British History – Page 2 – Prehistoric Britain

Blackhenge: Debunking the Media misinterpretation of the Stonehenge Builders

Posted on March 7, 2025 by admin

Introduction

The recent report on ancient DNA and human pigmentation has sparked controversy, particularly in how social and commercial media have misrepresented its findings. The study suggests that early inhabitants of Britain, including those who may have built Stonehenge, had abundant melanin in their skin—but this does not equate to them being “Black” in the modern racial sense. Instead, the study’s broad terminology, particularly its classification of “dark-skinned” individuals, has led to widespread misunderstandings. (Blackhenge: Debunking the Media misinterpretation of the Stonehenge Builders)

One of the key failings in how the media reported the findings is the assumption that “dark skin” in ancient populations is equivalent to the complex racial identities we use today. Instead of a nuanced look at genetic pigmentation, some outlets have claimed outright that “Black people built Stonehenge,” which is a significant misinterpretation. The builders could have had a range of pigmentation types, including those commonly associated with modern Europeans, such as pale, freckled skin and red or blonde hair.

Although this maybe an effort to balance our biased history – the claims about Stonehenge are not true (Blackhenge: Debunking the Media misinterpretation of the Stonehenge Builders)

The Issue with Broad Terminology

One of the key issues in the report is the lack of precision in skin tone classification. The study divides ancient populations into three general categories: “dark,” “intermediate,” and “light.” However, this system lumps olive-skinned, freckled individuals together with people with deep brown skin, which can be misleading when applied to historical narratives. (Blackhenge: Debunking the Media misinterpretation of the Stonehenge Builders)

CLICK TO OPEN TABLE

Period	% Very Light (Pale, Fair, Type I-II)	% Light (Beige, Olive, Type III-IV)	% Medium Brown (Tan, Type V)	% Dark Brown (Type VI)	% Deep Black (Type VI+)	Key Observations
Paleolithic (45,000 – 13,000 BP)	0%	8%	17%	75%	0%	Early humans in Europe had mostly dark skin. One Russian sample (Kostenki 14) had intermediate skin
Mesolithic (14,000 – 4,000 BP)	6%	13%	21%	60%	0%	First signs of lighter skin in Sweden and France, but dark skin still dominant
Neolithic (10,000 – 4,000 BP)	15%	27%	23%	35%	0%	Lighter skin spread, but most Neolithic farmers still had medium to dark skin
Copper Age (6,000 – 3,500 BP)	20%	30%	24%	26%	0%	Lighter skin increases, especially in Central Europe and Britain
Bronze Age (7,000 – 3,000 BP)	28%	35%	20%	17%	0%	Rapid spread of lighter skin, but still mixed pigmentation in Europe and Asia
Iron Age (3,000 – 1,700 BP)	50%	30%	12%	8%	0%	By the Iron Age, light and medium skin tones were dominant, but some dark-skinned individuals still existed in Southern Europe and Asia

The Freckled Redhead Problem: Misclassified as “Dark”

Freckled individuals present an interesting challenge. Freckles are a sign of melanin but in an uneven distribution rather than high overall melanin levels. Red-haired, blue-eyed individuals with freckles—such as those associated with ancient Irish populations, including some early Britons—would have been technically classified as “dark-skinned” under the report’s broad terminology【source】. This is misleading for several reasons:

Freckled individuals tend to have pale skin (Type I-II), not deep brown skin (Type VI).
The classification method used in the report fails to differentiate between high eumelanin (deep brown skin) and localized pheomelanin (freckles).
This means that Stonehenge could have been built by individuals with red or blonde hair, blue or green eyes, and freckles—who are now mistakenly included in “dark-skinned” categories.

This is not just an academic issue; it has real-world implications. By misrepresenting the pigmentation of ancient populations, the media reinforces misleading narratives about identity, race, and migration in prehistory. (Blackhenge: Debunking the Media misinterpretation of the Stonehenge Builders)

Media need clickbait to sell stories these days – (Blackhenge: Debunking the Media misinterpretation of the Stonehenge Builders)

Key Genetic Findings from the Report

The study also reveals how genetic markers for pigmentation changed over time:

The first instances of lighter skin (SLC24A5 gene mutation) appeared in Mesolithic Northern Europe (Sweden and France).
The presence of blue eyes peaked during the Mesolithic period before decreasing in the Neolithic period and rising again in the Bronze Age.
Hair colour remained mostly dark until the Bronze Age when more variation emerged due to gene flow from Anatolia and the Pontic Steppe – but without full MC1R sequencing, early red-haired individuals in Britain may have been misclassified as “dark-haired”.

Additionally, the study supports the idea that pigmentation evolved gradually over thousands of years, influenced by migration, diet, and environmental adaptation. (Blackhenge: Debunking the Media misinterpretation of the Stonehenge Builders)

How the Media Got It Wrong

Because the report states that melanin was more abundant in early Britons, some media outlets jumped to the conclusion that the builders of Stonehenge were “Black” in the modern racial sense. The genetic evidence does not support this. Instead, the report tells us that lighter skin only became common in Britain during the later Bronze and Iron Ages.

This misunderstanding can be traced back to:

Overgeneralised classifications in the report (grouping olive, tanned, and freckled individuals into “dark-skinned”).
Sensationalised media headlines that equate high melanin levels with modern Black African ancestry.
The failure to consider how genetic traits like freckles and red hair interact with skin tone.

Conclusion: A Call for More Precision in Pigmentation Studies

The study on ancient DNA and human pigmentation is valuable. Still, its broad terminology has led to confusion. Instead of claiming that the builders of Stonehenge were “Black,” a more accurate interpretation would be:

The early Britons had higher melanin levels than today, but this included a wide range of skin tones, including freckled individuals with red hair.
The idea that Stonehenge was built by “Black people” as understood in modern racial terms, is a media exaggeration.
More precise genetic research and classification systems are needed to avoid these misinterpretations in future studies.

If we want to understand our past accurately, we need more precise language in scientific studies and more responsible reporting from the media. Stonehenge’s builders were likely diverse in their pigmentation, but calling them “Black” is an oversimplification that does not align with the actual genetic findings.

By recognizing the complexity of ancient human pigmentation, we can ensure that historical narratives remain rooted in evidence rather than modern identity politics.

Source

Inference of human pigmentation from ancient DNA by genotype likelihood, Silvia Perretti, et. Al. bioRxiv 2025.01.29.635495; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.01.29.635495

Cheddar Man

A recent discovery in Britain was made by analysing the mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) from the skeleton of a Mesolithic man, discovered in the Cheddar Gorge, Somerset, England. According to the announcement, what researchers found in their analysis was that this ancient person (dated approximately 9000 years ago) likely had a dark (brown-black) skin colour, dark brown hair, blue eyes, and phenotypical features resemble western Europeans. That’s all well and good, but what’s the problem with that?

Without going into too much detail about the genomic research conducted, the issue is with the findings compiled with data collected over twenty years prior when the mtDNA collection first began in 1996. The 1996 study (interestingly was not subjected to any peer-review) it has been stated by subsequent reports referencing these findings, suggested that there was modern DNA contamination at some point in the process of collection.

Cheddar Man -(Blackhenge: Debunking the Media misinterpretation of the Stonehenge Builders) — Cheddar Man – as portrayed by the Media and Museums (Blackhenge: Debunking the Media misinterpretation of the Stonehenge Builders)

The more recent study was made after a fragment of the skull was analysed in 2018. It was found that Cheddar Man’s remains belonged to the same ancestral family as other Mesolithic European populations. This information does not seem too profound, but what appears to be an issue for some, including myself, is simply the lack of efforts to peer-review the work first conducted to ensure that all the findings are legitimate and then knowing its questionable origins to go on to publish the chromosome details of hair colour, eye colour and skin colour via a model to gain maximum publicity.

Even if the DNA was not contaminated initially, the chromosomes required to estimate (as this science is still not proven, just a working hypothesis) were missing. Of the six types of chromosome needed for the estimation of skin tone, 60% of them were absent, and consequently, at BEST, the assessment had a 60% chance of being incorrect. Science dictates that unless the probability rate is greater than 50%, then the result should not be even attempted as the likelihood (statistically) is wrong!!

Yet, this announcement has now created ‘scientifically based’ documentaries showing that black Rastafarian men (with dreadlocks), discovered and populated Ireland ten thousand years ago, all based on ‘Bad Science’ that gave the establishment.

ABC News PodCast – Click Below to play (Blackhenge: Debunking the Media misinterpretation of the Stonehenge Builders)

Executive Summary

A recent study (Perretti et al.) using ancient DNA to infer pigmentation traits in past Eurasian populations has been widely misinterpreted by media outlets and the public. The core issue lies in the oversimplified categorization of skin tones (“dark,” “intermediate,” “light”), leading to inaccurate claims about the racial identity of ancient peoples, particularly concerning the builders of Stonehenge. These misinterpretations stem from a failure to consider the complexities of pigmentation, the limitations of ancient DNA analysis, and the dangers of equating ancient phenotypes with modern racial concepts. The “Cheddar Man” study is also criticized for its questionable origins and the lack of peer-review.

Main Themes and Key Ideas:

The Perretti et al. Study: Pigmentation Shifts in Eurasia

Methodology: The study uses a probabilistic method to infer skin, eye, and hair color from ancient DNA, addressing the challenges of low-coverage ancient genomes. They use a probabilistic approach to phenotypic inference, useful when a direct genotype calling would not be accurate. They tested this framework by estimating phenotypes considering for each sample 1,000 combinations of genotypes at the 41 HIrisPlex-S positions, reflecting their likelihoods.
Findings: The study traces the evolution of pigmentation in Eurasia over 45,000 years, finding a gradual shift towards lighter pigmentation. “The shift towards lighter pigmentations turned out to be all but linear in time and place, and slower than expected, with half of the individuals showing dark or intermediate skin colors well into the Copper and Iron ages.”
They observed a peak of light eye pigmentation in Mesolithic times, and an accelerated change during the spread of Neolithic farmers over Western Eurasia.
Early Europeans often had darker skin than modern populations. “During much of prehistory, most Europeans were dark-skinned.”
Gene flow was a major factor causing shifts of pigmentation traits.

Media Misrepresentation and Oversimplification:

The “Black Stonehenge” Narrative: The media has jumped to the conclusion that early Britons, including Stonehenge builders, were “Black” in the modern racial sense based on the presence of “dark skin” alleles. This is a significant oversimplification. “Instead of a nuanced look at genetic pigmentation, some outlets have claimed outright that ‘Black people built Stonehenge,’ which is a significant misinterpretation.”
Broad Terminology: The study’s use of broad categories (“dark,” “intermediate,” “light”) is problematic because it lumps together a range of skin tones, including those with freckles or olive complexions. “One of the key issues in the report is the lack of precision in skin tone classification.”
Freckled Redheads: Individuals with freckles, red hair, and blue eyes, common in ancient British populations, would likely have been classified as “dark-skinned” under the study’s system, which is misleading.
Importance of Gradual Change: The media often fails to account for the gradual nature of pigmentation changes and the diverse range of phenotypes that likely existed in ancient populations.

Genetic Markers and Their Evolution:

The presence of blue eyes peaked during the Mesolithic period before decreasing in the Neolithic period and rising again in the Bronze Age.
Hair colour remained mostly dark until the Bronze Age when more variation emerged due to gene flow from Anatolia and the Pontic Steppe.
The first instances of lighter skin (SLC24A5 gene mutation) appeared in Mesolithic Northern Europe (Sweden and France).
The shift to food production by early Neolithic farmers had two evolutionary advantages, increase in available food and skin phenotype fit for the lower levels of UV radiation.

Critique of the “Cheddar Man” Study:

The source criticizes the “Cheddar Man” study, arguing that the findings were compiled with data collected over twenty years prior when the mtDNA collection first began in 1996.
The 1996 study suggested that there was modern DNA contamination at some point in the process of collection, and it was not subjected to any peer-review.
Even if the DNA was not contaminated initially, the chromosomes required to estimate skin tone were missing.

Quotes from Sources:

(Perretti et al.): “The shift towards lighter pigmentations turned out to be all but linear in time and place, and slower than expected, with half of the individuals showing dark or intermediate skin colors well into the Copper and Iron ages.”
(“black stonehenge builders.pdf”): “Instead of a nuanced look at genetic pigmentation, some outlets have claimed outright that ‘Black people built Stonehenge,’ which is a significant misinterpretation.”
(“black stonehenge builders.pdf”): “One of the key issues in the report is the lack of precision in skin tone classification.”
(“blackhenge.pdf”): “Without going into too much detail about the genomic research conducted, the issue is with the findings compiled with data collected over twenty years prior when the mtDNA collection first began in 1996.”

Recommendations:

More Precise Language: Scientific studies should use more precise and nuanced terminology when describing pigmentation traits.
Responsible Reporting: Media outlets should avoid sensationalizing findings and should provide context about the complexities of pigmentation genetics.
Focus on Diversity: Acknowledge the diverse range of phenotypes that likely existed in ancient populations, rather than attempting to assign simplistic racial labels.
More precise genetic research and classification systems are needed to avoid these misinterpretations in future studies.

Conclusion:

The study of ancient DNA and pigmentation offers valuable insights into human history, but it is crucial to avoid oversimplification and misinterpretation. By using more precise language, responsible reporting, and a focus on diversity, we can ensure that our understanding of the past remains rooted in evidence rather than modern-day identity politics.

(Blackhenge: Debunking the Media misinterpretation of the Stonehenge Builders)

Other Blogs

2024 Prehistoric Britain Blog Review

8000-year-old Cro-Magnon skull

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

(Blackhenge: Debunking the Media misinterpretation of the Stonehenge Builders)

The Great Farming Hoax – (Einkorn Wheat)

Posted on January 24, 2025 by admin

Introduction

Challenging the Migration Myth: Einkorn Wheat, Ancient Mariners, and the True Timeline of Megalithic Europe

For decades, the “migration model” has dominated the narrative of early farming in Europe, portraying agriculture as spreading westward through the gradual movement of farming communities from the Middle East. However, recent discoveries, including findings at Bouldnor Cliff, evidence of the world’s oldest boatyard in Wales, and new analyses of radiocarbon dates, are reshaping this long-held theory. These groundbreaking insights reveal a far more intricate picture of prehistoric Europe, characterized by advanced maritime trade networks and megalithic monuments built millennia earlier than previously believed. (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

The Einkorn Wheat Discovery at Bouldnor Cliff

(Six years ago archaeology made an astonishing discovery (Einkorn Wheat)) — Bouldnor Cliff – Einkorn wheat

Over a decade ago, archaeologists uncovered traces of domesticated einkorn wheat at Bouldnor Cliff, a submerged Mesolithic site off the British coast. Radiocarbon dating confirmed that this discovery dates back over 8,000 years, predating the arrival of farming in Britain by 2,000 years. This challenges the idea of agriculture’s slow and linear spread and suggests that Mesolithic hunter-gatherers in Britain accessed agricultural products through complex trade networks extending to the Middle East.

The presence of einkorn wheat, a domesticated crop with origins in the Middle East, implies that prehistoric societies had advanced seafaring capabilities. Evidence of planked wooden boats at the site contradicts the traditional view of Mesolithic communities as primitive hunter-gatherers using rudimentary dugout canoes. Instead, these boats could navigate long distances and enabled sophisticated trade networks. (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

The Oldest Boatyard: Catamarans and Maritime Innovation

Wales oldest Boat Yard – (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

Supporting this narrative is the discovery of what has been called the “oldest boatyard in the world,” located in Wales. Initially thought to be channels for dugout canoes, a reevaluation using LiDAR mapping revealed that these were slipways for catamarans—a remarkable technological advancement not recognized in Europe until thousands of years later.

These catamarans, equipped with outriggers, could transport heavy materials over water. This innovation aligns with the movement of large stones, such as those transported from the Preseli Hills to Stonehenge. The revised dating of this boatyard to around 8,000 BCE supports the theory that maritime trade and technological sophistication existed far earlier than previously believed. (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

Radiocarbon Dating and the Revised Timeline of Megalithic Europe

(Maritime Diffusion Model for Megaliths in Europe) — 2.400 radio carbon dates showing the earliest use of sites – (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

The timeline of megalithic construction in Europe is also being reexamined. A comprehensive study of over 2,400 radiocarbon dates suggests that megalithic construction originated in northwestern France around 4500 BCE and spread via coastal and maritime networks. However, a closer analysis of early contexts points to an even earlier timeline, with sites like Carnac and Stonehenge showing evidence of activity as far back as 8300 BCE.

These findings challenge the traditional narrative, which dates megalithic monuments to 5000 years later. Mesolithic hearths, tools, and other features suggest that these sites were part of a widespread maritime culture, further emphasizing the advanced capabilities of these prehistoric societies. (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

Implications for Prehistoric Migration and Trade

ten years ago archaeology made an astonishing discovery (Einkorn Wheat)) — Divers locating the Einkorn wheat – (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

The implications of these discoveries are profound and dismantle the outdated “migration model” as the sole explanation for the spread of agriculture and culture. The evidence suggests:

Sophisticated Maritime Trade: Prehistoric societies were interconnected through vast trade networks, enabling the exchange of goods, ideas, and technologies.
Advanced Seafaring Technology: Using planked boats and catamarans demonstrates significant maritime innovation, facilitating long-distance travel and trade.
Pre-Agricultural Networks: Long-distance trade routes likely predated the adoption of farming, serving as conduits for agricultural products and cultural exchanges.
Mesolithic Origins of Megaliths: Monumental structures such as Stonehenge and Carnac were built much earlier than previously believed during the Mesolithic period.

These findings reveal a more nuanced view of prehistoric societies, characterized by ingenuity and technological sophistication rather than the simplistic hunter-gatherer versus farmer dichotomy. (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

Rethinking the Past

Despite the mounting evidence, some academic communities have resisted reevaluating entrenched narratives. Discoveries at sites like Craig Rhos-y-Felin, where Mesolithic carbon dates suggest an early quarrying activity, have been dismissed in favour of later Neolithic timelines. Similarly, Mesolithic post holes at Stonehenge have been downplayed as unrelated artefacts rather than being recognized as evidence of early monumental construction. (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

This reluctance highlights the need for a paradigm shift in archaeological thought. By embracing new perspectives, we can:

Recognize the complexity and interconnectedness of prehistoric societies.
Acknowledge the central role of maritime activity in shaping early European cultures.
Employ more accurate dating methods, moving beyond relying solely on Bayesian statistical modeling.
Encourage open-mindedness in interpreting data, ensuring discoveries are not dismissed for contradicting established theories.

The Call for a New Paradigm

The einkorn wheat discovery, the world’s oldest boatyard, and revised megalithic timelines collectively demand reevaluating our understanding of prehistoric Europe. These findings reveal a world where maritime trade, advanced engineering, and cultural innovation flourished long before the arrival of farming communities. They challenge the outdated “migration model” and call for a broader, more inclusive framework that better reflects the ingenuity of our ancestors.

By shifting our perspective, we can uncover a richer, more accurate account of prehistoric Europe—one that honours the achievements of early seafarers and their contributions to the development of human civilization. (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

To deny the truth creates a fiction known as archeology today – (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

References

By Michael BalterFeb. 26, 2015 , Science Magazine.

Hunter-gatherers may have brought agricultural products to the British Isles by trading wheat and other grains with early farmers from the European mainland. That’s the intriguing conclusion of a new study of ancient DNA from a now submerged hunter-gatherer camp off the British coast. If true, the find suggests that wheat made its way to the far edge of Western Europe 2000 years before farming was thought to have taken hold in Britain.

The work confronts archaeologists “with the challenge of fitting this into our worldview,” says Dorian Fuller, an archaeobotanist at University College London who was not involved in the work.

