ancient logistics – Prehistoric Britain

The Stonehenge Transportation Mystery

Posted on April 3, 2026 by admin

Introduction

Exploring the origins and transport of the stones used to construct Stonehenge remains a fascinating subject, rife with theories and controversies. The viral interest generated by my blog post this week, which highlighted a map showing three known sites of the stones’ origins, barely scratches the surface of this complex logistical puzzle. Indeed, there are stones from even greater distances, raising myriad questions about how these megaliths were transported to their final resting place at Stonehenge. This essay aims to delve into these logistics, providing a comprehensive overview grounded in the latest research and theories. (The Stonehenge Transportation Mystery)

The Bluestones

Recent advancements in micro-spectrum analysis have significantly contributed to our understanding of the origins of bluestones. However, this is not an exact science, as the movement of rocks due to glacial activity and post-ice age water flows complicates their traceability. Some academics have proposed that the bluestones found at Stonehenge were not quarried and transported from Wales but deposited nearby by glacial action. This theory, however, conflicts with geological evidence indicating that the last ice age glaciers did not reach as far as Stonehenge, stopping instead at the Bristol Channel. This discrepancy casts doubt on the glacier transport theory, suggesting the need to consider earlier ice ages, such as the Anglian, which occurred over 500,000 years ago. Yet the immense timescale involved means that any stones moved by such glaciers would be deeply buried beneath millennia of soil, making their discovery improbable.

Furthermore, the lack of bluestone erratics in the vicinity of Stonehenge further challenges the idea of glacial transport. The site at Craig Rhos-Y-Felin, identified as a source of the bluestones, shows clear evidence of human quarrying activity, contradicting the theory that these stones were randomly picked up from glacial deposits. The discovery of human hearths and quarrying tools at Craig Rhos-Y-Felin, along with a partially quarried bluestone, strongly suggests that these stones were intentionally selected and transported for use at Stonehenge.

The overland path from Craig Rhos-y-felin to Stonehenge is insane. It goes from 75m OD to 541 OD and crosses 95 valleys – the idea that you can either roll, drag or ox-cart such a route without a road is bonkers!!

The Sarsen Stones

The origin and transportation of the sarsen stones present a different set of challenges. These stones are found scattered across the Salisbury Plain and further afield, in areas never reached by the ice sheets that covered Britain during the last ice age. The popular theory that the sarsen stones came from West Woods near Avebury suggests that they could have been dragged to their current location. However, recent observations indicate that many of these stones are in paleochannel riverbeds rather than rock outcrops. This suggests that they were transported by ice-age floodwaters rather than being quarried from nearby outcrops.

West Woods to Stonehenge — Even the shortest route known to transport these stones is difficult to follow, as the 12 valleys and 14 peaks shown on this map testify.

Theories of Transportation

The theory that the stones could have been moved over frozen rivers during the ice age is intriguing but fraught with logistical issues. The absence of a significant human population capable of organising such an endeavour, coupled with the challenges of moving heavy stones over potentially thin ice, makes this theory less plausible. Additionally, the radiocarbon dating of Stonehenge would be significantly off if the stones had been transported at the end of the ice age.

LiDAR, or Light Detection and Ranging, is a remote sensing technology that uses laser light to densely sample the earth’s surface, creating highly accurate topographic maps. It has revolutionised archaeological surveys by uncovering features difficult or impossible to see from the ground or through traditional surveying methods. Regarding Stonehenge and the transportation of the stones used in its construction, LiDAR technology offers invaluable insights into the landscape and potential transport routes used by ancient peoples.

Ditching to Stonehenge — The trilithon stones, weighing around 50 tonnes, reportedly come from Sussex. Such weights were successfully transported down the Nile on boats.

LiDAR Evidence and Stonehenge

LiDAR has been instrumental in mapping the landscape around Stonehenge, revealing details that have remained hidden for millennia under vegetation or soil. This technology has the potential to identify old riverbeds, trackways, and other features that could suggest routes for transporting the massive sarsen stones and bluestones used in the monument’s construction. However, despite its capabilities, LiDAR has not yet provided definitive evidence of prehistoric roads or paths leading directly from the quarries to Stonehenge.

Key Findings from LiDAR Surveys

No Prehistoric Roads from Quarries: LiDAR surveys have not found any evidence of engineered roads or paths originating from the bluestone quarries in Wales or from locations where sarsen stones are found. This absence challenges theories that rely on overland transport of the stones using rollers, sledges, or ox-carts over vast distances and rugged terrain.

Ancient Waterways and Paleochannels: One significant contribution of LiDAR is the identification of ancient waterways and paleochannels. These features are crucial for understanding the prehistoric landscape, suggesting that rivers and watercourses may have played a significant role in transporting the stones. The larger rivers identified by LiDAR, which were navigable in the past, support the theory that water transport was a feasible and preferred method for moving the stones.

Atkinson's Method — Atkinson proved with just four small schoolboys that a 4-tonne stone can easily be moved by boat down to the River Avon

Landscape Features: LiDAR has revealed the complexity of the landscape through which any transportation route would have had to navigate, including valleys, dense forests, and waterlogged areas. This detailed mapping underscores the logistical challenges faced by ancient builders, further calling into question the practicality of relying solely on land-based transport methods.

Implications of LiDAR Evidence

The evidence from LiDAR surveys, particularly the absence of prehistoric roads and the emphasis on natural watercourses, suggests a reevaluation of how the stones were transported to Stonehenge. The lack of direct routes from quarries to the site and the identification of navigable ancient rivers and paleochannels lend weight to theories prioritising water transport. This perspective aligns with the understanding that ancient peoples were highly adept at utilising their natural environment to achieve monumental feats of construction.

Alter Stone to Stonehenge — The Altar Stone is now suspected of coming from as far as Scotland, as its Geo signature is not available down south (I would guess Doggerland for obvious reasons), but even if it just came from the Yorkshire Dales, the idea of l, and transportation is pure nonsense

Short Transportation systems from the boat harbours to the Monument

Mechanical Advantage of Poles (from the book – Dawn of the Lost Civilisation)

The principle of leverage, applied through poles, provides a mechanical advantage when handling heavy weights. Professor John Cunningham, an art professor at Skidmore College, has introduced a novel concept, creating a new class of simple machines based on flexible rods. Unlike traditional machines, Cunningham’s design not only multiplies force but also distributes it and stores mechanical energy.

Consider a scenario with a 20,000-pound stone. If you attempt to support it on two rigid beams, each will bear half the weight (10,000 pounds), posing a risk of fracture. Now, imagine spreading the load across 20 solid, parallel beams, each supporting only a fraction of the total weight, making the burden manageable. Cunningham’s innovation takes this idea further by replacing solid beams with flexible poles.

Stone Transportation and Dumb Censorship — The Bluestones were carried, not dragged, to Stonehenge

In the flexible pole structure, each pole can be raised independently without affecting the others. By lifting one end of a pole, a small amount of extra energy is imparted to that pole, and the energy is distributed across the structure. The weight rises by a fraction of the raised end, divided by the number of pole ends. If one end is lifted by a foot, the weight on each of the other pole ends diminishes by a corresponding fraction. Using this method, heavy loads can be lifted with significantly fewer people, as each person is only moving a fraction of the weight at a time.

This innovative approach enables efficient handling of substantial weights, offering a unique perspective on the use of mechanical advantage in lifting and distributing loads. (Stone transportation and censorship)

Cunningham has distilled the concept to a formula:
D = S x 1/N

Where D is the distance, the load is raised, s is the distance any one pole is blocked up, and N is the total number of pole ends in the system. Given n is the number of pole ends lifted simultaneously, the mechanical advantage for any symmetrical pole configuration will be N/n.

So, the fact that a pole bends like a bow, storing energy, makes it easier to carry. So easy in fact, that it acts as a lever and gives you a mechanical advantage. This principle would be well known as it is the same principle as how a bow works as it is a store of potential energy, you can’t throw an arrow 100 metres, but the bowing of the wood channelled through a small area (the string) give you the potential energy.

