Neolithic – Prehistoric Britain

The Great Prehistoric Migration Hoax

Posted on May 4, 2026 by admin

Introduction

We are all familiar with the conventional story of migration from Asia Minor into Britain, a journey said to have unfolded slowly over thousands of years as people moved on foot, carrying culture and tools with them. It is often presented as a smooth and inevitable spread of humanity. However, this version of events is overly simplistic and does not withstand scrutiny. Migration is not a neat or uniform process, and reducing it to a slow drift across continents removes the complexity that defines real human behaviour.

Traditional View of how Prehistoric cultures moved throughout Europe, over time (The Great Prehistoric Migration Hoax)

The idea that prehistoric populations gradually spread from Asia Minor into Britain over millennia forms the backbone of a major misunderstanding of prehistory. This assumption has shaped much of modern archaeology and historical interpretation, creating a framework that is difficult to challenge because so much depends on it. As a result, alternative interpretations struggle to gain traction, not necessarily because they are wrong, but because they disrupt an entrenched model.

Old Dated Concepts

A significant problem arises when this simplified framework is treated as fact. It becomes embedded in education and public understanding, limiting how new evidence is interpreted. Instead of encouraging fresh thinking, it often forces discoveries to fit within an existing narrative. This restricts progress and prevents a more accurate reconstruction of the past.

Current thinking frequently suggests that key developments such as farming and metallurgy originated in Asia Minor and spread gradually through migrating populations. The assumption is that knowledge moved only as people physically relocated, passing ideas from one group to another over long periods. What this view ignores is the possibility that communication and exchange could occur without mass migration. Even basic technology would have enabled interaction at a distance, allowing ideas to travel far more quickly than people.

Many researchers remain influenced by this traditional model, and this affects how evidence is interpreted. When findings do not align with expectations, they are often dismissed as anomalies rather than investigated further. This creates a filtering effect, where only evidence that supports the established narrative is accepted, while contradictory data is sidelined.

This issue becomes particularly clear when examining the so-called Beaker culture. The standard account describes a group of people spreading across Europe in search of metals, moving from region to region and carrying their distinctive pottery and technologies with them. They are often portrayed as a mobile, expansionist population responsible for the rapid spread of bronze working.

However, this explanation overlooks a key factor. These populations had access to boats. The idea that movement into Britain occurred primarily on foot ignores the obvious reality that sea travel was both possible and likely. If maritime transport existed, then trade networks could have been established long before any large-scale population movement. In this context, the movement of goods and ideas would precede the movement of people, not follow it.

A more realistic model would place trade at the centre of cultural exchange. Communities could interact, share knowledge, and acquire materials without relocating entirely. Migration, when it occurred, may have been a secondary effect of established trading relationships rather than the primary driver of cultural change.

A useful comparison can be found in more recent history. The colonisation of the Americas demonstrates how movement actually occurs when supported by technology and motivation. European powers did not slowly drift across the Atlantic. They used ships, resources, and organisation to rapidly establish new settlements. Within a relatively short period, multiple nations had established colonies, driven by economic ambition rather than simple expansion.

This example highlights an important point. Migration is rarely driven by necessity alone. It is driven by opportunity. People move when there is something to gain, whether that is land, wealth, or strategic advantage. The process requires planning, resources, and intent. It is not a passive or accidental drift across landscapes.

When populations expanded across North America, the movement was not gradual in the sense often imagined for prehistory. Instead, it occurred in distinct phases, often triggered by specific events. The California Gold Rush, for example, caused a rapid shift in population over vast distances in a matter of years. This demonstrates that large-scale movement can happen quickly when conditions are right.

Applying this understanding to prehistory challenges the idea of slow, continuous migration over thousands of years. If similar motivations existed in the past, then movement could have been far more dynamic and episodic than currently assumed. This raises questions about whether the traditional timeline accurately reflects reality.

Archaeological discoveries continue to add to this uncertainty. Evidence such as early boat finds and unexpected materials suggests that long-distance interaction occurred much earlier than previously believed. These findings indicate that prehistoric societies were capable of movement and communication on a scale that challenges conventional models.

Taken together, the evidence points towards a more complex picture. Human movement was not simply a gradual spread of populations across land. It was influenced by trade, technology, environment, and ambition. Ideas and materials could travel independently of people, and when people did move, they did so for specific reasons rather than as part of a slow and inevitable process.

Understanding migration in this way removes the limitations imposed by outdated assumptions. It allows for a more flexible and realistic interpretation of the past, one that recognises the capabilities of prehistoric societies rather than underestimating them.

New World Migration Patterns

Indeed, the historical model of the European colonisation of America in the 17th century serves as a compelling and often overlooked example that challenges the dated perspectives on migration. This empirical evidence, rooted in written history, sheds light on the dynamics of movement and colonisation, showcasing the pivotal role of boats (or, in the case of America, carts) in facilitating such endeavours.

As highlighted by historical records, early colonists from European kingdoms with well-developed military, naval, governmental, and entrepreneurial capabilities embarked on colonising the New World. The Spanish and Portuguese, drawing on centuries of experience in conquest and colonisation, leveraged their expertise gained during the Reconquista and navigational skills for oceanic voyages. The English, French, and Dutch, while capable of building ocean-worthy ships, lacked the extensive histories of colonisation exhibited by Portugal and Spain. Nevertheless, English entrepreneurs established colonies with a foundation of merchant-based investment that required less government support.

This historical example underscores a critical point often overlooked in the study of migration — the motivations behind people’s movement. In this context, the colonisation of the New World was primarily driven by economic interests, power, and the pursuit of wealth. Failure to recognise these underlying motives represents an anthropological flaw in our historical narratives, which often simplify migration as a mere expansion into new territories. Understanding that migration involves significant time, effort, and resources challenges the notion that people move solely to find new lands to occupy. The fact that the population was relatively small at the time suggests that land occupation was more of a choice than a necessity, further emphasising the complex motivations behind human migration.

American Colonies

The spread of American colonies from just the East Coast to the West shows the motivation factor behind migration coast-to-coast. Here are some key reasons:

Land Availability: As European settlers arrived on the East Coast, they quickly realised that the region had limited arable land and was becoming crowded. The allure of available land in the western territories motivated people to move westward in search of better opportunities.

Economic Opportunities: The promise of fertile land for farming and the discovery of valuable resources, such as gold and silver, attracted many individuals and families to move west. The prospect of acquiring land for farming and starting anew was a powerful motivator.

Technological Advances: Improvements in transportation, such as the development of canals, roads, and later the railroad, made it easier for people to travel and settle in the western territories. These advancements reduced the challenges associated with long-distance migration.

Government Incentives: The U.S. government actively encouraged westward expansion through policies such as the Homestead Act of 1862, which provided 160 acres of public land to settlers for a small fee, provided they improved the land by building a dwelling and cultivating crops. This attracted many settlers to the frontier.

Escape from Economic Hardship: Some individuals moved west in the hope of escaping economic hardships or seeking a fresh start. This was particularly true during times of economic downturns or regional crises on the East Coast.

As I explore historical narratives, the distribution of populations across America emerges as a series of sudden leaps rather than a gradual process. Take, for instance, the bold leap made by the East Coast New England colonies during the California Gold Rush. Over just seven years, there was an astonishing migration of 3,232 miles—a journey equivalent to the distance from Asia Minor to Britain, a span traditionally believed to have taken four thousand years.

This leap of faith was driven by reports of gold in California, sparking a massive upheaval as individuals sought to capitalise on the potential wealth. The allure of prosperity motivated people to traverse the continent’s vast expanse, reflecting how specific events and opportunities could swiftly reshape population distribution.

Asian Wheat in the Solent

This intriguing phenomenon prompts me to reevaluate traditional timelines in light of recent archaeological discoveries. For example, the presence of an 8,000-year-old boat in the Solent carrying wheat challenges established notions. Wheat, believed to have been introduced to Britain much later, now questions the pace of historical movements and interactions. It’s a reminder that our understanding of history is dynamic, subject to revision as new evidence emerges, and that the narrative of human migration is filled with unexpected leaps and transformative moments.

https://prehistoric-britain.co.uk/six-years-ago-archaeology-made-astonishing-discovery-einkorn-wheat

As someone who has delved into the pages of history, it’s clear that the driving force behind human movement has consistently been the pursuit of prosperity. This very motivation underscores the crucial role that trading played in prehistoric times. Individuals displayed a willingness to traverse great distances in search of the abundant rewards that relocating, whether to America or prehistoric Britain, could offer. Contrary to some contemporary perceptions, the gradual dissemination of cultures and technology wasn’t as linear as we might currently believe.

In reflecting on the past, it becomes evident that the motivation to seek better economic opportunities was a shared aspect of the human experience. The narrative of the slow, methodical spread of cultures and technology was not a conscious effort but rather a consequence of our collective pursuit of better circumstances. The archaeological evidence available today strongly supports the notion that the exchange of ideas and the trade of materials occurred in tandem, almost synchronously, across the landscapes of Europe. It’s through this lens of trading ideology that we can better understand the interconnected and dynamic nature of our historical journey.

PODCAST

Author’s Biography

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

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

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

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

Exploring Prehistoric Britain: A Journey Through Time

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

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

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

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

Other Blogs

2024 Prehistoric Britain Blog Review

8000-year-old Cro-Magnon skull

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

South Cadbury Castle – Camelot

Posted on April 1, 2026 by admin

Introduction

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

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

South Cadbury Castle - Camelot — South Cadbury Castle – Camelot

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

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

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

The Problem with the Traditional Interpretation

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

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

The core issue is methodological.

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

This is a fundamental distinction.

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

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

Elevation and Function — The Missing Variable

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

Its elevation.

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

But this assumption is never tested.

It is simply inherited.

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

Why are the earliest activities consistently located on elevated ground?

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

The simplest explanation is not a defence.

It is an environment.

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

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

They are the only viable ground.

Reframing the “Hillfort”

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

The term “hillfort” becomes problematic.

It assumes:

conflict
territorial defence
permanent settlement

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

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

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

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

The Illusion of Continuity

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

Cadbury Castle is presented as:

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

But this is not a continuous timeline of occupation.

It is a list of disconnected events.

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

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

In other words, the hill is important.

Not necessarily the settlement.

A Simpler Model

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

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

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

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

Maps

1800s OS Map

GE Satellite Map

LiDAR Map

Investigation

Site Flyaround

South Cadbury Castle Flyaround

Site Flyover

South Cadbury Castle Fly Over

Lidar Map showing Bronze Age

South Cadbury Castle – with Bronze Age Water Levels

LiDAR Map showing Mesolithic Period

South Cadbury Castle with Mesloithic Water levels

Defence Strategy 101

Roman Defence System

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

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

Classic Roman Fort With Ditch and Palisade

Lidar Maps of Sth Cadbury Castle Show No Defences

Banks

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

Importance and Use of Foxholes in Defense

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

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

Advantages of Foxholes

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

South Cadbury Castle Context

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

Ditches

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

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

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

Water Table

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

South Cadbury Castle showing Springs still in existence

Dykes

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

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

Two Possible Slipways – one connecting directly to a Dyke

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

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

Dating the Site

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

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

Function of the site

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

PodCast

Author’s Biography

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

Exploring Prehistoric Britain: A Journey Through Time

Other Blogs

2024 Prehistoric Britain Blog Review

8000-year-old Cro-Magnon skull

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

Archaeology’s Bayesian Mistake: Stop Averaging the Past

Posted on September 24, 2025 by admin

Introduction

The Peer-Reviewed map of 2019 is showing the maritine connections even as silly baysian averages – Archaeology’s Bayesian Mistake: Stop Averaging the Past

Archaeology loves a tidy median. Give it ten millennia of activity at a monument and, all too often, it will return one number: a Bayesian mid-point presented as if it were the date of construction. That may be convenient for textbooks, but it’s a category error for sites with long lives, intrusive burials, and repeated re-use.

This post does the opposite. It treats the 2,410 radiocarbon dates now in circulation as a resource to be read from the beginning, not the average—by foregrounding the earliest secure construction signals (Earliest Secure Date / ESD). Do that, and a very different story emerges:

Megalith building (and its direct precursors) starts far earlier than Late Neolithic averages suggest.
The pattern tracks coasts, estuaries, raised beaches and palaeochannels—a maritime world, not a plodding overland farmer wave.
“Diffusion by sea” is correct—but the start is centuries to millennia earlier when you use construction evidence rather than phase averages.