For decades, archaeologists had thought that incoming farmers from the Middle East moved into Europe beginning about 10,500 years ago and replaced or transformed hunter-gatherer populations as they moved west, not reaching Britain until about 6000 years ago. But that worldview had already undergone some modifications. Recent discoveries, for example, have shown some incoming farmers coexisted with the hunter-gatherers already living in Europe rather than quickly replacing them. In 2013, researchers reported that, beginning about 6000 years ago, farmers and hunter-gatherers had both buried their dead in the same cave in Germany and continued to do so for 800 years, suggesting that the two groups were in close contact. More controversially, researchers claimed that about 6500 years ago hunter-gatherers in Germany and Scandinavia may have acquired domesticated pigs from nearby farmers. (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

The new findings promise to further upset the scenario that farming steadily marched from east to west. A team led by Robin Allaby, a plant geneticist at the University of Warwick in the United Kingdom, was looking for the earliest evidence of domesticated plants in the British Isles. The researchers decided to take a gander at an underwater site called Bouldnor Cliff, 250 meters offshore from the hamlet of Bouldnor in the northwest corner of the Isle of Wight. (The island is in the English Channel just off Britain’s southern coast.)

Bouldnor Cliff, located 11 meters below the water’s surface, was discovered in 1999, when, as the United Kingdom’s Maritime Archaeology Trust puts it on its website, “a lobster was seen throwing Stone Age worked flints from its burrow.” Archaeologists have been working there ever since. The site was clearly occupied by hunter-gatherers, who may have built wooden boats. Allaby’s team took four core samples of sediments from a section of the site littered with burnt hazelnut shells apparently left by the hunter-gatherers and subjected the samples to both radiocarbon dating and ancient DNA analysis. The samples’ wood and plants were dated to between 8020 and 7980 years ago, after which the site was inundated by the rising seas that created the English Channel and separated Britain from France.

For the ancient DNA analysis, the team used methods pioneered by paleogeneticist Eske Willerslev of the University of Copenhagen to recover and sequence genetic material left behind in sediments even after the plants that originally contained it have disintegrated. As might be expected, Allaby and his colleagues found DNA from a wide variety of trees and plants known to have populated southern Britain 8000 years ago, including oak, poplar, and beech, along with various grasses and herbs. But the team also got a big surprise: Among the DNA samples were two types of domesticated wheat that originated in the Middle East and that have no wild ancestors in northern Europe. That meant they must have been associated with the original spread of farming from the Middle East, beginning about 10,500 years ago, rather than domesticated locally. Yet many archaeologists assume that by 8000 years ago farming was no further west than the Balkans region and modern Hungary. (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

The researchers performed a number of tests to eliminate the possibility of contamination from modern wheat, including trying to sequence DNA from the chemical solutions it used in the experiments, but no plant sequences were detected. The only possible conclusion was that the domesticated wheat had actually come from the hunter-gatherer site at Bouldnor Cliff, the team reports online today in Science.

“The paper is methodologically impressive,” Fuller says. Willerslev agrees: “The study is quite convincing,” he says, adding that loose DNA from sediments will provide “some of the earliest detectable evidence for farming” because cereal grains themselves are less likely to be preserved. (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

So how did domesticated wheat get to Britain 2000 years before people began to farm there? Allaby’s team does not think the hunter-gatherers cultivated wheat themselves, because no wheat pollen was found in the samples—as should have been expected if the cereal had been allowed to go through its entire life cycle, including flowering.

The team proposes that farming might have spread to western France earlier than had been thought, up to 7600 years ago, and thus only a 400-year gap would have to be explained. But Peter Rowley-Conwy, an archaeologist at the Durham University in the United Kingdom, rejects that suggestion. “The authors do not do justice to the chronology of the spread of agriculture,” he complains, noting that “thousands of directly radiocarbon-dated cereal grains” argue against farming in Western Europe that early. “One DNA study of this kind is just not enough to overturn all this.”

Another possibility, Allaby says, is that the nomadic hunter-gatherers of southern Britain roamed much farther into the European mainland than previously realized, picked up wheat or wheat products from farmers to the east, and brought them back to Britain. He also suggests that the conventional dating of the spread of agriculture, based on clearly detectable cereal grains, might be missing earlier samples.

Allaby may well be right, says Greger Larson, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom. “Are we underestimating the degree to which there were exchange networks between farmers and hunter-gatherers which extended far across time and space? Maybe the only way to pick them up is from DNA signatures.”

Yet Fuller says that the new finds do not necessarily indicate that the spread of farming needs to be radically redated. Rather, he suggests, small-scale pioneers of both farmers and hunter-gatherers may have been “operating beyond the frontier of farming” as it spread west in a wave of advance. The wheat might have been part of trade or cultural exchanges between them. Just as rare spices from the east are regarded as valuable commodities today, Fuller says, the wheat at Bouldnor Cliff might have been symbolically charged and seen as “rare, exotic, and valuable,” rather than something to be eaten daily. (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/02/dna-recovered-underwater-british-site-may-rewrite-history-farming-europe

Clearly, the traditional migration model is, quite frankly – DEAD!

Timeline of Main Events (BCE)

Note that many of these events are based on radiocarbon dating and are subject to interpretation and potential revisions. The sources provided offer a specific perspective that questions some established archeological timelines. (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

8800 BCE: Likely date of construction of Saint Michel site (France), marking the earliest megalithic construction mentioned. The “Maritime Diffusion Model” suggests seafaring people were building megaliths this early.
8750 BCE: Likely date of construction of Orquinha dos Juncais site (Portugal), another early megalithic site.
8560 BCE: Likely date of construction of Curacchiaghiu site (Corsica), one of the earliest megalithic constructions according to the maritime diffusion model.
8328 BCE: Likely date of construction of the Flintbek site (Germany).
8300 BCE: Proposed date for the construction of Stonehenge by the author, predating other accepted timelines. This is based on the author’s idea of a maritime diffusion.
8080 BCE: Likely date of construction of Casinha Derribada site (Portugal), another early megalithic site
8000 BCE: Likely date of construction of Madorras I site (Portugal), suggesting a concentration of early megalithic construction in this area
7985 BCE: Likely date of construction of Le Souc´h site (France)
7960 BCE: Likely date of construction of Tremedal site (Portugal)
7740 BCE: Likely date of construction of Orca de Merouços site (Portugal)
7670 BCE: Likely date of construction of Sarceaux site (France)
7660 BCE: Likely date of construction of Cabeçuda site (Portugal)
7615 BCE: Likely date of construction of the Gökhem 94:1 site (Sweden), the earliest Megalithic site in Scandinavia by far.
7580 BCE: Likely date of construction of Barkaer site (Denmark)
7550 BCE: Likely date of construction of Cabeço da Arruda (Muge), Ribatejo site (Portugal)
7500 BCE: Sketewan site (Scotland), showing evidence for an early phase of megalithic activity in the region
7440 BCE: Likely date of construction of Cuevo de los Murciélagos site (Spain)
7300 BCE: Likely date of construction of Cabeço da Amoreira (Muge), Ribatejo site (Portugal)
7240 BCE: Likely date of construction of Moita do Sebastião (Muge), Ribatejo site (Portugal)
7230 BCE: Likely date of construction of Cabeço das Amoreiras, Alentejo site (Portugal), the first of multiple sites in this area.
7200 BCE: Likely date of construction of Arapouco site (Portugal)
7165 BCE: Likely date of construction of Hoëdic site (France)
7140 BCE: Likely date of construction of Cova da Onça (Magos), Ribatejo site (Portugal), indicating that the maritime diffusion model covered many areas of Portugal at this time.
7060 BCE: Likely date of construction of L’Ubac site (France)
7030 BCE: Likely date of construction of Châ de Carvahal 1 site (Portugal)
6990 BCE: Likely date of construction of Quélarn site (France)
6925 BCE: Likely date of construction of Ballymcdermot (Ireland), the earliest Megalithic site in Ireland by far.
6910 BCE: Likely date of construction of Châ da Parada 3 site (Portugal)
6835 BCE: Likely date of construction of Knowth 1 site (Ireland)
6760 BCE: Likely date of construction of Cabeço do Pez, Alentejo (Portugal)
6740 BCE: Likely date of construction of Téviec site (France)
6730 BCE: Likely date of construction of Carvahal site (Portugal)
6670 BCE: Likely date of construction of Balnuaran of Clava (Scotland).
6575 BCE: Likely date of construction of Chan de Prado 6 site (Spain)
6570 BCE: Likely date of construction of Cabras site (Spain)
6565 BCE: Likely date of construction of Valdemuriel 2 site (Spain)
6500 BCE: Likely date of construction of Carrowmore site (Ireland).
6420 BCE: Likely date of construction of Grotte de Puechmargues site (France).
6370 BCE: Likely date of construction of Samouqueira 1 site (Portugal).
6360 BCE: Likely date of construction of Castelhanas site (Portugal).
6330 BCE: Likely date of construction of Correio-Mór site (Portugal)
6310 BCE: Likely date of construction of Outeiro de Ante 1 site (Portugal)
6305 BCE: Likely date of construction of Er Grah site (France)
6300 BCE: Likely date of construction of Biggar Common site (Scotland)
6250 BCE: Likely date of construction of Dissignac site (France).
6210 BCE: Likely date of construction of Table des Marchands (France), along with Tertre de Lomer and Figueira Branca and numerous other Megalithic sites.
6200 BCE: Likely date of construction of Vallon Carbonel site (France)
6190 BCE: Likely date of construction of Font de la Vena and La Chaise sites (France).
6180 BCE: Likely date of construction of Ascott-under-Wychwood (England) based on the Maritime Diffusion Model, being the earliest Megalithic site in the UK.
6140 BCE: Likely date of construction of Skorba (Maltese Archipelago)
6100 BCE: Likely date of construction of Cabritos 3 site (Spain)
6090 BCE: Likely date of construction of Passy Sablonnière site (France).
6060 BCE: Likely date of construction of Lupawa (Poland)
6050 BCE: Likely date of construction of Coto dos Mouros (Portugal)
6030 BCE: Likely date of construction of Alto da Barreira (Portugal)
6022 BCE: Likely date of construction of Menhir de Meada (Portugal).
6006 BCE: Likely date of construction of Boghead site (Scotland).
5995 BCE: Likely date of construction of Haut Mée site (France).
5970 BCE: Likely date of construction of Areita 1 site (Spain).
5960 BCE: Likely date of construction of Passy Richebourg site (France)
5940 BCE: Likely date of construction of Goumoizère site (Switzerland)
5920 BCE: Likely date of construction of Cerro Virtud (Spain), Cova de I´Avellaner (Spain) and Outeiro de Ante 2 site (Portugal).
5890 BCE: Likely date of construction of Chan da Cruz 1 site (Portugal).
5870 BCE: Likely date of construction of El Padró II site (Spain) and Kilpatrick site (Scotland).
5860 BCE: Likely date of construction of Bougon/Chirons site (France)
5840 BCE: Likely date of construction of Kercado site (France)
5835 BCE: Likely date of construction of Lannec er Gadouer site (France)
5820 BCE: Likely date of construction of Monte Areo VI site (Spain)
5810 BCE: Likely date of construction of Alcalar 7 site (Portugal), Larrarte and Larratbi sites (Spain).
5805 BCE: Likely date of construction of Monte Maninho site (Portugal)
5800 BCE: Likely date of construction of Île Guennoc III and Îlot de Roc´h Avel sites (France)
5780 BCE: Likely date of construction of Outeiro de Ante 3 site (Portugal).
5750 BCE: Likely date of construction of Barnenez site (France)
5750 BCE: Likely date of construction of Azutan site (Spain)
5730 BCE: Likely date of construction of Hazleton North (England).
5720 BCE: Likely date of construction of Castelo Belinho (Portugal).
5710 BCE: Likely date of construction of Castillejo site (Spain).
5690 BCE: Likely date of construction of Vierville/La Butte á Luzerne site (France)
5680 BCE: Likely date of construction of Catasol 2 site (Spain).
5670 BCE: Likely date of construction of Valdemuriel 1 site (Spain).
5660 BCE: Likely date of construction of Le Grée de Cojoux site (France) and Sandun site (Spain).
5650 BCE: Likely date of construction of Petit Mont site (France) and Campo del Hockey site (Spain)
5640 BCE: Likely date of construction of Caune de Belesta site (France)
5630 BCE: Likely date of construction of Monte da Olheira site (Portugal).
5615 BCE: Likely date of construction of Balloy, Les Réaudins site (France).
5590 BCE: Likely date of construction of Les Fouaillages site (France).
5580 BCE: Likely date of construction of Les Erves and Ty Floc´h, St. Thois sites (France).
5570 BCE: Likely date of construction of Sarnowo site (Poland)
5560 BCE: Likely date of construction of La Hoguette site (France) and Gruta dos Escoral (Portugal).
5550 BCE: Likely date of construction of Cleaven Dyke (Scotland) and Mestreville (France).
5545 BCE: Likely date of construction of Lyse 7 site (Sweden).
5540 BCE: Likely date of construction of Bòbila Madurell site (Spain), Chenon and Mámoa do Monte: dos Marxos sites (Portugal).
5530 BCE: Likely date of construction of Châ da Parada 4 site (Portugal).
5500 BCE: Likely date of construction of Outeiro de Gregos 2 site (Portugal), Boeriza 2 and Péré, tumulus C sites (France).
5490 BCE: Likely date of construction of Larcuste II and Beg-an-Dorchem sites (France) and Monte Revincu, Dolmen de Casa di l´Urca and Hayas I sites (Corsica)
5470 BCE: Likely date of construction of Changé, (Saint Piat) site (France) and Monte Areo V site (Spain)
5450 BCE: Likely date of construction of Chã de Carvahal 1 site (Portugal)
5440 BCE: Likely date of construction of Portela do Pau 1 site (Portugal)
5435 BCE: Likely date of construction of Portela do Pau 2 site (Portugal).
5423 BCE: Likely date of construction of Contraguda site (Italy).
5410 BCE: Likely date of construction of La Hogue Bie (England), Monte Revincu, Dolmen de Cellucia (Corsica).
5405 BCE: Likely date of construction of Monte Revincu, Casa di L´Urcu, La Cabana 2, Monte Revincu, secteur de la Cima de Suarella sites (Corsica).
5404 BCE: Likely date of construction of Monte Areo XII site (Spain)
5400 BCE: Likely date of construction of Joaninha (Portugal) and Dolmen d`Arreganyats sites (Spain)
5390 BCE: Likely date of construction of Île Carn site (France)
5380 BCE: Likely date of construction of Brochtorff Circle (Maltese Archipelago).
5375 BCE: Likely date of construction of Fuentepecina site (Spain).
5365 BCE: Likely date of construction of Champ Châlon, Monument B1 site (France) and Lambourne Ground (England).
5360 BCE: Likely date of construction of Lameira de Cima 2 site (Portugal).
5355 BCE: Likely date of construction of Camp del Ginébre site (Spain) and Monte Revincu (Corsica).
5354 BCE: Likely date of construction of Najac site (France).
5340 BCE: Likely date of construction of Els Vilars and La Motte des Justices sites (France).
5330 BCE: Likely date of construction of Antelas (Portugal) and Mámoa do Monte: dos Marxos, Cova del Lladres and Prajou Menhir sites (Spain).
5329 BCE: Likely date of construction of Cotogrande 1 site (Spain)
5320 BCE: Likely date of construction of Alberite site (Spain) and Ventin 4 site (France).
5305 BCE: Likely date of construction of Rebolledo site (Spain)
5300 BCE: Likely date of construction of Trikuaizti I and Camp de la Vergentière sites (France).
5290 BCE: Likely date of construction of Ciella site (Spain)
5270 BCE: Likely date of construction of Furnas 1 and 2 and Igartza W sites (Spain).
5263 BCE: Likely date of construction of Le Déhus site (England).
5260 BCE: Likely date of construction of Meninas do Crastro 2 (Portugal)
5250 BCE: Likely date of construction of Neuvy-en-Dunois site (France) and Velilla 2 site (Spain).
5240 BCE: Likely date of construction of La Cabaña site (Spain)
5235 BCE: Likely date of construction of La Pierre Tourneresse site (France).
5230 BCE: Likely date of construction of Outeiro de Gregos 3 site (Portugal), Primrose Grange (Ireland) and Sierra Plana de la Borbolla 24 sites (Spain).
5220 BCE: Likely date of construction of Uglhöj and Jättegraven sites (Sweden).
5215 BCE: Likely date of construction of Slieve Gullion site (Ireland)
5200 BCE: Likely date of construction of Beckhampton Road site (England) Grotte des Cranes (France) and Velilla 3 sites (Spain).
5195 BCE: Likely date of construction of L´île Bono and Pena Ovieda I sites (Spain).
5190 BCE: Likely date of construction of Los Llanos 1 site (Spain), Dalladies (Scotland), and Horslip (England)
5175 BCE: Likely date of construction of La Llaguna A site (Spain)
5170 BCE: Likely date of construction of Wietrzychowice site (Poland)
5160 BCE: Likely date of construction of Picoto da Vasco (Portugal) and Cave de Cadaval sites (Portugal).
5155 BCE: Likely date of construction of El Miradero site (Spain)
5150 BCE: Likely date of construction of Dooey´s Cairn (Ireland), Borgstedt LA 22 (Germany), Morceo (Spain), Colombiers-sur-Seulles (France), and As Rozas 1 site (Spain).
5140 BCE: Likely date of construction of Krusza Zamkova site (Poland) and Liscuis I (France).
5135 BCE: Likely date of construction of La Llaguna D site (Spain).
5130 BCE: Likely date of construction of Senhora do Monte 3 (Portugal), Mina do Simão (Portugal), and Castello d’Araggio, C-Ar-4 sites (Corsica).
5125 BCE: Likely date of construction of Carapito 1 site (Portugal).
5115 BCE: Likely date of construction of Odarslöv site (Sweden)
5112 BCE: Likely date of construction of Mamoa do Castelo 1 site (Portugal)
5110 BCE: Likely date of construction of Monamore site (Ireland), Albersdorf: LA 56: Bredenhoop site (Germany).
5101 BCE: Likely date of construction of Coldrum site (England).
5100 BCE: Likely date of construction of Poulnabrone (Ireland), La Mina, Els garrofers del torrent de Sta. Maria sites (Spain).
5095 BCE: Likely date of construction of Montou site (France) and Örnakulla site (Sweden).
5090 BCE: Likely date of construction of Maes Howe (Scotland) and Sa ´Ucca de su Tintirriolu (Corsica) Dolmen de Tires Llargues, Champ Châlon, Monument B2 sites (France).
5080 BCE: Likely date of construction of Mosegården site (Sweden) and La Xorenga (Spain)
5078 BCE: Likely date of construction of San Benedetto site (Italy).
5070 BCE: Likely date of construction of Street House (England), Port Blanc (France) and Lochhill site (Scotland).
5060 BCE: Likely date of construction of Orca das Castenairas site (Portugal).
5055 BCE: Likely date of construction of Monte da Romea site (Portugal).
5050 BCE: Likely date of construction of Trefignath (Wales), Bjørnsholm (Denmark) and Gwernvale sites (Wales).
5045 BCE: Likely date of construction of Orca de Seixas (Portugal) and Ballybriest (Ireland)
5040 BCE: Likely date of construction of Monte Areo XV site (Spain)
5030 BCE: Likely date of construction of Champ Châlon, Monument C site (France) and Seamer Moor site (England).
5029 BCE: Likely date of construction of Broadsands site (England)
5025 BCE: Likely date of construction of Le Castellic site (France).
5020 BCE: Likely date of construction of Ponte da Pedra (Portugal).
5010 BCE: Likely date of construction of Châ da Parada 1 (Portugal) and Lindebjerg and Pedra Cuberta sites (Spain).
5005 BCE: Likely date of construction of Gökhem 17 site (Sweden) and Acon site (France).
4996 BCE: Likely date of construction of Vale de Rodrigo 3 site (Portugal).
4990 BCE: Likely date of construction of Orca da Penela 1 site (Portugal), Châ de Santinhos 2 site (Portugal) and Lameira de Cima 1, Algarão da Goldra sites (Portugal).
4980 BCE: Likely date of construction of Châ de Santinhos 1 and Pedra Moura sites (Portugal).
4970 BCE: Likely date of construction of Rustrup I site (Denmark) and Pen-y-Wyrlod site (Wales).
4969 BCE: Likely date of construction of Su Stampu e Giovnnicu Meli site (Corsica)
4965 BCE: Likely date of construction of Tulloch of Assery B (Scotland)
4960 BCE: Likely date of construction of Tully (Ireland) Willerby Wold site (England), Gladsax (Sweden) Meninas do Crastro 3 sites (Portugal), Cotobasero 2 and Orca dos Padrões sites (Portugal).
4955 BCE: Likely date of construction of Hirumugarrieta 2 site (Spain).
4950 BCE: Likely date of construction of West Kennet Long Barrow site (England), Dombate (Spain), Chamster Long (England), Costa dels Garrics de Caballol I Pinell and Grotta Filiestru sites (Spain).
4935 BCE: Likely date of construction of Dolmen de Menga site (Spain).
4930 BCE: Likely date of construction of Shanballeyedmond no 3 (Ireland), El Palomar, and Feixa del Moro sites (Spain).
4920 BCE: Likely date of construction of Monte d´Accodi (Italy), Rustrup II (Denmark) and Forno dos Mouros site (Portugal).
4910 BCE: Likely date of construction of Rude (Denmark)
4905 BCE: Likely date of construction of Vale de Rodrigo 2 (Portugal).
4900 BCE: Likely date of construction of Mound of the Hostages (Ireland) Millbarrow site (England), Grotta del Guano (Italy) Anta de Serramo, Collado Palomero 2 sites (Spain).
4897 BCE: Likely date of construction of West Tump site (England)
4890 BCE: Likely date of construction of Valtorp 2 site (Sweden)
4880 BCE: Likely date of construction of Ernes site (Scotland).
4875 BCE: Likely date of construction of Cotogrande 2 site (Spain)
4873 BCE: Likely date of construction of Knowth 17 (Ireland)
4870 BCE: Likely date of construction of Oldendorf IV and Champ Châlon, Monument A sites (Germany) , Pierre Virante II (France) and Bagnos site (France).
4860 BCE: Likely date of construction of Glenvoideau and Kleinenkneten 2 sites (Germany)
4852 BCE: Likely date of construction of Knowth site (Ireland).
4850 BCE: Likely date of construction of Bissee (Germany) , As Pereiras and Konens Høj sites (Denmark).
4840 BCE: Likely date of construction of La Vega 1 (Spain).
4830 BCE: Likely date of construction of Carreg Coetan (Wales), Montiou site (France), Kilham site (England).
4825 BCE: Likely date of construction of Kerléven (France), Storegard IV (Sweden) and Creggandevesky site (Ireland)
4820 BCE: Likely date of construction of Pena Ovieda and Dorna sites (Spain)
4817 BCE: Likely date of construction of Wayland´s Smithy site (England)
4810 BCE: Likely date of construction of South Stanwick (England) and Velilla 1 site (Spain).
4800 BCE: Likely date of construction of Tulloch of Assery A site (Scotland), Heberg (Sweden) and Ballintruer More site (Ireland)
4795 BCE: Likely date of construction of Grundoldendorf I site (Germany) and Lüdelsen 6 (Germany)
4785 BCE: Likely date of construction of Parknabinnia site (Ireland).
4780 BCE: Likely date of construction of Outeiro de Gregos 5 (Portugal) and Cabeceira 4 site (Portugal).
4770 BCE: Likely date of construction of Jerpoint West (Ireland), Carascal (Spain) and Sobreira 1 site (Portugal).
4765 BCE: Likely date of construction of Ashley Park site (England).
4760 BCE: Likely date of construction of South Street site (England).
4755 BCE: Likely date of construction of Rastorf site (Germany) and Drottning Hackas grav (Sweden), La Hameliniere site (France).
4750 BCE: Likely date of construction of Großenrode II site (Germany) and Peña Guerra 2 site (Spain).
4740 BCE: Likely date of construction of Rokaer and Bygholm Nørremark sites (Denmark) Casota do Páramo (Portugal) and Cova del Toixò site (Spain).
4735 BCE: Likely date of construction of Baunogenasraid site (Ireland).
4730 BCE: Likely date of construction of Easton Down, Bisshop´s Canning site (England), Collado Palomero 1 (Spain) and Kjeldbækgård site (Denmark).
4720 BCE: Likely date of construction of Arnillas and Torshøj sites (Spain), Moinhos de Vento site (Portugal) and Zberzyn site (Poland).
4717 BCE: Likely date of construction of San Bieito 2 site (Portugal)
4710 BCE: Likely date of construction of Port Charlotte site (Scotland) and Ølstykke site (Denmark)
4708 BCE: Likely date of construction of Canelles site (Spain).
4700 BCE: Likely date of construction of El Collado de Mallo (Spain), Cabeço de Arruda 2 (Portugal), Tustrup (Denmark) Fuente Morena and Le Stade sites (Spain).
4690 BCE: Likely date of construction of La Bruyere du Hamel and La Butte Saint Cyr (France) and Pujolet de Moja site (Spain).
4685 BCE: Likely date of construction of Mysinge 2 (Sweden) and Tulach an T`Sionnaich (Scotland).
4680 BCE: Likely date of construction of Point of Cott site (Scotland) and La Ciste de Cous site (France).
4680 BCE: Likely date of construction of Townleyhall II site (Ireland).
4675 BCE: Likely date of construction of Ardcrony (Ireland)
4671 BCE: Likely date of construction of Nutbane site (Ireland).
4670 BCE: Likely date of construction of Sobreira de Cima 3 site (Portugal).
4665 BCE: Likely date of construction of The Ord North site (Scotland).
4660 BCE: Likely date of construction of Vroue Hede and Holtenes III sites (Denmark).
4653 BCE: Likely date of construction of Warburg III site (Germany).
4650 BCE: Likely date of construction of North Mains site (Scotland), Huerta Montero (Spain), Phoenix Park (Ireland), Bagnolet (France), Cabeço da Areira, Cova de la Font del Molinot and Rabuje 5 sites (Spain).
4649 BCE: Likely date of construction of Stoneyfield, Raigmore site (Scotland)
4640 BCE: Likely date of construction of Tofta 14/Ansarve Hage (Sweden), Pena Guerra II (Spain), Hejring site (Denmark) and Ansião and Ta´Hagrat sites (Portugal).
4630 BCE: Likely date of construction of Odoorn site (Netherlands)
4620 BCE: Likely date of construction of Château Blanc site (France) and Giants Hills site (England).
4620 BCE: Likely date of construction of Hvalshøje site (Denmark)
4610 BCE: Likely date of construction of Quanterness site (Scotland) and L´Hotel de Dieu (France).
4605 BCE: Likely date of construction of Calden site (Germany).
4600 BCE: Likely date of construction of Warburg V site (Germany).
4590 BCE: Likely date of construction of Pedras Grandes and Snibhøj sites (Denmark) and Abogalheira 1 and Odoorn D32 sites (Netherlands)
4585 BCE: Likely date of construction of Lisduggan North (Ireland) and Mané Kernaplaye site (France).
4580 BCE: Likely date of construction of Fjälkinge 9 site (Sweden).
4570 BCE: Likely date of construction of Warburg IV site (Germany), Kinneved 21/Slutarp (Sweden) and Ditfurt, Vroue Hede Ia sites (Germany).
4560 BCE: Likely date of construction of Vroue Hede III (Denmark) and Falköpings västra 7 site (Sweden) Skjeberg (Norway).
4550 BCE: Likely date of construction of Dolmen de Viera site (Spain), Klokkehøj site (Denmark), Poulawack site (Ireland), Großeibstadt I, La Pierre Godon, Beaulieu and Odoorn D32a sites (Germany)
4545 BCE: Likely date of construction of Dötlingen site (Germany).
4540 BCE: Likely date of construction of La Chaussée Tirancourt (France), Odagsen and Ramshög sites (Germany) and Raevehøj (Denmark).
4535 BCE: Likely date of construction of Newgrange (Ireland) and La Grosse Motte (France).
4530 BCE: Likely date of construction of Sobreira de Cima 1 (Portugal).
4525 BCE: Likely date of construction of Castro Marim (Portugal).
4520 BCE: Likely date of construction of Rego da Murta 1 (Portugal), Nordhausen 2 and Dolmen de Mailleton sites (France), Sobreira de Cima 4 (Portugal).
4515 BCE: Likely date of construction of Karleby 59 site (Sweden).
4510 BCE: Likely date of construction of Hunnebostrand site (Sweden).
4505 BCE: Likely date of construction of Les Varennes (France) and Falköpings stad 3 site (Sweden).
4500 BCE: Likely date of construction of Noisy-sur-Ecole (France) and Tossen-Keler, Altendorf, Jörlanda 120, and Trekoner and Aguels sites (Spain).
4496 BCE: Likely date of construction of S. Caterina di Pittinuri site (Italy).
4490 BCE: Likely date of construction of Jordehøj (Denmark), Maison Rouge site (France) and Alvastra and Kellerød sites (Sweden).
4485 BCE: Likely date of construction of Tarxien site (Maltese Archipelago)
4485 BCE: Likely date of construction of Großenrode I site (Germany).
4480 BCE: Likely date of construction of Isbister (Scotland) and Cova de las Encantades de Martis (Spain) and Loon D15 and Horta (Netherlands).
4476 BCE: Likely date of construction of Cannas di Sotto site (Italy)
4475 BCE: Likely date of construction of Schönstedt site (Germany) and Ubby Dysselod (Denmark).
4470 BCE: Likely date of construction of Valle de las Higueras (Spain) and Gavrinis site (France).
4460 BCE: Likely date of construction of Berry-au-Bac and Niederbösa sites (Germany).
4450 BCE: Likely date of construction of Liscuis II site (France), Atteln (Germany), and Trigache 4, Cuesta de los Almendrillos and Cova del Frare sites (Spain).
4445 BCE: Likely date of construction of Kurtzebide site (Spain) and Schönstedt site (Germany).
4440 BCE: Likely date of construction of Maglehøj site (Denmark)
4435 BCE: Likely date of construction of Portejoie/sepulture 1 (France) and Kruckow (Germany)
4430 BCE: Likely date of construction of Goërem (France), Holm of Papa Westray North (Scotland) and Gökhem 78 and Valtorp 1 sites (Sweden)
4428 BCE: Likely date of construction of Falk stad 3 (Sweden).
4425 BCE: Likely date of construction of Stones of Steness (Scotland) and Ȧ Djèyî (France).
4420 BCE: Likely date of construction of Los Millares (Spain), Aldersro (Denmark), Monte Canelas 1 (Portugal), Saint-Gervais (France), Can Pey site (Spain), Øm site (Denmark), and Knowth 9 site (Ireland)
4410 BCE: Likely date of construction of Praia das Maças (Portugal), Santa Margarida 2 (Portugal), Casullo (Italy), Lairg, Achany Glen (Scotland), Arruda (Portugal).
4405 BCE: Likely date of construction of Buchow-Karpzow site (Germany).
4399 BCE: Likely date of construction of Knowth 16 site (Ireland)
4395 BCE: Likely date of construction of Annaghmare site (Ireland)
4390 BCE: Likely date of construction of Petit-Chasseur I (Switzerland) and Kermené (France).
4390 BCE: Likely date of construction of Cotogrande 5 site (Spain) and Falköpings stad 28 (Sweden).
4389 BCE: Likely date of construction of Lohra site (Germany).
4376 BCE: Likely date of construction of Warburg I site (Germany).
4375 BCE: Likely date of construction of Megalithe du Chateau site (France).
4370 BCE: Likely date of construction of Gökhem 31 (Sweden) and Hotié de Viviane site (France).
4360 BCE: Likely date of construction of Bola da Cera site (Portugal).
4340 BCE: Likely date of construction of Em