Walk like an Egyptian

The experiment showed that 48 students ( four x 12 poles) could lift 2.3 tonnes, which was the weight of one of the pyramid’s building stones. The larger the stone, the more poles and men you need, but it was quite easy even for wimpish students. In prehistoric Days with Cro-Magnon works you would need only 24 people to move a Pyramid stone or a Bluestone at Stonehenge without the rest blocks the video has included in their H & S safety assessment….LOL!!

A-Frames and Cranes

The advancement of technology and the movement of massive stones, such as the Sarsen stones at Stonehenge, Avebury, and Carnac, demand a closer examination of the engineering and logistical challenges faced by the ancient civilisation of Homo Superior, also known as Cro-Magnons. The Sarsen stones, weighing up to 60 tonnes, were not merely transported but meticulously erected, presenting a feat that even modern attempts struggle to replicate.

In our exploration of ancient technology, we encounter the question of how to transport and handle colossal loads. The Sarsen stones serve as an illustrative example due to their significant size, and it is perplexing that historians and archaeologists often overlook the intricacies of moving and placing these stones. This oversight persists even though, even with today’s technology, replicating the achievements of Homo Superior at Stonehenge remains a daunting challenge.

The crane, a machine designed to lift and move heavy materials, is pivotal in the transport and construction industries. Equipped with a hoist, wire ropes or chains, and sheaves, a crane utilises mechanical advantages to lift and lower materials beyond the capacity of human effort. Historically, the invention of the crane is attributed to the Ancient Greeks in the late 6th century BC, as evidenced by cuttings for lifting tongs and Lewis irons on stone blocks of Greek temples dating to around 515 BC.

However, when scrutinising Stonehenge, we encounter a fascinating divergence. In contrast, archaeological evidence points to the use of lifting devices, particularly with cuttings indicating the application of cranes, the peculiarities of Stonehenge’s construction challenge conventional narratives. Notably, the placement of lintels on Sarsen uprights and the presence of holes like Y & Z, potentially serving as foundations for A-frame crane legs, hint at a more sophisticated lifting apparatus.

The reluctance of some scholars to acknowledge advanced lifting devices in the historical context of Homo Superior may stem from the challenge they pose to established historical frameworks. Nevertheless, the investigation into the engineering marvels of Stonehenge encourages us to reassess the capabilities of this ancient civilisation, prompting a deeper understanding of their technological prowess and organisational acumen.

The transition from ramps to the more sophisticated winch-and-pulley hoist marked a significant shift in ancient construction technology. The emergence of the compound pulley system, attributed to Aristotle in the Mechanical Problems, coincided with a notable decrease in the weights of stones handled on Greek building sites. This transformative period saw the prevalence of smaller stones, weighing less than 15–20 metric tonnes, in contrast to the archaic era’s trend of using larger blocks.

The adoption of the crane, facilitated by the compound pulley system, introduced a more efficient and practical method of vertical motion. Grecian temples of the classical age, exemplified by the Parthenon, favoured using several smaller stones rather than fewer larger ones. Monolithic columns, a prominent feature in earlier constructions, were gradually replaced by multiple-column drums.

The reasons behind this technological evolution are not entirely clear. It raises intriguing questions about whether the shift from larger to smaller stones was due to the loss of past techniques, improved quarrying methods that enabled faster cutting of shorter blocks, or other factors influencing construction practices. The shift in societal dynamics, with smaller, professional construction teams being favoured over larger bodies of unskilled labour, is proposed as a potential contributing factor. The crane, with its efficiency in handling smaller stones, became preferable in the more volatile social and political conditions of ancient Greece.

While the exact circumstances of this transition remain uncertain, the historical record indicates that the compound pulley system and the crane became integral to Greek construction sites. The literary evidence from Aristotle’s Mechanical Problems and the resurgence of larger block sizes at Greek temples suggests a correlation between the adoption of the compound pulley and advancements in construction techniques. The earliest construction cranes, likely powered by humans or beasts of burden like donkeys, marked a transformative period in ancient construction methods.

(Stone transportation and censorship) — The Stonehenge Transportation Mystery

The evolution of cranes played a crucial role in the construction of tall buildings, enabling the lifting of heavier loads. In the High Middle Ages, harbour cranes emerged to facilitate ship loading and unloading, often integrated into stone towers for enhanced strength and stability. The earliest cranes were crafted from wood, but with the advent of the Industrial Revolution, materials like cast iron and steel became predominant.

At Stonehenge, the construction methods are a subject of speculation, with suggestions that timber A-frames were employed to raise the stones. Teams of individuals may have hauled the stones upright using ropes, and the topmost stones (lintels) could have been incrementally raised on timber platforms and slid or pushed into place. Carpentry-type joints on the stones indicate a high level of woodworking skill among the builders.

The idea of A-frames finds support in demonstrations by individuals such as Wally Wallington, a retired construction worker, who showcased techniques based on lever principles for rotating, lifting, and positioning heavy monoliths. An A-frame, essentially a basic crane without a pulley or winch, operates on similar principles to facilitate vertical movement. Adding a swivel base could transform it into a fully functional crane, a concept compatible with the mortise-and-tenon joints observed at Stonehenge.

Estimates of the manpower required for Stonehenge’s construction suggest a substantial effort, with millions of hours of work. The various phases of Stonehenge’s construction, from the initial to the third phase, may have required extensive human labour, amounting to up to 20 million hours spent working the stones. The primitive tools available at the time necessitated considerable effort, highlighting the strong will and advanced social organisation required to build and maintain such a monumental site. Stonehenge stands as a testament to the ingenuity and determination of its ancient builders. (Stone transportation and censorship)

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

The Great Stone Transportation Hoax

Posted on February 18, 2026 by admin

Introduction

This essay series culminates in a comprehensive analysis of the origins and transportation methods of the stones used at Stonehenge. It features the first detailed LiDAR maps of the areas surrounding the stone sources, enriched by references to research that helped in their identification. These maps critically assess whether the stone sites are situated near ancient roads or along the margins of paleochannels, which are old waterways. The analysis strongly suggests that these waterways were likely the sole means of transporting the stones from their original locations to the previously identified mooring points at Stonehenge. Intriguingly, these mooring points have, until now, been largely overlooked by archaeologists. This conclusion not only underscores the significance of integrating technological advancements like LiDAR into archaeological research but also challenges long-held assumptions about prehistoric engineering capabilities and the ingenuity of our ancestors. (The Stone Transportation Hoax)

(The Stone Transportation Hoax) — Sarsen Stone Identified Locations for Stonehenge

Geochemical fingerprinting

Geochemical fingerprinting has emerged as a pivotal technique in discovering the origins of the Sarsen stones used in Stonehenge. Led by Professor David Nash, an expert in geochemical sediments and environmental change, a collaborative team including Dr. Jake Ciborowski, Dr. Georgios Maniatis, and renowned archaeologists and heritage specialists such as Professor Timothy Darvill, Professor Mike Parker Pearson, Susan Greaney, and Katy Whitaker, embarked on this groundbreaking research.

The process of geochemical fingerprinting involves matching the elemental chemistry of a stone artefact with that of potential source areas. For Stonehenge, this necessitated a two-stage approach. First, the team conducted an initial analysis of the sarsen stones directly at the monument. Subsequently, they performed equivalent analyses on sarsen boulders found naturally across a broad area stretching from Devon to Suffolk.

To accurately determine the elemental chemistry of the Stonehenge sarsens, the team employed a portable X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometer (pXRF). This non-invasive tool was used to analyze all 52 of the remaining sarsen stones at Stonehenge, with each stone subjected to six chemical readings. Dr. Georgios Maniatis spearheaded the statistical analyses, which aimed to identify any patterns or clusters within the collected data.