The Problem in One Line

Bayesian phase modelling is excellent for summarising typical activity windows; it is the wrong instrument for pinning down first construction. On monuments used for centuries or millennia, the more samples you add (especially later ones), the younger the “average” tends to drift. Great for phases. Misleading for build dates.

The ESD Rule (How to Date Construction Honestly)

When the question is “When was this built?”:

Short-lived, stratified material (charred seeds, twigs, resin, single-year growth) from a construction interface (foundation trench, packing deposit, primary ditch cut): take the earliest calibrated date(s) within 95% that are securely tied to construction. Do not average with later phases.
If that’s absent, use carefully vetted short-span charcoal from primary construction contexts (avoid “old wood”).
Cross-check with hydrology (raised beaches, palaeochannels, groundwater) and engineering (moats, landings, avenues). When hydro-context and earliest dates agree, you’ve got your ESD.
Treat Bayesian mid-points as what they are: phase summaries, not build anchors.

What the Earliest Signals Say (by region)

When the radiocarbon record is read from the earliest secure construction signals instead of averaged phase mid-points, a very different story emerges.

In Brittany, Carnac’s great mound of Saint-Michel calibrates to between 8150 and 7750 BCE, marking one of the oldest monumental anchors on the Atlantic façade. Le Souc’h follows in the later 7th millennium (6915–6675 BCE), while Sarceaux registers in the 6550–6320 BCE window. Later monuments such as Er Grah and Kercado belong to the 6th millennium, showing a long and deep tradition rather than a sudden Neolithic start.

On Corsica, the tomb at Curacchiaghiu is firmly rooted in the early 8th millennium (8155–7160 BCE), while Monte Revincu adds further signals through the 5th millennium. These contexts position the island as a true stepping-stone in a Mediterranean maritime network.

In Schleswig-Holstein, the Flintbek long barrow series contains dates between 7470 and 7190 BCE, foreshadowing the monumental landscapes that later define northern Europe.

The Atlantic façade of Iberia is equally early. Casinha Derribada in Portugal calibrates to 7050–6660 BCE, while the Muge shell middens — Arruda, Amoreira, Moita do Sebastião — fall between 6500 and 6200 BCE. Madorras I lies close behind (7010–6620 BCE), and Tremedal in Spain shows activity in the 6990–6605 BCE range. Far from a late adoption, the estuaries of the Tagus and neighbouring coasts were part of a vigorous Atlantic pulse from the 7th millennium onward.

In Scandinavia, Sweden’s Gökhem tomb anchors between 6560 and 6230 BCE, and Denmark’s Barkaer falls between 6615 and 6150 BCE. These fjord-edge monuments long pre-date the later TRB passage graves, reminding us that monumental construction in the north begins in the Mesolithic, not the Neolithic.

The British Isles share this watery horizon. Sketewan in Scotland lies between 6455 and 6125 BCE, Ballymcdermot in Ireland spans 5970–5650 BCE, Carrowmore is dated to 5610–5330 BCE, and Knowth 1 falls within 5920–5555 BCE. Stonehenge too belongs here, its moat and ditch cut into high groundwater, while quarry hearths in Preseli span the 8550–7190 BCE interval. These dates reveal not a sudden Neolithic creation but a much longer Mesolithic continuum.

Even the Central Mediterranean aligns with this picture. Skorba in Malta calibrates to 5230–4975 BCE, centuries before the better-known temples of Tarxien (3350–2920 BCE) and Ħal-Saflieni (2760–2470 BCE). The Maltese harbours were clearly part of the same seaborne monumental tradition.

Why the story looks different in older reports

The difference lies in method. The well-known 2019 synthesis pooled over 2,400 radiocarbon determinations but used the IntCal13 calibration curve and focused on Bayesian phase mid-points. That approach is excellent for describing typical activity windows but it inevitably averages away the earliest evidence. On monuments reused for centuries or millennia, the more dates you add, the later the median drifts.

Recalibrating the same laboratory results against the updated IntCal20 curve (2020), and privileging the earliest secure samples from primary construction contexts, pushes the horizon back centuries to millennia earlier. What looks like a tidy Late Neolithic origin under IntCal13 resolves, with IntCal20, into a Mesolithic-first story tied to raised beaches, palaeochannels, and boat-access landscapes.

What the famous “2,410 dates” study actually shows—and what it doesn’t

The big synthesis that pooled 2,410 C-14 determinations did two important things: (1) it assembled the record; (2) it used Bayesian modelling to map phase timings and diffusion patterns. That’s valuable and—crucially—compatible with our case. Where things go wrong is in storytelling: medians/means of phases get repeated as if they were build dates of individual monuments.

Bayesian outputs are about probabilistic boundaries of activity phases; they are not a shortcut to “the day the first stone went up.” If your question is construction, you must privilege ESD—the earliest secure determinations from founding contexts.

Site-by-site ledger clarifies the early horizon

Because we tag Earliest_date against context, the ledger restores the first-build edge that phase models tend to blur. The result is a Mesolithic-first horizon across the Atlantic façade and selected Mediterranean islands, which better explains:

Early coastal clustering (estuaries, lagoons, raised beaches).
Rapid sea-borne spread of ideas (not slow overland migration).
A long continuum from Mesolithic structures and causeways to later stone colossi.

Why Bayesian mid-points keep misleading us

Even when used correctly, phase models weight later activity simply because there’s more of it (and more samples from it). Three predictable distortions follow:

Innovators vanish. The builders who did it first are averaged into a later “typical” date.
Orthodoxy is preserved. A tight Late Neolithic mid-point lets handbooks avoid rewriting origins.
Hydrology is sidelined. Raised beaches, palaeochannels and groundwater—hard environmental anchors—don’t fit a single neat number, so they get ignored.

If you want construction, the answer is not the average of a 3,000-year use-life. It’s the Earliest Secure Date tied to building.

Why this matters for Stonehenge & the Atlantic network

Read through ESD, Stonehenge moves back into its watery Mesolithic landscape—moats on high groundwater, boat access, healing-spring chemistry on the bluestone story—rather than a dry-chalk Late Neolithic “first build.” Ireland’s early passage-tomb activity (~7th millennium contexts) and Brittany’s deep horizon strengthen the case that Britain and Ireland were plugged into a maritime corridor long before the averaged dates suggest.

Credibility isn’t the issue—interpretation is

The 2,410 dates came from top-tier national labs and university projects across Europe. The synthesis is careful and the toolkit (e.g., OxCal) is standard. The problem is not the science—it’s the question we’re asking of the statistics. Phase models answer “when was this kind of activity typical here?” Langdon research asks “when was this monument first constructed?” Different question, different metric.

A wider, older, wetter Atlantic story

Foregrounding earliest construction signals harmonises with independent lines of evidence:

Hydrology: monuments perched on raised beaches, beside palaeochannels, on estuary rims.
Engineering: avenues, moats, “harbors,” and canal-like earthworks (dykes as water management, not defense).
Logistics: the only mechanism fast enough to account for early synchrony is boats—not boots.

When we stop averaging, the Atlantic façade reads as a cradle, not a late afterthought.

What a fair synthesis should look like (use both tools, but be honest)

Publish two views for every site/region:
- (A) Phase-based Bayesian timelines (for typical use).
- (B) Event-focused ESD (for first construction).
Tag contexts: construction vs. reuse vs. intrusion.
Overlay hydrology and elevations; publish cross-sections.
If you must give one number for a monument “build date,” make it the Earliest Secure Date, not a phase mid-point.

The question we should now ask out loud

Why have we allowed phase averages to stand in for construction dates?
Why are the earliest secure signals—the ones that actually tell us who started this and when—still treated as anomalies to be averaged away? If archaeology is a science, start with the earliest anchor. Then talk about reuse.

Final word: the stones didn’t walk. They sailed.

The 2,410-date record is extraordinary. Use it properly—by separating first-build from later use, by reporting ESD alongside Bayesian phases, and by reading the landscape in water—and Europe’s megaliths resolve into what the monuments and coastlines have been saying all along:

an early, maritime, pan-Atlantic civilisation—with origins deep in the Mesolithic and a memory long enough to be blurred by averages.Megaliths by Sea: Re-reading Europe’s Deep Past from its Earliest Radiocarbon Signals

For a century, the story of Europe’s megaliths has swung between two poles. In one corner, a diffusion model (maritime or otherwise) linking far-flung monuments by sea routes; in the other, a patchwork of local inventions. A 2019 peer-reviewed study pushed the pendulum back toward diffusion by crunching 2,410 radiocarbon results from graves and related contexts into a polished timeline with Bayesian statistics—and argued for an origin around the Atlantic façade and its sea lanes. PubMed

That paper is impressive and important. But it also highlights a problem with how we currently treat dates. Bayesian models are brilliant at finding a central tendency; they are not designed to tell you the moment of construction—especially for monuments that are reused, refurbished, and ritually revisited for millennia. When you average a long, busy life, you risk pushing the “start” later than it really was.

Appendices

Appendix — Earliest Secure Dates by Country (Top 5 per country)

(Older → younger within each country, based on the older end of the 95% IntCal20 calibrated BCE range. “RC Age” is the reported radiocarbon age in years BP.)

Denmark

Barkaer — Lab: K-3053, RC Age: 7580 BP → 6614 – 6148 BCE
Barkaer — Lab: K-3054, RC Age: 5850 BP → 4930 – 4466 BCE
Barkaer — Lab: K-2634, RC Age: 5270 BP → 4114 – 3887 BCE
Mosegården — Lab: K-3463, RC Age: 5080 BP → 3982 – 3571 BCE
Barkaer — Lab: K-2633, RC Age: 5100 BP → 3911 – 3686 BCE

England

Ascott-under-Wychwood — Lab: GrA-27098, RC Age: 6180 BP → 5187 – 4986 BCE
Ascott-under-Wychwood — Lab: GrA-27099, RC Age: 6000 BP → 4976 – 4782 BCE
Hazleton North — Lab: HAR-8351, RC Age: 5730 BP → 4789 – 4325 BCE
Lambourne Ground — Lab: GX-1178, RC Age: 5365 BP → 4552 – 3709 BCE
Les Fouaillages — Lab: BM-1892, RC Age: 5590 BP → 4508 – 4262 BCE

France

Saint-Michel — Lab: Gsy-90, RC Age: 8800 BP → 8152 – 7754 BCE
Curacchiaghiu — Lab: Gif-795, RC Age: 8560 BP → 8157 – 7162 BCE
Le Souc’h — Lab: GrA-30245, RC Age: 7985 BP → 6916 – 6674 BCE
Sarceaux — Lab: Gif-10191, RC Age: 7670 BP → 6550 – 6317 BCE
Curacchiaghiu — Lab: Gif-796, RC Age: 7300 BP → 6389 – 5864 BCE

Germany

Flintbek — Lab: KIA-41582, RC Age: 8328 BP → 7469 – 7193 BCE
Borgstedt LA 22 — Lab: KIA-47607-2, RC Age: 5150 BP → 3931 – 3789 BCE
Albersdorf, LA 56 (Bredenhoop) — Lab: KIA-49487-1, RC Age: 5110 BP → 3893 – 3732 BCE
Borgstedt LA 22 — Lab: KIA-47607-1, RC Age: 5077 BP → 3847 – 3701 BCE
Albersdorf, LA 56 (Bredenhoop) — Lab: KIA-47605-2, RC Age: 5090 BP → 3845 – 3731 BCE

Ireland

Ballymcdermot — Lab: UB-702, RC Age: 6925 BP → 5970 – 5649 BCE
Knowth 1 — Lab: UB-358, RC Age: 6835 BP → 5917 – 5554 BCE
Carrowmore — Lab: Ua-12736, RC Age: 6500 BP → 5612 – 5328 BCE
Poulnabrone — Lab: GrN-15294, RC Age: 5100 BP → 3972 – 3657 BCE
Loughcrew Cairn T — Lab: UB-426, RC Age: 4900 BP → 3707 – 3379 BCE

Malta (Central Mediterranean)

Skorba — Lab: (6140 BP) → 5230 – 4975 BCE
Tarxien — Lab: (4485 BP) → 3350 – 2920 BCE

Portugal

Casinha Derribada — Lab: OxA-9911, RC Age: 8080 BP → 7046 – 6663 BCE
Madorras I — Lab: CSIC-1029, RC Age: 8000 BP → 7011 – 6623 BCE
Tremedal — Lab: GrN-15938, RC Age: 7960 BP → 6990 – 6606 BCE
Madorras I — Lab: GrA-1418, RC Age: 7840 BP → 6863 – 6496 BCE
Orca de Merouços — Lab: GrA-14771, RC Age: 7740 BP → 6757 – 6400 BCE

Scotland

Sketewan — Lab: GU-2678, RC Age: 7500 BP → 6454 – 6125 BCE
Lesmurdie — Lab: (various, earliest in subset) → see ledger
Balnuaran of Clava — Lab: (as available in full ledger) → see ledger
(Only entries present in the first-500 extract are listed here.)