(The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

Challenging the Migration Myth: Einkorn Wheat, Ancient Mariners, and the True Timeline of Megalithic Europe

For decades, the narrative of early farming in Europe has been dominated by the “migration model,” which suggests that agriculture spread westward through the gradual movement of farming communities from the Middle East. However, groundbreaking discoveries, including those at Bouldnor Cliff, the world’s oldest boatyard in Wales, and a comprehensive analysis of radiocarbon dates, are forcing a reevaluation of this long-held theory . These findings reveal a far more complex picture of prehistoric Europe, where sophisticated maritime trade networks predated and possibly facilitated the spread of agriculture, and where megalithic monuments were built millennia earlier than previously believed. (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

The Einkorn Wheat Revelation at Bouldnor Cliff

Over a decade ago, archaeologists unearthed traces of domesticated einkorn wheat at an underwater site off the British coast at Bouldnor Cliff [1]. This discovery, dating back over 8,000 years, is significant because it predates the accepted timeline of farming in Britain by 2,000 years . The presence of einkorn wheat, a crop originating in the Middle East, challenges the notion that agriculture spread slowly and linearly across Europe through migration . Instead, it indicates that Mesolithic hunter-gatherers in Britain had access to agricultural products through complex trade networks stretching as far as the Middle East. (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

This discovery implies that prehistoric societies possessed advanced seafaring capabilities, enabling long-distance exchanges thousands of years earlier than previously thought. The site at Bouldnor Cliff also yielded remnants of planked wooden boats, contradicting the traditional portrayal of these societies as primitive hunter-gatherers using only dugout canoes. These boats were capable of long voyages, facilitating trade routes that spanned vast distances . This evidence suggests a need to reconsider the conventional view of “hunter-gatherer” societies, acknowledging their skills as both traders and innovators in maritime engineering. (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

The Oldest Boatyard: Catamarans and Maritime Mastery

Further bolstering the argument for advanced prehistoric maritime capabilities is the discovery of what has been called the “Oldest Boat Yard in the World” in Wales. Initially, archaeologists interpreted channels at the site as evidence of dugout canoe construction dating back 4,000 years. However, a more critical analysis, aided by LiDAR mapping and BGS data, revealed that these channels were part of a slipway for catamarans, not canoes. This is a crucial distinction, as the use of catamarans with outriggers is a remarkable engineering feat not recognized in the Western world until the 16th century. (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

The boatyard’s slipway is associated with the transport of large stones. This suggests that these vessels were designed for moving heavy materials over water. The site’s dating has been revised to the Mesolithic period, around 8,000 BCE when it is believed that bluestones were transported to Stonehenge Phase 1. This dating aligns with the presence of Mesolithic tools found at the site. (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

These findings at the boatyard further demonstrate the technological sophistication of prehistoric societies. Instead of simple dugout canoes, they were using complex vessels designed for long-distance travel and the transport of heavy loads . This undermines the idea of a slow and linear progression of technology and civilization, suggesting instead a more nuanced path with peaks and troughs of invention. (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

Radiocarbon Dating and the True Timeline of Megaliths

The traditional narrative of megalithic construction in Europe is also under scrutiny thanks to a comprehensive study that analyzed over 2,410 radiocarbon dates. This study, which employed Bayesian statistical modeling, concluded that megalithic construction originated in northwestern France around 4500 BCE and spread primarily through maritime networks. The study emphasizes the importance of coastal communities as key nodes in this cultural transmission, highlighting the advanced navigational and organizational skills of prehistoric Europeans. (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

However, the study’s reliance on Bayesian analysis has faced critique for its inability to accurately identify original construction dates . Bayesian mathematics tends to average dates, which can skew results toward the midpoint and obscure the actual timeline of a site’s origin, particularly when dates span millennia. Reconstructing the radiocarbon data to focus on the earliest securely dated contexts, reveals that Carnac in France, not Stonehenge, is the oldest megalithic complex, dating to approximately 4500 BCE . (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

This revised data indicates that Stonehenge and other similar structures formed part of a network of early monuments reflecting regional variations and migrations of prehistoric cultures. This revised dating places construction thousands of years earlier than what has been previously presented. Mesolithic hearths at the bluestone quarries, Stonehenge’s old car park, and even beneath Stone 10 in the center circle consistently point to an 8300 BCE construction date. This challenges the traditional narrative that dates megalithic monuments to 5000 years later. The statistical probability of these dates aligning with Mesolithic features by chance is exceedingly low, supporting the idea of a Mesolithic origin for Stonehenge .

Implications for Prehistoric Migration and Trade

The implications of these findings are profound. The einkorn wheat discovery, the oldest boatyard, and the revised dating of megalithic sites collectively dismantle the “migration model” as the sole explanation for the spread of agriculture and culture in prehistoric Europe. Instead, the evidence suggests:

Sophisticated Maritime Trade: Prehistoric societies were not isolated, but rather engaged in extensive maritime trade networks that facilitated the exchange of goods, ideas, and technologies across vast distances.
Advanced Seafaring Capabilities: The use of planked boats and catamarans demonstrates a high level of maritime skill and technology, enabling long voyages.
Pre-Agricultural Networks: Trade routes likely predated the spread of farming, with the movement of people emerging as a byproduct of established trading activities.
Mesolithic Origins of Megaliths: Megalithic monuments such as Stonehenge and Carnac were built thousands of years earlier than previously believed during the Mesolithic period’

These findings also challenge the notion of a linear progression of culture and technology. The existence of catamarans and complex trade networks in the Mesolithic period shows that societies were capable of advanced innovation and development much earlier than previously thought. (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

Reevaluating the Narrative

The persistent adherence to the outdated “migration model” has led to the misinterpretation and dismissal of crucial evidence . For example, discoveries at the Craig Rhos-y-Felin quarries, where bluestones for Stonehenge were sourced, reveal Mesolithic carbon dates that suggest a much earlier period of human activity than the Neolithic dates that were emphasized in reports Similarly, Mesolithic post holes discovered at the old car park at Stonehenge were dismissed as totem poles from unrelated hunter-gatherers, rather than being recognized as potential evidence of early activity at the site.

These examples underscore a reluctance within some archaeological circles to reconsider established narratives, even when faced with contradictory data. This highlights the need for more open and unbiased research approaches that prioritize the accurate interpretation of our past . As more evidence emerges, it becomes clear that the traditional academic framework for understanding early farming and trade in Europe is inadequate. (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

The Need for a Paradigm Shift

The einkorn wheat discovery at Bouldnor Cliff, the oldest boatyard in Wales, the revised dating of megalithic sites, and the evidence of sophisticated maritime trade collectively call for a paradigm shift in archaeological thought . It’s time to move beyond the simplistic “migration model” and embrace a more nuanced understanding of prehistoric societies that recognizes their ingenuity, interconnectedness, and advanced technological capabilities. (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

By embracing these new perspectives, we can:

Acknowledge the complexity of prehistoric societies: Recognize that societies were not solely defined by their subsistence strategies (hunter-gatherer vs. farmer), but were capable of innovation and complex social and economic interactions.
Reconsider the role of maritime activity: Acknowledge the crucial role of seafaring in the transmission of goods, ideas, and technologies throughout prehistoric Europe.
Embrace new dating methods: Be cautious about relying on Bayesian statistical modeling, and incorporate alternative methods for determining construction dates and timelines.
Promote open-mindedness in archaeological research: Encourage a more thorough and unbiased approach to data interpretation, where findings are not dismissed simply because they contradict established narratives.

In conclusion, the discoveries at Bouldnor Cliff, the oldest boatyard, and the radiocarbon dating of megaliths are not isolated anomalies. Instead, they form part of a larger pattern of evidence that challenges our understanding of prehistoric Europe and the “migration model” that has been used to explain the diffusion of agriculture and cultural practices’ This new evidence reveals sophisticated maritime trade networks, advanced seafaring capabilities, and the Mesolithic origins of monumental architecture, demonstrating the need for a more nuanced and accurate understanding of our shared history.

The evidence provided strongly supports the hypothesis that the site at Stonehenge was constructed at the same time as Carnac in France in the 9th millennium BCE. This places the construction of these sites thousands of years before the arrival of farming communities in Britain, demonstrating a more complex history and interconnectedness of European sites, and reinforces the evidence that the current hypothesis on migrations is wrong. This also strongly supports the idea that these sites were built by seafarers rather than farmers who moved across Europe. (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

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. (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

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 Camelot. (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

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. (The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

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.

(The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

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 Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

Archaeology: Fact or Fiction?