This meticulous approach and the use of advanced technology like pXRF underscore the team’s commitment to uncovering the mysteries of Stonehenge with precision and care. Their work stands as a testament to the power of interdisciplinary collaboration in unlocking the secrets of our ancient past. (https://www.brighton.ac.uk/research/research-news/feature/stonehenge-researching-sarsen-stones.aspx)

The Bluestones – Craig Rhos-y-Felin

Recent advances in ‘Geochemical Footprinting’ analysis have significantly deepened our understanding of where the bluestones used in Stonehenge originated from. However, it’s important to note that this method has its limitations, particularly due to the movement of rocks caused by glacial activity and post-ice age water flows, which complicates tracking their origins. Some experts have suggested that instead of being quarried and brought from Wales, the Bluestones at Stonehenge might have been deposited in the area by glaciers. But this hypothesis clashes with geological evidence showing that the glaciers from the last ice age didn’t extend to Stonehenge, having stopped near the Bristol Channel. This contradiction casts doubt on the glacier transport theory and points to the possibility that these stones might have been moved by glaciers from an even earlier ice age, like the Anglian, which happened over 500,000 years ago. However, considering such a vast time frame, it’s highly unlikely that stones from this period would be found on the surface today as they would be buried deep under layers of soil accumulated over thousands of years.

Additionally, the absence of bluestone erratics (rocks that differ from the size and type of rocks native to the area in which they rest) near Stonehenge further questions the glacier transport idea. The quarry site at Craig Rhos-Y-Felin has been identified as a bluestone source and shows unmistakable signs of ancient human quarrying activities. This evidence directly challenges the notion that the bluestones were simply picked up from places where glaciers left them. The discovery of ancient hearths and quarrying tools, and even a partially quarried bluestone at Craig Rhos-Y-Felin, strongly indicates that these stones were deliberately chosen and transported to Stonehenge. This revelation not only informs us about the methods used by the people who built Stonehenge but also about their ability to organize such a complex logistical operation.

The overland path from Craig Rhos-y-felin to Stonehenge is insane. It goes from 75m OD to 541 OD and crosses 95 valleys – the idea that you can either roll, drag or ox-cart such a route without a road is bonkers!!

LiDAR Survey

The detailed examination of the Craig Rhos-y-felin quarry, identified over the past decade as the source of Stonehenge’s bluestones, has brought new insights into how these stones might have been transported. Through maps and videos, we can see that in prehistoric times, this quarry was situated along the banks of a large river. Interestingly, there is no evidence of a direct trackway or path leading from the quarry towards England and Stonehenge. The only apparent ancient modification to the surrounding landscape is found to the west, with a road leading towards the coast, which is in the opposite direction of Stonehenge.

Craig Rhos-y-felin – Note that it is on the shoreline of a great river of the past probably full when the quarry was working in the Mesolithic Period

This observation leads to the speculation that perhaps this road was used to transport the stones to the coast, from where they could have been shipped around the coast to the River Avon. However, this theory raises questions about its practicality, given that the quarry itself is already located on a river. It would arguably have been easier and more logical to transport the stones directly downriver by boat from the quarry.

The only route overland is going West the Road (7-miles) going NE goes to Aberywstyth in Mid-Wales

If this coastal route was utilised in the past, it might suggest that it was a contingency plan, possibly adopted during periods when the river’s water level was too low to support the transportation of heavy loads like the 4-tonne bluestones. This hypothesis points to a level of adaptability and resourcefulness in our prehistoric ancestors, demonstrating their ability to modify their strategies in response to environmental challenges. It also underscores the importance of considering the dynamic nature of ancient landscapes and waterways when studying prehistoric transportation methods.

The only possible signs of stones coming out of the Quarry (not by boat) is going West – to the Coast

The Sarsen Stones

The mystery surrounding the origin and transportation of the sarsen stones used in Stonehenge is indeed complex and intriguing. These stones are widely dispersed across the Salisbury Plain and beyond, in regions that were not covered by ice sheets during the last Ice Age. This distribution pattern challenges the notion that they were moved by glacial activities.

A prevalent theory posits that the sarsen stones originated from West Woods near Avebury, implying that they were manually transported to Stonehenge. However, recent observations have cast doubt on this theory. Many of the sarsen stones are found within paleochannel riverbeds, as opposed to being in rock outcrops. Paleochannels are the remnants of ancient rivers or streams that have since become dry or extinct. The presence of sarsen stones in these old riverbeds suggests a different narrative for their movement.

The implication is that these stones were likely carried by floodwaters during the Ice Age, rather than being manually quarried and dragged from nearby sources. This natural transportation method would have been quite powerful, as meltwater from retreating glaciers could move large stones considerable distances. This theory aligns with the geological and hydrological dynamics of the post-glacial landscape.

This map shows that picking just the nearest Sarsen stone was not required and clearly had purpose – this suggest a structural or property requirement

Understanding this potential mode of transportation helps in piecing together the prehistoric landscape of the region. It highlights the role of natural forces in shaping the environment and potentially assisting ancient peoples in their monumental architectural endeavors, such as the construction of Stonehenge. As research continues, our understanding of these processes and the ingenuity of ancient cultures in utilizing their environment will undoubtedly evolve.

AC Smith most detailed Avebury map shows that all sarsens are found in Dry River Valleys (Paleochannels)

West Woods – Wiltshire (23.2 km)

The traditional narrative suggesting that all the Sarsen stones used in Stonehenge came from a single location, specifically West Woods, has indeed been a subject of debate and reevaluation in recent years. This theory, which fits a simpler narrative of ancient people physically dragging massive stones across the landscape, has been popular partly because it aligns with the image of prehistoric societies as ‘hunter-gatherers’ – presumed to be primitive and motivated by superstitious or ceremonial reasons that modern understanding struggles to grasp.

However, this perspective underestimates the sophistication and capabilities of these ancient people. The construction of monumental structures such as Stonehenge, Avebury, and Woodhenge attests to a significant level of knowledge and skill in engineering and construction. These achievements were not replicated until the arrival of the Romans, who introduced similar levels of engineering expertise, including advanced boat building techniques.

The AC Smiths West Wood Sarsens are scattered from their max location down the Paleochannels to Wansdyke

Recent research and discoveries suggest that the transportation and construction methods used by these prehistoric societies were far more advanced than previously thought. The precise alignment of stones in these structures indicates a deep understanding of astronomy, geometry, and physical engineering. Additionally, the widespread distribution of the Sarsen stones and their presence in paleochannel riverbeds suggest that these societies might have utilised natural forces and waterways, hinting at a sophisticated understanding of their environment.

This growing body of evidence challenges the simplistic narrative of these ancient peoples as merely ‘simple-minded’ or solely driven by superstition. It opens up a broader perspective of their societies as innovative, resourceful, and capable of complex planning and execution. Acknowledging this complexity not only gives a more accurate representation of their abilities but also provides a richer understanding of human history and the development of technology and knowledge over time.

Wansdyke

Coincidences in archaeology can be quite fascinating, often leading to new insights or unexpected connections between different sites and historical periods. The case of West Woods, identified as the source of most of the Sarsen stones used in Stonehenge, intersecting with the ancient earthwork of Wansdyke, which you have extensively researched and proposed to be a canal, is a prime example.

Such intersections are not just mere coincidences but can provide valuable information about the landscape’s use and significance across different periods. If West Woods was the source of the Sarsen stones, it suggests that the area held considerable importance for the people who built Stonehenge. Research into Wansdyke as a canal adds another layer to this, indicating that the area might have been a significant hub of activity, perhaps even a transportation route in prehistoric times.

The discovery of the origin of the Sarsen stones at West Woods and its proximity to Wansdyke can offer insights into the logistics of transporting these massive stones. If Wansdyke was indeed a canal or part of a waterway system, it might have been used to facilitate the movement of these stones. This would align with theories suggesting that waterways played a crucial role in the transportation of megaliths.

Such findings are a testament to the complex and sophisticated nature of prehistoric societies. They challenge our understanding of these cultures and encourage a deeper exploration of their technological capabilities and interactions with their environment. Your work and similar research in archaeology are crucial in piecing together these intricate historical puzzles, offering a more nuanced view of our ancestors’ lives and achievements.

Wansdyke has now been proven to be Prehistoric in date – so was it built to transport these stones?

The LiDAR maps shows that there are no roads going south to take these stones by either rolling, sledging or ox-carting. Ths Lidar map also shows in addition as route for stones to Avebury either by Wansdyke or the Kennet to the North.