Spain

Tremedal — Lab: GrN-15938, RC Age: 7960 BP → 6990 – 6606 BCE
Cueva de los Murciélagos — Lab: CSIC-247, RC Age: 7440 BP → 6474 – 6128 BCE
Monte Areo VI — Lab: (5820 BP) → see calibrated range in ledger
(Top five truncated to those present in first-500 extract.)

Sweden

Gökhem 94:1 — Lab: Ua-20948, RC Age: 7615 BP → 6558 – 6232 BCE
Jättegraven — Lab: (5220 BP) → see calibrated range in ledger
(Limited by first-500 subset.)

Methods — How we calculated the BCE ranges (and why older books are off)

What we calibrated: The spreadsheet’s radiocarbon measurements (¹⁴C Age, BP) with their lab-reported errors (±σ).

Curve used: IntCal20 (released 2020), the current international calibration curve for the Northern Hemisphere. It supersedes IntCal13 (2013) and earlier curves.

Computation:

For each date we ran a Monte Carlo calibration: we sampled thousands of ¹⁴C ages from a Normal(age, σ) for that lab result, mapped each sample to cal BP via the IntCal20 curve (by interpolation on the published IntCal20 grid), and then converted to cal BCE using cal BCE = cal BP − 1950.
We report the median and the 95% calibrated interval (the range you see as “BCE range”). This captures the real-world uncertainty and the curve’s “wiggles.”
Where samples are marine or freshwater (reservoir‐affected), the strict standard would be to use Marine20 and apply a ΔR correction. Most entries here are terrestrial (charcoal, seeds, etc.); any flagged marine materials should be re-run with Marine20 + ΔR for final publication.

Why earlier publications disagree:

Many pre-2020 papers/books either (a) quoted uncalibrated BP as if it were BCE, or (b) calibrated using older curves (IntCal09/13). Against IntCal20, early Holocene dates often shift several hundred years earlier.
The influential 2019 synthesis used IntCal13 and focused on Bayesian phase mid-points (excellent for typical activity windows). For first construction, those mid-points bias late on long-used monuments. Our method foregrounds Earliest Secure Dates (ESD): short-lived, stratified materials from primary construction contexts (foundation cuts, packing deposits, primary ditch cuts), calibrated on IntCal20 and presented as ranges, not single numbers.

Bottom line:

BP is not BCE. Always calibrate.
Use IntCal20 (or later) and show ranges at 95%.
For build dates, prioritize Earliest Secure Dates from founding contexts; treat Bayesian phase mid-points as use-phase summaries, not construction anchors.

Full List of C14 dates

Schulz Paulsson, B. (2019). Radiocarbon dates and Bayesian modeling support maritime diffusion model for megaliths in Europe. PNAS, 116(9): 3460–3465. Affiliation: Department of Historical Studies, University of Gothenburg. PubMed

Our Approach and Dates

[table id=51 alternating_row_colors=true column_widths=”20%|20%|30%” /]

To determine the earliest likely date of origin for megalithic construction, avoiding the potential biases introduced by Bayesian averages, you could use an alternative mathematical approach. Here are some potential methods:

1. Minimum Date Selection

Identify the earliest calibrated radiocarbon date in the dataset for each site and use these as indicative of the earliest human activity or construction.

2. Terminus Ante Quem Approach

Focus on dates that represent the earliest securely stratified contexts associated with construction, ensuring they are not from later disturbances or unrelated materials.

3. Cluster Analysis

Perform a clustering analysis of all calibrated dates to identify the earliest significant cluster of activity. This can help filter out outliers and provide a more accurate picture of early construction activity.

4. Monte Carlo Simulation

Run a Monte Carlo simulation on the dataset to account for uncertainties and distribution patterns in radiocarbon calibration, generating a range for the earliest dates.

5. Probability Density Function Peaks

Generate probability density functions (PDFs) for all dates and identify the peak of the earliest cluster, as this represents the most probable early activity.

6. Stratigraphic and Contextual Filtering

Combine radiocarbon dates with stratigraphic and archaeological context to exclude dates that do not relate directly to the original construction phase.

(Maritime Diffusion Model for Megaliths in Europe)

PodCast

Author’s Biography

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

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

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

Exploring Prehistoric Britain: A Journey Through Time

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

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

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

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

Other Blogs

2024 Prehistoric Britain Blog Review

8000-year-old Cro-Magnon skull

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

13 Things You Didn’t Know About Hillforts — The Real Story Behind Britain’s Ancient Earthworks

Posted on June 7, 2025 by admin

Introduction

Hillforts have long been cast as the mighty defensive bastions of prehistoric Britain, iconic symbols of Iron Age tribal warfare and territorial defence. But if you peel back the layers of archaeological evidence, a very different, far more complex picture emerges. While some hillforts were adapted for military use during later periods—particularly during Roman expansion—the majority were multifunctional hubs serving economic, ceremonial, territorial, and social roles rather than purely defensive purposes.

Below, we unravel 13 surprising facts that challenge the traditional fortress narrative, shedding light on the true nature of hillforts across Britain and Ireland. Prepare to rethink what you thought you knew.

13 Things You Didn’t Know About Hillforts — Hillforts have long been cast as the mighty defensive bastions of prehistoric Britain, iconic symbols of Iron Age tribal warfare and territorial defence

1. Hillfort Classifications Are Outdated and Over-Simplified

For nearly a century, archaeologists have tried to neatly categorize hillforts based on size, location, rampart construction, and age. Early scholars like Sir Mortimer Wheeler and later Barry Cunliffe developed classification schemes grouping hillforts into types such as early hilltop enclosures over 10 hectares, smaller settlements of 1–3 hectares, early univallate forts, and more complex multivallate sites. These categories aimed to make sense of the diversity by assigning function and status, often equating larger or more complex sites with defensive importance.

However, these classifications are increasingly questioned because they lean heavily on limited physical evidence and overlook the social and economic functions of these sites. For example, a large enclosure doesn’t necessarily mean a military fortress; it could be a ceremonial gathering place or a centre for trade. Likewise, a simple earthwork might have deep ritual significance rather than being a mere settlement defence. This simplified framework risks distorting the true roles these structures played in prehistoric societies.

By focusing too much on size and fortification features, scholars have missed the multifunctional nature of hillforts. Archaeological evidence now points to a more nuanced understanding: these sites often combined social, economic, political, and ritual functions alongside occasional defensive adaptations. We must therefore treat traditional categories with caution and embrace complexity.

2. The “Fortress” Definition Has Stuck For Too Long

The classical definition of a hillfort, as “a fortified refuge or defended habitation on elevated ground,” still dominates textbooks and popular understanding. Wikipedia and many reference works place hillforts squarely in the Bronze or Iron Age and depict them as military installations designed to control territory and repel attackers. Their defining features are steep earthworks, ramparts, palisades, and ditches, strategically placed to take advantage of high ground.

While this definition neatly fits some later hillforts, it oversimplifies a wide array of prehistoric enclosures that often lack convincing military architecture or evidence of warfare. Moreover, it ignores that many of these sites have much older origins, with some showing continuity of use stretching back thousands of years before the Iron Age, into the Neolithic or even Mesolithic periods. The persistence of this fortress-centric view obscures the diverse social realities of prehistoric communities.

Holding on to this entrenched definition restricts archaeological interpretation and public perception. It encourages viewing hillforts as relics of constant warfare rather than appreciating their complex social, ceremonial, and economic dimensions. The reality, as recent research shows, is far richer and more varied.

3. Hillforts Were Around Before the Iron Age

Many people associate hillforts exclusively with the Iron Age, roughly 800 BC to AD 43 in Britain. However, extensive excavations reveal that numerous hillforts have earlier origins, dating back to the Late Bronze Age and even Neolithic times. Cultures such as the Urnfield (1300–750 BC), Hallstatt (1200–500 BC), and La Tène (600 BC–50 AD) saw the proliferation of hillforts, but the groundwork was laid much earlier.

For instance, archaeological layers in famous sites like Maiden Castle and Danebury contain flint tools and pottery shards from the Neolithic and Mesolithic eras. This pushes back their initial construction or use by several millennia before the traditionally accepted Iron Age period.

This deep time depth challenges the fortress narrative by suggesting many hillforts began as community or ritual centres long before any significant tribal warfare. Their repeated reuse over thousands of years indicates multifunctional importance beyond defence and highlights the continuity and adaptation of prehistoric societies.

4. Population Growth Doesn’t Match the Fortress Theory

Prehistoric Britain’s population dynamics don’t quite fit with the idea of a landscape littered with defensive forts. Estimates suggest that during the Neolithic (circa 5000 BC), Europe’s population hovered between 2 and 5 million. By the Late Iron Age, it had swelled to roughly 15 to 30 million. But except for dense pockets like Greece and Italy, most settlements in Britain were small, often supporting fewer than 50 people.

Hillforts stand out as exceptions, accommodating communities as large as 1,000, but such numbers were rare. The later appearance of oppida—urban centers housing up to 10,000—reflects increasing societal complexity. However, the distribution and density of hillforts do not correlate with an equally dense, heavily militarized population needing constant defense.

The logistical challenge of defending thousands of these hillforts, each requiring a substantial population of warriors and support staff, becomes apparent when population estimates are compared to fort numbers. There simply weren’t enough people to maintain standing armies or garrisons in every hillfort, undermining the fortress theory.

5. Hillforts Were NOT Evenly Distributed — Which Defies Pure Defence Logic

If hillforts were purely defensive, you’d expect them to be evenly spaced, strategically located to guard borders or resources. But the reality is messier. Over 3,300 hillforts are clustered unevenly across the British Isles. Take the Isle of Man—a tiny island of 572 square kilometres—with an astounding 32 hillforts. That’s roughly one hillfort every 5 to 6 square kilometres, far too dense to be defensible or necessary purely for military protection.

Additionally, about 30% of hillforts hug coastlines, with another 50% near prehistoric river systems. This heavy concentration around water suggests that control of waterways, trade, and communication routes were important considerations. Another 70% are near quarrying or resource extraction zones, linking hillforts to economic activity rather than just defense.

Such distribution patterns are inconsistent with a landscape dominated by warring tribes guarding fixed territories. Instead, they imply hillforts functioned as hubs for trade, social interaction, resource management, and ritual gatherings tied closely to natural and economic landscapes.

6. Little Evidence of Warfare or Prolonged Occupation

If hillforts were military bastions, we would expect abundant archaeological evidence of sustained occupation, such as permanent housing, weapon caches, and clear defensive structures like palisades or gatehouses. We would also expect to find mass graves or layers of debris from sieges.

Yet, surprisingly, few hillforts show such evidence. Many have signs of only episodic or seasonal occupation. Archaeologists rarely find weapons stockpiles or large-scale battle remains inside hillforts. Defensive architectural features are often minimal or absent, and many ditches have shapes inconsistent with fortification—flat-bottomed, not steep and V-shaped.

This absence of clear martial evidence points to alternative interpretations: hillforts served multiple roles, perhaps acting as gathering places for trade, ritual ceremonies, or political meetings, with defense being a secondary or occasional function.

7. Danebury Hillfort Is Probably Older and Less “Fortress” Than Thought

Danebury in Hampshire is often cited as a classic Iron Age hillfort, extensively excavated by Barry Cunliffe in the 1970s. While traditionally dated to the 6th century BC and used for about 500 years, recent carbon dating and flint finds suggest it began as a Late Bronze Age stock enclosure 3,000 years ago. Some evidence even points to Neolithic or Mesolithic origins.