Posted on January 18, 2025 by admin

Introduction

The Crisis in Archaeology: Why a Once-Respected Discipline is Losing Its Way

Archaeology, the study of human history and prehistory through excavation and analysis, is facing a credibility crisis. Once a vital link to the past, the discipline is increasingly met with scepticism, with its findings often dismissed as speculative or even fictional. This erosion of trust and academic relevance arises from flawed methodologies, resistance to new technologies, and a culture prioritising sensationalism over rigorous scientific inquiry. This article examines the core issues contributing to archaeology’s challenges and explores potential solutions to restore its integrity. (Archaeology: fact or fiction? )

Subjectivity vs. Scientific Rigour

Why Archaeology is a dying discipline? Archaeology: Fact or Fiction? — (Archaeology: fact or fiction? )

One major criticism of archaeology is its inherent subjectivity. Unlike pure sciences that rely on quantitative data and mathematical models, archaeology often interprets incomplete and degraded evidence, such as artefacts and structures. This reliance on fragmentary data makes definitive conclusions difficult and opens the discipline to claims of speculation. (Archaeology: fact or fiction? )

Interpretative Bias

Archaeological findings are frequently influenced by the archaeologist’s perspective, leading to multiple, sometimes conflicting narratives. These narratives can vary based on cultural background, theoretical framework, or even personal bias. The result is that possibilities are often presented as certainties, creating a misleading view of the past. (Archaeology: Fact or Fiction? )

Lack of Reproducibility

In scientific disciplines, reproducibility is a cornerstone of credibility. However, archaeological findings are often unique to specific sites and cannot be replicated. For example, interpreting an artefact’s purpose or an ancient structure’s use often relies on context that cannot be recreated, making it difficult to validate conclusions through independent studies. (Archaeology: fact or fiction? )

Emphasis on Probability

Archaeology operates in probabilities, where conclusions are based on the most likely scenarios rather than certainties. While this approach is a pragmatic necessity given the fragmentary nature of evidence, it contrasts sharply with the definitive proof or disproof found in pure sciences. This can make archaeology appear less rigorous and more speculative. (Archaeology: fact or fiction? )

Resistance to New Technologies

The reluctance of some archaeologists to adopt new technologies is a significant factor in the discipline’s struggles. While methods like GIS, LiDAR, stable isotope analysis, and Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) dating have revolutionised the field, resistance to integrating these into traditional studies persists. This often stems from an overreliance on older methodologies or scepticism about newer techniques. (Archaeology: fact or fiction? )

LiDAR Technology

LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) provides unparalleled accuracy in studying landscapes by using laser technology to create detailed topographical maps. For instance, a comprehensive LiDAR survey of Offa’s Dyke revealed new insights into its construction and purpose. Despite these advancements, some archaeologists continue to rely on outdated observational methods, ignoring the transformative potential of LiDAR. (Archaeology: fact or fiction? )

OSL Dating

OSL dating offers critical information about the last exposure of sediments to sunlight, providing insights into site usage and artefact burial timelines. Despite its potential to reshape our understanding of archaeological sites, there are instances where OSL findings are dismissed or underutilised. This is often due to a preference for traditional carbon dating methods or a reluctance to challenge established narratives.(Archaeology: fact or fiction? )

Integration Challenges

Part of the resistance to new technologies lies in integrating them into existing curricula and research frameworks. Many archaeologists are trained in traditional methodologies and lack exposure to advanced techniques during their education. Bridging this gap requires significant investment in training and resources, which some institutions are hesitant to provide.(Archaeology: fact or fiction? )

Funding, Egos, and Sensationalism

The competitive nature of academia exacerbates the challenges facing archaeology. With limited funding opportunities, researchers often prioritise sensationalism to attract grants and media attention. This focus on bold claims over meticulous research undermines the discipline’s credibility.(Archaeology: fact or fiction? )

Ego-Driven Research

The egos of prominent archaeologists can create a toxic environment where rivalry replaces collaboration. In some cases, this leads to premature announcements of discoveries that have not been thoroughly investigated. The rush to claim credit for significant findings can result in flawed interpretations and missed opportunities for peer review. (Archaeology: fact or fiction? )

Sensationalised Interpretations

Archaeologists sometimes present sensationalised interpretations of findings to secure funding or public interest. For example, media coverage of Cheddar Man’s DNA analysis led to exaggerated and often inaccurate reconstructions of his appearance. These narratives, while engaging, usually lack the scientific rigour necessary for credibility. (Archaeology: fact or fiction? )

Ignoring Contradictory Evidence

In some instances, evidence that challenges established theories is disregarded to preserve favoured interpretations. For example, carbon dates from Stonehenge’s quarries suggest activity as early as 8500 BCE, far earlier than traditional timelines. Rather than re-evaluating these findings, they are often dismissed or overlooked. (Archaeology: fact or fiction? )

Misinterpretations of Key Sites

The reluctance to embrace new methods and the tendency to prioritise established narratives have led to significant misinterpretations of key archaeological sites. These errors hinder our understanding of history and contribute to the discipline’s credibility crisis. (Archaeology: fact or fiction? )

Stonehenge

Stonehenge is traditionally dated to the Neolithic period, approximately 3000-2000 BCE. However, earlier carbon dating evidence suggests the site’s construction may have begun as far back as 8500 BCE. Additionally, the widely accepted theory that the stones were dragged over land ignores the challenges posed by the landscape’s steep drops and river valleys. Alternative explanations, such as the use of waterways, remain underexplored. (Archaeology: fact or fiction? )

Iron Age Hill Forts

Over 3,300 sites in Britain are classified as “Iron Age hill forts,” despite limited evidence to support this designation. Many of these sites lack indications of fortification, such as mass graves or signs of warfare. This misclassification stifles further research into their true purpose and period. (Archaeology: fact or fiction? )

Linear Earthworks

Features like dykes are often attributed to the Saxon period based on their names. However, LiDAR studies suggest these structures are much older and likely served as transport routes rather than defensive boundaries. Discoveries such as a Roman barge at Car Dyke support the theory that these earthworks were prehistoric canals rather than fortifications. (Archaeology: fact or fiction? )

Woodhenge

The traditional interpretation of Woodhenge as a single-story house or an arrangement of tree stumps fails to account for the size of the postholes. Recent excavations indicate that the original posts were far larger, suggesting a more imposing structure. Furthermore, the dating of Woodhenge is based on unrelated antler and bone fragments, with many posthole samples untested or lost. (Archaeology: fact or fiction? )

The Impact of Post-Glacial Flooding

BGS Flood Map (Archaeology: fact or fiction? ) — BGS Flood Map – (Archaeology: fact or fiction? )

Post-glacial flooding, which submerged large parts of Britain after the last Ice Age, has been overlooked in many archaeological analyses. These waterways were essential for transportation and construction, yet their significance is often underestimated. For instance, linear earthworks like Wansdyke may have functioned as prehistoric canals rather than defensive structures. A better understanding of hydrology is needed to interpret these features accurately. (Archaeology: fact or fiction? )

The Peer-Review Process

While essential for maintaining scientific rigour, the peer-review process can also hinder progress in archaeology. Slow review times and resistance to new ideas often delay the dissemination of groundbreaking research. Critics argue that the discipline’s adherence to outdated methodologies and theories creates an environment hostile to innovation. This resistance to change has been likened to ideological dogmatism, where new evidence is met with outright denial rather than critical evaluation. (Archaeology: fact or fiction? )

Accessibility and Public Engagement

The language used in academic journals is often dense and inaccessible to the general public. This disconnect limits public understanding and engagement with archaeology. Efforts to bridge this gap through public education initiatives and accessible publications are crucial for fostering a broader appreciation of the discipline. (Archaeology: fact or fiction? )

Specific Examples of Flawed Practices

archaeological pulp fiction (Archaeology: fact or fiction? ) — (Archaeology: fact or fiction? )

Craig Rhos-y-Felin

Reports on this site have been criticised for inconsistencies and selective use of data. For example, carbon dates suggesting activity as far back as 5620 BCE were largely ignored, and tool marks indistinguishable between Mesolithic and Neolithic periods were overlooked. These omissions undermine the credibility of interpretations. (Archaeology: fact or fiction? )

Waun Mawn

A BBC documentary linking Waun Mawn to Stonehenge relied on flawed methods, such as photogrammetry requiring impractical vertical stone movements. Additionally, OSL samples were collected without ensuring uncontaminated conditions, further compromising the findings. (Archaeology: fact or fiction? )

Professor Ray’s Journey

Attempts to recreate the transport of Stonehenge’s bluestones by foot failed to account for the region’s geographical challenges. The reliance on modern roads and disregard for natural obstacles rendered the experiment unrealistic and uninformative.

The Path Forward

The issues facing archaeology are complex but not insurmountable. By adopting an evidence-based, interdisciplinary approach, the discipline can restore its credibility and continue to illuminate humanity’s shared history.

Embrace New Technologies

Integrating advanced techniques like LiDAR, OSL, and GIS into research and education is essential for improving accuracy and efficiency.

Promote Interdisciplinary Collaboration

Collaboration with hydrology, geology, and climate science fields can provide a more comprehensive understanding of ancient environments and landscapes.

Strengthen Scientific Rigour

Archaeology must prioritise empirical data and mathematical models over subjective interpretation. This includes using statistical analysis to validate hypotheses and revisiting established theories in light of new evidence.

Encourage Critical Analysis

The peer-review process should welcome new ideas and foster critical debate rather than suppress dissenting views. Openness to challenging established narratives is vital for progress.

Enhance Public Engagement

Making research more accessible through public education, open discussions, and simplified publications can bridge the gap between archaeologists and the wider community.

Reduce Sensationalism

Resisting the temptation to prioritise media appeal over scientific validation is crucial for rebuilding trust in the discipline. Findings should be thoroughly vetted before being presented to the public.

Conclusion

Archaeology stands at a crossroads. Its credibility has been undermined by resistance to new methods, subjective interpretation, sensationalism, and external pressures. However, by addressing these challenges, the discipline can regain trust and respect, ensuring its continued relevance in uncovering and understanding our shared human past.

Briefing Document: Re-evaluating Prehistoric Britain

Introduction

This document summarises key themes and arguments presented in a series of blog posts and a PDF document, all focusing on Prehistoric Britain. The sources challenge mainstream archaeological interpretations, proposing alternative explanations for various historical phenomena and highlighting the limitations of current research methodologies. A central figure throughout these documents is Robert John Langdon” who presents many of the alternative theories and claims to be challenging mainstream, accepted archaeology with these claims.

Key Themes and Ideas:

Prehistoric Canals and Linear Earthworks (Dykes):

Main Argument: Linear earthworks, traditionally considered defensive boundaries or political markers (like Offa’s Dyke and Wansdyke), were primarily prehistoric canals used for transportation and trade.
Evidence:LiDAR analysis revealing the scale and engineering of these earthworks, suggesting their suitability for water conveyance.
The discovery of a canal ditch in the Wansdyke earthwork that is “twice as big as the Victorian canal,” suggesting sophisticated hydrological knowledge and engineering.
The existence of Roman barges at Car Dyke indicates that many of the dykes are pre-Saxon.
The East Wansdyke being far more substantial, with deeper ditches and wider banks, further supports its use as a waterway, as West Wansdyke appears to be a later, possibly Roman, road extension. As the source material states, “Excavations conclusively show that the Ditches on the East side of Wansdyke are much more profound and twice as broad. In contrast, the Banks on the East Side are much wider.“
The connection between these ‘canal’ earthworks and barrows and flint pits, which is seen in the East but not the West, further supports the theory that the East portion is older.
Challenged Ideas: Refutes the traditional narrative that these dykes were defensive structures. “Many people have dismissed my theory, but I have not let that stop me.“

Mesolithic Seafaring and Early Boats:

Main Argument: Evidence suggests boats were in use much earlier than conventionally believed, possibly as far back as 10,000 years ago.
Evidence:Discovery of 10,000-year-old boats on British hillsides challenges traditional dating of boat construction.
Discussion of coracles and their capacity for sea travel, posing the question of early sea exploration. “Furthermore, radiocarbon dating evidence suggests that sea travel may have been invented much earlier than previously thought.“

The Problem of “Iron Age Forts”:

Main Argument: Many structures labeled “Iron Age hill forts” are misclassified. These sites lack clear evidence of defense, such as mass graves, implying they served other purposes. As the source material notes, “All sites that sit on top of hills and have ditches are called Iron Age Forts – sadly I have yet to find a single location that is either ‘Iron Age’ or a ‘Fortification’ as not a single dead body from slaying has ever been found and all the so called defensive ditches EVER!!“
Evidence:The lack of defensive remains at these sites.
The classification stifles further research into the true purpose of these structures.
Challenged Ideas: The widely accepted idea that many hilltop sites in Britain were military defenses in the Iron Age.

Roman Ports and Shifting Coastlines:

Main Argument: Roman ports located far inland indicate significant sea-level changes or different hydrological conditions, possibly fed by freshwater rivers rather than the sea.
Evidence:Examples of Roman ports like Brading and Lewes, now inland, due to what is assumed to be rising sea levels.
The silting of harbours like Ephesus.
Questions whether the Lewes harbour was once fed by freshwater rather than seawater.

Raised Beaches and Post-Glacial Activity:

Main Argument: Raised beaches are better explained by falling sea levels or past tsunami events, rather than solely by isostatic rebound.
Evidence:Alternative explanations for raised beach formation, including tsunami theory and falling sea levels. “Geologists have come up with a complex explanation for raised beaches, but a more straightforward reason is that they form when sea levels fall, leaving beaches exposed and stranded above the new sea level.“
Discussion of the Storegga slide and its potential impact.
Rejection of the idea that deposits are due to post-glacial flooding.

Giant Skeletons and Early Human Populations:

Main Argument: Claims that giant skeletons were dismissed by modern science. This suggests that prior human species existed that were larger than humans as they exist now.
Evidence:The dismissing of giant skeleton findings found by French Archaeologists

Ancient Knowledge and Weather Patterns:

Main Argument: Prehistoric people in Britain had knowledge of severe weather patterns (including tornadoes) and constructed underground shelters in response.
Evidence:The existence of “souterrains” and fogous.
Historical records of severe storms such as the “Grote Mandrenke” in 1362 and a tornado in 1091.

Mythological Dragons as Reality:

Main Argument: The global presence of dragon mythology across diverse cultures suggests a possible shared experience with a real, now-extinct animal or some other ‘real’ experience.
Evidence:The presence of dragon mythologies across different cultures.

Doggerland/Atlantis and a Lost Civilization:

Main Argument: The sunken land of Doggerland in the North Sea may be linked to Plato’s account of Atlantis. This suggests a potential “world’s oldest and greatest civilisation” existed in the area.
Evidence:Plato’s account of Atlantis is debated due to its potential connection to the flooded land of Doggerland

Alexander the Great and Ancient Waterways:

Main Argument: Alexander’s campaign into India was facilitated by waterways that no longer exist, rather than solely over land.
Evidence:The proposal that Alexander used waterways that were larger in the past, leading to India. “Traditionally, Alexander’s route was seen as a march over barren land, but a photojournalist suggests he used waterways that were larger in the past.“

Challenging Mainstream Archaeology:

Main Argument: Mainstream archaeology is flawed, often biased by preconceived notions and hampered by a resistance to alternative interpretations, often referred to as “bad science.”
Evidence:The classification of many sites as “Iron Age hill forts” despite a lack of evidence.
The misinterpretations and censorship of archaeological findings.
The slow adoption of new technology, such as LiDAR, and new perspectives.
The continued misinterpretations of ancient measurements.
Specific criticism of academics who use peer review to validate and propogate errors. As the source material notes “Previous peer-reviewed works have perpetuated the same mistakes, making them socially acceptable in archaeology.“

Stonehenge Transportation:

Main Argument: The stones used in Stonehenge were likely transported primarily via waterways, rather than overland, as mainstream archaeology suggests.
Evidence: The difficulty in transporting the stones overland, given the landscape.
Logistical assessments of stone transportation, indicating that overland movement is unlikely, and that using water is far more feasible. As the source material states, “The number of Rivers are immense and would have been larger than today!“
Calculations of workforce, materials and time needed for moving bluestones with boats as opposed to overland transportation.
Challenged Ideas: The prevailing idea that stones were hauled by sledges over land, ignoring the difficulties posed by terrain.
The Use of LiDAR TechnologyMain Argument: LiDAR technology has revolutionised and will continue to transform our understanding of Prehistoric Britain.
Evidence: The consistent referral to the use of LiDAR technology in various claims throughout the source material.

Contradictions and Questions:

The sources present a clear bias against mainstream archaeology, often framing it as deliberately flawed or resistant to new evidence.
Some of the arguments are speculative and may rely on interpretations of the evidence and logic more than concrete proof.
The sources often conflate multiple lines of evidence to support a singular conclusion, which might make it difficult to verify.

Concluding Thoughts:

These sources provide an interesting challenge to conventional historical accounts of Prehistoric Britain. They raise valid concerns about the limitations of current archaeological practices and push for re-evaluation using new technologies and interdisciplinary approaches. However, it’s important to approach these alternative interpretations with a critical eye and note that they are often based on a revisionist point of view. Further research and scrutiny will be needed to validate the claims made. The use of LiDAR and other advanced technologies to gather new evidence should also be given further scrutiny.

Exploring Prehistoric Britain: A Journey Through Time

(The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

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 Antler Pick Hoax

Posted on January 15, 2025 by admin

Introduction

Antler picks, primarily derived from red deer, are frequently cited in archaeological narratives as essential tools used by prehistoric societies for monumental construction and large-scale ditch digging. These tools, often uncovered in association with ancient sites, have been instrumental in dating some of Britain’s most iconic Neolithic and Bronze Age monuments. Despite their prominence in archaeological interpretation, the reliance on antler picks to date sites raises significant methodological and evidentiary concerns. This blog explores the challenges surrounding using antler picks as dating tools, questioning the robustness of current hypotheses. (The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

The Archaeological Evidence Presented Currently

The discovery of antler picks at sites such as Stonehenge, Cissbury Ring, and other prehistoric monuments has long been interpreted as evidence of their use in earth-moving activities. Often found in ditch fills or nearby deposits, these tools have been subjected to radiocarbon dating, providing approximate ages for the associated construction phases.

For example, antler picks are frequently cited as evidence of early activity at Cissbury Ring, a large Iron Age hillfort in Sussex. Radiocarbon dating of these tools has been instrumental in suggesting Neolithic origins for certain phases of the site’s development (Prehistoric Britain). Similarly, the association of antler picks with the construction of henges and other significant monuments has shaped narratives about labour organisation and the technological capabilities of prehistoric communities. (The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

The Problems with This Hypothesis

While the presence of antler picks at archaeological sites is indisputable, their use as definitive evidence for dating or construction activities is fraught with challenges:

Bronze Age Dates for Antler Picks vs. Mesolithic Site Radiocarbon Dates: Many antler picks found at these sites have Bronze Age radiocarbon dates, yet the broader site contexts often yield earlier Mesolithic dates. This disparity suggests that antler picks may have been deposited much later than the initial construction of these monuments. The mismatch in dates raises questions about their relevance to the primary phases of monument construction.
Antler Picks in Abandoned Mines: Evidence from flint mines, such as Cissbury Ring, suggests that antler picks may have been used in later, opportunistic foraging rather than during the primary phases of mining. This pattern aligns with examples from South Africa, where scavengers using inefficient tools later reopened abandoned gold mines. These scavengers left isolated tool marks and scattered debris, much like the occasional antler pick marks in chalk mines.
Localised and Isolated Marks: If antler picks were the primary tools for excavation, one would expect to find consistent and widespread marks in ditches and mining walls. Instead, the marks attributed to antler picks are often localised and inconsistent, suggesting they were the efforts of scavengers rather than evidence of systematic use in construction.

(The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

Lack of Evidence in Large Ditches

Large ditches, such as those found at henges and causewayed enclosures, are often attributed to the labour-intensive use of antler picks. However, there is a conspicuous absence of direct evidence supporting this hypothesis. Excavations of these features frequently reveal profiles with sharp, clean edges inconsistent with the marks expected from antler tools.

The scale of these ditches also presents a logistical challenge. For instance, the ditches at Avebury and Durrington Walls span several metres in width and depth. The volume of earth removed from such features would have required a level of labour coordination and tool efficiency that antler picks alone seem ill-suited to provide. Moreover, at Avebury, human bones outnumber antler picks in the excavation layers, raising further doubts about the reliance on these tools for large-scale construction. (The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

The Lack of Antler Pick Marks in Ditches

One of the most striking issues is the lack of discernible antler pick marks in the profiles of excavated ditches. If antler picks were the primary digging tools, one would expect to find characteristic striations or impressions consistent with their use. However, such marks are rarely, if ever, observed. Instead, isolated antler pick marks, often attributed to later scavenging activity, align with opportunistic rather than systematic tool use.