Bramdean – Hampshire (53.3 km)

The discovery of a new archaeological site at Bramdean is indeed intriguing, especially considering the etymology of the name ‘Bramdean,’ which is indicative of a dry river valley or a paleochannel. Such geological features are significant as they often hint at a landscape once rich in waterways, which is crucial for understanding ancient transportation methods.

The presence of a large Sarsen stone, similar to the 50-tonne trilithons of Stonehenge, at this site raises important questions about how such massive stones were moved. The sheer size and weight of these stones would have indeed posed a considerable challenge to ancient transportation methods. As you pointed out, the logistics of moving such a stone using sledges or rolling them on tree trunks seem impractical, if not impossible, without sinking or breaking the sledges. Moreover, the technology for a cart capable of handling such weight was not developed until the Roman period, suggesting that these stones were likely transported by water.

We have added the water levels at the time of Stonenehge construction to addd visability and direction of boat travel (towards Stonehenge)

LiDAR maps of the area around Bramdean, particularly near the quarry site at the base of the dean, reinforce this hypothesis. The absence of any roads leading westward from the quarry site to Stonehenge supports the theory that overland transport was not used for these massive stones. Instead, it seems more probable that boats were employed for their transportation, utilizing the ancient waterways that once defined the landscape. The discovery that the quarry site at Bramdean was also used for a local stone circle at a later date adds another layer of historical significance to the area. It indicates that this site was not only a source of materials for Stonehenge but also held local importance for the construction of other megalithic structures.

This new site at Bramdean, therefore, offers valuable insights into the prehistoric landscape and the methods used by ancient peoples in their monumental construction projects. It highlights the importance of considering the natural environment and the technological capabilities of these societies in our archaeological interpretations.

Ditchling – East Sussex (127 km)

The logistics of transporting stones to Stonehenge indeed present extraordinary lengths and complexities. The journey of the bluestones, spanning approximately 220 km, is particularly notable. Their value and uniqueness, attributed to their specific properties (as detailed in this blog Prehistoric Britain), make their transportation a subject of significant interest. While Bluestones are recognised for their distinct qualities, the widespread distribution of Sarsen stones challenges the assumption that they were merely chosen for their physical suitability for construction. This raises the question of whether there was more selective criteria involved in their sourcing.

One aspect that remains under-discussed in academic circles is the method by which these stones were identified and selected for transportation. If we adhere to the ‘hunter-gatherer’ model, it would imply that groups of people roamed vast areas in search of specific stones. This leads to several questions: Were there multiple groups involved in this search? If so, how did they communicate their findings to each other, and how did they navigate back to Stonehenge without established pathways?

The traditional notion of on-foot exploration and gathering of stones encounters significant logistical challenges, particularly regarding navigation and coordination. However, the use of waterways and boat transport offers a more plausible solution. Rivers provide natural pathways with restricted access and direction, making it relatively easier to return to the starting point of the journey. From my own investigations, it’s evident that prehistoric people utilised markers, such as Long Barrows, placed on edges and high horizons. These served as simple navigational aids, a feature that overland travel lacked until the advent of signposts.

This understanding suggests that water transport was not only a practical choice for moving the stones but also a means of overcoming the challenges of navigation and coordination. The use of natural waterways and strategically placed markers would have greatly facilitated the transportation process, showcasing the ingenuity and resourcefulness of the people involved in the construction of Stonehenge. Such insights continue to reshape our understanding of prehistoric societies, revealing a level of sophistication and planning that goes beyond the simplistic narratives often associated with ‘hunter-gatherer’ cultures.

LiDAR Map

LiDAR map reveals that there is no sign of any road that could have taken this Sarsen stone west to Wiltshire or Stonehenge, instead this stone is found again in a Paleochannel which suggest that it went south and then west along the coast to the River Avon then Stonehenge.

The Altar Stone – Northwern England maybe even Scotland (min 367 km + )

The case of the Altar Stone at Stonehenge and the findings at Mesolithic sites like Blick Mead indeed present intriguing archaeological paradoxes. The Altar Stone’s distinct geological makeup, differing from the other Sarsen stones, has led to a long-standing belief that it originated from Wales or Devon. Recent insights, however, suggest its origins might be as far north as Scotland. This uncertainty reflects the challenges faced in geology and archaeology, particularly due to limited funding and the slow pace of rock sampling. It highlights a significant gap in our understanding of prehistoric stone sourcing and transportation.

The discovery that cattle bones found at Blick Mead, near Stonehenge, likely originated from Northern England or Scotland adds to this complexity. The traditional explanation that these animals were herded over 350 km is overly simplistic and neglects to consider the practical challenges of such a journey. This situation underscores a broader issue in archaeology: the tendency to rely on conjecture in the absence of concrete evidence and a reluctance to revise long-standing theories.

The suggestion that boats were used for transportation during this period challenges the prevailing academic notion that significant boat usage did not emerge until the Bronze Age. Acknowledging the use of boats in the Mesolithic period would necessitate a reevaluation of the understanding of prehistoric societies, particularly the categorization of these populations as solely ‘hunter-gatherers.’ Such an admission implies a more advanced level of technological and navigational knowledge than previously attributed to these early societies.

The resistance to integrating the idea of boat transportation into the narrative of prehistoric Britain reflects a broader issue within academia: the challenge of reconciling new empirical evidence with established theories and classifications. As more evidence emerges, there may be a growing need to reassess and potentially redefine our understanding of early human societies, their capabilities, and their technological advancements.

LiDAR Map

As we do not have an exact location we can not look around the site to see for signs of roads – what is very evident is that there is no road over 335 km going to Stonehenge.

Theories of Transportation

There is only one road out of Stonenege and that goes down to Stonehenge bottom were the Avon used to flow

LiDAR Evidence and Stonehenge

Key Findings from LiDAR Surveys

No Prehistoric Roads from Quarries: LiDAR surveys have not discovered any signs of engineered roads or paths originating from the bluestone quarries in Wales or the locations where sarsen stones are found. This absence challenges theories that rely on overland transportation of the stones using rollers, sledges, or ox-carts across vast distances and rugged terrains.

Ancient Waterways and Paleochannels: LiDAR is a significant tool for identifying ancient waterways and paleochannels. These features are crucial for understanding the prehistoric landscape, suggesting that rivers and watercourses may have played a significant role in transporting the stones. The larger rivers identified by LiDAR, which would have been navigable in the past, support the theory that water transport was a feasible and preferred method for moving the stones.

Landscape Features: LiDAR has revealed the complexity of the landscape through which any transportation route would have had to navigate, including valleys, dense forests, and waterlogged areas. This detailed mapping underscores the logistical challenges faced by ancient builders, further questioning the practicality of solely land-based transport methods.

We have now found empirical evidence of boat yards in which catamaran design is made to carry large weights in Wales dating back to the Bronze Age and beyond

Implications of LiDAR Evidence

The evidence from LiDAR surveys, particularly the absence of prehistoric roads and the emphasis on natural watercourses, suggests a revaluation of how the stones were transported to Stonehenge. The lack of direct routes from quarries to the site and the identification of navigable ancient rivers and paleochannels lend weight to theories prioritising water transport. This perspective aligns with the understanding that ancient peoples were highly adept at utilising their natural environment to achieve monumental feats of construction.

The West Woods Fallacy (AI Analysis)

How One Stone and a Convenient Narrative Redefined the Origins of Stonehenge’s Sarsens

Introduction

For years, the origin of Stonehenge’s massive sarsen stones remained a mystery cloaked in chalk dust and speculation. Then in 2020, a landmark study finally “solved” it, identifying West Woods in the Marlborough Downs as the primary source for these iconic megaliths. The evidence? A chemical match between one stone — Stone 58 — and that nearby sarsen outcrop.

Cue headlines, documentaries, and a triumphant narrative: “Mystery solved!”

However, like many archaeological conclusions, this one may be based more on convenience than certainty. Because buried beneath the celebration lies a nagging contradiction: not all the sarsens match. Some fragments don’t even come close. And those that don’t? They point to places far beyond the tidy West Woods story.

