often mistaken for medieval rabbit warrens, but with a potential link to Bronze Age cremation in my posts: Pillow Mounds: A Bronze Age Legacy of Cremation? and The Mystery of Pillow Mounds: Are They Really Medieval Rabbit Warrens?. My research also includes the astronomical insights of ancient sites, for example, in Rediscovering the Winter Solstice: The Original Winter Festival. I also review new information about the construction of Stonehenge in The Stonehenge Enigma.

(Mesolithic Stonehenge)

Other Blogs

2024 Prehistoric Britain Blog Review

8000-year-old Cro-Magnon skull

Vikings, Doggerland, and the Last Survivors of Europe’s Lost Waterworld

(Mesolithic Stonehenge)

Hambledon Hill – NOT an ‘Iron Age Fort’

Posted on November 11, 2024 by admin

Introduction

According to Wikipedia (Hambledon Hill)

Location

Hambledon Hill is a prehistoric hill fort in Dorset, England, in the Blackmore Vale five miles northwest of Blandford Forum. The hill itself is a chalk outcrop, on the southwestern corner of Cranborne Chase, separated from the Dorset Downs by the River Stour. It is owned by the National Trust.

Prehistory

Its earliest occupation was in the Neolithic when a pair of causewayed enclosures were dug at the top of the hill, one smaller than the other. They were linked by a bank and ditch running northwest-southeast. Two long barrows, one 68 m (223 ft) in length, also stood within the complex, and a third enclosure is now known to underlie later earthworks. The area of activity covered more than 1 km2 (0.39 sq mi).

Excavations in the 1970s and 1980s by Roger Mercer produced large quantities of Neolithic material. Environmental analysis indicated the site was occupied whilst the area was still wooded with forest clearances coming later, in the Bronze Age. The charcoal recovered seems to have come from timber lacing within the Neolithic earthworks.

Radiocarbon analysis gives a date of 2850 BC. At least one skeleton of a young man killed by an arrow was found, seemingly connected with the burning of the timber defences and suggesting at least one phase of violence. A single grape pip and a leaf fragment are evidence of vine cultivation, and the occupants seem to have traded with sites further to the southwest.

The ditches of the enclosures also contained significant quantities of pottery as well as red deer antler picks used to excavate them. Human skulls had been placed right at the bottom of one of the enclosure ditches, possibly as a dedicatory or ancestral offering. Animal bone analysis suggests that most of the meat was consumed in late summer and early autumn, possibly indicating seasonal use of the site. Different material was found in different areas of the site suggesting that Hambledon Hill was divided into zones of activity. The original interpretation was that the large causewayed enclosure was used as a mortuary enclosure for the ritual disposal of the dead and veneration of the ancestors, with attendant feasting and social contact taking place in the smaller enclosure.

Little remains of the Neolithic activity and the site is more easily identified as a prime example of an Iron Age hill fort. It was originally univallate but further circuits of banks and ditches were added increasing its size to 125,000 m2 (1,350,000 sq ft). Three entrances served the fort, the southwestern with a 100 m (330 ft) long hornwork surrounding it. Hut platforms can be seen on the hillside. The site appears to have been abandoned around 300 BC, possibly in favour of the nearby site of Hod Hill.

Hambledon Hill is the first in a series of Iron Age earthworks, which continues with Hod Hill, Spetisbury Rings, Buzbury Rings, Badbury Rings and Dudsbury Camp. The Iron Age port at Hengistbury Head forms a final Iron Age monument in this small chain of sites.

Battle of Hambledon Hill
The Clubmen were a third force in the English Civil War, aligned to neither crown nor parliament but striving to protect their land from being despoiled by foraging troops of either side. They armed themselves with clubs and agricultural implements and gathered in large numbers to protect their fields, especially in Dorset. Between 2,000 and 4,000 of them encamped on Hambledon Hill in August 1645. Many of Cromwell’s troops were in the area at that time after the siege of Sherborne Castle. Cromwell ordered that the Clubmen be dispersed, and his well-equipped New Model Army soon drove them away on August 4. The leaders were arrested, but Cromwell sent most home, saying they were ‘poor silly creatures’.

(Hambledon Hill)

Excavations/History

Early Investigations (1970s): Excavations began with the renowned archaeologist Roger Mercer, who conducted a series of investigations in the 1970s. These excavations provided some of the earliest detailed insights into the site. Mercer’s work revealed the presence of complex ramparts, ditches, and pits, alongside evidence of prolonged human occupation.

1980s–1990s Investigations: More focused studies were undertaken in these decades, particularly looking at the defensive structures and domestic spaces within the hillfort. These studies revealed substantial evidence of Neolithic activity, including food storage pits, animal bones, and pottery, suggesting that Hambledon Hill was not only a defensive site but also a thriving settlement.

English Heritage (2000s): English Heritage took significant interest in Hambledon Hill and facilitated further studies in the early 2000s. Their work was more about preservation, mapping, and surveying than excavation. The findings confirmed that the site played an essential role in regional trade and communication.

Modern Excavations: Recently, there have been limited but more technologically advanced studies, including ground-penetrating radar and aerial surveys, which have enhanced understanding without large-scale excavation.

Key Findings
Defensive Structures: Hambledon Hill has evidence of some of the earliest known fortifications in Britain, with intricate ditches and bank systems indicating organized labor.

Human Remains: The site contains burial pits with skeletal remains, often showing evidence of violent death, likely reflecting skirmishes between groups.
Artifacts: Pottery fragments, tools, and animal bones have been found, offering insights into Neolithic diet, technology, and trade.
Key References

Mercer, Roger J. “Hambledon Hill: A Neolithic Landscape” (1980) – This publication provides a detailed overview of Mercer’s early work and initial findings on the site.
Healy, Frances (Editor). “Hambledon Hill, Dorset, England: Excavation and Survey of a Neolithic Monument Complex and its Landscape” (2014) – This is a comprehensive volume on the more recent findings, with contributions from various archaeologists detailing specific aspects of the site.

English Heritage Research Reports—These reports provide updated survey data and conservation efforts for the site and are valuable for understanding the noninvasive approaches used in recent decades.

(Hambledon Hill)