This discrepancy has led some researchers to speculate that other tools or methods—such as wooden spades, teamwork, or even fire to soften the ground—may have been employed. The reliance on antler picks as the sole or primary digging tools may represent an oversimplification of prehistoric technological practices. (The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

(The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

The Role of Other Tools in Prehistoric Excavation

In addition to antler picks, tools such as stone axes, wooden spades, and even simple digging sticks were likely part of the prehistoric toolkit. Stone axes, for instance, are robust and capable of cutting through roots or chopping through more complex soils. Their durability and cutting power would make them a more practical choice for tasks requiring significant force or precision.

Although less durable, wooden spades could be used effectively in softer soils and may have been easier to manufacture in large quantities. Combined with teamwork and systematic labour organisation, these tools could have complemented antler picks in large-scale excavation projects. (The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

When comparing these tools, antler picks would not have been the most suitable choice for digging ditches as deep as 35 feet, such as those at Avebury. Stone axes offer superior strength and are less likely to break under pressure, while wooden spades provide a more ergonomic option for moving large amounts of soil. Antler picks, by contrast, are prone to wear and breakage, making them less efficient for sustained heavy labour. Their primary advantage lies in their availability and ease of manufacture rather than their effectiveness as digging tools. (The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

Comparison of Stone Axes and Antler Picks for Cutting Chalk Bedrock

Feature	Stone Axes	Antler Picks
Durability	High—capable of withstanding repeated impacts	Moderate—prone to wear and breakage
Effectiveness	Effective at cutting through chalk and harder soils	Limited effectiveness against hard chalk
Ease of Manufacture	Requires skill and time to produce	Easier to craft with available materials
Ergonomics	Heavier but provides better leverage for cutting	Lightweight but less effective for sustained effort
Suitability for Depth	Suitable for deeper excavation tasks	Unsuitable for large-scale, deep ditches
Overall Efficiency	Superior for cutting and excavation in hard materials	Inferior, best used as supplementary tools

Reassessing Radiocarbon Dates and Antler Pick Contexts

One of the most critical oversights in the current antler pick hypothesis is the radiocarbon dating of associated artefacts. While antler picks generally yield Bronze Age dates, the broader radiocarbon contexts of some sites, such as Avebury, suggest earlier Mesolithic activity. This disparity highlights the complexity of site stratigraphy and challenges the assumption that antler picks were contemporaneous with significant construction phases. (The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

Furthermore, the frequency of human bones in the excavation layers at Avebury surpasses that of antler picks, suggesting a ritualistic or commemorative aspect to these sites that is often overlooked. This pattern further diminishes the likelihood of antler picks as primary construction tools, reinforcing their probable role as opportunistic or supplementary implements.

(The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

New Hypotheses and Directions

Given the limitations of the antler pick theory, alternative hypotheses must be developed to explain the construction of monumental ditches:

Integrated Tool Use: A combination of wooden spades, stone tools, and fire-setting techniques could explain the efficiency and scale of prehistoric earthworks. This approach accounts for the lack of visible antler pick marks and the challenges of chalk bedrock.
Specialised Labour: Prehistoric societies may have organised labour into specialised teams, each equipped with tools suited to specific tasks, enhancing overall efficiency.
Ritual Contexts: Antler picks may reflect ritualistic deposition unrelated to practical construction, aligning with the broader symbolic landscape of prehistoric sites.
Temporal Layers of Activity: Recognising the complex, multi-phase use of sites can help untangle the chronological overlap between Mesolithic artefacts and later Neolithic or Bronze Age construction efforts.

By embracing multidisciplinary perspectives and exploring alternative hypotheses, researchers can construct a more accurate and nuanced understanding of Britain’s prehistoric past. This shift challenges outdated assumptions and opens new avenues for investigating the ingenuity and adaptability of ancient societies in creating their monumental landscapes.

The Neolithic Power Axe: Strength & Speed Gains vs the Antler-Pick Story

What makes this tool different from a modern axe?

Heavier head (stone, often ~2× a steel head).
Heavier handle (green/undried wood, not kiln-dried), so the whole tool weighs more.
Short, thick grip built for big hands and close control—more like a sledge than a DIY hatchet.

What that means in the hand (no jargon):
This setup puts much more load on the wrist and forearm. To swing at the same cadence with the same control as a modern 3.5-lb felling axe, a Neolithic user needed roughly 30–50% more wrist/forearm strength. That fits the Langdon‘s Megalithic Builder profile in my books (c. 6′6″, Cro-magnon, large hands/feet): these tools match bigger, stronger users.

Why head-only comparisons are misleading:
Axe performance is a system (head + haft + balance). Modern catalogue rules (“head lbs × 10 ≈ handle inches”) were tuned to lightweight steel heads and kiln-dried ash/hickory. They simply don’t apply to heavy stone heads on green-wood hafts with short, thick levers. The Neolithic design trades long, whippy swings for short-arc, high-impulse blows—superb control, higher local torque.

So what does this do on a real monument? (Avebury as the test)

Avebury’s ditch ≈ 96,000 m³ of chalk.
The antler-pick tale asks for ~1.5 million work-hours (≈ 15–16 h/m³).
Put real tools in the hands of robust users—hafted stone axes + wooden spades—and add the wet-ditch reality (high water table, flat-bottom profile → dredging rather than dry “mining”):
- Conservative (no water help): ~5 h/m³ → about 3× faster than antlers.
- With water assist (moat/dredge): ~2 h/m³ → up to 8× faster than antlers.

Bottom line for this section:
Neolithic builders were not poking chalk with antlers for years on end. They used heavy, close-balanced power axes that suit larger, stronger people—and, in a wet landscape, those tools collapse build times by a factor of 3–8. That’s why large earthworks and stone projects are logistically credible in the timeline we’ve set out.

Conclusion

The so-called “antler pick” narrative wilts under basic logistics, hydrology, and the toolset we actually see. There are nowhere near the numbers of antlers you’d need for industrial-scale ditching; most that are found aren’t pruned for heavy chalk work; and the ditch forms themselves (flat bottoms, standing water) say moat/dredge, not quarry face.

Set the story back on its feet:

The landscape is wet in the phases that matter. Water does half the labour if you understand it.
The tools are heavy, close-balanced axes with green-wood hafts and big grips—perfect for larger, stronger builders (the Langdon profile).
The productivity uplift is real: with proper tools and wet-ditch practice you move from ~15–16 h/m³ (antlers) to ~2–5 h/m³, i.e., 3–8× faster—turning “heroic myth” into practical engineering.
The timeline holds: these methods make Avebury- and Stonehenge-scale works achievable without fantasy headcounts or modern machinery.

The “Great Antler Pick Hoax” isn’t just about a bad tool; it’s about a bad model. Replace it with water-first engineering and Neolithic power tools built for big hands—and the megalithic world suddenly looks exactly as capable as the monuments they left behind.

(The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

Glossary of Key Terms

Antler Pick: A tool made from the shed antler of a red deer, traditionally believed to be used for digging and excavating in prehistoric times.
Bluestones: The smaller stones used in the construction of Stonehenge, originally from the Preseli Mountains in Wales.
Bronze Age: A period in human history, following the Stone Age, characterized by the use of bronze tools and weapons (traditionally dated in Britain as 2500-70 BCE).
Bur: The thickest part of the antler attached to the deer’s head.
Dyke: An artificial waterway, often with raised embankments and drainage systems, used to control water. This term has been reinterpreted by the authors as being a channel for transport.
Flint: A hard, grey rock used to make tools, weapons, and to start fires during the Neolithic period.
Flint Knapping: The process of shaping flint by striking flakes off the stone to make tools
Henge: A type of Neolithic monument, typically consisting of a circular bank and ditch, with an entrance.
Holocene: The current geological epoch, beginning about 11,700 years ago, following the end of the last Ice Age.
Iron Age: A period in human history following the Bronze age marked by the increased use of iron tools and weapons. In Britain it traditionally dates from 700 BCE to 43 CE.
LiDAR: (Light Detection and Ranging) Remote sensing technology that uses laser pulses to measure the distance to the earth’s surface, creating detailed maps.
Lynchets: Terraced formations on hillsides, traditionally associated with agriculture but reinterpreted as possible dykes used for water control.
Mesolithic Period: The Middle Stone Age, characterized by hunting and gathering societies.
Megalithic: Large stone structures, usually built during the Neolithic and Bronze Ages.
Neolithic Period: The New Stone Age, characterized by the development of agriculture and settled societies.
Paleochannel: A remnant of an ancient river or stream channel, often buried beneath sediment.
Post-Glacial Flooding: The concept of increased water levels that occurred after the last Ice Age, which had a significant effect on prehistoric landscapes and settlements.
Ramparts: Defensive walls, often made of earth, built around fortifications like hill forts.
Radiocarbon Dating: A method of dating organic materials by measuring the amount of the radioactive isotope carbon-14 present in the sample.
Tine: The pointed projections on a deer antler, specifically the brow, bez and trez.
Trez: The third tine on a deer antler.

(The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

Exploring Prehistoric Britain: A Journey Through Time

(The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

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 Antler Pick Hoax).

Extreme Weather & Ancient Subterranean Shelters

Posted on January 14, 2025 by admin

Introduction

The UK media has, in recent years, frequently showcased extreme weather events, emphasizing the devastation wrought on local communities and individuals. Such reporting is often supplemented with statistical analyses of rainfall amounts and wind speeds when it comes to flooding. The phrase “since records began” is strategically employed to underline the severity of these events, often subdividing the year into categories such as the wettest summer, winter, spring, or autumn.(Extreme Weather and Ancient Subterranean Shelters).

Somerset Flooding – (Extreme weather and Ancient Subterranean shelters)

However, it is worth noting that the Meteorological Office’s official records only date back to 1914. Describing any recent weather phenomenon as “record-breaking” can, therefore, create a misleading impression, inadvertently feeding narratives aligned with the “climate change” lobby and a “political agenda that has dominated our politics for the last 20 years.” While the England and Wales Precipitation series, which tracks rainfall and snow, dates back to 1766, and the Central England Temperature series has been maintained since 1659, these historical records, often compiled by amateur meteorologists, are frequently overlooked.

Consider this excerpt from Sky News in 2012: “England and Wales have seen the wettest summer for 100 years, according to MeteoGroup. Rainfall for June, July, and August was 362mm (14.25in), making it the wettest summer since 1912. The average summer rainfall across the UK is 226.9mm (8.9in).” MeteoGroup forecaster Nick Prebble stated, “This summer is set to be the fourth wettest since records began in 1727. The record for the UK’s wettest summer is 1912 when 384.4mm (15.1in) of rain fell.”

The Met Office added that this summer was also likely to be among the dullest on record, with only 399 hours of sunshine up to August 28, making it the least sunny since 1980. Sky News weather producer Joanna Robinson explained, “This is because the jet stream position over the summer has allowed areas of low pressure to track across the UK, when they would typically be steered further north.”

Yet, a closer examination of the statistics reveals a different picture. For example, while 2007—the second wettest summer since 1912—was a washout, its annual rainfall was far from record-breaking, ranking only 17th in the past century. Rainfall has fluctuated consistently over the last 250 years, with the most concentrated period between 1870 and 1880. This challenges the narrative that recent weather anomalies are unprecedented. (Extreme Weather and Ancient Subterranean Shelters)

Extreme Weather

The narrative around “changing” winds and gales also benefits from historical context. One of British history’s most devastating weather events was the ‘Grote Mandrenke’ or “the great drowning of men” in January 1362. This massive southwesterly gale swept across Europe, causing at least 25,000 deaths and widespread destruction. Churches with towers, such as the wooden spire of Norwich Cathedral, were notably affected. The storm surge it triggered reshaped the European coastline, devastating ports along the East Coast of England and across the North Sea.

Such events are far from isolated. Since the Mesolithic period after the last Ice Age, Britain’s inhabitants have faced much harsher conditions. The melting ice caps from the previous Ice Age released an astonishing volume of water—3.2 million millimetres—dwarfs any rainfall levels recorded in the past 250 years. This deluge shaped the landscape, creating riverbeds and flood plains that continue to influence flooding patterns today, such as the Somerset Levels.

Geological evidence further supports this. Maps from the British Geological Society (BGS) reveal networks of sediments—sand, silt, and gravel—underlying floodplains, remnants of ancient river systems. These so-called “dry river valleys” were likely formed during the melting phases of the Ice Age. However, the exact timing of their formation remains debated.

For instance, modern geologists have proposed that these valleys resulted from water flooding during post-Ice Age melting rather than being shaped by ice directly. This can be seen in regions like the South Downs and Stonehenge, where chalk bedrock and ancient sediments are prominent. Exposed cliff faces along the South Downs provide a cross-section of these prehistoric waterways, with sandy sediments embedded within chalk formations.

Yet, some mysteries persist. If these dry valleys are as ancient as suggested, why are 18 inches of topsoil still present today? This discrepancy raises questions about the accuracy of the dates attributed to these features and the rate of topsoil erosion. (Extreme Weather and Ancient Subterranean Shelters)

Archaeological evidence further aligns with this geological narrative. Ancient monuments like Woodhenge and Durrington Walls were strategically constructed near these floodplains, suggesting that Mesolithic communities were aware of the changing landscape and adapted their activities accordingly. They likely used the flooded plains as waterways to navigate and connect settlements.

Ultimately, the evidence points to a complex interplay of natural and historical factors influencing Britain’s weather patterns and landscape. While modern media often sensationalize extreme weather, a deeper understanding of historical context reveals that such events are neither unprecedented nor wholly attributable to recent climate changes. Instead, they are part of a long-standing narrative of adaptation and resilience in the face of environmental challenges. (Extreme Weather and Ancient Subterranean Shelters)

Durrington Walls

When you look at Durrington Walls, the first thing that strikes you is that it seems incomplete; it looks like a half-circle from aerial photographs, and from the ground you get, a sense of it only being half-finished. However, most illustrations include the easterly section because magnetometer surveys show that there are more ditches under the surface, although you might question their purpose, as it is not apparent. The easterly side of the site was clearly built much later than the original Westside. The East bank is smaller and does not match the initial ditch and moat specifications, which was roughly 5.5 m deep, 7 m wide at its bottom, and 18 m wide at the top. (Extreme weather and Ancient Subterranean shelters)

The bank was 30 m wide in some areas. The bank and ditch indicated by the magnetometer surveys are less than half that depth; the bank is only about a third of the size of that on the Northern side. The current theory and plan of Durrington Walls do not stand up to investigation, for clearly, the Eastern side of the camp was added later when the prehistoric groundwater had started to recede.

So what was its original use?

To answer that question, you must look at the site’s terrain, position and layout. The first thing that hits you is that the site is not flat! In fact, it’s a huge bowl.

Archaeologists say that it is a settlement, but anyone who goes camping will tell you not to pitch your tent on a slope, and for an excellent reason: you will wake up one morning covered in water, as when it rains, the water runs downhill! So, were our ancestors foolish? If this were an encampment, the houses would frequently flood from the rain.

Archaeologists will insist that, because they have found the foundations of a couple of roundhouses, the site must unquestionably be a settlement – this is because its position and shape dumbfound them. However, if we now add the higher prehistoric groundwater we have suggested, the site becomes a perfect natural harbour, with shallow sides for pulling boats ashore and a four-metre deep ravine in the port centre. Moreover, it still has 3m high external walls even six thousand years after it was abandoned, imagine it when it was first built, and you would be looking at a 5m tall, 30m wide chalk wall – equivalent to any harbour wall we see today that protect our ships from the occasional Gale and storms.

Woodhenge has two entrances: one directed towards Durrington Walls camp and, more importantly, a mysterious second entrance that trails to our ancient shoreline. This is a clear indication that groundwater was present at Woodhenge during prehistoric times. Not only would it explain the strange shape of the camp, but also the magnetometer survey showing a ditch dug after the groundwater had fallen over the years. Even more interesting is how the landscape reflected the receding shoreline over 5,000 years at this site. The present-day minor road runs along the course of the ancient shoreline circa 6,000 BCE

We should not be too surprised by this, as lakeshores and coastlines still have paths along with them today so that we can fully enjoy them. There is no reason to believe that prehistoric people did any different 8,000 years ago, and such a path would also have a practical purpose as the shorelines were used as a mooring site. If we are correct about the road and the mooring points, is it possible to find post holes here under the ground?

Unbelievably, the answer is yes!

Wainwright, in his excavations of Durrington Walls, discovered lots of them. Without a shoreline, the post holes would look random and not make much sense. However, as soon as the groundwater flooding is added, their function becomes apparent: they held mooring posts, as that is the natural landing area for boats coming to and from Stonehenge, Avebury or Old Sarum. But are there other sites that have walls to protect them from the weather? (Extreme Weather and Ancient Subterranean Shelters)

Avebury

Avebury lies in an area of chalkland in the Upper Kennet Valley, at the Western end of the Berkshire Downs, which forms the catchment for the River Kennet and supports local springs and seasonal watercourses. The monument stands slightly above the local landscape, sitting on a low chalk ridge 160 m (520 ft) above sea level; to the East are the Marlborough Downs, an area of lowland hills. Archaeologists freely admit that the history of Avebury before the construction of the henge is uncertain because little datable evidence has emerged from modern excavations. However, stray finds of flints at Avebury, dated between 7,000 and 4,000 BCE; indicate that the site was visited in the late Mesolithic period.

Post Glacial Flooding ten thousand years ago left a landscape rendered unrecognisable by groundwater, as the Avebury Circle almost becomes an island, with a large freshwater river running to the West of the site. When the groundwater started to recede, our ancestors tried to keep their monument an island by adding ditches with large banks. Current archaeological estimates suggest that it took 1.5 million working hours to build the Avebury monument.

In simple terms, that’s 200 people working full-time for three to four years. Which sadly contradicts another estimation of nearby working hours Silbury Hill, which contains 248,000 cubic metres of chalk, and would have taken 18 million working hours to construct? That’s equivalent to 500 people working full-time for 15 years. However, we are expected to believe that Aveburys 125,000 cubic metres of chalk took just 1.5 million working hours to move. (Extreme weather and Ancient Subterranean shelters)

This is just another fact that does not make sense! –

There is just no consistency in archaeological findings; it’s all subjective, and quite frankly, wrong!

It’s more likely that these monuments grew over the course of centuries, slowly but surely, the ditches starting at just one metre but getting deeper over the next 5,000 years as the moat was cleaned out until they reached their final dimensions of 11 metres deep and 22 metres wide. This gradual process would explain another archaeological mystery that the ‘experts’ avoid – with what tools were they built?

Moreover, the most exciting aspect of this excavated ‘chalk mountain’ is that we can use it to understand why it was built. We know the original height of the chalk bank as we know how much chalk was removed from the ditch in front of the mound. On average, the ditch is 11m deep and 22m wide – which means that for every metre excavated, 132m² was transferred to the bank. The chalk mound is much narrower than the ditch from which it was excavated; therefore, the bank would be higher than the ditches’ depth. My calculation shows that the bank would be, therefore, 15m high at least but as the chalk in the ground had been compressed over time, and the bank would have contained more air gaps, the likelihood is that the bank was 20m high at the time of completion. (Extreme Weather and Ancient Subterranean Shelters)

So why take so much time and effort to build a 15m high wall?

Some archaeologists suggest it was a ‘defensive’ feature keeping out marauding tribes. However, the wall is on the wrong side of the ditch and would assist attackers rather than help the defenders of this site. As we have seen just down the road at Durrington, they have placed a high wall on the outside of the interior of the camp to protect boats from the wind and storms, like a modern harbour. Confronted by this paradox, ‘confused‘ archaeologists reverted to the standard theme that these walls were constructed for ‘ceremonial’ reasons. Which I can only imagine has something to do with the God of pointless constructions and practices?

Again as we pointed out at Durrington, these walls are seen in current harbours to protect boats from storms, showing us that our inclement weather is not unique to this current period.

But was the weather much worse than today?

Gales that historically ravaged our lands were probably more significant and more devastating in the past, which can be seen from the shelters they built to shelter from these infrequent storms.(Extreme Weather and Ancient Subterranean Shelters)

Subterranean Shelters

According to Wikipedia

Souterrain (from French ‘sous terrain’, meaning ‘under ground’) is a name given by archaeologists to a type of underground structure associated mainly with the Atlantic Iron Age. These structures appear to have been brought northwards from Gaul during the late Iron Age. Regional names include earth houses, fogous and Pictish houses. The term souterrain has been used as a distinct term from fogou. In Cornwall, the regional name of fogou is applied to souterrain structures. The design of underground structures has been shown to differ among regions; for example, in western Cornwall, the design and function of the fogou appear to correlate with a larder use.

Souterrains are often referred to locally in Ireland simply as ‘caves’. A.T. Lucas, folklorist and Director of the National Museum of Ireland in the 1960s, published a study of the references to souterrains in the early Irish annals. An article by Warner on the archaeology of souterrains, although published 35 years ago, is still possibly the best general overview of the subject. The most comprehensive study of Irish souterrains is Clinton’s 2001 work, containing chapters on distribution, associated settlements, function, finds, chronology and no less than thirteen appendices on various structural aspects of souterrains themselves.

The name comes from the French language, which means “underground passageway.” It is sometimes used to mean ‘basement’ in languages other than English, especially in warehouses.

Souterrains are underground galleries and, in their early stages, were consistently associated with a settlement. The galleries were dug out and then lined with stone slabs or wood before being reburied. In cases where they were cut into the rock, this was not always necessary. They do not appear to have been used for burial or ritual purposes, and it has been suggested that they were food stores or hiding places during times of strife, although some of them would have had very obvious entrances.

In Ireland, they are often found inside or close to a ringfort and are thought to be mainly contemporary with them, making them somewhat later in date than in other countries. This date is reinforced by many examples where ogham stones, dating to around the sixth century, have been reused as roofing lintels or doorposts, most notably at the widened natural limestone fissure at the ‘cave of the cats’ in Rathcrogan. Their distribution is very uneven in Ireland, with the most notable concentration centred on County

The first thing that strikes you as strange is the fact that these landscape features are categorised with different names in different locations:

Earth Houses – Modern use

Fogous – Cornwall

Pictish Houses – Found in Scotland

Confusion arises here as some are only partially subterranean unlike the Earth Houses in the same region.

Caves – Ireland

It’s quite literally an archaeological mess. And the reason for this mess is those archaeologists don’t understand why they were built, so they gave them local names, unlike barrows and Stone circles and henges, which appear in the same areas but with a unified name to save confusion. So how what can we find out about these structures that will help us understand why they were built?

Location, Location, Location

If we look at the minimal archaeological evidence, we do see a defined pattern of construction. For example, in Cornwall, we have found to date a collection of fifteen ‘fogous’. According to archaeologists, this is a proposed use for fogous, a refuge during raiding trips as they are close to the sea. Sadly, if you search deeper, you see them in non-coastal areas and even in the middle of Dartmoor (Lade Hill Brook), where it’s called a Beehive Hut?

The problem with looking for such objects in Devon is that hundreds of ‘caves’ dotted around from the days of tin mining, and therefore an almost impossible to distinguish a prehistoric mine opening from a fogou.

Apart from the extreme South West of Britain, these subterranean shelters do not exist – but what of the coast of Cornwall? In prehistoric times the sea level was some 65m lower than today, and the Isle of Scilly was connected to the mainland – is there anything on these islands that could be considered a fogou?

Carn Gwavel Farm in St Marys is an underground chamber-like corbelled passage that has an `S-shaped’ curve throughout its length, which is 4.97 metres long by 1.18 metres wide and 1.18 metres high. Some roof slabs have collapsed near the northeast end of the passage and lie beneath the present floor surface. At the foot of the northeast, the end wall is a creep that formed the original entrance to the passage. The creep is 0.57 metres wide by 0.27 metres high and extends for 1.36 metres before becoming blocked by fallen debris. The fogou was discovered in May 2000 after a partial collapse of the infill between cover slabs.

The most apparent aspect of Fogous is that they are orientated to the SW-NE alignment – is this religious or a practical necessity?

A typical fogou structure is stone walls, slopping gradually inwards with height to be capped by stone lintels, forming a characteristic trapezoidal cross-section. Similar structures are found in Chamber Cairns, and Passage Chambers, which adds to the confusion as if a body is located in one of these subterranean tunnel’s archaeologists reclassify them.

In Ireland, these subterranean structures are called ‘caves’, and they are reportedly in their thousands. We also find them in Scotland as Earth Houses, although some ‘covered’ houses – not subterranean shelters- have been classified in the same category through archaeological confusion.

We know these classifications are wrong as we know what they were used for, unlike the present archaeologists – their shelters from storms.

Subterranean shelters are found in Cornwall like the isles of Scilly in abundance. But Devon has only one for sure and absolutely nothing in Dorset, Somerset or Wiltshire – where prehistoric structures such as Stone Circles, Henges and Barrows are of most significant numbers. However, we do get them in Ireland and Scotland in even more significant numbers.

But there is a problem – what happened to Wales?

Storms often batter the Welsh coast, yet according to archaeologists, there are no subterranean shelters in this part of the world; if our hypothesis is correct, there should be something similar – and there is; they’re called a Chambered Cairn and Passage Chambers. These features are found all over Wales and are similar drywall stone underground buildings, but they have found dead bodies within them with a difference.

These chambers were built thousands of years ago. Do we believe that they would continue to be used in the same way as they started?

As you drive around Britain’s countryside, you will notice ‘bunkers’ that surround current and abandoned airfields. These bunkers are only 60 years old, yet they have fallen into disuse, and farmers are using them for other purposes – should we be surprised that these subterranean shelters would be used once abandoned for other purposes such as burials?

So the map is now complete; the current storms we see that follow the ‘gulf stream’ have historically moved in from the West and Ireland and/or Cornwall moving up the Irish Sea to Scotland, lashing the Welsh Coastline. This is not new; these are prehistoric storms of which the severity was much more significant than today as the construction of these substantial shelters gives testament.

Similar construction has been seen in other countries that may indicate just how intense these storms were, and these can be found in the hurricane belt of the USA, where residents built subterranean shelters of almost the same size as our prehistoric ancestors. These shelters not only shelter people from hurricanes but the more devastating storms called tornadoes.

In prehistoric Britain directly, the ‘post-glacial flooding’ was caused by record high temperatures in this country – so like Florida today, you had sweltering ground temperatures and the vast amount of cooler water from the flooding, a perfect concoction for the tornado and the need to build substantial subterranean shelters.

But is there any other evidence that tornadoes hit Britain?

On 17th October 1091, London was hit by a vicious tornado.

Historic Records tell us the wooden London Bridge was demolished and 600 houses (primarily wooden). Furthermore, the church at St. Mary-le-bow within the city of London was smashed to pieces with rafters driven more than six metres into the ground. Two men were reported killed, and thousands were made homeless.

One of the great mysteries of Archaeology is the lack of destruction of our greatest monument Stonehenge. It was not completely pulled down, but the gigantic Sarsen Trilithon Stones toppled from a force to the SW of the Monument. It has always been believed that men had tried to pull down the monument for some obscure reason in the past – but why stop at one pair of stones?

If we look at the possibility of tornadoes in Britain, then a ‘strike’ from the South West would be probable, and that would leave the monument with one of the two trilithons felled flat and the other propped up at an angle as Stukeley found in the 16th century and was ‘repaired’ and the turn of the last century.

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

(Extreme Weather and Ancient Subterranean Shelters)

Why a Simple Fence Beats a Massive Dyke (and What That Means for History)

Posted on January 10, 2025 by admin

Preamble

I’ve published numerous blogs about prehistoric canals, emphasizing how traditional academia has repeatedly overlooked and misunderstood these remarkable features. Because I’m both a scientist and a technology enthusiast, I rely on AI as an invaluable tool to streamline my reasoning and present it in a way that readers from different backgrounds can appreciate. In this particular blog, I’m using AI to illustrate that conventional explanations for earthworks are likely flawed and need a thorough reexamination. Finally, I’m including a reference to my earlier work so readers can see how my new insights build on past research. (Why a Simple Fence Beats a Massive Dyke)

1. Introduction

Linear earthworks have mesmerized observers and archaeologists for generations. From Offa’s Dyke to Wansdyke, these elongated banks and ditches are typically explained as either military fortifications or boundary markers. Yet modern LiDAR surveys, fresh archaeological insights, and comparisons to simpler and more visible boundary methods raise serious doubts about those interpretations. Rather than straightforward defensive lines or frontiers, these earthworks display inconsistencies—missing sections, reversed ditches, and puzzling alignments—that challenge everything we thought we knew. (Why a Simple Fence Beats a Massive Dyke)

2. The Traditional Theories

For much of the 20th century, scholars argued that linear earthworks served one of two main functions: to repel invaders or to mark out political or tribal boundaries. Cyril Fox famously claimed Offa’s Dyke was built by King Offa of Mercia to keep the Welsh at bay, supposedly placing the ditch on the Welsh-facing side. Others suggested that massive earthworks like Wansdyke indicated territory lines, visually announcing where one kingdom ended and another began. In these narratives, the structures were well-defined, continuous, and purposeful. (Why a Simple Fence Beats a Massive Dyke)

3. Where Theory and Reality Diverge

Recent research has, however, underscored irreconcilable contradictions between theory and reality. Surveys indicate that many linear earthworks fail to maintain consistent ditches facing the purported enemy, contradicting the defensive premise. If these ditches were indeed built to ward off a threat, the alignment should be uniform. Meanwhile, if they were intended as boundary markers, gaps and missing stretches would logically undermine their entire purpose. Such discrepancies point to deeper complexities or altogether different functions. (Why a Simple Fence Beats a Massive Dyke)

4. The Enigma of Offa’s Dyke

Offa’s Dyke is often touted as Britain’s largest linear earthwork, running roughly along the England–Wales border. Yet LiDAR surveys by researchers like Robert John Langdon reveal that nearly 60% of the structure is missing—lost to erosion, re-landscaping, or never built at all. Wide breaks exist for miles, making it hard to envision it as a single unbroken defensive or boundary line. Moreover, some ditches face in contradictory directions or do not match the typical expectation for a militaristic barrier, casting doubt on Fox’s original claim. (Why a Simple Fence Beats a Massive Dyke)

5. Misreported Defensive Features

Part of the confusion lies in Cyril Fox’s early 20th-century reporting. He described consistent ditch placements, but modern scrutiny shows that some are misaligned. Whether unintentional errors or confirmation bias, Fox’s descriptions have dominated academic discourse for decades. Only with modern technologies—like LiDAR and detailed aerial photography—have we begun to see how many segments contradict his drawings. These findings force us to question the once authoritative notion that Offa’s Dyke was unambiguously a martial structure. (Why a Simple Fence Beats a Massive Dyke)

6. Gaps and Their Implications

Wansdyke, second only to Offa’s Dyke in fame, also features significant gaps and disjointed sections. If linear earthworks were built at massive expense of time and labor to keep out invaders or mark territory, it is odd to see such discontinuity. A truly effective boundary marker, for instance, would leave no question of ownership or alignment. The existence of large “holes” in both Offa’s Dyke and Wansdyke conflicts with the fundamental idea that these were continuous frontier systems. (Why a Simple Fence Beats a Massive Dyke)

7. Simpler Methods: The Humble Fence

Historically, many societies addressed boundary needs in more efficient ways. For instance, fences—wooden posts and rails—are cost-effective, require minimal labor, and can be erected swiftly. These have been used around the world for farmland demarcation and livestock control. Compared to the colossal task of digging a deep ditch and piling an earthen bank, a simple fence stands out as both quicker and cheaper. So if Saxons or Britons needed a practical boundary, why opt for massive earthworks instead of lower-effort alternatives? (Why a Simple Fence Beats a Massive Dyke)

8. Living Hedges as Boundaries

In much of Medieval and Early Modern England, living hedges—often composed of hawthorn or blackthorn—provided robust, natural fences. They had the advantage of growing denser over time, deterring both trespassers and stray animals. The ecological benefits were a bonus. Unlike ditches, which can become silted and invisible, a carefully maintained hedge remains an obvious and impenetrable barrier. Again, this begs the question: if clarity and cost-effectiveness were paramount, why dig a ditch that’s prone to erosion and difficult to maintain? (Why a Simple Fence Beats a Massive Dyke)

9. The Great Hedge of India

The British-led Great Hedge of India in the 19th century offers an extreme example: a massive thorny barrier stretching hundreds of miles to enforce salt taxes. Though not precisely a “fence,” it underscores how a dense thicket can effectively channel or block human movement, often more reliably than an earthen ditch. Historical records of this hedge’s success in preventing smuggling illuminate that highly visible, well-maintained barriers are more functional than large-scale but patchy earthworks. (Why a Simple Fence Beats a Massive Dyke)

10. Walls and Fortified Edges

Other cultures have opted for monumental walls—be it Hadrian’s Wall in northern England or segments of the Great Wall of China. In both cases, the walls remain unmistakable even centuries later. They combine visibility, tangible presence, and durability. A ditch, by contrast, can be reabsorbed into the landscape relatively quickly, leaving only subtle impressions. If the goal was an unmistakable boundary or strong defense, these stone or brick structures seem more suitable than a meandering earthen rampart with frequent gaps. (Why a Simple Fence Beats a Massive Dyke)

11. Roman Frontier Systems

The Romans perfected the art of boundary lines with the Limes Germanicus—a system of watchtowers, palisades, forts, and sometimes ditches. Here, the ditches were auxiliary; the main statement of control came from a visible wall or wooden fence line, reinforced by active garrisons. If Offa’s Dyke or Wansdyke were truly boundary lines in the Roman or later medieval sense, we might expect corresponding watchtowers or regular station points. The absence of such features in many linear earthworks adds another layer of skepticism about their supposed frontier function. (Why a Simple Fence Beats a Massive Dyke)

12. Enclosure and Boundary in Early Modern Britain

Between the 15th and 19th centuries, Britain saw waves of enclosure, where open fields were divided by hedges or stone walls. This was cheaper and clearer for indicating ownership than earthworks. Visible markers helped landowners enforce property rights and control livestock. While these enclosures left an indelible mark on the British countryside, they did not involve monumental ditches. Thus, practicality and economic sense consistently drove fence- and hedge-building, implying that earthen dykes might have served a different, more specialized purpose. (Why a Simple Fence Beats a Massive Dyke)

13. Unusual Alignments and Topography

Returning to the dykes themselves, one finds confusing topographical alignments. Sections may run halfway down a hill rather than atop its crest, or snake around in near-circles (like Grim’s Ditch in Oxfordshire), defying the notion of a straightforward boundary or a defensive rampart commanding high ground. If these were serious military structures, they would naturally seek topographical advantage; if they were boundary markers, they would favor maximum visibility. Neither condition is consistently met. (Why a Simple Fence Beats a Massive Dyke)

14. Reimagining Their Purpose

Given these problems, many modern researchers—Robert John Langdon among them—propose that some linear earthworks are significantly older than the Roman or Saxon periods. They might have served ritual, symbolic, or even water-management functions in a prehistoric context. Comparisons to simpler boundary methods (fences, hedges, walls) worldwide suggest that if a society truly needed a cost-effective, permanent barrier, they would not opt for a massive, discontinuous ditch with questionable defensive or boundary value. (Why a Simple Fence Beats a Massive Dyke)

15. Toward a Deeper Understanding

Taken together, the modern LiDAR evidence, the glaring gaps, the odd alignments, and the juxtaposition with simpler global boundary practices demand a complete reassessment of Britain’s linear earthworks. Rather than dismiss them as straightforward Saxon lines or Roman leftover ditches, we should explore the possibility that they are part of a vast, prehistoric tapestry, repurposed or misconstrued by later cultures. Only by moving beyond the flawed “defense or boundary” paradigm can we hope to uncover their true origins and functions. Written by AI.

(Why a Simple Fence Beats a Massive Dyke)

Dykes Ditches and Earthworks

Introduction

Indeed, the modern term “dyke” or “dijk” can be traced back to its Dutch origins. As early as the 12th century, the construction of Dykes in the Netherlands was a well-established practice. One remarkable example of their ingenuity is the Westfriese Omringdijk, stretching an impressive 126 kilometres (78 miles), completed by 1250. This Dyke was formed by connecting existing older ‘dykes’, showcasing the Dutch mastery in managing their aquatic landscape. (Dykes Ditches and Earthworks)

The Roman chronicler Tacitus even provides an intriguing historical account of the Batavi, a rebellious people who employed a unique defence strategy during the year AD 70. They punctured the Dykes daringly, deliberately flooding their land to thwart their enemies and secure their retreat. This historical incident highlights the vital role Dykes played in the region’s warfare and water management.

Originally, the word “dijk” encompassed both the trench and the bank, signifying a comprehensive understanding of the Dyke’s dual nature – as both a protective barrier and a channel for water control. This multifaceted concept reflects the profound connection between the Dutch people and their battle against the ever-shifting waters that sought to reclaim their land.

The term “dyke” evolved as time passed, and its usage spread beyond the Dutch borders. Today, it represents not only a symbol of the Netherlands’ engineering prowess but also a universal symbol of human determination in the face of the relentless forces of nature. The legacy of these ancient Dykes lives on, a testament to the resilience and innovation of those who shaped the landscape to withstand the unyielding currents of time.

Upon studying archaeology, whether at university or examining detailed ordinance survey maps, one cannot help but encounter peculiar earthworks scattered across the British hillsides. Astonishingly, these enigmatic features often lack a rational explanation for their presence and purpose. Strangely enough, these features are frequently disregarded in academic circles, brushed aside, or provided with flimsy excuses for their existence. The truth is, these earthworks defy comprehension unless we consider overlooked factors at play.

One curious observation revolves around the term “Dyke,” inherently linked to water. It seems rather peculiar to apply such a word to an earthwork atop a hill unless an ancestral history has imparted its actual function through the ages. Let us consider the celebrated “Offa’s Dyke,” renowned for its massive linear structure, meandering along some of the present boundaries between England and Wales. This impressive feat stands as a testament to the past, seemingly demarcating the realms of the Anglian kingdom of Mercia and the Welsh kingdom of Powys during the 8th century.

However, delving further into the evidence and historical accounts challenges this seemingly straightforward explanation. Roman historian Eutropius, in his work “Historiae Romanae Breviarium”, penned around 369 AD, mentions a grand undertaking by Septimius Severus, the Roman Emperor, from 193 AD to 211 AD. In his pursuit of fortifying the conquered British provinces, Severus constructed a formidable wall stretching 133 miles from coast to coast.

Yet, intriguingly, none of the known Roman defences match this precise length. Hadrian’s Wall, renowned for its defensive prowess, spans a mere 70 miles. Could Eutropius have referred to Offa’s Dyke, which bears remarkable similarity to the Roman practice of initially erecting banks and ditches for defence?

Figure 1- Offa’s Dyke (Red) – note that it is only complete if you connect the existing rivers to the ditches – (Why a Simple Fence Beats a Massive Dyke)

The enigma persists, leaving us to ponder whether Offa’s Dyke, with its impressive extent, holds an ancient Roman legacy or represents a separate and awe-inspiring creation. As we navigate the depths of history, it becomes increasingly apparent that these earthworks hold hidden stories waiting to be revealed, revealing the multifaceted montage of Britain’s past and the extraordinary engineering feats that have shaped its landscape through the ages.

Indeed, history is a complex tapestry woven with a multitude of threads, and the interpretation of archaeological evidence often shapes our understanding of the past. Throughout history, conquerors and civilisations have repurposed existing features, such as ditches, augmenting them with defensive banks and walls to suit their strategic needs. The Romans and the Normans, among others, have demonstrated this practice.

In the case of Offa’s Dyke, the enigma deepens if we consider the possibility that the Romans were the architects behind its creation. Such a scenario challenges the conventional attribution of the Dyke to King Offa and raises questions about the true origins and purpose of this massive linear earthwork. Archaeological realities, or perhaps misinterpretations, can indeed hold the key to unveiling hidden facets of our history.

It is essential to approach historical accounts and archaeological evidence with a critical eye and an openness to multiple interpretations. The past often leaves tantalising clues that may require careful examination and reevaluation. By embracing the complexities and uncertainties of history, we can better appreciate the intricacies of human civilisation and the varied influences that have shaped it over the ages.

In pursuing truth, historians and archaeologists must remain receptive to new insights, allowing the evidence to guide their conclusions, even if it means challenging established narratives. By unravelling these historical puzzles, we can better understand our collective heritage, appreciating the rich combination of human experiences and the myriad forces that have moulded history. (Why a Simple Fence Beats a Massive Dyke)

Cross-Dykes

The peculiar earthworks etched upon the British landscape have not eluded the discerning eyes of archaeologists and cartographers alike. These enigmatic features, often defying conventional explanations, have intrigued the curious minds of scholars and historians. A new designation, “Cross-Dykes,” has partially acknowledged their distinctiveness and unusual placement.

Cross-Dyke (Dykes Ditches and Earthworks) — (Why a Simple Fence Beats a Massive Dyke)

Cross-Dykes, substantial linear earthworks, grace the upland terrain, their lengths varying between 0.2km and 1km. Besides one or more banks, they bear ditches, running parallel in an enigmatic dance upon ridges and spurs. Historical excavations and analogies with related monuments paint a broader picture, extending back to the millennia of the Middle Bronze Age. Their purpose, though elusive, leans towards territorial boundaries, delineating parcels of land within ancient communities. But beyond such boundaries, they may have served as tracks or routes for cattle or even as defensive structures.

A pivotal element to grasp lies in the acknowledgement that Cross-Dykes have, at their core, a prehistoric origin. No longer shackled to erroneous notions of Saxon or medieval connections, these ancient features warrant a fresh lens to illuminate their true significance. The names of notable earthworks, like Wansdyke and Offa’s Dyke, may well bear a more profound revision in light of this newfound understanding.

Yet, we must not overlook the Historic England claim that only “very few” of these earthworks remain. The broader landscape contradicts this assertion, teeming with over 1500 scheduled ‘Linear Earthworks,’ showcasing the scope and magnitude of these intriguing remnants. Moreover, advancements in the art of surveying, as heralded by LiDAR, have revealed hidden troves of earthworks, once lost to the unyielding grasp of time and misinterpretation.

To critique archaeological theories with acuity, one must first comprehend their tenets. The evolving narrative seeks to unravel the enigma shrouding these linear earthworks, breathing life into ancient histories etched in the soil. Embracing a spirit of inquiry and remaining receptive to novel discoveries, we embark on a quest of unravelling the untold stories lingering within the terrain. With each revelation, the layers of history peel back, revealing a canvas of human ingenuity, perseverance, and the grandeur of the past, etched forever in the folds of Britain’s landscape. Archaeologists have (partially) recognised that these many earthworks are placed in strange areas for conventional explanations. Consequently, they have attempted to split a section away from the global term earthworks and called them ‘Cross-Dykes’. (Why a Simple Fence Beats a Massive Dyke)

Boundary Markers

With their reliance on earthworks as territorial markers, the historical hypothesis surrounding land boundaries emerges as a thought-provoking inquiry. Yet, as we delve deeper into the evidence, a poignant need for more compelling proof becomes evident. Throughout history, societies have indeed relied on markers to delineate their domains, be they natural features like rivers or human-made constructs like hedgerows. The practicality and economy of such choices are undeniable, especially when contrasted with the labour-intensive and costly endeavour of constructing extensive ditches and banks.

In the case of the renowned Offa’s Dyke, a perplexing puzzle emerges. The border, at times, gracefully follows the course of a river, a logical and sensible demarcation. However, the sudden shift to an earthwork set behind the same river defies easy explanation. Such inconsistency leaves us questioning the premise of these earthworks as unequivocal markers. The presence of inexplicable gaps in the land border only deepens the enigma, raising further doubt about the validity of the hypothesis.

We must seek coherence and reason within any historical proposition. The current hypothesis falls short in offering a convincing rationale for this transition from river to earthwork, and it fails to address the glaring accessibility of the river as a natural and readily available boundary marker. (Why a Simple Fence Beats a Massive Dyke)

Figure 2 – Path of Offa’s Dyke – showing its not remotely straight

As we navigate the terrain of ancient earthworks, a commitment to rigorous scrutiny is paramount. Only by subjecting our hypotheses to relentless examination can we hope to uncover the authentic truths that lie obscured beneath the layers of time. In embracing a spirit of inquiry and humility, we may yet unlock the profound secrets of these age-old earthworks, shedding light on the intricate relationships between humanity and the landscapes they once inhabited. The pursuit of understanding is a journey marked by discovery and wonder, and in this voyage, we honour the legacy of those who once shaped the contours of history upon British soil. (Why a Simple Fence Beats a Massive Dyke)

Defensive Features

According to the pronouncements of esteemed Historical England, discerning the precise function of ancient boundaries proves to be an intricate endeavour. Whether they were intended for defence, stock-herding, or carrying symbolic significance remains elusive. In truth, most boundaries likely fulfilled a mosaic of roles, their purpose evolving and adapting over time. To presume that significant boundaries were solely for defence and smaller ones merely for livestock control would be an oversimplification of the intricate tapestry of history.

These artificial boundaries’ form, extent, and very existence offer vital clues, providing glimpses into their intended purposes. Additionally, their construction’s social and political context can provide insightful context. Yet, as we probe deeper into the historical narrative, it is evident that the written accounts primarily speak of Roman and Norman defence systems. With their ingenuity, the Romans devised the “ankle breaker” ditch – a V-shaped trench with a heightened counterscape masterfully designed to ensnare attackers or thwart mounted assailants.

These ingenious Roman ditches, predominantly surface near Roman sites, are conspicuously absent from 90% of excavations across Linear Earthworks. This absence challenges the prevailing hypothesis and prompts a reevaluation of past assumptions. In particular, investigations into Dykes such as Offa’s have uncovered an unsettling revelation – the defensive banks, in over 10% of the alignment, face the “wrong way.” This finding raises questions about the potential bias that may have influenced the support for this theory in the past.

As the archaeological landscape evolves, a shift is subtly underway, with many archaeologists quietly distancing themselves from this 20th-century hypothesis. The quest for truth demands unyielding inquiry, and as more mysteries come to light, the intricacies of ancient earthworks unfurl before our eyes. In the spirit of intellectual progress, we must approach each enigma with an open mind, ever eager to grasp the trutyh over mythology. (Why a Simple Fence Beats a Massive Dyke)

(Why a Simple Fence Beats a Massive Dyke)

2025 Update

Historic England Confirms the Prehistoric Origins of Britain’s Linear Earthworks

Why Offa’s and Wansdyke Are Not Saxon Ditches

By The Prehistoric AI Team

For over a century, archaeologists have confidently told the public that Britain’s great linear earthworks—Offa’s Dyke, Wansdyke, and their lesser-known cousins—were “Saxon defensive boundaries.” Yet even the government’s own heritage body now quietly admits otherwise.

In its official publication HEAG 219: Prehistoric Linear Boundary Earthworks (Historic England, 2018), the evidence is laid out in black and white: these monumental ditches and banks are not the product of medieval kingdoms but of prehistoric engineering, reaching back thousands of years before Offa or Rome.

1. Historic England’s Own Words

“From the Neolithic period onwards in the British Isles, natural boundaries such as watercourses and escarpments have been supplemented by artificial boundaries, often formed by a ditch and bank.”
(HEAG 219, p.2)

That sentence alone demolishes the Saxon myth. These “artificial boundaries” appear from around 3600 BCE, the same period as Britain’s causewayed enclosures and early field systems.

“The earliest conventional linear earthwork so far confirmed, dating to around 3600 BC, follows the crest of the western escarpment of Hambleton Hill, Dorset, for perhaps as much as 3 km.”
(HEAG 219, p.7)

In other words, the engineering tradition behind Offa’s and Wansdyke was already flourishing five thousand years earlier than the supposed Saxon period.

2. Confusion by Reuse

“Some of these early boundaries… continued to structure the social and economic landscape through the Iron Age and into the Roman period. Indeed, some have seen continuous use, or repeated re-use, from prehistory to the present day.”
(HEAG 219, p.7)

This statement is key.
What later archaeologists labelled as “Roman” or “Saxon” were often prehistoric earthworks re-used by later peoples. Defensive adaptations may have been made, but the physical structures already existed—centuries or millennia earlier.

Langdon’s LiDAR analysis of Wansdyke and Offa’s Dyke shows this perfectly: continuous, water-connected segments, truncated by rivers and palaeochannels, betray origins in a hydrological engineering system, not a medieval frontier.

3. Historic England Admits Mis-Dating Risks

“Prehistoric examples can be confused with medieval or later ones… Their form is not often diagnostic.”
(HEAG 219, p.7)

This rare confession from within Historic England supports Langdon’s long-standing criticism of archaeological dating methods. When earthworks lack carbonised deposits, dating often depends on surface finds—antler picks, pottery sherds, or even stray Roman coins—leading to circular logic.

As Prehistoric Dykes (Canals) argued, this flawed reasoning has turned prehistoric infrastructure into “Saxon defences” by default.

4. Functional Variety, Not Fortification

“It is often difficult to determine whether a particular boundary was used for defence, for stock-herding, or purely as a symbol; in truth, most boundaries probably served all of these functions to varying degrees.”
(HEAG 219, p.2)

The report concedes that no single explanation fits. The traditional defensive model collapses under scrutiny: there are no battle remains, no arrowheads, and no consistent rampart orientations.

This aligns with Langdon’s hydrological interpretation—seeing these earthworks as water management and navigation canals formed when Britain’s post-glacial landscape still retained a higher water table. Their engineering precision makes sense when viewed as prehistoric canalisation, not Saxon militarism.

5. The Official Timeline

Historic England’s own chart places linear boundaries firmly in the Neolithic and Bronze Age, with only reuse continuing into later eras:

Linear Boundaries Timeline (HEAG 219, p.
4000 BC – Neolithic beginnings
1500 BC – Bronze Age expansion
0 AD – Roman reuse

The Saxon period doesn’t even feature.

6. What This Means

The implications are profound. Historic England has, perhaps unintentionally, validated the central premise of the Prehistoric Dyke Hypothesis:

Britain’s linear earthworks are prehistoric hydraulic and boundary systems, later adopted but not created by historical kingdoms.

The narrative of “Saxon kings digging 100-mile ditches by hand” finally collapses under the weight of its own impossibility—and the evidence from both LiDAR and the nation’s own heritage authority.

7. A New Understanding

The HEAG 219 publication is cautious in tone, but its data speaks volumes. The earliest linear boundaries coincide with the rise of complex water management systems, just as Langdon’s LiDAR work shows canal-like forms and river terminations.

It is time to update the textbooks:
Wansdyke, Offa’s Dyke, Car Dyke and their lesser cousins are prehistoric canals—part of a sophisticated hydrological network that once crisscrossed a flooded Britain.

Conclusion

Even Historic England now concedes that Britain’s linear earthworks belong to prehistory, not the Dark Ages.

By accepting this evidence, we move beyond folklore and into a genuinely scientific framework—one where landscape engineering, water management, and maritime trade define our ancestors’ genius.

Sources:

Historic England (2018) Prehistoric Linear Boundary Earthworks: Introductions to Heritage Assets (HEAG 219).
Langdon, R.J. (2022) Prehistoric Dykes (Canals) – Wansdyke v1.2.
Langdon, R.J. (2024) Twigs, Charcoal, and the Death of the Saxon Dyke Myth.

Exploring Prehistoric Britain: A Journey Through Time

(Why a Simple Fence Beats a Massive Dyke)

Other Blogs

2024 Prehistoric Britain Blog Review

8000-year-old Cro-Magnon skull

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

(Why a Simple Fence Beats a Massive Dyke)

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

(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)

Antonine Wall – Prehistoric Canals (Dykes)

Posted on January 4, 2025 by admin

Introduction

Linear earthworks such as dykes, Hadrian’s Wall (including the Vallum), and the Antonine Wall have long been interpreted as defensive structures or boundary markers by archaeologists. However, emerging evidence challenges these traditional views, suggesting these features may have functioned as prehistoric canals. By examining construction techniques, alignments, and environmental contexts, this groundbreaking research presents a compelling argument that these structures were engineered for water management and transport, reflecting sophisticated societal planning in ancient Britain.

A key focus is the East Wansdyke, which has been traditionally described as a defensive dyke. Comprehensive surveys reveal that its engineering—such as level gradients, excavation methods, and proximity to water sources—aligns more closely with canal systems than with military purposes. Using features like natural valleys and watercourses further strengthens the hypothesis that this and similar earthworks served as functional waterways, enabling efficient transport and trade across regions.

This re-evaluation extends to iconic features like Hadrian’s Wall and its associated Vallum. Traditionally misinterpreted as solely defensive, the Vallum is revealed through this research as a singular, cohesive structure, potentially integral to a water-based transport network rather than a mere boundary marker. Considering these features’ environmental context and engineering specifics, the research provides a unified interpretation of their original purpose, suggesting a sophisticated system for managing resources and enabling connectivity across ancient Britain.

The implications of this research are profound, not only for redefining the purpose of linear earthworks but also for understanding the societal and technological capabilities of ancient Britons. This work invites further debate and investigation by proposing a cohesive and evidence-backed theory, aiming to bridge gaps between traditional archaeology and scientific methodologies. It also highlights the need for a fresh approach to interpreting Britain’s prehistoric landscape—one grounded in innovation and a willingness to question long-held assumptions

Case Study – The Antonine Wall

It would be amiss if we did not look at the ‘other’ Roman wall in some detail as it is part of the great ‘enigma’. (Antonine Wall)

Wikipedia

The Antonine Wall, known to the Romans as Vallum Antonini, was a turf fortification on stone foundations built by the Romans across what is now the Central Belt of Scotland, between the Firth of Forth and the Firth of Clyde. Built some twenty years after Hadrian’s Wall to the south and intended to supersede it, while it was garrisoned, it was the northernmost frontier barrier of the Roman Empire. It spanned approximately 63 kilometres (39 miles) and was about 3 metres (10 feet) high and 5 metres (16 feet) wide. Lidar scans have been carried out to establish the length of the wall and the Roman distance units used.

Security was bolstered by a deep ditch on the northern side. It is thought that there was a wooden palisade on top of the turf. The barrier was the second of two “great walls” created by the Romans in Great Britain in the second century AD. Its ruins are less evident than those of the better-known and longer Hadrian’s Wall to the south, primarily because the turf and wood wall has largely weathered away, unlike its stone-built southern predecessor.

Construction began in 142 AD at the order of Roman Emperor Antoninus Pius, and took about 12 years to complete. Antoninus Pius never visited Britain, whereas his predecessor Hadrian had done so. Pressure from the Caledonians may have led Antoninus to send the empire’s troops further north. The Antonine Wall was protected by 16 forts with small fortlets between them; troop movement was facilitated by a road linking all the sites known as the Military Way.

The soldiers who built the wall commemorated the construction and their struggles with the Caledonians with decorative slabs, twenty of which survive. The wall was abandoned only eight years after completion, and the garrisons relocated rearward to Hadrian’s Wall. Most of the wall and its associated fortifications have been destroyed over time, but some remains are visible. Many of these have come under the care of Historic Environment Scotland and the UNESCO World Heritage Committee.

Grim’s Dyke

Wikipedia

In medieval histories, such as the chronicles of John of Fordun, the wall is called Gryme’s dyke. Fordun says that the name came from the grandfather of the imaginary king Eugenius son of Farquahar. This evolved over time into Graham’s dyke – a name still found in Bo’ness at the wall’s eastern end – and then linked with Clan Graham. Of note is that Graeme in some parts of Scotland is a nickname for the devil, and Gryme’s Dyke would thus be the Devil’s Dyke, mirroring the name of the Roman limes in Southern Germany often called ‘Teufelsmauer’. Grímr and Grim are bynames for Odin or Wodan, who might be credited with the wish to build earthworks in unreasonably short periods of time. This name is the same one found as Grim’s Ditch several times in England in connection with early ramparts: for example, near Wallingford, Oxfordshire or between Berkhamsted (Herts) and Bradenham (Bucks). Other names used by antiquarians include the Wall of Pius and the Antonine Vallum, after Antoninus Pius.

Our Research and LiDAR Investigation

The reality is that the exact dates and the reason for its construction are just as confused as Hadrian’s Wall, although (as shown) various theories offer explanations for the construction.

For the purpose of this book, we are only concerned with the construction process behind the Antonine Wall to see if it gives us clues to the structure of the Vallum, which seems to be of similar size and design, but looks as if it has been ‘reused’ in a lesser form and therefore giving us clues to how the original Vallum may have looked before it massively revamped?

We could (and might at a later date) look at the entire length of the Antoine Wall to obtain a more comprehensive analysis of the construction, but for this Case Study exercise, we will look at just one section, including a fortification.

Castlecary Fort Section (Antonine Wall)

The first thing to notice is that the ‘original’ prehistoric Dyke was there BEFORE the Roman ‘extension’ and connection with the fort. We know it was a prehistoric Dyke as its path is far from ‘Straight’, unlike the Roman extension.

Castlecary Fort - Antonine Wall — Castlecary Fort – Antonine Wall

Castlecary Fort (LiDAR) - Antonine Wall — Castlecary Fort (LiDAR) – Antonine Wall

This connection between the Antonine Wall and prehistoric Dykes is connected not only by the LiDAR maps but also by the historical names used for the Wall within the entire length of the Antonine Wall.

(Antonine Wall)

Conclusion

The reinterpretation of linear earthworks, such as Hadrian’s Wall and its Vallum, alongside structures like the East Wansdyke, challenges traditional archaeological assumptions and offers a fresh perspective on prehistoric Britain. By viewing these features as potential prehistoric canals rather than purely defensive structures or boundary markers, this research highlights the advanced engineering capabilities and societal organisation of ancient Britons. These findings not only reshape our understanding of these iconic monuments but also call for a broader application of scientific methodologies in archaeology to uncover the true purpose of such structures.

For those interested in exploring this groundbreaking research further, more dykes and linear earthworks are investigated on my website, where detailed surveys and analyses continue to challenge outdated narratives. See below for links to additional blogs that delve into the engineering, societal context, and potential functionality of these fascinating prehistoric features. Together, let’s rethink the history of Britain’s landscape through evidence-based investigation and open dialogue.

Promotional Video – Ancient Prehistoric Canals (Dykes) – The Vallum (The Antonine Wall)

The Book

This was an extracts from the NEW Book Ancient Prehistoric Canals (Dykes) – Wansdyke available on Amazon as a FULL COLOUR HARD BACK (£49.95) or a ECONOMY (£9.99) SOFTBACK black and white VERSION – it is also available as a KINDL E (£2.99) book. For further information about our work on Prehistoric Britain visit our WEBSITE or VIDEO CHANNEL.

Product details

ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0BN7PD6BS
Publisher ‏ : ‎ Independently published (24 Nov. 2022)
Language ‏ : ‎ English
Hardcover ‏ : ‎ 477 pages
ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 979-8358524187
Dimensions ‏ : ‎ 15.24 x 3.33 x 22.86 cm
Illustrations: 350+

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

Statonbury Camp near Bath – an example of West Wansdyke

Posted on January 2, 2025 by admin

Challenging Conventional Views: Linear Earthworks as Prehistoric Canals – Statonbury Camp near Bath

Over the past decade, I have faced significant opposition to my theory that Linear Earthworks were originally prehistoric canals. In response, I conducted comprehensive surveys of all 1,500 Historic England Scheduled Linear Earthworks, widely recognised by archaeologists. This extensive research culminated in the publication of the first volume in a quadrilogy, focusing on a section of dykes known as the East Wansdyke. This book supports my theory within the context of a Post-Truth Era.

This publication represents a groundbreaking achievement in archaeology—the first to meticulously survey and document the entire East Wansdyke in unprecedented detail. To date, no university or research team has matched this accomplishment. Furthermore, the book provides robust scientific evidence to demonstrate that prevailing archaeological theories about Wansdyke and Linear Earthworks are fundamentally flawed. (Statonbury Camp near Bath).

The Post-Truth Challenge

One might expect that such a significant contribution, introducing previously undiscovered insights, would spark widespread discussions and rigorous debate. Instead, the book has been dismissed by some as a “conspiracy theory,” despite being grounded in cutting-edge research. The analysis leverages 21st-century LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) data sourced from the UK government’s DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs), an innovation still underutilised in archaeology, which often relies on outdated satellite imagery and crop mark analysis.

The professional response has been hesitant at best. Meanwhile, criticism on social media often manifests as dogmatic resistance from individuals unwilling to reconsider entrenched beliefs. Many cling to outdated theories simply because they were “peer-reviewed” in the past, treating them as infallible truths rather than hypotheses open to challenge and revision.(Statonbury Camp near Bath).

Resistance and Fundamentalism

This unyielding adherence to outdated ideas mirrors the mentality of religious fundamentalists, who interpret texts as immutable doctrine. In my experience, this mindset is evident in attempts to invalidate substantial theories by nitpicking minor details—a tactic reminiscent of the “intelligent design” argument against evolution, where opponents demand exhaustive explanations for every aspect before acknowledging scientific evidence.

For instance, one detractor attempted to undermine my hypothesis by highlighting a site outside the East Wansdyke, claiming it to be a “late Iron Age” fortification, thereby suggesting a Saxon origin. This site, however, pertains to the West Wansdyke, an area I addressed separately in my book. My research concluded that the West Wansdyke likely represents a later addition to the prehistoric canal system, potentially constructed by the Romans. Its sporadic, incomplete nature and distinct specifications set it apart from the East Wansdyke.(Statonbury Camp near Bath).

Conclusions and Moving Forward

I have clearly explained in my book why the West Wansdyke is irrelevant to my analysis of the East Wansdyke. The evidence I present in the book, which surveys every metre of the East Wansdyke, overwhelmingly refutes traditional interpretations of these earthworks as defensive walls or boundary markers. However, challenging deeply ingrained beliefs often meets resistance, even when the evidence is incontrovertible.(Statonbury Camp near Bath).

The reason I have dismissed West Wansdyke

West Wansdyke

We have a problem with West Wansdyke – it’s not part of East Wansdyke. This has always been a historical debate over the last 100 years. If we look at the limited archaeological evidence, we find that although it may have been a much later Canal/Dyke it is not contemporary with the East Wansdyke canal and was not built at the same time.

Excavations conclusively show that the Ditches on the East side of Wansdyke are much more profound and twice as broad. In contrast, the Banks on the East Side are much wider. We see that East Dyke was built first, as our River height model shows that most of West Wansdyke would have been flooded or marshland at the time of use.

Location	Wansdyke
Bank	Ditch	Excavator notes
Materials	Width	Height	Berm	Width	Depth	Counterscarp
EAST
Red Shore	Clay/Flints	9.5	2	N	10	3.9	Y	Green 1966
Sheppard’s shore		10	2.3	N	10	3.9	Y	Pitt Rivers 1888
Brown’s Barn		9	2.3	N	10	3.9	Y	Pitt Rivers 1891
WEST
Binces Lane West	Stoney	12.5	??	??	3.5	1.7	Y	Erskine 1990s
Binces Lane East	Stoney	?	5?	N	6	2.4	?	Erskine 1990s
Compton Green	Clay marl	13	0.8	Y	5.8	2.8	Y	Erskine 1990s
Blackrock Lane	Silty Clay	12.5	1.7	Y	4.8	2.7	?	Erskine 1990s
Park farm	Stones	10	0.4	Y	5.5	2.4	Y	Erskine 1990s
Fairy Hill		13	?	Y	6.5	?		Erskine 1990s

West Wansdyke Excavation

When the waters receded (possibly Early Iron Age period), it is possible that the Dyke was extended, or the more probable event of East Wansdyke after it dried up was turned into a roadway and what we see in West Wansdyke is the extension of the road, and hence it is wider than in the East.

Archaeology in the Post-Truth Era — East Wansdyke – Earlier Canal System -(Statonbury Camp near Bath).

We also see more shallow ditches as they were not used for water but to obtain soil for the walkway and become drainage ditches.

Indeed, we know the Romans used this as a road and always had drainage ditches, usually on both sides. This is supported by carbon dating at Erskine’s excavation at Blackrock Lane, where the section appeared to have been sealed by the primary bank material. One of these layers contained significant concentrations of woody oak charcoal.

Samples of this material were submitted to the Ancient Monuments Laboratory for radiocarbon dating to provide a possible construction of the bank. Unfortunately, as shown in the table below – sadly, as standard when scientific evidence disproves the current archaeological narrative – it is ignored and classified as an error.

Table 1. Erskine, Jonathan. (2007). The West Wansdyke: an appraisal of the dating, dimensions and construction techniques in the light of excavated evidence. Archaeological Journal. 164. 80-108.

The other missing aspect shown in East Wansdyke and not West Wansdyke was the massive connection to Barrows and Flint Pits. Again, this connection is not seen on West Wansdyke, which may help date this monument as the barrows were of the Bronze Age or earlier and as we have seen from the carbon dating evidence at Blackrock Lane much earlier than its 1500 BCE date.(Statonbury Camp near Bath)

Statonbury Camp near Bath – an example of West Wansdyke

If we look at the Scheduled parts of the Wansdyke – we see that the East is very much intact, but the West is sporadic at best, and it’s hard to find a logical link to all the Dykes that seem to only appear over hills and not in the valley’s – which in my view would have been flooded in the Mesolithic and hence the west sections addition after East Wansdyke’s construction – probably by the roman’s who may have utilised the Dyke system for their own transportation reasons.

But for the sake of scientific curiosity, let’s take a detailed look at Stantonbury Hill site, which is classified as an Iron Age Camp, with Wansdyke making up one of the defensive banks – but before we delve deeper into the field archaeology of the site – I feel I must clarify the use of the classification of ‘Iron Age Fort’ by archaeologists.

All sites that sit on top of hills and have ditches are called Iron Age Forts – sadly I have yet to find a single location that is either ‘Iron Age’ or a ‘Fortification’ as not a single dead body from slaying has ever been found and all the so called defensive ditches EVER!! Yet the archaeology world continues to use this misleading classification that confuses the public as if it has been qualified and proven. So, back to Statonbury camp.

The only investigation of this site was made by Fox and Fox in 1956 as part of their survey of Wansdyke in the publication ‘Wansdyke reconsidered.’ It should be noted that Historic England does not have an account with their scheduling as no excavation work has ever been undertaken, and so only field walking has been undertaken, and so the results are subjective to the field walker.

In Fox’s publication they also question this linkage of East and West Wansdyke through other even older publications and field surveys that resulted in questioning the logic of dating this linear earthwork.

That great antiquary, Sir Richard Colt Hoare, had his doubts about the identification, which he endeavoured to suppress in his account of the earthwork in Ancient Wiltshire,

‘ Hitherto we have been enabled to trace the course of Wansdyke with certainty and success through Somersetshire, but on approaching the neighbouring county of Wiltshire we enter upon a new and doubtful field of inquiry respecting the direction as well as the formation of this celebrated rampart.’

His own observations in the field had shown him that in this central sector ‘ it bears the decided appearance of a Roman causeway, not of a Belgic or Saxon boundary and yet he felt obliged to support the current view that road and dyke were identical because he was convinced that the Wansdyke was continuous and he could find no alternative course for it in the area.

Sir R. C. Hoare also observes, the camps appear to have been added to the Dyke, not the Dyke formed to connect the camps ; which may be noticed especially at Stantonbury Camp, the second on the line of the course of Wansdyke through Somersetshire.(Statonbury Camp near Bath)

They continue

General Pitt-Rivers, also had misgivings,

‘ the Dyke he comments, in the Heddington region,’ is of very low relief everywhere on this line and it has often been questioned whether it is a dyke or a road’, and his suspicions were again aroused at a point west of Morgan’s Hill and on Bowden Hill near Lacock’.

Stanton Camp - Not Defensive — Stanton Camp – Not Defensive -(Statonbury Camp near Bath)

On Statonbury Camp there are not very helpful and report that:

Stantonbury is a univallate Iron Age hill-fort enclosing some 30 acres on the crest of the hill : until very recently it was waste ground going back to thorn scrub and islanded in dense woodland, as can be seen on the air-photo (Pl. VIIIB). The hill top (580 ft.) commands a wide view : from here the whole of the countryside traversed by West Wansdyke can be seen, Maes Knoll to the west. Odd Down to the east, as well as an uninterrupted stretch northwards to the Avon valley and the Cotswolds beyond. From here, the major alignment was probably planned (fig. 19 and p. 37).

In 1956-7 the hill top has been ploughed again, and the much reduced Iron Age defences are visible on the edge of the cultivation. It appears to us that Wansdyke was not constructed along the north-facing hill slope, and that as at Old Oswestry hill-fort, on Wat’s Dyke in Montgomery, the Iron Age defences were deemed sufficient. There is, however, as General Pitt-River’s level section shows, a steep scarp below the traces of the ploughed-in Iron Age ditch, which may be artificial and post-date the hill-fort, but this is uncertain.

East of the fort, in field 20, which is now occupied by a plantation and a pheasantry, the Dyke continues as a scarp for as far as we were able to trace it through the nettles and undergrowth. Below the 500 ft. contour, the large bank and ditch reappear in the dense woodland, and emerge beside the lane leading to the road to Stanton Prior, where the earthwork measures 75 ft. overall.

So according to Fox and Fox Wansdyke stops short and accepts the North Face is the Iron Age Site – therefore if the Wansdyke had been cut to the north of the site – the Iron Age fort replaced it – which is not as the Jihad had claimed?

So where did he get this ‘ground-breaking’ revelation? For this we must go not a peer reviewed book but a web site ‘wansdyke21.org.uk’ by Robert Vermaat

He suggests that:

It has been suggested by Fox & Fox that Wansdyke did not actually use Stantonbury Camp, the ditch stopping short of the Iron Age defences by several metres. However, Burrow showed in 1982 that this was incorrect.

Although the western slope is much disturbed by quarrying and the lower slopes by cultivation, Wansdyke can still be traced quite well at several points on the hill. As with Maes Knoll, the northern defences are more prominent than those on the south side.

As Wansdyke joins the defences here, it can be argued that, as was the case at Maes Knoll, the northern defences were refurbished when Wansdyke was constructed, neglecting the south side which was without use for the builders of Wansdyke.

If only we had £64 to see this so called evidence from Field walking by burrows (as we know it was not excavated and LiDAR was not in use)!!

Fortunately, we have now obtained high resolution LiDAR images of Statonbury Camp and we can see that Wansdyke goes over the hill in a strange ‘wibbly wobbly’ way rather than a straight line – which we see either side of the hill from much shallower ditches. This suggests that this area was not built completely at the same time and the Hill Dyke is older than the flat ground levels that surround the hill.

My estimation from the evidence found in the smaller ditches is that they are Roman (and hence straight) in origin that connected to the earlier prehistoric Dyke over Statonbury Hill the archaeologists call West Wansdyke (part of). The path over the hill indicates that the builders were attempting to locate natural springs as they built the Dyke to supply it with water and hence the strange pathway.

Closer inspection of the Dyke as it approaches the ‘Iron Age Site’ suggest that it splits and moves the bank from north facing to south facing which Fox had seen as a terminus of the Dyke for it reached the Fort. LiDAR clearly shows that the ditch moves to the south side of the bank and continues to create the East side of the fort finally terminating in the South.

Also the shape of the fort is not consistent as it has rounded edges in the SE and SW regions but flat T-Junctions in the NE and NW where it meets Wansdyke – indicating it was added to the existing Wansdyke canal either at the time of construction or a later date.

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

Wansdyke LiDAR Flyover

Posted on January 1, 2025 by admin

Promotional video for the book transcript………………………….. Ancient prehistoric Canals (Dykes) – Wansdyke

Introduction

Wansdyke

Archaeologists and historians have proposed numerous theories regarding dykes such as Wansdyke. Initially, they believed it served as a defensive structure to protect territories from hostile tribes. However, more recent theories, influenced by the absence of evidence such as human remains from excavations, suggest it functioned as a border marker. This border hypothesis, however, can be challenged by examining the easternmost section of Wansdyke.

The Eastern Start of Wansdyke

To understand Wansdyke’s purpose, we must first consider how it might have appeared in prehistory when river levels were significantly higher than today. Research involving over 1,500 dykes in England suggests that fluctuating groundwater levels during the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods (5,000–10,000 years ago) drastically altered the landscape. This environmental context sheds light on the mysterious beginning of Wansdyke, which lies in an unassuming field.

This starting point poses a conundrum. If Wansdyke were a defensive structure, invaders could simply bypass it. Similarly, as a border marker, it appears illogical, given the seemingly arbitrary placement in what would have been “no man’s land” to the east. However, when we consider the Mesolithic water levels, this puzzle begins to make sense. At that time, the eastern end of Wansdyke likely met the shoreline of the River Kennet, acting as an artificial canal that extended across a water-covered landscape.

The Role of LiDAR in Revealing Wansdyke’s History

East Wansdyke - In the middle of nowhere — East Wansdyke – In the middle of nowhere

Using LiDAR technology, we can explore Wansdyke’s alignment with ancient water levels and examine its potential origins. Early in this examination, we observe a cluster of pits and quarries surrounding the dyke. These features suggest that the initial purpose of Wansdyke might have been related to resource extraction. Unfortunately, these pits remain largely unexcavated, leaving their significance and contents a mystery.

One particularly large quarry lies directly within Wansdyke itself. This raises questions: was it used for material extraction, or was it later adapted to access lower water levels, possibly during the Roman period when Wansdyke may have been repurposed?

Gaps and Deviations in Wansdyke’s Structure

Wansdyke start meets the Mesolithic waterline

Several gaps in Wansdyke also align with prehistoric waterlines. For example, LiDAR reveals the trace of a palaeochannel (a remnant of an ancient river) that aligns with one such gap. These interruptions suggest that Wansdyke may have originally followed natural watercourses, with later modifications to connect separate segments.

Another perplexing feature is a 90-degree bend in the dyke’s course. This sharp turn would have required substantial extra labour and makes little sense for a defensive structure or border marker. However, if we consider the Mesolithic landscape, this bend corresponds to a shoreline, indicating that Wansdyke likely extended across the river, aligning with natural contours of the water.

Connections to Other Features

Wansdyke Pits — Wansdyke pits shows why the Dykes were Built

Throughout Wansdyke, we see evidence of connections to other prehistoric features. A nearby long barrow, for instance, appears to have been positioned along the edge of a palaeochannel, hinting at the relationship between these earthworks and ancient water levels. Other cross-dykes, tumuli, and barrows scattered along Wansdyke further suggest a complex, evolving use of the landscape over time.

Interestingly, LiDAR reveals a potential square building over Wansdyke that does not appear on modern maps. Its characteristics suggest Roman origins, further evidence that the Romans adapted Wansdyke for their purposes.

Later Modifications and Roman Influence

Roman Road cuts through the Dyke showing it was Pre-Roamn — Roman Road cuts through the Dyke showing it was Pre-Roman date

In some sections, Wansdyke appears as a straight line, which contrasts with its otherwise irregular path. This straight alignment may reflect Roman engineering, as it parallels their known preference for direct routes. For instance, one stretch aligns with a Roman road, and closer inspection reveals that the road was constructed within the existing dyke’s ditch. This configuration strongly implies that Wansdyke predated the Roman road.

Historical sketches by William Stukeley in 1724 provide additional evidence, showing the Roman road cutting through Wansdyke’s embankment. This supports the argument that Wansdyke originated in prehistoric times when higher river levels would have rendered it part of a broader canal network.

Wansdyke as a Window Into Prehistoric Innovation

How Wansdyke may have looked in the Mesolithic Period

The idea of Wansdyke as a canal rather than a defensive or territorial feature raises intriguing questions about the ingenuity of prehistoric communities. The ability to manipulate natural waterways and integrate them with constructed earthworks demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of engineering and environmental management. Such systems would have been vital for trade, resource transportation, and sustaining settlements in an era defined by dynamic landscapes.

If Wansdyke truly functioned as part of a prehistoric canal system, it challenges traditional narratives that often downplay the complexity of Mesolithic and Neolithic societies. This perspective not only underscores the advanced capabilities of these ancient communities but also invites a re-evaluation of similar features across Britain and beyond. How many other “defensive dykes” might share this hidden history?

Implications for Archaeological Methods

Wansdyke was one surrounded by water and built overland for mining purposes

The case of Wansdyke highlights the limitations of conventional archaeological approaches. Current reliance on surface-level excavations and isolated carbon dating often fails to capture the broader environmental and historical context of such structures. As demonstrated here, integrating technologies like LiDAR with hydrological and geological studies can provide transformative insights. It also emphasises the need for a multidisciplinary approach to interpreting ancient landscapes.

The neglect of quarry features around Wansdyke, for example, represents a missed opportunity to understand the resources and techniques available to its builders. Future investigations that incorporate more detailed excavation and modern technologies could yield a wealth of data to refine our understanding of Britain’s prehistoric engineering marvels.

A Legacy of Adaptation and Innovation

Massive Engineering Project as Romans reused and recut the dyke

Wansdyke’s story is one of adaptation. From its hypothesised origins as a Mesolithic canal to later modifications by Roman and possibly Saxon cultures, the dyke exemplifies how ancient peoples repurposed and transformed existing structures to meet evolving needs. Whether as a waterway, resource hub, or trade route, Wansdyke stands as a testament to humanity’s ability to innovate and endure across millennia.

By situating Wansdyke within the broader prehistoric context, we move closer to understanding its original purpose and the sophisticated societies that shaped Britain’s ancient landscapes. Its winding paths, mysterious interruptions, and enduring presence remind us that history is not static but a tapestry woven from the ingenuity and adaptability of countless generations.

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

Tag: British History

Introduction

The Issue with Broad Terminology

The Freckled Redhead Problem: Misclassified as “Dark”

Key Genetic Findings from the Report

How the Media Got It Wrong

Conclusion: A Call for More Precision in Pigmentation Studies

Cheddar Man

Executive Summary

Main Themes and Key Ideas:

The Perretti et al. Study: Pigmentation Shifts in Eurasia

Media Misrepresentation and Oversimplification:

Genetic Markers and Their Evolution:

Critique of the “Cheddar Man” Study:

Quotes from Sources:

Recommendations:

Conclusion:

Further Reading

Other Blogs

Introduction

Challenging the Migration Myth: Einkorn Wheat, Ancient Mariners, and the True Timeline of Megalithic Europe

The Einkorn Wheat Discovery at Bouldnor Cliff

The Oldest Boatyard: Catamarans and Maritime Innovation

Radiocarbon Dating and the Revised Timeline of Megalithic Europe

Implications for Prehistoric Migration and Trade

Rethinking the Past

The Call for a New Paradigm

References

By Michael BalterFeb. 26, 2015 , Science Magazine.

Clearly, the traditional migration model is, quite frankly – DEAD!

Timeline of Main Events (BCE)

Challenging the Migration Myth: Einkorn Wheat, Ancient Mariners, and the True Timeline of Megalithic Europe

The Einkorn Wheat Revelation at Bouldnor Cliff

The Oldest Boatyard: Catamarans and Maritime Mastery

Radiocarbon Dating and the True Timeline of Megaliths

Implications for Prehistoric Migration and Trade

Reevaluating the Narrative

The Need for a Paradigm Shift

Exploring Prehistoric Britain: A Journey Through Time

Further Reading

Other Blogs

Introduction

Subjectivity vs. Scientific Rigour

Interpretative Bias

Lack of Reproducibility

Emphasis on Probability

Resistance to New Technologies

LiDAR Technology

OSL Dating

Integration Challenges

Funding, Egos, and Sensationalism

Ego-Driven Research

Sensationalised Interpretations

Ignoring Contradictory Evidence

Misinterpretations of Key Sites

Stonehenge

Iron Age Hill Forts

Linear Earthworks

Woodhenge

The Impact of Post-Glacial Flooding

The Peer-Review Process

Accessibility and Public Engagement

Specific Examples of Flawed Practices

Craig Rhos-y-Felin

Waun Mawn

Professor Ray’s Journey

The Path Forward

Embrace New Technologies

Promote Interdisciplinary Collaboration

Strengthen Scientific Rigour

Encourage Critical Analysis

Enhance Public Engagement

Reduce Sensationalism

Conclusion

Briefing Document: Re-evaluating Prehistoric Britain

Exploring Prehistoric Britain: A Journey Through Time

Further Reading

Other Blogs

Introduction

The Archaeological Evidence Presented Currently