Stone 58: The Golden Child

Stone 58 earned its fame by being the only standing sarsen to have been cored and sampled internally. From that precious sliver, researchers extracted a high-resolution chemical signature using advanced ICP-MS and ICP-AES analysis.

Then came the leap: surface readings (via pXRF) from the other ~50 sarsens were similar enough to Stone 58 to assume they shared a common origin. That origin was matched to West Woods, 25 km to the north.

And so, Stone 58 became the poster child for a new orthodoxy: “Most of the sarsens came from West Woods.”

But Then Came the Fragments…

Fast-forward to 2024, and a new geochemical study of over 1,000 excavated fragments (debitage) from around Stonehenge throws a significant, ancient wrench into the theory.

Of these, 54 were chosen for detailed chemical analysis. The results?

– 22 of them didn’t match Stone 58 at all. – Three matched sarsen outcrops from Bramdean, Hampshire. – One matched Stoney Wish, near Ditchling, East Sussex — a whopping 123 km away.

This isn’t minor variation. This is concrete evidence of stones brought from multiple distant locations.

The Paradox of Proximity

The paradox is this:

If the builders of Stonehenge were willing and able to transport giant stones from Sussex and Hampshire, why is so much weight given to West Woods simply because it’s closer?

The logic is circular: – West Woods is nearby. – Stone 58 matches West Woods. – Other stones look like Stone 58 (on the surface). – Therefore, the other stones must be from West Woods.

It’s a classic case of assumption baked into methodology. Convenient? Yes. Definitive? Not even close.

What This Means

The so-called West Woods majority theory is based on:

– One sampled stone – Surface-level comparisons (not internal chemical analysis) – A limited number of sarsen outcrops tested

Meanwhile, real geochemical matches from other sites prove that the builders sourced stone from a much wider area, and possibly for symbolic, ceremonial, or practical reasons that we do not yet understand.

To crown West Woods as the sole or even dominant origin ignores this diversity. It reduces a complex prehistoric logistics network to a matter of nearest-is-best.

Conclusion: A Fallacy in the Forest

The West Woods theory is not without merit. But calling it the primary source of Stonehenge’s sarsens is premature — and dangerously close to mythmaking.

We should not let the story of one stone — however well-sampled and conveniently located — override the chorus of contradictory evidence now emerging from Sussex, Hampshire, and beyond.

The West Woods Fallacy is a warning: that even in science, narratives can calcify faster than the stones they seek to explain.

“Ah yes, of course! Let’s ignore the troublesome little detail that some of the stones came from over 100 kilometres away, because — heaven forbid — we’d have to admit our tidy theory is more of a hunch with a postcode than a proven fact. Mustn’t let a few rogue rocks spoil the brochure!”

— Basil Fawlty, if he did geoarchaeology

Based on the analaysis of the report –

T. Jake R. Ciborowski, David J. Nash, Timothy Darvill, Ben Chan, Mike Parker Pearson, Rebecca Pullen, Colin Richards, Hugo Anderson-Whymark,

Local and exotic sources of sarsen debitage at Stonehenge revealed by geochemical provenancing,

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, Volume 53, 2024, 104406,

ISSN 2352-409X,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2024.104406.

(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X24000348)

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 interwoven with stints as an astute scrutineer for governmental realms and grand corporate bastions, a tapestry spanning British Telecommunications, Cable and Wireless, British Gas, and the esteemed University of London.

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 scrutinous gaze of the Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, an amiable clandestinity in the lap of nature’s embrace.

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.

Other Blogs

2024 Prehistoric Britain Blog Review

8000-year-old Cro-Magnon skull

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

From the Rhône to Wansdyke: The Case for a Standardised Canal Boat in Prehistoric Britain

Posted on May 11, 2025 by admin

Introduction

In 2004, archaeologists working near Arles in southern France discovered a remarkable Roman barge buried in the silt of the Rhône River. Named the Arles Rhône 3, this 1st-century AD vessel is a masterpiece of Roman-era inland water transport. But beyond its craftsmanship lies a deeper story—one that could reshape how we view Britain’s ancient linear earthworks.

Was this boat design truly Roman? Or did it originate earlier, as part of a pan-European river and canal culture? And if so, could Britain’s dykes and waterways—like the Car Dyke, Wansdyke, and the Vallum—have used similar vessels? Let’s dive in. (Rhône to Wansdyke).

**Arles Rhône 3**– From the Rhône to Wansdyke

The Arles Rhône 3: A Flat-Bottomed Marvel

The Arles Rhône 3 is about 31 meters long and 3 meters wide, with a flat-bottomed hull, shallow draft, and a side rudder for steering. These traits make it ideal for shallow rivers and canals—not the open sea. It was built with robust oak planks using mortise-and-tenon joinery, a technique consistent with Roman construction standards, though not unique to them.

This barge wasn’t designed for speed or waves. It was built to carry cargo—up to 30 tonnes—downriver efficiently, and then be towed back upstream by oxen, slaves, or ropes along towpaths. This was standard practice across the empire.

But here’s the crucial detail: this design predates Roman occupation. Flat-bottomed boats were used by Gauls and other European cultures for centuries before the Romans arrived. The Romans didn’t invent the design—they simply adopted and refined it. (Rhône to Wansdyke).

Roman Shipbuilding: The Great Inheritor

The Romans were not seafaring pioneers. Their naval tradition was built by copying and improving on the technologies of others—Carthaginians, Greeks, Celts, and Phoenicians. Even the famed Roman quinqueremes were based on captured Carthaginian ships.

What the Romans excelled at was standardisation and replication. Once they saw something that worked—be it a road, aqueduct, or barge—they duplicated it across the empire. The Arles Rhône 3 represents not an isolated invention, but a functional watercraft refined for mass deployment across inland Europe. (Rhône to Wansdyke).

Britain’s Dykes and Waterways: Built for Boats?

One of the strongest pieces of evidence supporting the canal hypothesis lies in the geography of Britain itself. Much of the island’s landscape is hilly and fed by abundant natural springs, particularly at higher elevations. These springs would have provided a consistent water source at altitude, ideal for feeding manmade waterways through gravity alone.

Now consider this: many quarries and prehistoric stone sources are found at the tops of hills. Flat-bottomed barges like the Arles Rhône 3, when used in this context, make perfect engineering sense. They could be dragged uphill while empty—a task made easier by constructing a large earthen bank or causeway—and then floated downhill fully loaded, using gravity and spring-fed water flow to move cargo efficiently.

This system would eliminate the need for locks or complex water-lifting infrastructure. The consistent gradient and the known spring-fed terrain match perfectly with this form of gravity-assisted water transport. It fits so well with the physical structure of earthworks like Wansdyke and the Vallum that it goes a long way to support the idea that these were never just boundaries or defensive moats—they were engineered canals, tailored for one-way barge traffic designed for the landscape.

Now let’s look at Britain. The Car Dyke, Wansdyke, and Vallum are long, linear earthworks that resemble canals more than fortifications. They run through low-lying, sloping terrain, have consistent gradients, and in many cases, align with rivers and spring sources. (Rhône to Wansdyke).

These are precisely the conditions that suit flat-bottomed barges like the Arles Rhône 3:

Shallow water: ✔️
Gentle gradients: ✔️
Cargo transport potential: ✔️
Limited need for locks: ✔️

If the Romans were using this design in Gaul and the Rhine, why wouldn’t they use the same boats in Britain’s engineered water routes?

Even more compelling—what if these British earthworks predate Roman occupation, and the Romans simply inherited them, just as they did the boat design?

The Logic of a Pan-European Canal Culture

Flat-bottomed barges are functionally inevitable in any society using water transport through shallow inland terrain. If Gauls had them before the Romans, and Romans used them everywhere from the Rhône to the Po, there’s every reason to think that prehistoric Britons used them too.

Perhaps the real question isn’t whether Roman barges came to Britain—but whether Britain’s prehistoric canal system inspired the very model the Romans used elsewhere. (Rhône to Wansdyke).