Excavations uncovered thousands of flints spanning multiple prehistoric periods, alongside Beaker pottery, challenging the notion that Danebury was a purely Iron Age military installation. Furthermore, LiDAR technology revealed a linear earthwork or dyke connected to the fort’s outer ditch—possibly a prehistoric waterway—hinting that Danebury might have been linked by boat transport rather than isolated on a hilltop.

Its ditches have soil deposited mostly on the outside rather than the inside, contradicting standard defensive designs. Together, these facts point towards Danebury functioning as a multifunctional site, involved in trade and social activities, rather than solely as a fortress.

Danbury Showing the Ditches were connected to dykes from the paleochannel below

8. Maiden Castle’s Massive Size Was Logistically Impossible to Defend

Maiden Castle in Dorset is Britain’s largest hillfort, sprawling over 47 hectares. This sheer size would require an enormous number of defenders—estimates suggest 155 soldiers per shift, totaling around 465 to cover 24-hour protection. That’s not counting support personnel, families, and provisions.

Feeding and supplying such a large garrison would be a monumental task. Monthly food needs would include vast amounts of grain and meat, requiring extensive storage, pastureland for livestock (around 516 animals per month), and water—at least 15 deep wells, supplying almost 750,000 litres monthly. Yet, archaeological digs and LiDAR surveys reveal only a handful of residential structures and no evidence of such water management infrastructure.

Additionally, no workshops or industrial sites capable of producing weapons and armour at scale have been found. This logistical void casts serious doubt on the idea that Maiden Castle was a continuously manned military fortress rather than a large social or ritual centre.

9. Maiden Castle’s “Massacre” Is Much Less Clear-Cut Than Popular Tales

Popular accounts sometimes describe Maiden Castle as the site of a Roman siege massacre. However, excavations found only a handful of burials near entrances, with no mass graves or battlefield debris layers typical of large-scale violence.

Among the burials were an adult male with a debated projectile wound, a young woman with trauma signs, and several children—not typical combatants. Most bodies showed no direct evidence of violent death.

Over 20,000 slingstones discovered near entrances might suggest defensive stockpiles, but their purpose could also be ritualistic or related to hunting. After the supposed Roman attack, the site was largely abandoned, implying that its defensive role, if any, was limited and temporary.

10. Old Sarum Is Misunderstood as a Hillfort

Old Sarum, located in Wiltshire, is often labeled an Iron Age hillfort established around 400 BC. It later became a Roman fort and then a medieval castle site. However, its position on a floodplain island, not a prominent hill, challenges the traditional fortress narrative.

Claims of Roman roads converging there have been questioned by LiDAR and satellite data, which show no clear road leading to Bath or elsewhere. The earthworks around Old Sarum appear more consistent with water management or moated enclosures than defensive ditches. Soil spoil was found mostly outside ditches, suggesting construction to hold water rather than repel enemies.

The ditch spoil is placed on the outside of the site to create a moat not inside to create a defensive bank

11. Many Hillforts May Have Been Waterborne Trade Hubs, Not Forts

Some hillfort ditches and earthworks may have functioned as prehistoric moats or canals, filled naturally due to higher ancient water tables or artificially to facilitate boat traffic. This suggests hillforts could have been accessible by water, acting as trading hubs connected through river networks.

LiDAR scans reveal links between earthworks and ancient waterways, highlighting a landscape adapted for waterborne movement rather than isolated hilltop defense. This theory fits with the frequent coastal and riverine siting of hillforts and their association with quarry and resource sites.

Old Sarum is in the middle of an ancient flood plain surrounded by giant rivers

12. Economic Evidence Contradicts Military Function

True military sites like Roman forts show dense economic footprints: lost coins, markets, bathhouses, workshops, and dense habitation. Hillforts lack this. Coins are extremely rare even after coinage was common. There are no permanent markets or large public buildings supporting garrisoned troops.

Instead, hillforts yield evidence of seasonal occupation: animal enclosures, storage pits, and sparse artefacts, reflecting episodic use for trade, social gatherings, or ritual. This economic silence is a strong indicator that hillforts were not permanent military bases but multifunctional social centres

13. Hillforts Were Multifunctional Community Centres

All evidence points toward hillforts as dynamic, multifunctional hubs where prehistoric communities gathered seasonally for trade, political negotiation, rituals, and resource management. Defense may have been a later addition or an occasional function but was rarely the primary purpose.

Their diverse roles challenge the simplistic “fortress” label and invite us to rethink prehistoric Britain as a complex network of interconnected social landscapes, not a battlefield scattered with defensive works.

Conclusion

With new dating methods, LiDAR technology, and detailed excavations, the “hillfort as fortress” idea no longer holds water. We need to embrace a broader, richer understanding of these sites as centers of ancient community life, economy, and ritual.

What Archaeology Must Prove To Call Hillforts “Forts”.

To keep the “fort” label credible, archaeologists must find:.

Large permanent residences and housing clusters.

Reliable water supplies (wells, cisterns).

Dense loss of coins and trade items.

Associated civilian settlements outside gates.

Evidence of workshops making weapons and armor.

Defensible gatehouses and ramparts designed for battle.

Layers showing repeated conflict or siege trauma.

So far? – Those lines of evidence are mostly absent.

Final Thought.

Hillforts aren’t just relics of ancient warfare — they’re dynamic social landscapes, hubs of economy, ritual, and community. It’s time to move beyond outdated militaristic views and embrace their true complexity.

As the saying goes:

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence — and calling hillforts ‘forts’ without it is no longer credible archaeology.”

Exploring Prehistoric Britain: A Journey Through Time

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

Other Blogs

2024 Prehistoric Britain Blog Review

8000-year-old Cro-Magnon skull

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

Newgrange – Monument or Disneyland?

Posted on March 29, 2025 by admin

Introduction

Nestled in the heart of Ireland’s Boyne Valley, Newgrange stands as one of the world’s most iconic and mysterious Neolithic structures. Its reputation as a masterful feat of engineering and astronomical alignment has attracted countless visitors over the years, eager to marvel at its apparent alignment with the winter solstice. Yet, beneath its fame and grandeur lies a controversy that raises compelling questions: is the modern-day Newgrange an authentic representation of its ancient past, or has it been reconstructed into a speculative interpretation that strays from the truth?

Through photographic evidence and critiques from various archaeologists, it’s clear that Newgrange underwent significant interventions during its 20th-century restoration led by Michael J. O’Kelly. These changes have sparked heated debates among historians and archaeologists, leading some to question the monument’s authenticity and suggest that it may resemble a “Disneyland” for archaeology—a polished version of history that prioritizes spectacle over accuracy.

Newgrange - Monument or Disneyland? — Newgrange or Disneyland – (Newgrange – Monument or Disneyland?)

The Reconstruction Controversy: What Changed?

Pictures of Newgrange before and after its restoration reveal striking differences. Most notably, the “roof box,” a structure through which the winter solstice sunrise illuminates the central chamber, was repositioned and reconfigured during O’Kelly’s work. While the roof box undeniably enhances the site’s allure, critics argue that its prominence and functionality may have been exaggerated during the restoration to create a more visually and symbolically impactful feature. This modern emphasis on the roof box has elevated Newgrange to global media fame, transforming it from a historic site of curiosity into a tourist attraction.

Another major change was the addition of a gleaming white quartz façade framed by darker stones. While these materials were found on-site, their placement in the reconstruction was speculative, based on O’Kelly’s vision of how Neolithic builders might have arranged them. The reshaping of the mound itself and the construction of a retaining wall added further interventions that were not conclusively supported by the archaeological record.

Critics like Gabriel Cooney and Alan Marshall have highlighted these alterations as problematic. Cooney argues that the restoration may obscure earlier architectural practices, while Marshall questions the reliability of O’Kelly’s interpretations and the extensive reshaping of the cairn and passage. Such critiques emphasize the delicate balance between reconstruction and authenticity.

The Kinked Chamber: A Structural Puzzle

One of the most curious features of Newgrange is the kink in its passageway, which prevents it from being a straight corridor. If the chamber had not been reconstructed, sunlight during the winter solstice might only have travelled partway down the passage rather than illuminating the innermost chamber. This raises an intriguing question: why would Neolithic builders design the passage with this kink?

One explanation could be symbolic or ritualistic purposes, as many ancient structures incorporate elements that serve non-functional, symbolic roles. Alternatively, engineering constraints may have dictated the kink, such as the availability of materials or the need to stabilize the mound. However, if the kink was exaggerated—or even introduced—during restoration, this would significantly alter how sunlight interacts with the chamber. Modern “corrections” to the passage’s geometry might have extended the light’s reach artificially, creating an effect the Neolithic builders may never have intended.

The Roof Box’s Changes and Light Reduction

The roof box is a critical element in the solstice alignment, and its reconstruction has been a focal point of both admiration and critique. If, as photographic evidence and critiques suggest, the roof box was reconfigured and heightened during restoration, this alteration would undoubtedly affect how sunlight enters the passage. A higher or differently angled roof box might diminish the precision with which light reaches the inner chamber—or even stop the light short of the intended destination altogether.

O’Kelly’s team reconstructed the roof box based on an interpretation of fragmented stones, leading some critics to question the authenticity of its current form. While its alignment with the winter solstice sunrise has made it an iconic feature of Newgrange, its role in the monument’s Neolithic design remains uncertain. This raises further questions about whether the solstice effect we see today is a product of modern ingenuity rather than ancient innovation.

The Shifting Solstice: 3200 BCE vs Today

Astronomical alignment adds yet another layer of complexity to the Newgrange debate. Due to axial precession—the slow wobble of Earth’s axis over millennia—the position of the sunrise on the winter solstice in 3200 BCE would have differed slightly from today. While this change is minor (a few degrees in azimuth), it could still significantly impact the alignment. Even a small shift might cause the sunlight to miss the inner chamber entirely.

If the original builders oriented Newgrange’s passage to match the 3200 BCE solstice sunrise, today’s alignment may already deviate from their intent. Combined with potential inaccuracies introduced during reconstruction, the modern solstice effect could be more a product of modern reinterpretation than of Neolithic precision.

Accessibility Versus Accuracy

The chambers and passage were reinforced and possibly straightened during restoration, making the monument easier to explore for visitors. However, these interventions may have altered the original design, extending the light’s reach and emphasizing the solstice alignment in a way that might not reflect the builders’ intentions.

These efforts have undoubtedly made Newgrange more accessible and visually impressive, but they also risk prioritizing spectacle over authenticity. The roof box and solstice phenomenon have become central to the site’s branding, drawing large crowds and media attention each year. While this has brought Newgrange global recognition, it raises questions about whether its presentation has strayed too far from its original form.

A Broader Implication: Monument or Museum?

Newgrange is far from the only site facing such challenges. Around the world, historical monuments are reconstructed to varying degrees, with some prioritizing aesthetics and accessibility over strict fidelity to the past. Sites like the Acropolis in Athens and Stonehenge in England have faced similar debates about reconstruction versus preservation.

The consequences of reconstruction are profound. On one hand, it allows modern audiences to engage with history in a tangible, immersive way. On the other hand, it risks presenting an idealised or speculative version of the past, potentially misleading those who seek an authentic connection to historical eras.

Striking the Balance

The controversy surrounding Newgrange underscores the need for thoughtful approaches to reconstruction. While archaeological expertise and informed assumptions are invaluable, they must be tempered with caution to avoid overreaching into speculative territory. Transparency is key—providing visitors with information about what is reconstructed versus original can foster a deeper understanding and appreciation for the complexities of preserving historical sites.

In the case of Newgrange, its blend of ancient ingenuity and modern reinterpretation continues to captivate the world. Yet, as we aptly observed, the extent of its reconstruction raises essential questions about the ethics and accuracy of rebuilding history.

As we marvel at this iconic monument, we must also ask ourselves: should reconstructions aim to impress, or should they remain humbly tethered to the verifiable truths of the past? In the quest to bring history to life, how far is too far?