Arles Rhône 3: Evidence of One-Way Flow Design

🔻 1. Hull Design: One-Way Flow Bias
The flat-bottomed hull is ideal for shallow, slow-moving water.

But crucially: this shape is not suited to sailing upstream—especially in rivers with even modest currents.

The boat’s structure lacks features (like a deep keel or robust rigging) needed to tack against the flow—meaning it could go downstream easily, but upstream only with assistance.

🐂 2. Towpaths and Towing Evidence
Roman documents (like those by Pliny the Elder) describe towpaths along rivers and canals.

In many parts of the empire (e.g. the Moselle, Po, Tiber, Rhône), goods were floated downstream, and barges were then dragged back by animals or slaves.

Archaeological traces of towpaths—flattened, eroded soil tracks along riverbanks—appear alongside known Roman transport routes.

🔄 3. Wear Patterns and Construction
The wear on the hull of Arles Rhône 3 is consistent with slow, controlled navigation, not being battered by surf or fast-moving water.

Its broad beam and robust timber joinery would have made it sturdy under lateral stress—ideal for being dragged when empty.

📦 4. Transport Economics: Gravity Efficiency
Roman freight economics favoured downhill bulk movement (grains, wine, amphorae) from inland settlements toward ports like Arles, where goods could be offloaded to sea vessels.

It was far more efficient to send heavy goods downstream and then haul the empty barge back uphill.

Example: A full barge might carry 15–30 tonnes of goods downstream, but return empty or lightly loaded—making overland or riverbank hauling feasible.

🧾 5. Roman Textual Support
The Codex Theodosianus and other Roman records refer to barge haulers (tractores or halatores) as part of commercial operations.

Writings from the late Empire reference teams of oxen or slaves towing barges upstream, including detailed provisions for how and when they were paid or taxed.

🏞️ 6. Rhône Geography
The Rhône is a strongly flowing river—even today.

Before modern locks and dams, upstream sailing was nearly impossible for heavy vessels.

Barges like Arles Rhône 3 were almost certainly floated downstream from Roman workshops or upriver loading points, then dragged back to repeat the cycle.

🧠 Conclusion:
They put the pieces together logically:

The design says “downstream floater.”
The Roman transport economy says “drag it back up.”
The archaeological context shows towpath-compatible riverbanks.
The written sources say “yes, we hauled stuff.”

So the idea that Arles Rhône 3 and its ilk were floated with gravity and hauled by muscle is not just theory—it’s a conclusion based on design pragmatism, textual evidence, and site context. (Rhône to Wansdyke).

Reclaiming the Narrative

The Arles Rhône 3 doesn’t just tell us about Roman logistics. It gives us a template for understanding the practicality of prehistoric British water transport.

Roman or not, the boat’s design proves one thing: if you have a canal, you need a barge like this. And if Britain has thousands of kilometres of mysterious linear earthworks designed for water—then we know exactly what kind of boat would have sailed through them.

It’s time to stop calling them ditches and start recognising them for what they may truly be: the ancient motorways of a forgotten seafaring civilisation. (Rhône to Wansdyke).

Exploring Prehistoric Britain: A Journey Through Time

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. (Rhône to Wansdyke).

Other Blogs

2024 Prehistoric Britain Blog Review

8000-year-old Cro-Magnon skull

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

(Rhône to Wansdyke).

Prehistoric Canals Wansdyke 2

Posted on April 10, 2025 by admin

Introduction

The Wansdyke, a significant linear earthwork in southwestern England, has long intrigued historians and archaeologists. Traditionally interpreted as an early medieval defensive structure, recent analyses suggest it may have served a different purpose. The blog “Prehistoric Canals – Wansdyke” explores the theory that Wansdyke functioned as a prehistoric canal system, challenging conventional understandings of its role in ancient Britain.

This perspective is rooted in the observation that Wansdyke’s design resembles that of ancient canals. The earthwork features a substantial ditch accompanied by an embankment, a configuration commonly associated with water management systems. Moreover, the alignment of Wansdyke with natural watercourses and its proximity to prehistoric sites suggest it may have facilitated transportation and trade, rather than solely serving as a military fortification.

Further supporting this hypothesis is the presence of flint pits and barrows along Wansdyke’s route. These archaeological features indicate areas of significant prehistoric activity, implying that the earthwork played a role in the economic and social practices of the time. Additionally, the strategic placement of Wansdyke in relation to the ancient landscape suggests it was designed to harness natural waterways, enhancing connectivity between settlements and resource sites.

Reevaluating Wansdyke as a prehistoric canal system offers a fresh perspective on the engineering capabilities of ancient societies in Britain. It underscores the complexity of their infrastructure and their adeptness at manipulating the environment to support transportation and trade. This interpretation invites a broader reconsideration of similar earthworks and their functions, highlighting the need for ongoing research and open-mindedness in archaeological discourse.

Promotional Video

– Ancient Prehistoric Canals (Dykes) – Wansdyke (Prehistoric Canals – Wansdyke 2)

Book Extracts

Chapter 1 – Dykes, Ditches and Earthworks

Start of Wansdyke East -Prehistoric Canals - Wansdyke 2 — Start of Wansdyke East -Prehistoric Canals – Wansdyke 2

The modern word dike or Dyke most likely derives from the Dutch word “dijk”, with the construction of dikes in the Netherlands well attested as early as the 12th century. The 126 kilometres (78 mi) long Westfriese Omringdijk was completed by 1250 and was formed by connecting existing older dikes. The Roman chronicler Tacitus even mentions that the rebellious Batavi pierced dikes to flood their land and protect their retreat (AD 70). The word dijk initially indicated both the trench and the bank.– Wikipedia

If you study archaeology at university or even on an ordinance survey map at length, you will notice strange earthworks on the sides of hills of Britain, with no rational explanation as to why they are there and for what reason. These features are mostly ignored at university, or an excuse is made for their construction. The reality is that these features do not make any sense unless there are other factors in operation which have been ignored.

The first thing to notice is that the word ‘Dyke’ is associated with water. It does seem strange you would call an earthwork on top of a hill a Dyke, unless there was some history passed down through the years to its actual use. If we look at the most famous Dyke in Britain, ‘Offa’, we notice that it is attributed to a Saxon King and, therefore, could not be prehistoric. Or is this a clear indication of how archaeologists find excuses for these features rather than factual, empirical evidence?

“Offa’s Dyke (Welsh: Clawdd Offa) is a massive linear earthwork, roughly followed by some of the current borders between England and Wales. In places, it is up to 65 feet (19.8 m) wide (including its flanking ditch) and 8 feet (2.4 m) in height. In the 8th century, it formed some kind of delineation between the Anglian kingdom of Mercia and the Welsh kingdom of Powys.” – Wikipedia

At face value, this explanation seems to answer all the questions about Dykes (except the water connection). But suppose you delve further down to look at the evidence, such as findings from the Dyke and any written history. In that case, you get a different version for the Roman historian Eutropius in his book, Historiae Romanae Breviarium, written around 369 AD, mentions the Wall of Severus, a structure built by Septimius Severus who was Roman Emperor between 193 AD and 211 AD:

“He had his most recent war in Britain, and to fortify the conquered provinces with all security; he built a wall for 133 miles from sea to sea. He died at York, a reasonably old man, in the sixteenth year and third month of his reign.” – Eutropius (369 AD)

This ‘wall’ need not be made of stone as we know from their Scottish endeavours that the first structure as a defence was usually a bank and a ditch – just like a Dyke!!

The problem with this account is that none of the known Roman defences are 133 miles long – Harridan’s Wall is only 70 miles, so are they talking about Offa’s Dyke, which is much longer?

Chapter 2 – The Post-Glacial Flooding Hypothesis

Rise of Sea Levels - Prehistoric Canals - Wansdyke 2 — Rise of Sea Levels – Prehistoric Canals – Wansdyke 2

Before we show you what these ‘Linear Earthworks‘ were used for in prehistoric times. We need to give you an idea of how the environment was at the time of construction and why it is so different today.

In ‘The Post-Glacial Flooding Hypothesis,’ we looked at the new mathematical models that allowed us to calculate the amount of water released during and after the Last Glacial Maximum just over ten thousand years ago.

If the Dykes of Britain are canals (and not markers or defensive ditches), we must prove that the water table was higher in the past than today (otherwise, they would still be flooded).

The models contained in the PGFH showed us that a minimum of 8.42 quadrillion tonnes of water was released on the UK at the end of the last ice age. This is equivalent to 98425.2 inches of rain falling on every square inch of Britain’s landmass or the same as – One Inch of rain steadily falling every day for the next 270 years

The worst known flooding in British history occurred in 1947 when just six inches of rain (149mm) fell on up to 12″ of snow (so a maximum of 15″ of rain if melted) over three months. The flooding, which inundated nearly all the main rivers in the South, Midlands, and the Northeast of England, was notable for its origins, geographical extent, and duration.

It impacted thirty out of the forty English counties over two weeks, when around 700,000 acres of land flooded. As a result, tens of thousands of people were temporarily displaced from their homes, and thousands of acres of crops were lost; and this was just 15 of the estimated equivalent of 98,425 inches of water that was shed on the British landscape after the last Ice Age.

Raised Water Table

According to William Donn (Donn et al., 1962). The Fennoscandian and Great Britain ice sheet covered 4.7 10⁶km², which is equivalent to:

• 8.42 10⁶ Gigatonnes of water / 4.7 10⁶ km², which gives us 1.79 Gt per km²

• 1.79 Gt of water at a penetration rate of 43%, give us 0.77 Gt of water per km²

• 0.77 Gigatonnes of water by UK landmass 242,495 km² give us 186,804 Gt of groundwater

This water will be released at a rate of 1 – 12mm per annum and possibly at a depth of 75km. Therefore, to release groundwater at a depth of 75km at an average rate of 6mm per annum would take 12,500 years – not the 1,200 years previously believed, which is just the surface water from the last stages of the meltwater ice.

This is why rivers (like the Thames) still flow even after months of drought, as the groundwater is constantly leaking into the river, which was at its highest rate at the start of the Mesolithic, just after the great meltwater floods.

Sea-Level Changes

If this model is correct, we should be able to get verification via other empirical evidence, as shown in sea level water rises, to see if it has been constant over the last 12,500 years.

Most geologists and paleoclimatologists, when talking about the end of the last ice age, refer people to the phenomenon called the ‘Meltwater Pulse’ – which is the rapid rise in sea level (20m) between 13,500 and 14,700 years before present, over a 400 – 500 year period. Although it is a tremendous value, it should be recognised that this ‘pulse’ as only 16% of the total sea rise since the end of the last ice age.

Chapter 3 – Hydrology 101

Groundwater Sources - Prehistoric Canals - Wansdyke 2 — Groundwater Sources – Prehistoric Canals – Wansdyke 2

When it comes to the use of ‘linear earthworks’ (we call ‘Dykes’), there is massive confusion amongst both professionals and amateur archaeologists about how such structures could function when they are dry today?

The incorrect perception of these ‘Dykes’ is either they are ‘rivers’ (like the Thames) that flow uphill or Victorian Canals with locks and wooden gates regulating the flow of the water – which are equally nonsensical as a prehistoric structures. Basic Hydrology that most people (should be but not necessarily ALL) learnt at school is that water is under the ground – not just a little water but 30% of all the fresh water on the planet.

This abundance of ‘groundwater’ is evident as it is the source of ALL rivers and supplies the Wells that have been dug since the beginning of time when rivers were absent. Even today, if you go into your garden and dig a hole, it will eventually fill with groundwater, whether in a valley or on top of a hill or mountain.

How and why water is on hills is very challenging for individuals as most people have a simplistic view of water being flat and sitting at ground level – but the earth is a far more complicated structure as this is the reason that it took centuries for people to recognise that we lived on a sphere and not a ‘flat-earth’ as such complex concepts such as gravity are hard to comprehend.

The reality is that ‘streams’ of water are encapsulated within the bedrock allowing ‘springs’ to start rivers at a great height as the groundwater is under pressure and erupts to the surface from BELOW and does not flow up or down the hill internally – but can flow downhill AFTER it escapes from the soil, because at the point of escape gravity then becomes the greater force overcoming the water pressure when within the bedrock – which stops it flowing down the landscape and can push it up to the top of hills and mountains.

Consequently, wells work even on hills as the groundwater is encapsulated in the bedrock and soil. The above illustration shows that if wells are dug halfway up a hill where there is a groundwater pocket, they will fill – if we join up these wells, the entire ditch will also fill with water – sourced from the ground.

The central aspect that must be remembered when considering the reasons behind the construction and maintenance of these earthworks (Dykes) is that the environment was so much different in the Mesolithic Period, which changed rapidly when entering the Neolithic and then even more changes in the Bronze and Iron Ages.

Once the ice sheets had melted and the climate began to warm, the landscape gradually changed from open tundra to dense woodland. By around 8000 BC, pine and birch dominated the woodland cover. These were slowly replaced by lime, elm and oak with some hazel. By 6500 BC, pine and birch woodland would only have been found on the thinner limestone soils of the uplands.

Case Study Wansdyke – Morgan’s Hill West

The steepest aspect of Wansdyke is the rise over Morgan’s Hill, which is an incline from 182m OD to 252m OD.

Figure 34 - Morgan Hill West (Wansdyke) - Prehistoric Canals - Wansdyke 2 — Figure 34 – Morgan Hill West (Wansdyke) – Prehistoric Canals – Wansdyke 2

If we are correct with our assumption, we need to show that you can transverse this massive incline using natural springs and basic wooden weirs. If we split the gradient into four parts, we can see better the profile and problems our ancestors faced.

Prehistoric Canals - Wansdyke 2 — Figure 35 Morgan’s Hill West in Sections – Prehistoric Canals – Wansdyke 2

Section A – 0 to 300 downhill

Length is 300m, and the inclination lowers from 251m OD to 242m OD at a ratio of 3% or 1:33 – If we accept that within this section, we had four cat A ‘springs’ that would release 11.2 cu. metres of water PER SECOND (11,200 litres per second) would fill a 10m ditch that is 1.5 deep by one-metre width of the Dyke’s ditch every SECOND.

According to the mathematical formula (v = k * C * R0.63 * S0.54 ), water at the end of section A would be travelling at 5 MPH – the speed of the Thames at Henley (so quite navigable) and, therefore, no need for any Weirs to reduce the water flow.

Section B – 300 to 800m downhill

This section would receive water at one metre per second from Section A, travelling at 5 MPH – The length of this section is 500m in length, and the inclination lowers from 242m OD to 200m at a ratio of 8% or 1:12 this would accelerate the water to 15 mph which is too fast the navigate uphill. Therefore, a series of weirs would have been placed either under the water or, as the early Victorians achieved, by a paddle weir or both.

An underwater weir (blocking 50% of the water but allowing boats to move over the top without hindrance) would reduce the flow by 50% – so if placed at the End of Section A (at 5 MPH) would reduce the water flow to 2.5 MPH and down to 12.5 MPH at the End of Section B. Consequently, if we place one of these 50% reduction weirs at 100m intervals the water flow would not go over the 5-mph mark and would probably be in the region of 3 – 5 MPH which again is easily navigable.

Chapter 4 – Wansdyke

Wansdyke v Avon and Kennet Canal - Prehistoric Canals - Wansdyke 2 — Wansdyke v Avon and Kennet Canal – Prehistoric Canals – Wansdyke 2

According to Wikipedia, “Wansdyke consists of two sections of 14 and 19 kilometres (9 and 12 mi) long with some gaps in between. East Wansdyke is an impressive linear earthwork, consisting of a ditch and bank running approximately east-west, between Savernake Forest and Morgan’s Hill. West Wansdyke is also a linear earthwork, running from Monkton Combe south of Bath to Maes Knoll south of Bristol, but less impressive than its eastern counterpart. The middle section, 22 kilometres (14 mi) long, is sometimes referred to as ‘Mid Wansdyke’ but is formed by the remains of the London to Bath Roman road. It used to be thought that these sections were all part of one continuous undertaking, especially during the Middle Ages when the pagan name Wansdyke was applied to all three parts.