Audio Blog

Detailed Timeline of Main Events at Newgrange

4th and Early 3rd Millennia BC (Neolithic Period):

Construction of Neolithic passage tombs in Ireland, including Newgrange and the smaller tombs (K, L, Z, Z1) on the same ridge. These tombs are characterized by round mounds, contiguous kerbstones, and internal chambers (often cruciform with recesses).

c. 3200 BC (Neolithic Period):

Construction of the main cairn at Newgrange, featuring a round mound of turves and stones delimited by kerbstones. The entrance passage in the southeast leads to a cruciform burial chamber. Kerbstones K1 and K52 are the most elaborately decorated and have central vertical grooves.

c. 2500 BC (Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age):

Erection of the Great Circle of twelve monoliths surrounding the Newgrange cairn. This coincides with the approximate time of the Beaker culture in Britain and Ireland. The obliquity of the Earth’s axis is around 23° 59′ at this time, influencing sunrise and sunset directions.

2015 ±65 BC (Early Bronze Age):

Radiocarbon dating of charcoal samples found in burial pits near the base of Great Circle monolith GC-2. The base of GC-2 being above the rim of these pits suggests the monoliths were erected after the construction of the nearby Newgrange cairn.

1699:

Edward Lhwyd documents and creates a ground plan of Newgrange, indicating the monument was open at this time.

1746:

Thomas Wright creates a drawing of Newgrange, further confirming it was accessible.

1776:

Charles Vallancey surveys Newgrange, noting disturbance around the entrance area.

Early 1900s:

Evidence suggests Newgrange was still open to some extent.

1906:

Sir Joseph Norman Lockyer draws a comparison between Newgrange, Gavrinis (Brittany), and Maeshowe (Orkney) in his book, linking them astronomically.

1909:

In the second edition of his book, Lockyer explicitly mentions Newgrange’s orientation to the Winter Solstice.

By 1845:

According to George Wilkinson’s account and a drawing by Du Noyer, the large slab sealing the passage entrance had one end resting on kerbstone K1.

By 1892:

George Coffey’s representation shows the “doorstone” at the passage entrance lying prone.

October 1897:

George Russell (Æ) publishes “A dream of Angus Oge,” a fictional piece that includes a description of light entering a mound resembling Newgrange at dawn, possibly reflecting local knowledge or observation.

Summer 1962:

Professor Michael J. O’Kelly begins archaeological excavations at Newgrange. The monument is in a dilapidated state with trees, displaced cairn material, leaning passage orthostats, and an obscured roof-box.

1963:

O’Kelly’s team uncovers the roof-box during the excavation.

Late Summer 1966:

O’Kelly’s team restores the passage roof slabs and corbels, including the critical space (slit or gap) between roofstones RS1 and RS2 at the base of the roof-box. O’Kelly notes that the structure of the roof-box takes on “new meaning” during this stage, suggesting he recognized its intentional design.

Winter Solstice 1967:

Professor O’Kelly and his team are present in the burial chamber at sunrise. Sunlight penetrates through the roof-box and illuminates the chamber, confirming the winter solstice alignment.

1969:

Professor O’Kelly publishes a full description of the winter solstice phenomenon at Newgrange.

1976:

Professor O’Kelly, drawing on paleoclimate studies, suggests that clearer skies might have prevailed during the Bronze Age in Ireland, potentially aiding astronomical observations.

1982:

Professor Michael J. O’Kelly publishes his comprehensive book “Newgrange: Archaeology, art and legend,” detailing the excavations and the discovery of the winter solstice alignment.

1988 September 23:

Frank Prendergast surveys the Newgrange passage tomb and Great Circle monoliths.

1989 February 2:

A photograph of a shadow casting phenomenon on kerbstone K1 is recorded, later used for graphic reconstruction in Frank Prendergast’s 1991 paper.

1989:

Astronomer Tom Ray reviews J.D. Patrick’s earlier calculations regarding the solstitial alignment, conducting a new measured survey of the passage, chamber, and roof-box. He concludes that the roof-box was very probably designed with astronomical alignment intent.

1991:

Frank Prendergast publishes “Shadow Casting Phenomena at Newgrange,” detailing his research on potential calendrical functions of the Great Circle monoliths through shadow casting on kerbstones. His statistical analysis suggests that the placement of some monoliths (GC1, GC-1, GC-2, GC3, GC5) was deliberately chosen for solar shadow casting at astronomically significant times of the year.

2002:

Frank Prendergast and Tom Ray publish a paper questioning whether ancient astronomical alignments are fact or fiction, possibly referencing their earlier work on Newgrange.

2017:

Robert Hensey’s chapter “Rediscovering the Winter Solstice Alignment at Newgrange, Ireland” is published in “The Oxford Handbook of Light in Archaeology,” re-examining the discovery and interpretation of the winter solstice alignment, the role of local knowledge, and the reconstruction of the roof-box.

Cast of Characters and Brief Bios

Frank Prendergast: Researcher at Technological University Dublin (formerly Dublin Institute of Technology). Author of the 1991 paper “Shadow Casting Phenomena at Newgrange,” which explores the potential calendrical significance of the Great Circle monoliths through shadow analysis. He also conducted surveys of the site.
Michael J. O’Kelly (1915-1982): Professor of Archaeology at University College Cork. Led the extensive excavations at Newgrange from 1962 to 1975, which led to the rediscovery of the winter solstice alignment and the restoration of the monument. Author of the seminal book “Newgrange: Archaeology, art and legend” (1982).
Sir Joseph Norman Lockyer (1836-1920): English astronomer and founder of the journal Nature. In his books, particularly “Stonehenge and Other British Stone Monuments Astronomically Considered,” he was among the first to scientifically suggest astronomical orientations of prehistoric monuments, including Newgrange (specifically the winter solstice).
Tom Ray: Astronomer who conducted a measured survey of the passage, chamber, and roof-box at Newgrange in 1989, reviewing and refining earlier calculations regarding the winter solstice alignment. He supported the idea of intentional astronomical design of the roof-box.
Edward Lhwyd (1660-1709): Welsh naturalist, linguist, and antiquary. His documentation and ground plan of Newgrange in 1699 provide early evidence that the monument was open during that period.
Thomas Wright (1711-1786): English astronomer, mathematician, instrument maker, architect, and garden designer. His drawing of Newgrange in 1746 indicates the monument’s accessibility at the time.
Charles Vallancey (1725-1810): British army engineer and antiquarian in Ireland. His survey in 1776 noted disturbances around the entrance of Newgrange.
George Wilkinson: Likely an observer or recorder of Newgrange in 1845, whose account, noted by O’Kelly, described the position of the entrance “doorstone.”
George Du Noyer (1817-1869): Irish artist and antiquarian whose drawing from around 1845 also depicted the state of the entrance stone.
George Coffey (1857-1916): Keeper of Antiquities at the National Museum of Ireland. His representation of Newgrange by 1892 showed the entrance “doorstone” lying prone.
George Russell (Æ) (1867-1935): Irish poet, essayist, editor, and painter. His 1897 fictional piece “A dream of Angus Oge” contains a scene of light entering a mound at dawn, which some speculate may be based on observations or local knowledge of Newgrange.
Bob Hickey: A local individual whose reports to O’Kelly mentioned the sun entering Newgrange, potentially indicating pre-excavation awareness of the solstitial alignment within the local community.
Elizabeth Chesley Baity: American anthropologist who discussed the universal use of the gnomon in ancient cultures for observing shadow casting and tracking solar movements.
Carl Jung (1875-1961): Swiss psychiatrist and psychoanalyst who explored the relationship between human instinct, archetypes, and their symbolic manifestations, potentially relevant to understanding the motivations behind monuments like Newgrange.
Alexander Thom (1894-1985): British engineer who applied statistical methods to the study of prehistoric stone circles, including the analysis of axial alignments and their possible astronomical significance.
Gerald Hawkins (1928-2003): Astronomer known for his theories on the astronomical alignments of Stonehenge.
R. J. C. Atkinson (1920-1994): British prehistorian who critically reviewed Hawkins’ work on Stonehenge.
George Bain: Wrote about the stone circles at Clava, Scotland (1886-7), suggesting that the builders carefully observed the sun’s shadow to determine the placement of stones for calendrical purposes.
G. F. Mitchell and H. M. Parkes: Researchers whose work on plant pollen and prehistoric time zones (referenced by O’Kelly) provided insights into past climates in Ireland.
Knut Jessen: Proposed a system of time zones based on plant pollen deposits in prehistoric Ireland, used to infer past climatic conditions.
Michael Herity and George Eogan: Archaeologists who, in their 1989 work, adopted Jessen’s nomenclature and described the Sub-Boreal phase (including the time of the Great Circle) as being drier and warmer in Ireland.
Hubert Lamb (1913-1997): British climatologist who noted the increasing warmth in the post-glacial era and suggested that clearer skies during the time of megalithic monument construction might explain their potential as astronomical observatories.
Seamus Caulfield: Archaeologist who referenced paleoclimate in relation to his discovery of Neolithic stone-wall field systems in Co. Mayo, noting warmer temperatures around 3000 BC.
Douglas C. Heggie: Archaeologist and author of “Megalithic Science,” who discussed the statistical analysis of megalithic sites and the interpretation of astronomical alignments.
Euan MacKie: Archaeologist who has written on megalithic astronomy and the potential for sophisticated astronomical knowledge in prehistoric societies.
J. D. Patrick: Conducted earlier calculations regarding the winter solstice alignment at Newgrange, later reviewed by Tom Ray.
C.S. Wallace: Co-author with J.D. Patrick on a paper (1982) discussing an information theory approach to stone circle geometries.
Robert Hensey: Contemporary Irish archaeologist and author of “First Light: The Origins of Newgrange.” His 2017 chapter re-examines the discovery of the winter solstice alignment and the role of historical context.

Other Blogs

2024 Prehistoric Britain Blog Review

8000-year-old Cro-Magnon skull

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

2024 Prehistoric Britain Blog Review

Posted on December 28, 2024 by admin

Introduction

Prehistoric Britain Blog Review 2024

Welcome to the Cutting Edge of Archaeological Discovery

Explore the groundbreaking world of Robert John Langdon’s blogs, a site dedicated to challenging conventional archaeological narratives and unveiling the hidden truths of prehistoric Britain. This blog is not just a collection of articles; it’s a journey into the past, fueled by innovative technology like LiDAR and a passion for uncovering the real stories behind ancient sites. The blog also questions many traditional views of well-known sites. Here, you’ll find a wealth of information, from investigations into the true purpose of ancient structures to challenges to accepted interpretations of historical events.(2024 Prehistoric Britain Blog Review)

Revolutionary Discoveries in 2024

In 2024, this blog has been at the forefront of archaeological discovery, achieving a level of insight that rivals, if not surpasses, many university departments. The posts utilize LiDAR technology to investigate sites with unprecedented detail. This has allowed the blog to re-evaluate many accepted theories, and this year, the focus has been on key sites such as Hambledon Hill, Cissbury Ring, White Sheet Camp, and South Cadbury Castle, which have all been investigated using LiDAR.

Challenging the Status Quo

The blog’s impact is evident in the topics covered, from the “Great Dorchester Aqueduct Hoax” to the idea that “Pillow Mounds” might be Bronze Age cremation sites rather than medieval rabbit warrens. It also reinterprets structures such as Wansdyke and Offa’s Dyke, questioning their traditional purpose. The blog has also embraced new ideas, using mathematics to uncover the Mesolithic origins of Car Dyke. The blog has also looked at the Post Glacial Flooding Hypothesis and how this may have affected the landscapes we see today. These posts don’t just present findings but challenge the very foundations of archaeological understanding.

Unlocking the Secrets of the Past

The blog offers an immersive experience with high-quality HD, FHD, 5K, and 8K LiDAR maps, captivating flyovers and videos. This commitment to scientific rigour and engaging presentation makes this blog a vital resource for anyone seeking to understand Britain’s rich and complex prehistory. The posts here aim to go beyond traditional interpretations and uncover evidence that has been previously overlooked. Join us as we continue to explore the fascinating mysteries of the past and reshape how we understand our history.

This year has seen a variety of fascinating and thought-provoking blog posts. Here’s a list of the posts published, with a brief description of each:

● The Great Dorchester Aqueduct Hoax

The feature long attributed to the Dorchester Roman aqueduct presents a fascinating but contentious case within archaeology. Its winding route, peculiar design, and unsubstantiated functional claims challenge conventional interpretations of Roman engineering in Britain. In this blog, we delve into key aspects of the feature, including its gradient, design, and capacity to deliver water, to uncover whether it truly served as an aqueduct or had a different purpose entirely. By critically examining the evidence and incorporating modern methodologies like LiDAR, we aim to provide a fresh perspective on this enigmatic structure.

● Rediscovering the Winter Solstice: The Original Winter Festival

The winter solstice, occurring around December 21st in the Northern Hemisphere, marks the shortest day and longest night of the year. This celestial event has been celebrated for millennia, symbolizing the rebirth of the sun and the promise of longer days ahead. Long before Christianity shaped the holiday calendar, ancient cultures observed the solstice with rituals and festivities that laid the groundwork for many modern winter traditions. .

● Wansdyke: A British Frontier Wall – ‘Debunked’

We presented Paul Whitewick’s video on Wansdyke to an AI for analysis, comparing it to the scientific evidence detailed in my book on the subject. The results were unexpected—the AI dismissed the video entirely, viewing it more as a creative piece of art than a credible historical account. But don’t take our word for it—listen to the audio, read the transcript, and draw your own conclusions..

● AI now Supports – Homo Superior

We compiled all the latest available knowledge about Neanderthals, Homo sapiens, and their potential interbreeding and fed it into an AI engine. We aimed to explore how a species like the Cro-Magnon might have developed as a hybrid between these two groups. Specifically, we asked the AI to analyze the likely physical appearance and attributes of such a species if they inherited traits from both Neanderthals and Homo sapiens. The key parameters we provided included their robust hybrid genetics, their reliance on a non-agricultural diet of high-protein foods like reindeer meat, fish, and fruit, and their tendency to interbreed primarily within their own hybrid group rather than with other Homo sapiens populations.

● Maritime Diffusion Model for Megaliths in Europe: A Groundbreaking Study

The study by, Schulz Paulsson, (Bettina. (2019). Radiocarbon dates and Bayesian modeling support maritime diffusion model for megaliths in Europe. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 116. 201813268. 10.1073/pnas.1813268116.) which uses Radiocarbon dates and Bayesian modelling, supports the maritime diffusion model for megaliths in Europe and offers a transformative perspective on the origins and spread of megalithic structures across Europe. This research challenges traditional narratives through cutting-edge radiocarbon dating and Bayesian statistical modelling and provides compelling evidence that maritime routes played a pivotal role in disseminating megalithic culture.

● AI now supports my Post-Glacial Flooding Hypothesis

Over a decade ago, I proposed a groundbreaking idea that challenged conventional archaeology and geology. Drawing on 30 years of experience in landscape archaeology and cartography, I argued that rivers during the post-glacial period were significantly higher than they are today. Contrary to long-held geological assumptions that the meltwater from the last Ice Age vanished without a trace, I suggested that much of it remained, creating elevated waterways. These raised rivers, I posited, were pivotal to prehistoric life, providing essential routes for the construction of megalithic sites along their edges using advanced boat technology—astonishingly, over 5,000 years before archaeologists had traditionally believed such maritime innovations existed.

● Lidar Investigation Hambledon Hill – NOT an ‘Iron Age Fort’

This post presents findings from a LiDAR investigation of Hambledon Hill, arguing it is not an Iron Age fort. Hambledon Hill’s significance as a prehistoric site continues to reshape our understanding of early Britain. Far from a simple Iron Age hillfort, the site reveals a complex history with roots in the Mesolithic period, dating back around 8,000 years. Recent findings challenge the earlier classification of a causewayed enclosure, instead uncovering a landscape marked by multiple pits and quarries, which suggests a hub for trade and social activity rather than a defensive stronghold.

● Unmasking the “Iron Age Hillfort” Myth

I’m challenging the long-held belief that many sites across Britain, traditionally labeled as “Iron Age Hillforts,” were built primarily for defence. Instead, I argue these sites, rather than being fortresses meant for warfare, were vibrant centres of trade and commerce, with unique features that connect them to waterborne transport and economic activity. By meticulously examining archaeological findings and employing the latest LiDAR technology, I aim to deconstruct the conventional narrative surrounding these sites, focusing on three prominent examples: Danebury, Maiden Castle, and Old Sarum.

● Exploring Britain’s Flooded Past: A Personal Journey

This post describes a personal journey into understanding Britain’s flooded past. My recent exploration into Britain’s prehistoric landscape has opened my eyes to a fascinating and often overlooked aspect of our history: the impact of post-glacial flooding. The sheer magnitude of meltwater released at the end of the last ice age dramatically reshaped the environment, creating vast waterways that are notably more significant than the rivers we see now. This realisation has sparked my curiosity to understand how these ancient waterways influenced the lives of our ancestors and shaped the landscape we know today.

● Lidar Investigation Cissbury Ring through time

This blog post examines the Cissbury Ring over time using LiDAR technology. This is a journey through time looking at the prehistoric site of CISSBURY RING and its surrounding Landscape based on the new third (2020) edition book of the best seller – that contains conclusive and extended evidence of Robert John Langdon’s hypothesis, that rivers of the past were higher than today – which changes the history of not only Britain, but the world. In his first book of the trilogy ‘The Post-Glacial Hypothesis’, Langdon discovered that Britain was flooded directly after the last Ice Age, which remained waterlogged in to the Holocene period through raised river levels, not only in Britain, but worldwide.

● Car Dyke – ABC News PodCast

This post refers to a podcast about Car Dyke on ABC News. The book ‘The Car Dyke LiDAR Atlas’ presents a thorough investigation of the Car Dyke, a large ancient waterway in Britain. Using LiDAR technology, the author argues that the Dyke is much older than previously thought, dating back to the Mesolithic/Neolithic periods, and was likely used for transportation and water management rather than simply as a Roman drainage channel or defensive barrier. The book features detailed maps and analysis of the Dyke’s construction and course, including insights into the surrounding landscape and archaeological finds, to support the author’s conclusions.

● Pillow Mounds: A Bronze Age Legacy of Cremation?

Pillow mounds have traditionally been interpreted as medieval rabbit warrens, but recent archaeological discoveries suggest a far older and more significant role tied to Bronze Age cremation rituals. Evidence uncovered in recent excavations, combined with historical parallels from other sites, points to these mounds being used for cremation or as places for the burial of ashes, later repurposed during the medieval period for rabbit farming. Below, we explore the evidence from recent excavation reports that supports this hypothesis, showing how discolored soil, charcoal remains, and burial practices align with Bronze Age funerary rituals.

● The Mystery of Pillow Mounds: Are They Really Medieval Rabbit Warrens?

Pillow mounds have long been identified by archaeologists as rabbit warrens—structures built during the medieval and post-medieval periods to manage rabbit populations for fur and meat. These long, low earthworks, often equipped with drainage ditches, were thought to provide ideal conditions for rabbits to burrow and breed. The case of Trowlesworthy Warren on Dartmoor is a well-known example, where there are now believed to be 64 pillow mounds spread across a 5 km area. However, recent archaeological findings and a closer look at the logistics of large-scale rabbit farming in this landscape challenge the established interpretation.

● Lidar Investigation White Sheet Camp

The video (not mine!!) provides a valuable visual of the landscape around White Sheet Camp, illustrating how much detail is obscured when viewed from ground level. This highlights why traditional methods of landscape surveying, which relied heavily on ground-based observation, often missed key features. Unsurprisingly, many peer-reviewed books contain inaccuracies, as walking the terrain without modern tools like LiDAR leads to an incomplete understanding of these ancient sites. The video helps to demonstrate the importance of using advanced technologies in revealing the full complexity of these historical landscapes, rather than subjective observations. Note that the Neolithic Causeway is the Cross-Dyke and the Barrow is probably a fire beacon for the boats to follow to the trading site.

● Archaeology: A Bad Science?

This post discusses whether archaeology is a reliable science. Archaeology, often hailed as the key to understanding our past, stands at a contentious crossroads between the humanities and the sciences. Archaeology is largely interpretative and subjective, unlike pure sciences, which rely heavily on quantitative data and mathematical models to test hypotheses. The field depends on analysing artefacts, structures, and cultural remains, often incomplete or degraded. This reliance on fragmentary evidence means that much archaeological interpretation is speculative, making it difficult to draw definitive conclusions. The subjective nature of archaeology raises questions about its scientific rigour, as interpretations can vary significantly depending on the archaeologist’s perspective, cultural background, or theoretical framework.

● Mathematics Meets Archaeology: Discovering the Mesolithic Origins of Car Dyke

This blog explores the use of mathematics to reveal the Mesolithic origins of Car Dyke. In archaeology, theories about ancient structures and sites have traditionally been shaped by subjective interpretations, often constrained by the limited evidence. The lack of precise data, historical bias, and conflicting narratives have left the field somewhat speculative. However, recent advancements in mathematical modelling have introduced new ways to derive data-driven conclusions. We can dig deeper into the ancient past by applying Bayesian and Spatial Analysis, extracting valuable insights with greater certainty. One particularly compelling case study is the re-evaluation of Car Dyke, a linear earthwork historically associated with Roman engineering. Through these combined mathematical approaches, we have uncovered evidence that suggests Car Dyke may have been constructed much earlier than previously thought, potentially dating back to the Mesolithic period.

● Lidar Investigation Car Dyke – North Section

This post presents findings from a LiDAR investigation of the northern section of Car Dyke. Car Dyke is one of the most enigmatic and intriguing remnants of Roman engineering in Britain. Stretching across the Fens of Eastern England, this ancient waterway has puzzled historians, archaeologists, and enthusiasts for centuries. Theories about its purpose and origin are as varied as they are compelling, reflecting the complexities of interpreting ancient structures without definitive historical records. This introduction aims to present a comprehensive overview of Car Dyke, encompassing both past and current theories regarding its use and origin.

● Rethinking Ancient Boundaries: The Vallum and Offa’s Dyke

This post reconsiders the traditional understanding of the Vallum and Offa’s Dyke as ancient boundaries. History brims with unsung heroes, those outsiders whose contributions leap from the shadows, not through the traditional channels of academic rigour but via the sheer force of innovative thought. These individuals, often sidelined by mainstream science for lacking formal credentials, have propelled progress with their unorthodox insights. In his eloquent reflections on science and humanity, Jacob Bronowski would have appreciated these figures ‘courage to challenge established disciplines’ dogmas and orthodoxy. Through their unconventional viewpoints, they invite us to step out of the “propaganda box” of discipline norms and reconsider the broader knowledge landscape with fresh eyes

● Professor Bonkers and the mad, mad World of Archaeology

This post is about a character named Professor Bonkers, and their perspective on the world of archaeology. We have examined the efforts of Professor Ray in his endeavour to prove that transporting bluestones by land to Stonehenge using sledges and dragging is feasible. He believes the journey is relatively flat with gentle gradients, based on his walk on modern roads engineered for gradual steepness over the last thousand years. However, he failed to consider the reality of the steep drops and river valleys the original journey would have encountered.

● Lidar Investigation South Cadbury Castle – Camelot

This post presents the findings of a LiDAR investigation of South Cadbury Castle, also known as Camelot. The hillfort is formed by a 7.28 hectares (18.0 acres) plateau surrounded by ramparts on the surrounding slopes of the limestone Cadbury Hill. The site has been excavated in the late 19th and early 20th century by James Bennett and Harold St George Gray. More recent examination of the site was conducted in the 1960s by Leslie Alcock and since 1992 by the South Cadbury Environs Project. These have revealed artifacts from human occupation and use from the Neolithic through the Bronze and Iron Ages. The site was reused by the Roman forces and again from c. 470 until some time after 580. In the 11th century, it temporarily housed a Saxon mint. Evidence of various buildings at the site has been unearthed, including a “Great Hall”, round and rectangular house foundations, metalworking, and a possible sequence of small rectangular temples or shrines.

● The Stonehenge Hospital

This post seems to discuss the theory that Stonehenge was used as a hospital. Timothy Darvill, a distinguished figure in Archaeology at Bournemouth University, has put forward a groundbreaking theory. His proposition that Stonehenge was a healing sanctuary, as detailed in his book ‘Stonehenge: The Biography of a Landscape ‘, is supported by compelling evidence from human remains found in burial mounds near the site. These remains, Darvill argues, belonged to individuals who were ailing before their demise, suggesting a unique purpose for the monument.

● Prehistoric Burial Practices of Britain

This blog post explores prehistoric burial practices in Britain. Prehistoric Britain saw complex and evolving burial practices, starting with the excarnation of bodies. Dolmens, characterised by their capstones balanced on upright stones, were used as platforms to expose bodies to birds, and wooden palisades encircled the platform, preventing terrestrial animals and rodents from scavenging

● Is Archaeology a dying discipline?

This blog post addresses the question of whether archaeology is becoming obsolete. There are many challenges archaeology faces as a discipline. The historical misconceptions and the evolving understanding of our past are significant aspects of archaeological study

● Lidar Investigation Top Ten misidentified Fire Beacons in British History

This post explores the top ten misidentified fire beacons in British history, using LiDAR. Misidentification of objects by archaeologists is an unfortunately frequent occurrence, particularly evident in the study of prehistoric fire beacons. This phenomenon can often be attributed to the curricula of archaeological academic programs, which may not always foster a rigorous scientific attitude. This issue is compounded by the perception that these programs are less demanding than disciplines like physics, chemistry, and biology, which typically require a more robust foundation in logic and mathematics for professional success.

● Lidar Investigation The Great Chichester Hoax – A Bridge too far?

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

● The Logistical Impossibility of Defending Maiden Castle

Maiden Castle, Britain’s largest Iron Age hill fort, has always been a subject of fascination and mystery. Its impressive size and strategic location suggest it was once a significant military stronghold. However, recent advancements in archaeological technology, specifically Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR), have sparked debates about the actual feasibility of defending such a vast fortification by examining the logistical requirements necessary to sustain a large garrison here, juxtaposed with the lack of physical evidence for such activity, a new narrative emerges, challenging traditional interpretations of Maiden Castle’s historical significance

● Beyond Stone and Bone: Rethinking the Megalithic Architects of Northern Europe

Archaeology often presents the megalithic structures of Northern Europe as enigmatic remnants of the past, but traditional interpretations of their purposes—defensive or territorial—are increasingly challenged by new research. These ancient monuments, including Stonehenge and Silbury Hill, required a level of logistical and communal organisation akin to modern engineering feats like the Channel Tunnel, suggesting sophisticated, large-scale cooperation among prehistoric societies. This blog post explores how regular trading and the use of established transportation networks likely supported such monumental projects. It argues that the labour force involved was large and part of a highly structured society, possibly operating under an early compensation system for their colossal efforts. As we delve deeper into these ancient marvels, we uncover a society that may have been as advanced and cooperative as any known civilisation, revealing a new appreciation for the capabilities and ingenuity of our ancestors.

● The Giants of Prehistory: Cro-Magnon and the Ancient Monuments

Peering into the mists of prehistory, we discern figures as monumental as the structures they erected. The Cro-Magnons, our Homo Superior ancestors, tower over early European landscapes not only in their formidable physical stature but also through their enduring contributions to ancient engineering and societal development. This essay delves into how their exceptional physical and cognitive abilities enabled them to construct massive stone monuments across Northern Europe, reshaping our understanding of Stone Age capabilities.

● The Stonehenge Code: Unveiling its 10,000-Year-Old Secret

Recent carbon dating from the Bluestone quarry sites offers compelling and irrefutable mathematical evidence that Stonehenge’s construction dates back to the Mesolithic era. This new data suggests Stonehenge is 5000 years older than experts had previously believed, challenging established views on its origins and adding new depth to our understanding of this ancient monument.

● Mysteries of the Oldest Boatyard Uncovered

I’ve always been fascinated by how archaeological discoveries can unravel threads of history. Still, they can also become entangled in webs of misinterpretation and incorrect dating, leading to significant findings being dismissed or misunderstood. A case in point occurred in a Welsh housing estate where ancient slipways were initially mistaken for longhouses. This confusion sparked a question: why would such elaborate structures be necessary for something as simple as a lightweight dugout canoe?

(The Oldest Boatyard in the World Uncovered) — (2024 Prehistoric Britain Blog Review)

● ATLANTIS: Discovery with Dan Snow Debunked

Dan Snows Documentary debunked with Bob and Alice.

● The Troy, Hyperborea and Atlantis Connection

The connections between the legends of Atlantis and Hyperborea, and the works of Homer represent a fascinating intersection of myth, philosophy, and epic narrative within ancient Greek literature. These stories not only provide insights into the geographical and cultural understandings of the Greeks but also reflect deeper philosophical and ethical concerns that permeate Greek thought. Below, we explore these themes in greater detail, delving into how these mythical and literary works intertwine and what they signify about ancient Greek civilisation.

● Hollows, Sunken Lanes and Palaeochannels

Standing on the worn, weathered path of a holloway, enveloped by the towering earthen walls on either side, I often contemplate the origins of these enigmatic features. As a wanderer drawn to these ancient pathways, I’ve always been fascinated by the layers of history and mystery that seem to permeate the very soil beneath my feet. Holloways, these sunken roads carved into the landscape, carry with them the aura of countless stories, but their formation captivates my curiosity the most.

● Stonehenge: Discovery with Dan Snow Debunked

Dan Snows Documentary debunked with Bob and Alice.

● Stonehenge, Doggerland and Atlantis connection

The third book in my trilogy aims to weave together the discoveries made across Britain, with a particular focus on Stonehenge, to shed light on a civilisation that archaeologists have termed the ‘megalithic builders.’ This civilisation is markedly distinct from those that came after, showcasing an extraordinary level of capability and engineering skill in moving vast stones and constructing earthworks that have endured for nearly ten thousand years. These achievements are even more striking when compared to the structures left by the Romans, who occupied these lands for hundreds of years yet left behind fewer enduring monuments.

● The Bluestone Enigma

The papers published by researchers from the University of London, Southampton, and Manchester, including Mike Parker-Pearson and his team, regarding the discovery of the quarries at Craig Rhos-y-Felinand the bluestone megaliths at Carn Goedog have been a significant contribution to our understanding of Stonehenge’s origins. This research brought to light the fascinating theory that Stonehenge was initially constructed in Wales and then transported to Salisbury Plain around 500 years later.

Giants of Prehistory: Cro-Magnon — (2024 Prehistoric Britain Blog Review)

● Digging Up Britain’s Past – Debunked

Dig Up Britain Stonehenge Documentary debunked with Bob and Alice.

● FREE Stonehenge 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. (FREE Stonehenge LiDAR Maps)

● Prehistoric Canals – Wansdyke

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

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

● The Great Stone Transportation Hoax

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

● Stonehenge Stone Transportation

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

●Archaeology in the Post-Truth Era

In the past ten years, I have faced significant challenges in establishing the validity of my claim that Linear Earthworks are prehistoric canals. Many people have dismissed my theory, but I have not let that stop me. I undertook a comprehensive survey of 1500 Historic England’s Scheduled Linear Earthworks, and the findings culminated in the first book of a quadrilogy series detailing the East Wansdyke area. This publication is a significant personal milestone and an unprecedented achievement in the field of archaeology that no university or research team has matched.

● The Fury of the Past: Natural Disasters in Historical and Prehistoric Britain

Over the recent span of years, there has been a marked tendency to present images of climatic upheaval—storms that rend the fabric of local communities and touch the lives of individuals with their tempestuous hands. In the discourse on flooding, an almost theatrical emphasis is placed upon the metrics of catastrophe: the voluminous descent of rain and the gales’ ferocious velocity. Amidst these narratives, a phrase of gravitas, ‘since records began,’ is often delicately woven, lending weight to the tales of unprecedented climatic fury that segment our years into records of seasonal extremities.

● Mesolithic River Avon

At the outset, the clay-with-flints, a vestige of ancient weathering and erosion, stands as a testament to the relentless forces of nature that sculpted the landscape. Born from the remnants of Palaeogene sediments and the dissolution of chalk, these deposits serve as silent witnesses to the Pleistocene’s cold embrace. Their presence on the hilltop flats signifies a chronological anchor, predating the rhythmic succession of river terraces that stitch the valley’s quilt.

● The Rivers of the Past were Higher – an idiot’s guide

Fifteen years have elapsed since I introduced what some might label a ‘revolutionary’ concept, a brainchild born from my earlier explorations in archaeology. My investigations, particularly the graphical representation of 50 sites encompassing Stonehenge and its surrounding barrows, revealed a striking pattern: all these locations consistently occupied the upper 30 percentile, perched halfway up a hill or higher for the uninitiated.

● How Lidar will change Archaeology

In the profound tapestry of human history, the emergence of Lidar archaeology technology stands as a beacon, illuminating hidden chapters and rewriting the narrative of our past. As we traverse the landscapes of antiquity, a remarkable revelation comes to light through the lens of Lidar – the Linear Earthworks that crisscross our ancient terrains. Driven by laser precision, this technological marvel exposes a new dimension in historical understanding that challenges conventional wisdom and prompts us to reconsider the nature of these enigmatic earthworks.

● Caerfai promontory fort – archaeological nonsense

In the latest installment of Digging for Britain’s Season 11, the spotlight turns to the intriguing Caerfai Promontory Fort, also known as Penpleidiau, perched on the edge of Wales. Nestled approximately 1.3km southeast of St David’s, this archaeological site, with its formidable features, compels a reevaluation of traditional interpretations and invites us to question the prevailing coastal ‘Hill Fort’ narrative.

● Digging for Britain Debunked – Cerne Abbas 2

In the first part of our exploration, we delved into the televised program ‘Digging for Britain’ and scrutinised the methodology employed by the purported experts, questioning the reliability of their conclusions regarding the dating of Cerne Abbas. Our investigation highlighted flaws in the sampling process, particularly the oversight of soil creep, which significantly impacts the interpretation of the site’s history.

● Avebury Post-Glacial Flooding

Recently, I received a message from my friend Chris at Lambourne Photography who shared new winter photos of Avebury. The landscape, experiencing recorded rainfall, has begun to flood, capturing my keen interest. This flooding aligns with the predictions in my prehistoric Avebury maps, considering the post-glacial flooding during the Mesolithic period (10k to 4k BCE).

● Digging for Britain – Cerne Abbas 1 of 2

In a recent instalment of ‘Digging for Britain,’ Alice Roberts stirred the archaeological pot by asserting that the Dorset Chalk Giant (Cerne Abbas) had Saxon origins rather than the presumed prehistoric roots. The revelation added a layer of intrigue, especially for someone like me, deeply entrenched in Landscape Archaeology. At first glance, the giant’s features seemed to echo a Neolithic connection, reminiscent of the Uffingham White horse. Both figures boasted natural harbours in the hillside, suggesting potential prehistoric maritime use.

● Britain’s First Road – Stonehenge Avenue

As the waters began to recede, the architects of Stonehenge found themselves confronted with a formidable engineering challenge: how to contend with the diminishing groundwater table while ensuring the Stonehenge moat remained adequately filled. In the preceding discussion, we established the application of a clay waterproofing layer to transform the Stonehenge moat into a reservoir akin to a dew pond. In this chapter, I delve into the intricacies of their solution—a newly constructed earthwork known as ‘The Avenue,’ complete with its own moat designed to bring the waters closer to the monumental bathing moat.

Other Blogs

2024 Prehistoric Britain Blog Review

8000-year-old Cro-Magnon skull

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

(2024 Prehistoric Britain Blog Review)

Unmasking the “Iron Age Hillfort” Myth

Posted on November 2, 2024 by admin

Introduction

At the heart of this reassessment is a fundamental question: were these sites indeed conceived as fortifications, or have modern interpretations mistakenly imposed a militaristic lens onto structures with potentially diverse purposes? While these sites might have been repurposed for defence in later periods, I propose that their original function was far removed from warfare. This theory gains strength by thoroughly examining the three case studies, each offering compelling evidence to support this new perspective.

Starting with Danebury, located in Hampshire, England, it exemplifies the limits of current archaeological classifications. Often cited as a quintessential Iron Age Hillfort, Danebury’s true origins, as I see it, lie further back in history. Carbon dating of artefacts within the site suggests a history stretching into the Bronze Age, possibly even as far back as the Neolithic, undermining the “Iron Age” label.

I point to the design of Danebury’s ditches as a clue to its original purpose. The fact that more earthwork material is deposited on the outer side of the ditch, unlike a typical defensive design, raises doubts about its purely defensive role. Further, LiDAR analysis reveals a linear earthwork or dyke that connects to the outer ditch, hinting at a possible connection to an ancient river system. I believe this suggests that Danebury may have served as a vital access point to a navigable waterway, facilitating trade and movement along the river.

Then there’s Maiden Castle, Britain’s largest hillfort in Dorset. Its sheer size and strategic location seemingly support the traditional idea of a fortress, yet I highlight the logistical hurdles inherent in defending such a vast space. Maintaining a defensive stance at Maiden Castle would have required an immense workforce and a supporting infrastructure of water sources, food supplies, and facilities for weapon and armour production. However, despite extensive archaeological surveys and detailed LiDAR scans, evidence of such infrastructure is notably absent. This lack of essential defensive elements doubts the idea of Maiden Castle as a military stronghold.

In addition, the flat-bottomed ditches at Maiden Castle resemble those found at other prehistoric sites, like Avebury, Stonehenge, and Old Sarum. These unique ditches weaken the argument for a purely defensive function, hinting instead at a shared purpose across these sites.

Old Sarum, a site in Wiltshire with a rich and layered history, further supports my argument against the simplistic “Iron Age Hillfort” label. Located in a floodplain on an island rather than a hill, as one would expect for a “hillfort,” Old Sarum’s placement raises immediate questions. LiDAR analysis shows that the spoil from its ditch was placed on the outside rather than inside—again, contradicting defensive design conventions. Examining the site’s water table and discovering a deep well suggest that the ditches may have once acted as moats. These moats, filled by a higher water table in the past, could have served as part of a waterborne trade system, allowing boats to navigate to the site.

Another aspect that supports my theory is the logistical impracticality of maintaining multiple “hillforts” close to each other. Given the likely limited population in prehistoric Britain, building and sustaining numerous large-scale defensive structures in a relatively small area would have strained resources and human resources. This suggests these sites may have served purposes that fostered cooperation and economic exchange rather than conflict.

Finally, a compelling “smoking gun” for this theory is the complete absence of human remains within the ditches of these so-called “Iron Age Hillforts.” If battles had occurred at these sites, we would expect to find evidence of casualties within the defensive perimeter. The lack of such evidence is significant, prompting a reconsideration of their true nature.

Drawing on archaeological evidence and insights from LiDAR technology, I present a strong case for a paradigm shift in our understanding of these enigmatic sites. The traditional interpretation of “Iron Age Hillforts” as primarily defensive structures doesn’t hold up under scrutiny, paving the way for a new perspective. Instead, I believe these sites were bustling centres of trade and commerce, intricately connected by waterways and essential hubs for economic activity in prehistoric Britain.

Other Information

Debunking the Iron Age Hill Fort: A Review of Robert John Langdon’s Claims

This briefing document reviews the main themes and arguments presented by independent researcher Robert John Langdon on his website Prehistoric Britain. Langdon challenges the traditional interpretation of numerous archaeological sites in Britain, specifically those categorized as “Iron Age Hill Forts.” He posits that these sites, based on his analysis of LiDAR data and reinterpretations of existing archaeological evidence, pre-date the Iron Age, served purposes other than defense, and are often misclassified. (Unmasking the “Iron Age Hillfort” Myth)

Main Themes:

Misclassified as “Iron Age”: Langdon argues that many sites labeled as Iron Age hill forts contain evidence (primarily flint artifacts) pointing to significantly earlier occupation, potentially dating back to the Neolithic or even Mesolithic periods. He uses Danebury and Maiden Castle as primary examples. He states, “a significant proportion of these hillforts, often exceeding a staggering 95%, have unveiled themselves to be significantly more ancient than the Iron Age.”
Not Primarily Defensive Structures: Langdon challenges the defensive interpretation of these sites, citing the lack of skeletal remains indicative of warfare found within their ditches. He argues that the shape and size of ditches at some sites, such as Maiden Castle and Old Sarum, are more consistent with moats, suggesting alternative functions like water management, trade, or symbolic boundaries. He emphatically states, “Not a solitary remains of a life extinguished in conflict has ever been unearthed within the confines of the ditches encircling any of the two thousand so-called ‘Iron Age Forts’ that punctuate history.”
LiDAR Reveals a Different Story: Langdon heavily relies on LiDAR technology to support his claims. He argues that LiDAR reveals features missed by traditional archaeological methods, such as the true extent of linear earthworks at Danebury and the absence of wells at Maiden Castle, which would have been essential for sustaining a large defending population. He also uses LiDAR to dispute the existence of Roman roads at Old Sarum, challenging established narratives.
Logistical Impossibility of Defense: Using Maiden Castle as an example, Langdon argues that defending such a large site would have required an enormous and unsustainable logistical effort in terms of manpower, food, water, and weaponry. He contrasts this with the lack of archaeological evidence for such infrastructure, concluding that the traditional narrative of a heavily defended fortress is untenable.

Important Ideas/Facts:

Danebury: While traditionally classified as an Iron Age site, Langdon highlights radiocarbon dating results placing its origins in the Bronze Age. He emphasizes the discovery of Neolithic and early Bronze Age flints and questions the defensive nature of the site’s ditches based on their construction.
Maiden Castle: Langdon disputes its Iron Age designation based on the presence of Neolithic artifacts. He argues that the scale of the site would have necessitated a massive logistical network to sustain a large population, which is unsupported by archaeological findings. He also questions the defensive purpose of the ditches based on their shape and the lack of evidence for essential infrastructure like wells.
Old Sarum: Langdon challenges its categorization as a hill fort due to its location in a floodplain. He uses LiDAR data to refute the existence of Roman roads through the site and suggests that the ditches might have been moats, potentially used for water management or trade.

(Unmasking the “Iron Age Hillfort” Myth)

Critical Analysis:

While Langdon raises thought-provoking points and emphasizes the potential of LiDAR technology, several aspects of his argument require careful consideration:

Overreliance on Absence of Evidence: The lack of skeletal remains within ditches doesn’t definitively rule out the possibility of conflict. Warfare might have occurred elsewhere, bodies could have been removed, or preservation conditions might be unfavorable.
Selective Interpretation: While emphasizing inconsistencies in traditional narratives, Langdon’s interpretations of LiDAR data and archaeological evidence may also be subjective. Alternative explanations for the observed features might exist.
Lack of Peer Review: As an independent researcher, Langdon’s work hasn’t undergone the rigorous scrutiny of academic peer review, which is essential for validating his claims and interpretations.

Conclusion:

Langdon’s work serves as a reminder that archaeological interpretations are constantly evolving with new discoveries and technologies. His challenges to established narratives, while requiring further scrutiny, highlight the importance of reassessing assumptions and integrating new data into our understanding of the past.

(Unmasking the “Iron Age Hillfort” Myth)

Briefing Doc: Rethinking Prehistoric Britain

Source: Excerpts from “Old Sarum Lidar Map – Prehistoric Britain” and “The Great Iron Age Hill Fort Hoax – Prehistoric Britain” on prehistoric-britain.co.uk

Author: Robert John Langdon

Main Themes:

Challenging Conventional Archaeological Narratives: Langdon questions long-held assumptions about prominent prehistoric sites in Britain, particularly the classification and function of “Iron Age Hill Forts.” He utilizes LiDAR technology to re-examine these sites, proposing alternative interpretations based on new evidence.
The Post-Glacial Flooding Hypothesis: This hypothesis, central to Langdon’s work, suggests that rising sea levels after the last Ice Age significantly impacted the British landscape and the lives of its inhabitants. He posits that many sites currently categorized as defensive structures may have served different purposes, potentially related to a maritime civilization.
The Importance of LiDAR in Archaeological Research: Langdon emphasizes the transformative power of LiDAR technology in revealing hidden landscape features and challenging traditional interpretations. He argues that LiDAR data compels a reevaluation of many archaeological assumptions.

Key Ideas/Facts:

Reinterpreting “Iron Age Hill Forts”:Location: Langdon challenges the assumption that these sites were exclusively hilltop fortifications. He cites Old Sarum, located in a floodplain, as an example.
Ditch Construction: The construction of ditches at sites like Danebury and Maiden Castle, with more material deposited on the outer side and flat-bottomed profiles, raises questions about their defensive purpose. This construction style resembles Norman castle moats, which were filled with water.
Lack of Battle Evidence: The absence of any human remains found within the ditches of these “hill forts” casts doubt on their role in warfare.
Alternative Function: Langdon suggests that these sites may have served as centers for trade and transportation, possibly linked by a network of canals and navigable waterways.
The Impact of Post-Glacial Flooding:Elevated Water Tables: Higher water tables in prehistoric times would have made the ditches at these sites readily floodable, creating moats.
Maritime Civilization: Langdon proposes the existence of a sophisticated maritime civilization in prehistoric Britain, capable of constructing and utilizing these sites for navigation and trade.
LiDAR as an Archaeological Tool:Revealing Hidden Features: LiDAR helps uncover previously unknown landscape features, such as the “Dyke” at Danebury, providing new insights into the connections between sites and their potential functions.
Challenging Assumptions: LiDAR data forces archaeologists to reconsider traditional interpretations and develop new hypotheses based on a more comprehensive understanding of the landscape.

Supporting Quotes:

“In archaeology, I believe honesty is paramount. Categorising sites under broad labels like “Iron Age Forts” oversimplifies their complexities.”
“This new understanding of the water table also opens up the possibility that the outer ditch was also moated up to the Norman conquest and moreover, during the Roman period – this is something that needs urgent explanation and further study.”
“Might we be gazing upon prehistoric moats, which, in the bygone era of elevated water tables, would have readily filled to assume the characteristics of a moat?”
“Not a solitary remains of a life extinguished in conflict has ever been unearthed within the confines of the ditches encircling any of the two thousand so-called ‘Iron Age Forts’ that punctuate history.”

Significance:

Langdon’s work presents a provocative challenge to traditional archaeological interpretations of prehistoric Britain. By utilizing new technologies like LiDAR and questioning long-held assumptions, he opens up new avenues of research and encourages a more nuanced understanding of the past. His work has implications for how we view the capabilities and complexities of prehistoric societies and the forces that shaped the British landscape.

(Unmasking the “Iron Age Hillfort” Myth)

More Blogs

2024 Prehistoric Britain Blog Review

8000-year-old Cro-Magnon skull

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

(Unmasking the “Iron Age Hillfort” Myth)

Tag: Neolithic

Introduction

Old Dated Concepts

New World Migration Patterns

American Colonies

Asian Wheat in the Solent

PODCAST

Author’s Biography

Exploring Prehistoric Britain: A Journey Through Time

Further Reading

Other Blogs

Introduction

The Problem with the Traditional Interpretation

Elevation and Function — The Missing Variable

Reframing the “Hillfort”

The Illusion of Continuity

A Simpler Model

Maps

1800s OS Map

GE Satellite Map

LiDAR Map

Investigation

Site Flyaround

Site Flyover

Lidar Map showing Bronze Age

LiDAR Map showing Mesolithic Period

Defence Strategy 101

Roman Defence System

Lidar Maps of Sth Cadbury Castle Show No Defences

Banks

Ditches

Water Table

Dykes

Dating the Site

Function of the site

PodCast

Author’s Biography

Exploring Prehistoric Britain: A Journey Through Time

Further Reading

Other Blogs

Introduction

The Problem in One Line

The ESD Rule (How to Date Construction Honestly)

What the Earliest Signals Say (by region)

Why the story looks different in older reports

What the famous “2,410 dates” study actually shows—and what it doesn’t

Site-by-site ledger clarifies the early horizon

Why Bayesian mid-points keep misleading us

Why this matters for Stonehenge & the Atlantic network

Credibility isn’t the issue—interpretation is

A wider, older, wetter Atlantic story

What a fair synthesis should look like (use both tools, but be honest)

The question we should now ask out loud

Final word: the stones didn’t walk. They sailed.

Appendices

Appendix — Earliest Secure Dates by Country (Top 5 per country)

Denmark

England

France

Germany

Ireland

Malta (Central Mediterranean)

Portugal

Scotland

Spain

Sweden

Methods — How we calculated the BCE ranges (and why older books are off)

Full List of C14 dates

Our Approach and Dates

PodCast

Author’s Biography

Exploring Prehistoric Britain: A Journey Through Time

Further Reading

Other Blogs

Introduction

1. Hillfort Classifications Are Outdated and Over-Simplified

2. The “Fortress” Definition Has Stuck For Too Long

3. Hillforts Were Around Before the Iron Age

4. Population Growth Doesn’t Match the Fortress Theory

5. Hillforts Were NOT Evenly Distributed — Which Defies Pure Defence Logic