East Wansdyke in Wiltshire, on the south of the Marlborough Downs, has been less disturbed by later agriculture and building and remains more clearly traceable on the ground than the western part. Here the bank is up to 4 m (13 ft) high with a ditch up to 2.5 m (8.2 ft) deep. Wansdyke’s origins are unclear, but archaeological data shows that the eastern part was probably built during the 5th or 6th century. That is after the withdrawal of the Romans and before the takeover by Anglo-Saxons. The ditch is on the north side, so presumably it was used by the British as a defence against West Saxons encroaching from the upper Thames Valley westward into what is now the West Country.

West Wansdyke, although the antiquarians like John Collinson considered West Wansdyke to stretch from south East of Bath to the west of Maes Knoll, a review in 1960 considered that there was no evidence of its existence to the west of Maes Knoll. Keith Gardner refuted this with newly discovered documentary evidence. In 2007 a series of sections were dug across the earthwork which showed that it had existed where there are no longer visible surface remains.

It was shown that the earthwork had a consistent design, with stone or timber revetment. There was little dating evidence, but it was consistent with either a late Roman or post-Roman date. A paper in “The Last of the Britons” conference in 2007 suggests that the West Wansdyke continues from Maes Knoll to the hill forts above the Avon Gorge and controls the crossings of the river at Saltford and Bristol as well as at Bath.

As there is little archaeological evidence to date the western Wansdyke, it may have marked a division between British Celtic kingdoms or have been a boundary with the Saxons. The evidence for its western extension is earthworks along the north side of Dundry Hill, its mention in a charter and a road name.

Book Sections

Sections covered in the Book - Prehistoric Canals - Wansdyke 2 — Sections covered in the Book – Prehistoric Canals – Wansdyke 2

Section 1

HE:1003784 Wansdyke: section 610yds (560m) NW of Wernham Farm to 250yds (230m) SW of New Buildings (560m = 1680 working days – 20 men taking 84 days to complete)

Figure 44 Wansdyke NW of Wernham (with added water levels) - Prehistoric Canals - Wansdyke 2 — Figure 44 Wansdyke NW of Wernham (with added water levels) – Prehistoric Canals – Wansdyke 2

No, HE Historic Details or Excavations Registered

OS Map

1800 OS Map

OS Map -Prehistoric Canals - Wansdyke 2 — Prehistoric Canals – Wansdyke 2

LiDAR Map

LiDAR (with Mesolithic water levels)

A feature called ‘firs’ is a gap on the OS Map – there is a strange quarry pit (no relevant substances under the surface to quarry?) – this pit is two metres deep and probably built later to the original ditch.

Are we looking for a hole to find the groundwater to keep the canal working with fresh water? As we will discover, this is not the first pit cut deep on the line of Wansdyke.

The Mesolithic water levels certainly explain the strange start of Wansdyke and the unexplained gaps (if it’s not a canal) in the Dyke.

Notice on the LiDAR maps the extensive ‘pits’ surrounding the Dyke, which are not below the Mesolithic river shoreline and are 14m in diameter.

Figure 45 - Quarry pits found in Paleochannels - Prehistoric Canals - Wansdyke 2 — Figure 45 – Quarry pits found in Paleochannels – Prehistoric Canals – Wansdyke 2

These features seem to be connected to even larger quarry holes (some under the Mesolithic shoreline), indicating that minerals have been extracted here for thousands of years and may be the reason for the Dykes construction to take minerals away – as have also found these pits in other mineral-rich areas of Britain such as Hadrian’s Wall.

Durrington Walls

The pits are about 20m in diameter and up to 5m deep, as revealed by further geophysical surveys using ground-penetrating radar and mechanical coring around Durrington Walls. Small quantities of struck flint, shell, and animal bone have been recovered from them, with the bone providing radiocarbon dates from about 2500 BC to 1200 BC.

What we see is that this type of quarrying was commonplace in the past and has confused archaeologists – but as this was a trading nation, the solution is evident and straightforward.

Gap in the Dyke route

At the end of Section 1, we find the first gap (if you exclude the massive gap at the start of the Dyke) – this gap appears as the Dyke dips into a paleochannel. The obvious conclusion for the break in Wansdyke is that it must have been full of water at the construction time.

Figure 46 - Mesolithic Water levels show gap disappears - Prehistoric Canals - Wansdyke 2 — Figure 46 – Mesolithic Water levels show gap disappears – Prehistoric Canals – Wansdyke 2

Ancient Prehistoric Canals - Wansdyke (The Book) -Prehistoric Canals - Wansdyke 2 — Ancient Prehistoric Canals – Wansdyke (The Book) – Prehistoric Canals – Wansdyke 2

This was an extracts from the NEW Book Ancient Prehistoric Canals (Dykes) – Wansdyke available on Amazon as a FULL COLOUR HARD BACK (£19.95) or a ECONOMY (£4.99) SOFTBACK black and white VERSION – it is also available as a KINDLE (£1.99) book. For further information about our work on Prehistoric Britain visit our WEBSITE or VIDEO CHANNEL.

Product details

ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0BF31GQKC
Publisher ‏ : ‎ Independently published (18 Sept. 2022)
Language ‏ : ‎ English
Hardcover ‏ : ‎ 134 pages
ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 979-8353488897
Dimensions ‏ : ‎ 15.24 x 1.3 x 22.86 cm
Illustrations: 85
Customer reviews: 5.0 out of 5 stars 1 rating

Other Blogs

2024 Prehistoric Britain Blog Review

8000-year-old Cro-Magnon skull

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

Tag: ancient logistics

Introduction

The Bluestones

The Sarsen Stones

Theories of Transportation

LiDAR Evidence and Stonehenge

Key Findings from LiDAR Surveys

Implications of LiDAR Evidence

Short Transportation systems from the boat harbours to the Monument

Walk like an Egyptian

A-Frames and Cranes

PodCast

Author’s Biography

Exploring Prehistoric Britain: A Journey Through Time

Further Reading

Other Blogs

Introduction

Geochemical fingerprinting

The Bluestones – Craig Rhos-y-Felin

LiDAR Survey

The Sarsen Stones

West Woods – Wiltshire (23.2 km)

Wansdyke

Bramdean – Hampshire (53.3 km)

Ditchling – East Sussex (127 km)

The Altar Stone – Northwern England maybe even Scotland (min 367 km + )

Theories of Transportation

The West Woods Fallacy (AI Analysis)

Introduction

Stone 58: The Golden Child

But Then Came the Fragments…

The Paradox of Proximity

What This Means

Conclusion: A Fallacy in the Forest

Based on the analaysis of the report –

PodCast

Author’s Biography

Exploring Prehistoric Britain: A Journey Through Time

Further Reading

Other Blogs

Introduction

The Arles Rhône 3: A Flat-Bottomed Marvel

Roman Shipbuilding: The Great Inheritor

Britain’s Dykes and Waterways: Built for Boats?

The Logic of a Pan-European Canal Culture

Arles Rhône 3: Evidence of One-Way Flow Design

🧠 Conclusion:They put the pieces together logically:

Exploring Prehistoric Britain: A Journey Through Time

Further Reading

Other Blogs

Introduction

Promotional Video

Book Extracts

Chapter 1 – Dykes, Ditches and Earthworks

Chapter 2 – The Post-Glacial Flooding Hypothesis

Raised Water Table

Sea-Level Changes

Chapter 3 – Hydrology 101

Case Study Wansdyke – Morgan’s Hill West

Section A – 0 to 300 downhill

Section B – 300 to 800m downhill

Chapter 4 – Wansdyke

Book Sections

Section 1

OS Map

1800 OS Map

LiDAR Map

LiDAR (with Mesolithic water levels)

Durrington Walls

Gap in the Dyke route

Product details

Further Reading

Other Blogs

🧠 Conclusion:
They put the pieces together logically: