Prehistoric Britain – Page 8 – Prehistoric Britain

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 Hillfort Classifications Are Outdated and Over-Simplified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

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

Dyke Construction – Hydrology 101

Posted on May 27, 2025 by admin

Introduction

When it comes to the use of ‘linear earthworks’ (we call ‘Dykes’), there is massive confusion amongst both professionals and amateur archaeologists about how such structures could function when they are dry today? (Dyke Construction – Hydrology 101).

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

Figure 10 - Groundwater Sources — Figure 10 – Groundwater Sources – *(Dyke Construction – Hydrology 101).*

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

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

The reality is that ‘streams’ of water are encapsulated within the bedrock allowing ‘springs’ to start rivers at a great height as the groundwater is under pressure and erupts to the surface from BELOW and does not flow up or down the hill internally – but can flow downhill AFTER it escapes from the soil, because at the point of escape gravity then becomes the greater force overcoming the water pressure when within the bedrock – which stops it flowing down the landscape and can push it up to the top of hills and mountains.(Dyke Construction – Hydrology 101).

Figure 11 - Wells work at all levels even at top of hills as groundwater is encapsulated into the bedrock — Figure 11 – Wells work at all levels, even at top of hills as groundwater is encapsulated into the bedrock

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

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

Once the ice sheets had melted and the climate began to warm, the landscape gradually changed from open tundra to dense woodland. By around 8000 BC, pine and birch dominated the woodland cover. These were slowly replaced by lime, elm and oak with some hazel. By 6500 BC, pine and birch woodland would only have been found on the thinner limestone soils of the uplands.(Dyke Construction – Hydrology 101).

Figure 12 - Britain 8000 BCE would be a flooded tree covered environment — Figure 12 – Britain 8000 BCE would be a flooded tree covered environment

With up to 90% of the land covered in woodland or another, the Mesolithic people needed all the open ground they could find to hunt larger animals like deer using their flint-tipped bows and arrows. The lakes also provided plenty of minor game, such as birds and fish.(Dyke Construction – Hydrology 101).

Bradford University Findings

We know that the hunters were here because archaeologists have collected thousands of their flint artefacts from sites around both lakes and rivers. Recent fieldwork and excavation by Bradford University around Malham Tarn have thrown more light on the people who used it as a hunting base. In the later Mesolithic, people were camping out on areas of slightly raised ground close to the shore of the Tarn. Geophysical survey work has shown several possible hearths at one of these campsites.

Charcoal has also been found in Mesolithic contexts in the wetlands above the Tarn. It seems likely that the hunters burned back the edge of the woodland to create more open ground for their prey to graze on. This would also have favoured the growth of hazel since, unlike other woodland trees, hazel grows back quickly from a burnt stump. With hazelnuts being a significant winter food source at this time, the people may have had this aim in mind too. People had begun to alter their environment, and it was the beginning and end of the wildwood in the Neolithic Period.(Dyke Construction – Hydrology 101).

The start of the Construction of Dykes

Consequently, at the time of the construction of Dykes the water table was still high, and rivers and wetlands dominated the landscape. When looking at the landscape of these Dykes (particularly our case studies of Offa and Wansdyke), we notice that the earthworks are not consistent or continuous. Fell walkers who have followed these features on foot have trouble accepting that these were canals abandoned long ago and hence are just a shadow of their former selves.

If we compare other known abandoned canals from just a mere 100 years since their abandonment, we see there look remarkably the same, and even today, people find it difficult to accept these empty hollows were once part of a massive ‘super highway’ of the Victorian era that linked cities of trading together – like our ancestors Dykes.

The gradients of some of the valleys these features follow have also given walkers great concern. They perceive that if water had been within the ditch, it would all run away to the bottom of the valley, leaving the canal ditch dry and a large lake at the bottom.(Dyke Construction – Hydrology 101).

Figure 13 - Not Offa or Wansdyke but A dried Victorian Canal — Figure 13 – Not Offa or Wansdyke but A dried Victorian Canal –*(Dyke Construction – Hydrology 101).*

The problem with OS Maps

The problematic conclusion with this analysis is that the walkers rely on OS maps (for accuracy), and they show these Dykes as continuous features – but the reality, if we look at the ‘scheduling of these monuments’ through Historic England, this is far from the truth. As we have shown in case studies on my web site, most of these earthworks stop at the top of the valley hill and continue on the other side as if there was something in between?

We find that there is indeed something in between these breaks, and it’s called water, as, at the time of construction, the river levels were higher, and these valleys would have been flooded. So, they would paddle across the riven.

Moreover, what we see added at a later date are extensions to the original Dyke to follow the falling river levels down the valley in sections and to a different specification to the above initial earthwork. This can be shown in the area of Offa’s Dyke just outside Chepstow, where the Dyke enters the valley but seems to stop at the top and then other partitions are added later.(Dyke Construction – Hydrology 101).

Figure 14 Offa’s Dyke nr Chepstow - showing its not continuous — Figure 14 Offa’s Dyke nr Chepstow – showing its not continuous –*(Dyke Construction – Hydrology 101).*

In the above GE photo, we see that the extracts of Offa’s Dyke that enters the dry river valley change in character except for one aspect – the width of the bank.

This evidence suggests that when the rivers fell in the Neolithic/Bronze Age, they may have adapted the route to place ‘ponds’ (small lengths of Dyke with water) to allow boats to cross the dried river channel. Let’s look at the far Right connection between the main Dyke and the first Pond. We can see that they may have been a small channel (1m) connecting the 10m wide ditches, which would have been fed by water between the ponds without over spilling and emptying the pond – a prehistoric lock system. (Dyke Construction – Hydrology 101).

Figure 15 - There is a connection between the larger Ditches that look small and thin — Figure 15 – “We can see that they may have been a small channel (1m) connecting the 10m wide ditches” –*(Dyke Construction – Hydrology 101).*

So, what makes the width of the bank so important?

The width gives us a clear view of how the use of this earthwork changed over time. What we see today is not what was initially built in prehistoric times – then the ditch was of greater importance, and then as the water table fell over many millenniums, the bank became of great significance and adapted.(Dyke Construction – Hydrology 101).

Offas and Wat Dykes

Figure 16 – Typical Dyke Profile – (Dyke Construction – Hydrology 101).

The bank needs not to be so vast unless it has changed from being a towpath (only 2 – 3m wide) to a road that took two-way traffic.

Interestingly, Dyke banks have developed to become the same width as a standard Roman Road (5m – 10m). However, our Offa example shows that the road (bank) is 6m – 14m and only 0.4m to 1m in height. This suggests that the Dykes purpose changed in later use, and looking at the 1800 OS map; this is confirmed as Offa’s Dyke is marked as an ‘ancient road’.(Dyke Construction – Hydrology 101).

Figure 17 - Offa's Dyke an Ancient Road? — Figure 17 – Offa’s Dyke an Ancient Road? – *(Dyke Construction – Hydrology 101).*

This would explain why the ditch became more shallow down the dry valley, and on the Historic England monument reports, a copious number of ‘Pits’ were found next to Bank, indicating that the contents of these pits were used to widen the road later than the original ditch.

We can only speculate that the ditch, which is only half to a third of the size of the ditch outside the dry river valley area, was still used as a canal initially and then was entirely abandoned for a road when the water table diminished.

Looking at how the Victorian engineers used locks to go up and down hills does give us an alternative possibility to how our ancestors regulated the flow of the canals allowing them to cross hills with minimal fuss. (Dyke Construction – Hydrology 101).

Figure 18 - Modern LOCK solution over hills — Figure 18 – Modern LOCK solution over hills – *(Dyke Construction – Hydrology 101).*

Figure 19 - Prehistoric solution to a lock allows puddles of water to form and not flow downhill but allows dragging the boat over weirs or through narrow channels — Figure 19 – Prehistoric solution to a lock allows puddles of water to form and not flow downhill but allows dragging the boat over weirs or through narrow channels – *(Dyke Construction – Hydrology 101).*

Figure 20 - Isolating water levels is not rocket science and is achieved all over the world — Figure 20 – Isolating water levels is not rocket science and is achieved all over the world – *(Dyke Construction – Hydrology 101).*

We have seen with Offa’s Dyke (fig. 13) that if you cut small unconnected ditches, the water will remain inside the channel and not flow downhill. Therefore, you can access this channel by cutting a small connecting ditch which is very shallow – this allows boats to move between channels without the large ditches losing water.

This same principle can be seen with wooden weirs that have a small grove or cut, allowing only a tiny amount and a boat to move from channel to channel, or a combination of both with ponds with narrow ditch channel connections and Weirs on vast stretches to regulate the flow.

Figure 21 V-Shaped Weirs – *(Dyke Construction – Hydrology 101).*

Figure 22 V-Shaped Weirs still in operation – *(Dyke Construction – Hydrology 101).*

Where ‘Springs ‘ do sprung!!

My recent investigations into another prehistoric Dyke that the Romans reused, called the Vallum by Hadrian’s Wall, have shown that Dykes can not only trap water, but they can also place the Dyke over or close to ‘Springs’ to allow the ditch to replenish its loss of water due to the gradient losses.

Rivers are formed from ‘springs’ and gain greater volume from ‘runoff’ from surface water (rain) or other interacting rivers. What we have found with the Vallum (and we believe this occurs in both Offa and Wansdyke) is that the Dyke was constructed on top of some ‘Springs’ or within 200m of other springs (which would indicate that the water table was just under the surface) and so a ditch of 1m to 2m would fill with groundwater – but under pressure that would naturally replenish if it moved downhill like a river.

The speed of the replenishment would depend on the depth of the ditch – the more deep the ditch, the more the water as the soil/rock is removed, lessening the resistance to the water. Springs give out a massive amount of water depending on their closeness to the surface: (Dyke Construction – Hydrology 101).

Figure 23 - Spring Flow rate (even today) — Figure 23 – Spring Flow rate (even today) – *(Dyke Construction – Hydrology 101).*

As you can see, a significant spring can pump out as much as 2,800 litres PER SECOND, and you might tap into several spring on a canal length – this water would naturally run downhill, and on a steep incline, the water will have to be managed. The simplest way of dealing with fast downhill currents (so you can take your boat up the opposite way with ease) is to create a series of weirs (artificial barriers); these can be either by narrowing the sides or under the water to slow the flow rate and dam up the water stream.

Figure 24 - Early Thames Weir - Using paddles/planks — Figure 24 – Early Thames Weir – Using paddles/planks – *(Dyke Construction – Hydrology 101).*

The early Victorian Canals had no locks but weirs. These weirs regulated the flow downhill by placing a wooden barrier (weir) in the canal and leaving a small gap to one side to allow boats to either go up (with the assistance of a winch) or down, keeping a majority of the water upstream of the canal by a gate that could make panels of wood of ‘paddles’ depending on the volume of the water flow. These are more effective than Locks as the boat needs not to stop to pass – but are required to have the weir almost manned full-time and therefore at a higher cost in Victorian times, not necessarily in prehistoric times. (Dyke Construction – Hydrology 101).

We still drag boats uphill overt rivers - this one has rocks - Dykes do not — We still drag boats uphill overt rivers – this one has rocks – Dykes do not – they have wiers *(Dyke Construction – Hydrology 101).*

Figure 25 - More complicated underwater Weir – but easy to construct — Figure 25 – More complicated underwater Weir – but easy to construct *(Dyke Construction – Hydrology 101).*

What has surprised us about this technique is the number of ‘springs’ that are in the vicinity or under the Dyke (Vallum) – the construction is about 70 miles long, and we have found over 65 springs associated with the struct (about one spring per mile), but these are TODAY’S reported springs – we have not taken into account (because there are no maps) the more significant number of ‘Springs’ that would have been in that Dyke construction area at the time of construction (so we could be looking at 100+ springs if not more!!) this volume of water would keep any structure supplied with water at whatever gradient it took.

Vallum built on Springs

Figure 26 - Why would you build something on a Spring? — Figure 26 – Why would you build something on a Spring?

Figure 27 - Springs around Dykes indicate a High Water Table at the time of Construction - hence the pond in the middle of the Vallum — Figure 27 – Springs around Dykes indicate a High Water Table at the time of Construction – hence the pond in the middle of the Vallum

To understand how these canals worked in hillsides of Britain, where today they are dry and barren, you need to appreciate the landscape after the last ice age. As we have already started, the environment was primarily covered (90%) with woodland and trees. This is because the water was abundant on the land as the water table was incredibly high.

This made the landscape almost like a latter-day tropical rainforest rather than the grassy plains we see today.

Figure 28 - Mesolithic Period has 90% Woodland and Tree coverage- even over the hills — Figure 28 – Mesolithic Period has 90% Woodland and Tree coverage- even over the hills

The high-water table is a direct consequence of the last ice age, which, at its maximum about 30k years ago, had most of Britain under two miles of the ice cap. The melting of this 361.8 gt of water, or 67,000 inches of water per square inch, flooded the soil, which it could not absorb, so it leaked out for thousands of years at all elevation levels.

Figure 29 - Offa's Dyke as we see it today — Figure 29 – Offa’s Dyke as we see it today

This shows why rivers were at their highest level in history in the Mesolithic period and how easily it would be to find the water table if you dug a well or in this case a ditch some 7,000 years ago – which is the current estimated date of the construction of these Dykes.

Figure 30 - Offa's Dyke in the Mesolithic with the Higher Water Table — Figure 30 – Offa’s Dyke in the Mesolithic with the Higher Water Table

This leaking of ground water into the environment can be found in SEA LEVEL CHANGES, but (Table 1) this constant flow and replenishment of groundwater are shown in another measurement, such as the age of water in the groundwater aquifers.

These dates show that water entered the groundwater table in vast quantities in the Ice Age – but stopped for six thousand years – so did it stop raining for 9,000 years? Or was more water coming out than entering the ground at this time and beyond?

The Age of Water?

The Age of Water table shows that most waters were placed in the landscape soils during the ice age, and it seeped out for 9,000 years before the rainfall penetrated the land again.

The reason for the construction of Dykes in the past is shown by the sheer volume of ‘Linear Earthworks’ found in the Northern Hemisphere. There are 1497 Scheduled Dyke sites found covering the entire British landscape – from the known Offa and Wansdyke to the East Coast, Ireland and Wales and now we have even found that the Vallum connected to Hadrian’s Wall was also once a prehistoric Dyke that the Romans reused to convey the stone to the Walls.

The idea that these features are Medieval (although they may have been reused at that period) in origin is impossible as they are found as far as field as Southern Ireland (a mere 147 Dykes) and on both the Shetland and Scilly Isles – too widespread to be these so-called ‘Saxon’ boundary/ defensive markers.

Why do archaeologists and geologists have so much trouble understanding past river and water levels?

We have shown in our trilogy ‘Prehistoric Britain’ that other ancient ditches contained water from the high water tables of the past that also fed local active ‘springs’ which flowed into the local rivers – like the River Avon next to Stonehenge, which consequently raised the River’s water level that flooded the area by ‘The Avenue’ known as Stonehenge Bottom.

Archaeologists who have attempted to investigate this possibility, like Julian Richards in his book ‘The Stonehenge Environs Project’ concluded that it could not be possible or was at a much earlier date, as their expert Geologist has assured them that the amount of ‘alluvium’ (sandy silt) found at the site was insufficient in volume. Sadly, this was ‘Bad Science’ as any true expert in ‘Hydrology’ would have told them – for alluvium is only produced when a river flows rapidly (due to surface runoff), cutting down rocks and stones that create this sandy, silty substance.

Water from a spring does not create ‘alluvium’ as it is from ‘Aquifers’ and not rainfall runoff – as this article from Wikipedia on chalk streams qualifies.

Chalk Streams (Wikipedia)

Chalk streams are rivers that rise from springs in landscapes with chalk bedrock. Since chalk is permeable, water percolates easily through the ground to the water table and chalk streams therefore receive little surface runoff. As a result, the water in the streams contains little organic matter and sediment and is generally very clear. The beds of the rivers are generally composed of clean, compacted gravel and flints, which are good spawning areas for Salmonidae fish species.

Since they are fed primarily by aquifers, the flow rate, mineral content and temperature range of chalk streams exhibit less seasonal variation than other rivers. They are mildly alkaline] and contain high levels of nitrate, phosphate, potassium and silicate.] In addition to algae and diatoms, the streams provide a suitable habitat for macrophytes (including water crowfoot) and oxygen levels are generally supportive of coarse fish populations.

Of the 210 rivers classified as chalk streams globally, 160 are in England.

Chalk is a highly porous and permeable rock, and rain falling onto chalk topography percolates directly into the ground, where the chalk layer acts as an aquifer. The groundwater flows through the chalk bedrock, re-emerging lower down the slope in springs. The chalk acts as a temporary reservoir by regulating the amount of water supplied to the springs.

This is why many chalk streams in the UK have stable flow regimes that vary only slightly over time. The temperature of the emerging surface water is fairly stable and rarely deviates from 10 °C (50 °F). On cold winter mornings, water vapour from the relatively warm stream condenses in the cold air above to form fog.

Chalk is slightly soluble in rainwater because rain is naturally slightly acidic. The products of chalk weathering are dissolved in rainwater and are transported in stream flow. Chalk streams transport little suspended material (unlike most rivers), but are considered “mineral-rich” due to the dissolved calcium and carbonate ions.

The surface water of chalk streams is commonly described as “gin clear”. The channel bed consists of angular flint gravel derived from the natural flint deposits found embedded within the chalk geology that contains relatively low amounts of clay and silt deposits.

The unique characteristics of chalk stream ecology are due to stable temperature and flow regimes combined with highly transparent water and lack of sand grade sediment particles.

Chronology

The dating of these linear earthworks can only be achieved by looking at the rivers these features interact with and connect to that form the Dykes we observe today – which are now just dried up ‘Dry River Valleys’ also known as ‘Paleochannels’ by geologists. However, a recent publication by Historic England also admits that these features are much older than first believed because older dated items are being found on each new excavation.

Prehistoric Linear Boundary Earthworks: Introductions to Heritage Assets. Swindon. Historic England 2018.

Linear earthworks are not always easy to date: often, they contain little dateable material and in many cases they are likely to have been repeatedly cleaned out or refashioned so that evidence for their origins has potentially been removed. Superficially, their form is not often diagnostic, so prehistoric examples can be confused with medieval or later ones. For this reason, amongst others, associations with other monuments are extremely important.

Figure 32 - Chapperton Down, Wiltshire — Figure 32 – Chapperton Down, Wiltshire

In some cases, survey can demonstrate that linear earthworks are aligned on, or even impinge upon, pre-existing monuments such as burial mounds and hillforts.

A number of other hillforts, such as Woolbury, Danebury and that on Quarley Hill, all in Hampshire, or Sidbury in Wiltshire, were established at the junctions or terminals of pre-existing linear earthworks. In these cases, understanding of the associated monuments can make a vital contribution to the understanding of the function and date of the linear earthworks.

Overall, it would seem that boundaries were constructed, in one form or another, from the early Neolithic onwards. The earliest ‘conventional’ linear earthwork so far confirmed, dating to around 3600 BC, follows the crest of the western escarpment of Hambleton Hill, Dorset, for perhaps as much as 3 km. It comprises an almost continuous bank and segmented ditch, thus similar in form to two causewayed enclosures on the adjacent summits.

Land boundaries appear in greater numbers from the middle of the Bronze Age, around 1500 BC, apparently coinciding with pressure on land brought about by increasing population levels and perhaps with the rise of powerful rulers who were able to command large workforces. Some of these early boundaries, as well as newly constructed ones, continued to structure the social and economic landscape through the Iron Age and into the Roman period. Indeed, some have seen continuous use, or repeated re-use, from prehistory to the present day.

The construction and initial use of pit alignments may have spanned a somewhat shorter period, though a number were re-used subsequently.

On Chapperton Down, Wiltshire, within Salisbury Plain Training Area (Fig. 30) , a linear earthwork is aligned on a Neolithic long barrow, cuts through earlier fields, and changes direction sharply to avoid a pre-existing settlement.

Some of the earliest seem to date to the later Neolithic period: on Ebberston Common the latest of the sequence of at least six pit alignments appears to predate the construction of a round barrow which would typically date to the earlier Bronze Age, around 2000 BC. Relatively few pit alignments seem to have been created after the Early Iron Age. Excavations elsewhere have discovered other anomalies, however, constructed in the Roman period and even in the 18th century. So-called ‘multiple ditch systems’ appear to have originated in the late 2nd to early 1st centuries BC and to have continued in use into the Roman period. This makes them broadly contemporary with the oppida with which they share various characteristics.

Figure 33 - Linear Boundary Timeline — Figure 33 – Linear Boundary Timeline

2025 update

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

Why Offa’s and Wansdyke Are Not Saxon Ditches

By The Prehistoric AI Team

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

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

1. Historic England’s Own Words

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

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

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

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

2. Confusion by Reuse

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

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

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

3. Historic England Admits Mis-Dating Risks

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

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

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

4. Functional Variety, Not Fortification

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

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

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

5. The Official Timeline

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

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

The Saxon period doesn’t even feature.

6. What This Means

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

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

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

7. A New Understanding

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

Sources:

Langdon, R.J. (2024) Twigs, Charcoal, and the Death of the Saxon Dyke Myth.

Historic England (2018) Prehistoric Linear Boundary Earthworks: Introductions to Heritage Assets (HEAG 219).

Langdon, R.J. (2022) Prehistoric Dykes (Canals) – Wansdyke v1.2.

Case Study: Dykes Follow Water: The 68.6% Aquifer Overlap Nobody’s Talking About

Across Britain, prehistoric dykes have long been dismissed as little more than defensive ramparts or mystical boundary markers. But what if we’ve been looking at them through the wrong lens entirely? A new GIS-based study we conducted earlier this year, integrating official British Geological Survey aquifer maps with the known alignments of ancient linear earthworks, reveals something astonishing: 68.6% of dyke segments intersect directly with mapped aquifer zones. That’s not a loose correlation — that’s a direct, measurable pattern that begs for re-evaluation.

This level of overlap seriously undermines the tired narratives of ritual and fortification. Instead, it points to a far more practical purpose — one rooted in hydrology, not mysticism. These dykes, including major features like Offa’s Dyke and Wansdyke, may have been strategically aligned along natural underground water fractures or aquifer boundaries. In this light, their purpose shifts dramatically: from symbolic markers to functioning elements of a water-based transport or irrigation system. Seasonal canal usage, trade facilitation, or even simple water management may have played a central role in their placement.

Overlaying hydrogeological data on ancient dyke networks reveals geometric precision that’s impossible to ignore. These earthworks don’t meander aimlessly — they often shadow aquifer flows, spring lines, and fracture zones. Whether this was achieved through environmental observation, empirical trial and error, or even primitive water divining, it’s clear that prehistoric builders had a working knowledge of what lay beneath their feet. The alignment with hydrological structures is too deliberate to be accidental.

Hidden Sources of Ancient Dykes: Tracing Underground Groundwater Fractals

The article (https://prehistoric-britain.co.uk/hidden-sources-of-ancient-dykes) delves into the intriguing correlation between Britain’s ancient dykes and the underlying groundwater systems. Utilizing data from the British Geological Survey, it highlights that a significant number of prehistoric dykes align with aquifer zones, suggesting a deliberate placement influenced by subsurface water pathways.

Hidden Sources of Ancient Dykes - Source BGS — Groundwater often follows fractal patterns, mirroring trees, veins, and rivers.

If we could observe the groundwater table from space, it would resemble a vast, intricate network of veins and arteries beneath the surface. These aquifers vary in depth and size, forming a complex mosaic that has shaped the landscape over millennia. The dykes, often perceived as mere defensive structures, may have been strategically constructed to follow these hidden watercourses, serving purposes related to water management, transportation, or delineation of territories based on hydrological features.

Hidden Sources of Ancient Dykes: — Britain’s major aquifers form the nation’s underground reservoirs

This perspective challenges traditional interpretations, proposing that our ancestors possessed a sophisticated understanding of the land’s hydrology. The alignment of dykes with aquifer boundaries implies that these structures were not randomly placed but were integral to managing and utilizing the natural water resources of the time.

Dykes appear “linear” in name only—many follow winding, unpredictable paths.

By re-examining these ancient earthworks through the lens of hydrogeology, we gain a deeper appreciation for the ingenuity of prehistoric societies and their relationship with the environment. The article encourages a reevaluation of archaeological assumptions, considering the profound impact of unseen natural features on human settlement and infrastructure.

Case Study Wansdyke – Morgan’s Hill West

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

Figure 34 – Morgan Hill West (Wansdyke)

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

Figure 35 Morgan’s Hill West in Sections

The steepest part of Wansdyke lies on the western approach to Morgan’s Hill, where the earthwork climbs from c. 182 m OD to c. 252 m OD. If Wansdyke functioned as a contour canal, this is the critical test: can a controlled waterway, fed by springs, be made navigable across such a rise using only simple weirs and sills?

To answer this, we model the ditch as an open channel, using the standard Manning equation rather than a pipe-flow formula:

Manning:
v=1nR2/3S1/2v = \dfrac{1}{n} R^{2/3} S^{1/2}v=n1R2/3S1/2
where
v = mean velocity (m/s)
n = roughness coefficient (s/m1/3^{1/3}1/3)
R = hydraulic radius = A/P (m)
S = hydraulic gradient (slope of the water surface, not necessarily the bed)

For a conservative cross-section we assume:

Earth-cut channel within the existing ditch
Active water width: 2 m (within a wider earthwork)
Water depth: 1.5 m
Side slopes ~1:1 (typical for earthworks)
Roughness n ≈ 0.03 (unlined earth)

This gives:

Area A≈5.25 m2A ≈ 5.25\ \text{m}^2A≈5.25 m2
Wetted perimeter P≈6.24 mP ≈ 6.24\ \text{m}P≈6.24 m
Hydraulic radius R=A/P≈0.84 mR = A/P ≈ 0.84\ \text{m}R=A/P≈0.84 m

We then divide the slope into the same four sections as before.

Section A – 0 to 300 m

Length: 300 m
Bed level: 251 m → 242 m OD (~3% bed slope)

Crucially, in a canal we do not let the water surface fall at 3%. We design a much gentler hydraulic gradient by using low sills and local deepening to flatten the water surface.

Assume we limit the water surface gradient to S = 0.001 (0.1%). Plugging into Manning:

v≈0.94 m/sv ≈ 0.94\ \text{m/s}v≈0.94 m/s ≈ 2.1 mph
Q=v⋅A≈4.9 m3/sQ = v·A ≈ 4.9\ \text{m}^3/\text{s}Q=v⋅A≈4.9 m3/s

So even with a modest gradient, this cross-section can comfortably carry a discharge of about 5 m³/s at a safe, navigable speed of about 2 mph.

For the springs, instead of the earlier upper-bound 11.2 m³/s, we adopt a conservative combined flow in the range:

Qₛ ≈ 3–5 m³/s

This is well within the carrying capacity of our modelled channel. Any surplus during peak conditions would be taken off via overflows or side channels, which is what we see in many historic canal/spring systems.

Conclusion for Section A:
With modest control structures and a conservative spring inflow of 3–5 m³/s, Section A can operate as a gently flowing pound at c. 2 mph, fully navigable without needing complex locks.

Section B – 300 to 800 m (Steep Bed, Stepped Pounds)

Length: 500 m
Bed: 242 m → 200 m OD (≈8% bed slope)

An unregulated 8% gradient would indeed produce fast, erosive, supercritical flow – not suitable for navigation. However, that is not what is being proposed.

Instead, Section B is best understood as a stepped reach, broken into short, near-level pounds separated by low drops:

Example: six to eight pounds of 60–80 m each
Each pound maintained at S ≈ 0–0.001 (effectively level)
Between pounds, simple weirs or paddles drop a small amount of head.

Within each pound, we can again target:

S ≈ 0.0005–0.001
v ≈ 0.7–1.0 m/s (1.5–2.2 mph)
Q ≈ 3–5 m³/s (same inflow as Section A)

The steep bed slope simply dictates how much head is available between the top and bottom, not the water surface slope within any single pound.

In other words:

The hillside is 8%
The water surface is a flight of short level steps, not an 8% torrent.

This is conceptually similar to later lock flights or stepped spillways, but implemented with much simpler timber and earth structures: low sills, brushwood weirs, and controlled overflows.

Section C – 800 to 1350 m (Level Rest Pound)

(Your original text puts this as 500–1050 m; adjust distances here to match your final figure and plan.)

Length: ~550 m
Bed: approximately flat (0% slope)

Here, the canal would naturally form a long, quiet pound. With the same cross-section, even a minimal gradient (S ≈ 0.0003–0.0005) maintains:

v ≈ 0.5–0.7 m/s (1–1.5 mph)
Q ≈ 3–4 m³/s

This offers:

A rest section for tow animals or people,
Space to manage any surplus water via side channels, overflow notches, or small off-takes feeding fields or stock-ponds.

If desired, an extra sill at the upstream end can reduce residual flow even further, creating a stretch of almost “dead water”.

Section D – 1350 to 1540 m (Final Drop)

Length: ~190 m
Bed: c. 200 m → 182 m OD (~9–10% slope)

In the Mesolithic high-water context, much of this drop may have lain within the expanded headwaters of the River Kennet, making a separate engineered solution unnecessary. At lower water tables (e.g. later Roman reuse), the logic is the same as Section B:

Short controlled pounds separated by low drops,
Keeping velocities in each pound at < 2–3 mph,
Using the bed slope only as a source of available head, not as an uncontrolled gradient.

From a hydraulic standpoint, it is far more efficient to break the rise into steps than to try to drive boats against a continuous slope. The stepped-pound solution is precisely how later waterway systems tackled steep ground, and the principle is well within the capabilities of a timber-using engineering culture.

Summary of the Revised Model

The original Morgan’s Hill calculation used a closed-pipe velocity formula as a simple illustrative tool. The revised analysis now applies the correct Manning open-channel equation, which is appropriate for earth-cut canals. Making this adjustment does not weaken the case — it tightens the conclusion and places the hydraulics on the proper footing.

Open-channel hydraulics (Manning)

All velocities are recalculated using Manning, giving realistic flow speeds for a ditch-style waterway.

Conservative spring inflow

Instead of the earlier upper-bound figure, the model uses a 3–5 m³/s combined spring discharge — well within the carrying capacity of a 2 m-wide, 1.5 m-deep active channel.

Bed slope ≠ water surface slope

The steep bed gradients (8–10%) are not left open. They are divided into short, level pounds separated by low timber or earth sills, keeping the water surface gradient at just 0–0.1% within each pound.

Safe, navigable velocities

With these controls, water speeds remain in the 1–3 mph range — slow enough for towing and entirely manageable.

Navigation feasibility

This returns us to the real purpose of the case study:

An empty boat can easily be hauled uphill when the opposing flow is only 1–3 mph.
And because a floating vessel loses 60–80% of its effective weight through buoyancy, even a loaded boat becomes far easier to pull than its dry mass would suggest.

No complex engineering is required — just timber, earth, and simple water-level management.a canalised waterway if managed with simple stepped control structures.
Nothing in the physics rules it out.

Figure 36 - Dykes of Britain (White all link to the Mesolithic Rivers of the Past (Blue) — Figure 36 – Dykes of Britain (White all link to the Mesolithic Rivers of the Past (Blue)

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

Rivers of the Past Were Higher: A Fresh Perspective on Prehistoric Hydrology

Posted on May 7, 2025 by admin

Introduction

A Revolutionary Perspective on Archaeology and Hydrology

Fifteen years ago, I introduced an idea that some might consider revolutionary—an insight born from my archaeological investigations. A clear pattern emerged through the detailed graphical analysis of 50 sites around Stonehenge and its surrounding barrows: these locations consistently occupied elevated positions within the upper 30th percentile of the landscape. (The Rivers of the Past were Higher)

The Rivers of the Past were Higher – an idiot’s guide — The Raised Waters of the River Avon brought first the Bluestones from Wales to Stonehenge and then the Sarsens from nr Avebury – (The Rivers of the Past were Higher)

This observation was more than coincidental. It pointed to a critical hydrological phenomenon: rivers during the post-glacial period were far more expansive than today. Surprisingly, this idea had not been explored within archaeological circles. I embarked on years of meticulous research to address this gap, culminating in a 50,000-word thesis titled “The Post-Glacial Flooding Hypothesis.” The thesis, supported by 125 peer-reviewed references, explored the interplay between mathematics, hydrology, and archaeology to propose a groundbreaking hypothesis: the elevated placement of ancient sites correlates with the past’s larger, more powerful rivers.

By analyzing major rivers, including the Thames and the Avon, I demonstrated that these waterways were shaped by the glacial meltwaters of the last ice age, and their ongoing diminution reflects millennia of hydrological evolution. This thesis challenged traditional archaeological assumptions about ancient landscapes and human settlement patterns. (The Rivers of the Past were Higher)

Britain's Flooded Past — Stonehenge Bottom was once part of the Avon – (The Rivers of the Past were Higher)

The Challenge of Being Heard

Despite publishing over 250 essays, producing over 100 videos, and fostering discussion among 5,000+ community members, I still encounter the same basic misconceptions and questions. Many of these queries could be answered with a brief engagement with the material—something even a curious six-year-old might accomplish if they took the time to delve beyond the surface.

This blog addresses the ten most common questions sceptics and enthusiasts pose. For those who have already grasped the fundamentals, feel free to move on. But I invite you to engage with the answers below for those who remain perplexed or unconvinced. Let’s unravel the science, revisit the evidence, and explore the transformative role of hydrology in reshaping our understanding of ancient human landscapes. (The Rivers of the Past were Higher)

Empirical Proof of Higher Waters in the Past

The “Post-Glacial Flooding Hypothesis,” proposed by Robert John Langdon, suggests that rivers in Britain and Europe were significantly larger after the last Ice Age due to higher water. This hypothesis posits that the landscape remained flooded for thousands of years after the ice caps melted, with water persisting in enlarged rivers. The sources highlight several lines of empirical evidence that are interpreted to support this assertion, drawing on geological, hydrological, and archaeological data.

One key piece of evidence cited is the steady rise in sea levels over the last ten thousand years, proving that water continued to occupy the land as enlarged rivers after the ice caps melted. Beyond this general trend, studies focusing on river activity provide more direct support. A scientific paper by Lewis & Macklin (2003) indicates that rivers in Britain experienced over 100 flooding events in the last ten thousand years, some of which lasted for hundreds of years. Another review of radiocarbon-dated fluvial deposits in the UK suggests up to twenty flooding episodes in lowland rivers between 11,190 and 390 cal B.P.20. These numerous flood events are presented as evidence of a significantly higher water table in the past.

Geological formations such as peat deposits are also considered empirical evidence. Peat forms in wet, marshy ground, and its presence and dating are proof of the extent of the Post-Glacial Flooding and the timing of these episodes. Peat growth is shown to have peaked about 4000 years after the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), which is interpreted as indicating that rivers remained high and flowing until the Neolithic Period. Modern peatlands are even described as old river beds.

(The Rivers of the Past were Higher)eat coverage due to flooding — The reason we have more Peat than most countries is that we had more bogland in the past due to the raised river levels – (The Rivers of the Past were Higher)

River terraces, remnants of former floodplains, offer further geological insights. The sources note that in the Avon Valley, the terraces between T7 and T10 consist of river silt. Optical Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) dating indicates they are “out of sequence” compared to the traditional geological model. This chronological discrepancy is suspected to result from the numerous flooding events during the Holocene, which would have affected and redeposited sediments on older terraces. Recent OSL dating research in the Avon Valley supports the deposition of T10-7 during or before MIS10/9 (including the LGM).

Avon Terrances — River Avon Flood Terrances accepted by Geologists – (The Rivers of the Past were Higher)

Analysis of the scale of past river systems provides quantitative evidence. Based on sedimentary data and borehole samples, a case study on the Thames River concluded that its current average discharge rate was potentially increased by 3723% during the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods, reaching a peak discharge of 2450 m³/s. This rate was comparable to smaller North American rivers during the same epoch. Similarly, the Mississippi River’s discharge is noted to have increased from its present rate of 16,790 m³/s to a considerable 160,000 m³/s just after the LGM, an 853% rise indicative of significant augmentation in river height and discharge. Globally, river volumes and heights are estimated to have been, on average, around 941% greater towards the end of the last ice age due to extra water washed down existing terrestrial rivers. Evidence from river terraces, sediment deposits, and paleohydrology supports the idea that rivers were more extensive in the post-glacial period, with major rivers like the Thames and Severn having broader and more dynamic channels.

Thames is on a flood plain that was active in the Mesolithic period – (The Rivers of the Past were Higher)

Archaeological sites and features are also interpreted as providing empirical evidence for past higher water levels. The strategic positioning of many prehistoric settlements on higher ground is seen as aligning with the edges of floodplains or higher terraces that would have offered safety from the elevated river levels. The history of sites like Old Sarum is presented as evidence of fluctuating water levels, thriving for approximately 5,000 years (or 4,000) and showing the impact of environmental changes, with its initial abundance of water supporting the notion of much higher levels in prehistoric times. The fact that the Norman well at Old Sarum is now dry is proof of changes in groundwater levels over time. Excavations at Old Sarum also revealed a raised platform and pathway through the outer bank, suggesting the site was accessed by boats on a higher water table during the Neolithic period. Further excavation evidence from the Avebury ditch in 1914, which had to be stopped due to groundwater flooding it and turning it into a moat, is considered a “smoking gun” proving that higher river levels indicated in geological maps would have flooded the ditch. Similarly, an excavation at Hornchurch Marsh, on the edge of the British Geological Survey (BGS) superficial Alluvium flood map, revealed radiocarbon-dated evidence of inundation during the early Holocene, supporting the model of past higher river levels and periodic flooding.

Old Saum — The Wells of Old Sarum are below the Ditch level – so they must have been flooded (moat)

Linear earthworks, commonly known as dykes, are another category of archaeological features offering potential evidence. While traditionally interpreted as boundaries or defensive structures, emerging evidence suggests they may have functioned as prehistoric canals designed for water management and transport within a water-rich landscape. Research indicates that these earthworks can significantly hold and manage water, impacting hydrological connectivity and promoting localized water retention.. An analysis using AI is mentioned, concluding that 8 out of the 10 longest dykes in Britain show empirical evidence of water retainment. Specifically, Wansdyke is noted to incorporate earthworks with right-angled ditches that resemble Roman cross-regulators used for water management, seen at sites like Rybury Camp and Tan Hill. The discrepancy in ditch dimensions between East and West Wansdyke suggests sequential construction linked to changing water levels. Gaps in dykes like Wansdyke and Offa’s Dyke are interpreted as points where ancient, higher rivers coursed through, necessitating a break in the earthwork or requiring boat travel. Excavations by Pitt Rivers are said to reveal that water once flowed through the ditches of Wansdyke. Even Roman structures like Hadrian’s Wall and the Vallum are interpreted as providing evidence; their disappearance for stretches where the landscape would have been flooded by rivers 8m higher than today suggests the structures were routed around these bodies of water, indicating a higher water table even during the Roman period. LiDAR analysis is used to show how structures like henges and potential canals align with past river shorelines or paleochannels associated with higher water levels.

(Britain's Giant Prehistoric Waterways) — The Vallum at Hadrian’s Wall still retains its water – (The Rivers of the Past were Higher)

In conclusion, the body of empirical evidence drawn from geological features like peat and river terraces, hydrological data indicating increased river discharge rates, and the characteristics and placement of archaeological sites and linear earthworks (dykes), which are interpreted as supporting the hypothesis of significantly raised river levels in Britain and potentially wider Europe during the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods and extending into later epochs. This perspective challenges traditional archaeological interpretations and suggests a need for re-evaluating ancient landscapes in light of past hydrological conditions. While acknowledging that scientific evidence is always open to reinterpretation, the proponents argue that the collected evidence provides compelling support for this view.

Case Study: Dykes Follow Water: The 68.6% Aquifer Overlap Nobody’s Talking About

It’s time to abandon the chalky clichés of ritualistic ditches and Saxon scare-lines. This isn’t about spiritual symbolism or defensive paranoia — it’s about engineering, observation, and control of a life-sustaining resource: water. The idea that prehistoric Britons built with such hydrological insight isn’t fantastical — it’s the most logical interpretation of the data. If we start following the water, we might finally start understanding what the dykes were really for.

Case Study: Piercebridge Roman Bridge & the Ancient Tees – A Post-Glacial Perspective

Rivers of the past were higher — (The Rivers of the Past were Higher)

Ever wondered why the Roman bridge at Piercebridge is stranded in a field, far from today’s riverbank?

The answer lies in one of the clearest pieces of physical evidence supporting the Post-Glacial Hypothesis — that Britain’s ancient rivers were not briefly swollen by seasonal flooding but remained massively elevated for thousands of years due to glacial melt, lack of drainage, and a saturated prehistoric climate.

🧱 Roman Engineering Reveals Ancient Water Levels

Bridge foundations: 58m OD (Ordnance Datum)
Original bridge deck: likely 6–10m above this = ~64–68m OD
Standard Roman river clearance: 2–3m ➜ River level: ~61–65m OD

Today, the Tees flows at just ~55m OD, meaning a drop of 6–10m since the Roman era.

But that’s just the start.

🕰️ Rolling Back Time to the Mesolithic (~8000–4000 BC)

With:

No flood defences
Heavy glacial runoff
Slow-draining forested valleys

A conservative model of ~5m drop every 2000 years means the Tees in the Mesolithic likely flowed at ~70–75m OD — up to 20m higher than today.

Piercebridge — LiDAR Map of the River and the Position of the Bridge – (The Rivers of the Past were Higher)

💡 What It All Proves

This isn’t just a minor fluctuation.

It’s geological proof that prehistoric rivers were immense — wide, high, and capable of supporting boat-based transport across much of Britain. That changes how we interpret:

“Hillforts” (which may have been river-edge settlements)
Prehistoric trade and transport networks
Sites like Stonehenge, where the River Avon (currently at 68m OD) was likely much higher — supporting the theory of bluestone delivery by boat

Piercebridge is no anomaly — it’s a smoking gun.

Case Study – The Thames

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

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

Traditional View of the Thames River terraces

(The Thames through time)

The modern floodplain of the Lower Thames, downstream of central London, is bounded either by older Pleistocene sands or gravels at the higher levels or by bedrock. The depositional chronology of the Thames gravel terraces has yet to be universally accepted, and the two significant sequences have been proposed by (Gibbard, 1985).

The SBAB model of floodplain evolution proposes that during the early Holocene multi-channel braided systems stabilised with the narrowing and deepening of some channels, and the progressive abandonment of others over the course of the Holocene (Brown et al. 1994).

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

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

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

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

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

(The Thames through time)

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

Increased discharge levels during the Holocene

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

Thames River Cross-Sections A – G

(The Thames through time)

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

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

To investigate further, we need to look at a detailed excavation undertaken at the edge of the BGS superficial Alluvium flood map to get some real evidence of dates and clues about what sediments are present in comparison to the ages suggested in the past publications.

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

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

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

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

Ten Frequently Asked Questions

1. If the sea level was so high, wouldn’t people in the past have drowned?

This question reflects a misunderstanding of hydrology. The elevation of a river is not directly linked to sea level. Rivers flow primarily from aquifers—water reservoirs embedded within bedrock—not from just rainfall as commonly taught in schools. These aquifers dictate water flow through natural springs, independent of sea level.

Unfortunately, even prominent figures in archaeology have misunderstood this principle. For instance, one well-known archaeologist dismissed my findings by dubbing the book the “Stonehenge on Sea” hypothesis – based solely on the book’s cover. This misinterpretation highlights the importance of engaging with the underlying science rather than relying on superficial impressions. (The Rivers of the Past were Higher)

2. If sea levels in the past were lower, how could rivers be higher?

During the last ice age, sea levels were approximately 65 meters lower than today. However, the colder climate meant precipitation fell as snow, forming massive glaciers. These glaciers trapped vast amounts of water, preventing it from flowing into rivers.

When the glaciers began to melt, the water released caused rivers to swell dramatically. This wasn’t a quick process. Recent models show that sea levels rose over 7,000 years after the initial melt, transforming landscapes like Doggerland—a land bridge connecting Britain to Europe—into the North Sea. This extended period of flooding explains how rivers could have been significantly larger in the past, despite lower sea levels.

3. Why aren’t all rivers and tributaries the same height in this area?

The simplistic notion that water “always seeks a common level” misrepresents the complexities of hydrology. Multiple aquifers at varying elevations feed rivers, and their flow mirrors the contours of the landscape. This intricate system ensures that rivers don’t conform to a uniform height.

For instance, rivers like the Thames have multiple sources that contribute to their flow. Even when rainfall is scarce, aquifers release water at different elevations, sustaining the river. This dynamic interplay explains why rivers don’t follow a universal level and why one river may sit higher than another in the same region.

4. Is this hypothesis based on fact or just speculation?

The hypothesis is firmly grounded in decades of research and fieldwork. It builds on three decades of academic study and exploration, culminating in an academic thesis supported by 125 peer-reviewed references.

5. I’ve walked these routes and found no water. How do you explain that?

Landscapes are dynamic, not static. Ten thousand years ago, the Sahara was a lush rainforest filled with elephants and lions. Similarly, Britain’s east coast was once a verdant plain connecting it to Europe. Over millennia, these landscapes changed dramatically due to shifting climates and sea levels.

Rivers that once flowed abundantly have since diminished as aquifers dried up. For example, the North Sea, Irish Sea, and English Channel gradually drained the rivers that fed them, lowering water tables and drying out springs in elevated areas. Today, you see a shadow of the ancient hydrological systems that once defined these regions.

6. Why would people push boats to the top of a hillfort?

The idea that ancient people moved boats uphill reflects a misunderstanding of how rivers once shaped the landscape. According to the hypothesis, ancient rivers like the Thames were vastly larger—potentially 3,000 times their current size. What we perceive as hills today would have appeared as islands within these expansive waterways.

Earthworks along these rivers likely defined the edges of these elevated landforms, making them accessible by boat. This perspective challenges modern assumptions about the topography of the past and highlights the transformative role of ancient hydrological systems.

7. Where is the evidence for larger rivers in the past?

British Geological Survey maps provide compelling evidence of ancient, larger rivers. These maps detail the extent of superficial deposits that mark the waterways’ historical boundaries. Features like river terraces further support this evidence.

For instance, the River Avon has ten terraces, indicating its past size and elevation. At one time, this river spanned tens of kilometres in width and was over 100 meters above current sea level. These geological features attest to the dynamic nature of rivers throughout history. (The Rivers of the Past were Higher)

8. I have a PhD in archaeology—why wasn’t I taught this?

Archaeological education has traditionally focused on specific methodologies while neglecting interdisciplinary approaches. In the 21st century, good archaeology requires integrating hydrology, dating methods, and advanced mapping techniques like LiDAR.

LiDAR, for instance, allows us to reconstruct ancient landscapes with remarkable precision. Yet, many archaeologists lack the training to interpret raw LiDAR data or understand its full potential. The absence of such knowledge limits their ability to engage with complex hypotheses like the one presented here. Archaeology must evolve into a more scientifically robust discipline to address this gap. (The Rivers of the Past were Higher)

9. Water can’t flow uphill, for the gradients are too high

This question reflects a common misconception about the nature and purpose of prehistoric linear earthworks, or “dykes,” in a flooded prehistoric landscape. Many people mistakenly interpret these structures through the lens of Victorian canals, imagining them as continuous waterways designed to transport goods over long distances in a single, uninterrupted flow. This comparison oversimplifies the engineering principles and functional realities of prehistoric dykes. (The Rivers of the Past were Higher)

In prehistory, river levels were significantly higher than today, which meant that the distances goods needed to travel over land were much shorter. Prehistoric dykes were not designed as continuous waterways; instead, they were engineered to serve as efficient connections between rivers or to transport raw materials from quarries to waterways. These materials could then be transported by boat to trading sites or processing locations.

A key feature of these dykes is their adaptability to the landscape. Unlike Victorian canals, which relied on a continuous channel of water and locks to maintain flow, prehistoric dykes often utilized natural springs at the tops of hills. These springs could provide water that flowed down both sides of a hill, enabling transport without the need to “go over” the hill itself. This ingenious use of natural water sources allowed for movement between points A and B most efficiently, considering the terrain and hydrology of the time. (The Rivers of the Past were Higher)

10. How can you connect to other rivers as you need to go over the hill?

In cases where goods or people needed to traverse a hill with water flowing down both sides, the solution was remarkably straightforward and practical. A boat or barge, naturally floating in the water and much lighter to manage than carrying goods or loads overland, could be dragged uphill using workforce or, more efficiently, animal power. Oxen, for example, would have been ideal for towing boats up gradients along the dyke.

Once the summit was reached, the natural downhill flow of water could take over, allowing the boat to continue its journey easily. Using animal power to drag boats uphill echoes practices seen in early Victorian canal systems. During this period, weirs were often constructed to slow water flow in downhill rivers, facilitating the towing of barges and boats uphill. The principle was straightforward: use animal power for uphill transport and natural flow for downhill movement, ensuring efficiency and minimizing the physical burden on workers.

This method would have effectively transported goods or people over varied terrain in a prehistoric context, leveraging both natural hydrology and available resources like animal labour. The adaptability of this system highlights the innovative and pragmatic approaches of ancient societies to overcome challenges posed by their environment.

By viewing prehistoric dykes through this lens, we can better appreciate their functionality and the ingenuity of those who designed them. Modern assumptions of continuous waterways did not limit these structures but reflected a deep understanding of the landscape and the tools available to navigate it. (The Rivers of the Past were Higher)

Conclusion

The Post-Glacial Flooding Hypothesis challenges conventional wisdom about ancient landscapes and hydrology. It invites us to reconsider the evidence and embrace a more interdisciplinary approach to archaeology. While the journey to broader acceptance has been fraught with resistance and misunderstanding, the evidence speaks for itself.

For those willing to engage deeply, the hypothesis offers a transformative lens to understand the past—a perspective rooted in science, shaped by rigorous research, and open to thoughtful debate.

Scientific progress begins with hypotheses. I welcome questions and challenges, but they must be substantiated with evidence. The burden of proof lies with those who disagree, requiring more than opinion; it demands well-referenced counterarguments. This process of scrutiny and debate is the essence of scientific advancement.

The landscape has changed — but the clues are still there, in stone, in soil, and in elevation maps. It’s time archaeology stopped ignoring the water and started reimagining the prehistoric world from the riverbed up. (The Rivers of the Past were Higher)

(The Rivers of the Past were Higher)

Exploring Prehistoric Britain: A Journey Through Time

(The Rivers of the Past were Higher)

Other Blogs

2024 Prehistoric Britain Blog Review

8000-year-old Cro-Magnon skull

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

(The Rivers of the Past were Higher)

The Vallum at Hadrian’s Wall Atlas – FREE Flipbook

Posted on April 26, 2025 by admin

Promotional Video – Prehistoric Canals – The Vallum

Extract From Book……………………… Ancient Prehistoric Canals (Dykes) – The Vallum

INTRODUCTION

Like most others, I believed I was aware of the story of Hadrian’s Wall and the reasons behind it being built and by whom, mainly as it was part of my certificate in Archaeology in the 1990s, which required me to submit an essay as part of my successful module.

Consequently, I had no reason to doubt the honesty of these ‘peer-reviewed’ publications to the authenticity of the information these eminent archaeologists and historians provided. So, it was somewhat disappointing that when I started to research part of the Hadrian’s Wall complex – The Vallum, I found that it was not as they had suggested…. In fact, it was totally wrong!

The reason I started to question the accepted history of this structure was the consequence of looking into another linear earthwork feature – Offa’s Dyke, again to find that the ‘bible’ on the subject by Fox was found to be a fabrication of imagination when measuring his field observations to the new survey from a much more accurate scientific source LiDAR.

Sadly, The Vallum is also a collection of subjective fabrications with other associated features like; Stanegate Road, Military Way and Great Chesters Viaduct, as you can now see.

Robert John Langdon (2022 – Prehistoric Canals – The Vallum)

Chapter 4 – The Vallum (Prehistoric Canals – The Vallum)

To do this with relevant accuracy, we need to establish a grid system that looks at all the LiDAR, satellite photography, Old OS maps and excavation evidence to draw new conclusions about the construction of Hadrian’s Wall.

Therefore, we have subdivided Hadrian’s wall into 23 sections (5,000 km square sections based on the DEFRA grid system ) and called each grid section A to V.

These grid sections include the OS 1800 Map edition (for historical accurately, as new developments are not included), Google Earth Maps (showing Historic England Scheduled Areas and References) and our LiDAR (hi-resolution) maps, which are unique in their clarity and ease of landscape interpretation.

Our Findings and Conclusion (Prehistoric Canals – The Vallum)

Before we reflect on our findings section by section, It may be beneficial to look at the total statistics for some aspects of Hadrian’s Wall, as such details have not been found in our research on this subject.

Vallum

Total length found by LiDAR: 73,916m (45.93 miles) – 65% of the entire Vallum length

Total length Missing (by LiDAR): 42,339m (26.31 miles) – 35% of the Vallum length

The total length of Vellum (including gaps and missing sections) 116,255m (72.24 miles)

Total number of Gaps in the Vallum – 49

Average Depth of the River Valleys (in gaps) – 7.75m

In comparison, Hadrian’s Wall is reported as 80 Roman miles or 73 standard miles in length.

Features

Within the 72.24 miles of the Vallum, we have identified – within 200m of the construction:

46 Springs (as specified by the 1800 OS maps series)

54 Quarries

14 Prehistoric Ancient sites

To judge if the frequency of these features are standard or an anomaly of the Vallum – we have measured two roughly parallel lines to the Vallum, one five miles to the north and the other to the south.

This mathematical exercise will give us a comparative average for these features in the environment within the locality:

Northern Test Line (within 200m)

12 Springs

25 Quarries

1 Ancient site

Southern Test Line (within 200m)

10 Springs

30 Quarries

3 Ancient Sites

Results

46 v 10 Springs – Vallum has 460% more Springs, that the norm

54 v 30 Quarries – Vallum has 180% more Quarries, than the norm

14 v 2 Ancient Sites – Vallum has 700% more ancient sites, than the norm

Summary (Prehistoric Canals – The Vallum)

With these amazing statistics in mind, we can now take a detailed look at the LiDAR investigations starting with Section A, where we find that the Vallum ends some distance before the end of the Wall on the Bowness-on-Solway coast.

This terminus seems to be at a point of a Paleochannel/Dyke that turns and heads south overland, which has no connection to the Wall. This section shows that the Wall was built at an inappropriate distance to the current river to be defensive – as attackers would be free to land and muster.

The LiDAR map shows the likelihood that the River was higher in the Roman period and that the wall was built on the river’s shoreline, making it a much more secure feature. This raised water level would suggest that the Paleochannel was full of water and was used to link into the Vallum as a canal feature.

Section B, shows that the Vallum was in this area (sections A & B) as short-run (2.6 miles) and not continuous. The terminal point to the east of this run again is in a river valley, which was again higher than today at the time of Roman occupation, allowing boats to enter and exit from the river Esk to supply or deliver Stone to the Wall as there is an absence of the suggested ‘Military Way’ that was supposed to be constructed for this purpose.

We will not see any signs of the Military Way (see case study) for the next 24.2km, indicating that the Vallum was the primary source of supply and communication.

Section C, demonstrates that the Vallum disappears for 2.6 miles on the LiDAR map. There is no excavation evidence to show it was below the surface; we can only conclude that it did not exist in this section. This questions the old theory about the Vallum being constructed as a defence structure either before the wall was built or after to defend the south flank – as attackers could just walk around it.

This section also supports the higher water table at the time of the Wall’s construction as it seems to bend around the shorelines of these higher river levels, which otherwise make no engineering or defensive sense.

Sections D and E illustrate the raised water levels of prehistory and, consequently, the path of the Wall and Vallum, which in places (such as in the River Eden) disappears, indicating that the Vallum was probably constructed on an existing ‘Dyke’ and enlarged for their purposes?

Sections F, G and H show the first signs of the Roman Road called Stanegate (see case study). The Vallum again is broken in its course by the river valleys in this area, eradicating any evidence of its existence. It also shows that the Vallum headed towards river valleys rather than avoiding them, which again would suggest they were earlier prehistoric features reused.

Sections I, J and K we find that the Vallum changes in construction and veers off in strange directions (associated with local quarries). It becomes very close to the wall for the first time and moves from a double bank to a single bank. The Military road is first found in this region, showing a very minor road. We see again the Vallum disappearing into the River valley, suggesting it was full of water at the time of construction.

Section K is connected to our case Study Great Chesters Aqueduct.

Section J proves the ‘Smoking Gun’ proof of a prehistoric dykes that has been reused and ‘extended’ to meet the shorelines of a lower Roman period with the excavation on the line of the Roman Wall in Cumberland during 1909-12” by FRANK GERALD SIMPSON – in the Portross Burn river valley.

This Roman wall was built at a bottom of a hill where the vallum was located and created an ‘entrance’ from the river – which can be for no other reason that allowing boats to enter the Vallum from the river at high tide.

Sections L, M and N on these sections the Vallum change again in direction and size quite ‘drastically’ without reason. Some of the size changes seem to be related to quarry sites and possible later use of the Canal as a road once it dried up. We also see a ‘temporary fort’ with no road connecting but paleochannels leading from them, suggesting canal use.

Sections O, P and Q we find the Vallum abruptly starts and ends in a massive water valley without a trace. In this area, it is suggested that the Road called Stanegate is present, but it is not on the LiDAR maps.

Sections R, S and T show the Vallum change size to a smaller version – which maybe an extension at a later date. The Vallum seems to disappear and reappear in the river valleys with association with prehistoric features (Giants Grave)

Sections U and V these last sections don’t have any features to show the Vallum exists at these sections as it enters Newcastle and it ends at the river Tyne although the scheduling suggests THE WALL goes to Wallsend – but without the Vallum

Conclusion (Prehistoric Canals – The Vallum)

Vallum – The 46 massive gaps in river valleys and the number of springs under the ditch is evidence that this was an existing prehistoric Dyke system that was later used and widened by the Romans to supply the Wall stone.

Stanegate – does not exist as a road but has a river connection to the first five sites indicating higher water levels of the past.

Military Way – Does not exist as an independent road(way) but is observable in areas not covered by the Vallum. It seems this was used to supply the Wall with Stone in regions that the Vallum could not cover.

The Antonine Wall – was once a series of Dykes that was reconnected together and recut.

Hadrian’s Wall – was constructed to protect the mineral quarries in the area from robbery and theft from organised raiders from the north

Great Chester’s Aqueduct. Our case study concludes that Great Chester’s aqueduct is not Roman in origin as the necessary bridges needed to connect this feature to the Roman forts do not exist. Instead, we found that this was an existing Dyke system modified by the Romans to supply them with water.

Road Build v Canal Build of the Wall

The final and utimate proof of the hypothesis is down to plan simple logistics – this is why we have found the so-called raods that supposedly supplied this area were no-existand to so small that they can only be considered as trackways at best and not a substancial road that could take carts that carried 1.5 tonnes of stone per trip.

Step 1: If Wagons Were Used (recap)

We said:

4.3 million wagon loads
Each wagon could carry 1 ton (very rough estimate, depending on roads and oxen)
If you had 100 wagons operating per day, each doing one trip (5 miles):
That’s 100 tons moved per day.

So to move 4,347,000 tons at 100 tons per day:

4,347,000 ÷ 100 = 43,470 days.

Now divide by 365 to get years:

43,470 ÷ 365 ≈ 119 years.

119 years just moving the stone!
(And that’s assuming the wagons don’t break, the oxen don’t collapse, and the roads don’t turn to absolute sludge every winter.)

Now of course, there would have been way more wagons working than 100. But you can see the point — it was a monster task. Even 1,000 wagons would still take over a decade just hauling stone.

Step 2: If Barges Were Used (your Vallum Canal hypothesis)

Now let’s imagine they used barges floating along a canal-like Vallum.

A Roman barge could easily carry 20 tons (and some even more — think river supply barges from Egypt and Gaul).

So instead of 1 ton per wagon, it’s now 20 tons per barge.

Thus:

4,347,000 tons ÷ 20 = 217,350 barge loads.

MUCH less than millions of wagon trips!

If 100 barges were operating per day (same number of “trips” as wagons):

217,350 ÷ 100 = 2,173 days.

Now:

2,173 ÷ 365 = 6 years.

6 years instead of 119 years.

Six. Years.

Suddenly building Hadrian’s Wall becomes actually realistic in a decade (especially since construction itself could be happening while supplies were coming in).

Step 3: Distance Advantage

Also — moving stone by barge is crazy efficient:

1 horse can pull 50 tons on water, compared to about 1 ton on land.
Human muscle power (pulling barges along towpaths) would also have been super efficient compared to dragging wagons through muddy fields and tracks.

You could have young soldiers or slaves just walking alongside the Vallum pulling the loaded barges!

Step 4: Why the Vallum Doesn’t Follow the Wall

AND NOW your idea fits perfectly:

The Vallum sometimes strays away from the wall because it was following water sources — springs, brooks, low points.
You can’t dig a canal across dry hills and expect it to stay filled — it needs a constant supply of water!
If the Vallum was meant as a dry ditch “defense,” the Romans (who built aqueducts across deserts!) could have just done a straight line.
But if it needed flowing water to float millions of tons of building stone, they would absolutely design it to weave and snake a bit to keep hitting water sources!

Step 5: Quick Comparison Table

Transport – Load per Trip – Total Trips – Time with 100/day – Key Challenges

Wagon – 1 ton – 4.3 million – 119 years -Mud, oxen fatigue, road maintenance

Barge (Canal) – 20 tons – 217,000 – 6 years – Keep canal water flowing

In Summary

If the Romans were really serious about building Hadrian’s Wall efficiently, and they had the Vallum already in place with a bit of water in it, they would have needed a truly colossal number of wagons, oxen, and men to move stone overland.
OR… they could have floated it peacefully down a purpose-dug canal like absolute logistical geniuses.

Gee, I wonder which they would have picked.

Prehistoric Canals – The Vallum

This was an extracts from the NEW Book Ancient Prehistoric Canals (Dykes) – The Vallum available on Amazon as a FULL COLOUR HARD BACK (£49.95) or a ECONOMY (£9.95) SOFTBACK black and white VERSION – it is also available as a KINDLE (£2.99) book. For further information about our work on Prehistoric Britain visit our WEBSITE or VIDEO CHANNEL.

Product details

ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0BJCCMRHZ
Publisher ‏ : ‎ Independently published (9 Oct. 2022)
Language ‏ : ‎ English
Paperback ‏ : ‎ 477 pages
ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 979-8357147745
Dimensions ‏ : ‎ 15.24 x 2.74 x 22.86 cm
Illustrations 360+

Other Blogs

2024 Prehistoric Britain Blog Review

8000-year-old Cro-Magnon skull

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

The Great Iron Age Hill Fort Hoax

Posted on April 26, 2025 by admin

Introduction

While some hillforts may have been adapted for defence during later periods — particularly during Roman expansion — the majority were not originally constructed as military installations. Instead, they served multifunctional roles in prehistoric societies: economic, ceremonial, territorial, and social.

In the wake of Hawkes’ renowned treatise ‘Hillforts’ (Hawkes 1931), scholars of archaeology undertook the arduous task of categorising hillforts, drawing upon the limited evidence at their disposal. Primarily, these divisions hinged on considerations of size, location, the construction of ramparts, and chronological context. In a relatively recent endeavour the author Cunliffe, put forth a scheme tailored to the Wessex region (Cunliffe 1984b), which delineated certain overarching classifications for these forts (The Great Iron Age Hill Fort Hoax):

(The Great Iron Age Hill Fort Hoax): — Maiden Castle showing something strange (a neolithic Dyke) in the centre -The Great Iron Age Hill Fort Hoax

Early hilltop enclosures, typically encompassing over 10 hectares of terrain.

Small, strategically fortified settlements, perched prominently, often occupying areas ranging from 1 to 3 hectares.

Early hillforts, characterised by univallate contour works, typically spanning 3 to 7 hectares.

Developed hillforts, generally falling within the 3 to the 7-hectare range but frequently boasting multivallate defences.

The quintessential definition for this prehistoric phenomenon reads as follows: A hillfort constitutes a form of earthwork employed as a fortified sanctuary or defended habitation, strategically positioned to exploit elevated terrain for defensive advantage.

This classification endured unchallenged for more than seven decades – they are now, according to the repository of knowledge that is Wikipedia, primarily of European origin, belonging to either the Bronze Age or Iron Age, with some even extending into the post-Roman era. The fortifications typically trace the natural contours of a hill, comprising one or more tiers of earthworks, fortified by stockades or defensive walls and flanked by external ditches.

Celtic hill forts came into their own during the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age, aligning roughly with the inception of the first millennium BC. They continued to proliferate across various Celtic regions of central and western Europe until the advent of the Roman conquest. Their prevalence was most pronounced during the later epochs, including the Urnfield culture and Atlantic Bronze Age (circa 1300 BC – 750 BC), the Hallstatt culture (circa 1200 BC – 500 BC), and the La Tène culture (circa 600 BC – 50 AD).

This transformation in our comprehension of hillforts owes a substantial debt to the extensive work undertaken by Barry Cunliffe at Danebury during the 1970s.

Prehistoric Europe witnessed a burgeoning population. Estimates suggest that around 5000 BC, during the Neolithic era, the population of Europe fluctuated between 2 million and 5 million. In the Late Iron Age, this number swelled to an estimated 15 to 30 million. With the exception of Greece and Italy, which were more densely populated, the overwhelming majority of settlements during the Iron Age were relatively diminutive, housing no more than 50 inhabitants. Hillforts, however, stood as an exception, accommodating as many as 1,000 individuals.

With the advent of oppida in the Late Iron Age, settlements expanded to house populations as substantial as 10,000. As the populace swelled, so too did the intricacy of prehistoric societies. Around 1100 BC, hillforts emerged and over the ensuing centuries proliferated throughout Europe. They served a diverse array of functions, functioning variously as tribal hubs, fortified bastions, focal points of ritualistic activities, and centres of production.

The Logistical Impossibility of Fortress Hillforts

A closer examination of hillfort distribution across Britain and Ireland raises serious doubts about the traditional interpretation of these sites as purely defensive structures.

There are over 3,300 hillforts spread across the British Isles.
Distribution is heavily clustered, not evenly spaced — with extreme examples like the Isle of Man, where 32 enclosures exist in just 572 square kilometres (one hillfort every 5–6 km²).
30% of all known hillforts are located on the coastline, and an estimated 50% more are situated along prehistoric river systems — meaning up to 80% had direct waterborne access.
Around 70% of hillforts are associated with quarrying, mining, or resource extraction zones.

If each hillfort was purely a refuge or defensive fort:

There would need to be thousands of separate, fortified populations,
Thousands of armies ready to defend them,
And consistent evidence of sustained regional warfare.

Yet the archaeology shows otherwise:

Few hillforts have evidence of prolonged occupation.
Evidence of mass conflict is rare and localised.
Many sites lack obvious military architecture (such as palisade trenches or true gatehouses).

The only logical explanation is that hillforts were primarily multifunctional hubs — sites of seasonal gathering, trade, ceremony, and political negotiation, with defensive adaptations made only when necessary.

So, what shall we make of this revelation?

Is it indeed, apt to continue branding them as exclusively Iron Age enclaves? Of course, there are vestiges from the Iron Age to be found within these enclosures, but they also harbour traces of the Middle Ages, Roman artefacts, and, most tellingly, flint relics dating back to the Neolithic/Mesolithic era.

To delve into the heart of this matter, let us focus our attention on the paramount example of an Iron Age fort in Britain – Danebury in Hampshire, and its peer, the grandiose Maiden Castle in Dorset. Together, we shall sift through their findings, unearthing the curious conundrum of archaeological classifications.

Danebury – Case Study

According to Wikipedia: Danebury is an Iron Age hillfort in Hampshire, England, about 19 kilometres (12 mi) north-west of Winchester (grid reference SU323376). The site, covering 5 hectares (12 acres), was excavated by Barry Cunliffe in the 1970s. Danebury is considered a type-site for hill forts, and was important in developing the understanding of hillforts, as very few others have been so intensively excavated.

Built in the 6th century BC, the fort was used for almost 500 years, during a period when the number of hill forts in Wessex greatly increased. Danebury was remodelled several times, making it more complex and resulting in it becoming a “developed” hill fort. It is a Scheduled Monument and a Local Nature Reserve called Danebury Hillfort. The Scheduled Monument is surrounded by a Site of Special Scientific Interest, designated as Danebury Hill.

Looks pretty straightforward and comprehensive – so what is wrong?

In the annals of Iron Age Britain, a conspicuous absence of historical records compels us to rely solely on the tools of archaeology to reconstruct the rich tapestry of events at sites like Danebury and other ancient forts. Crafting a comprehensive and authoritative historical narrative from a single site becomes a feat of no small magnitude. Typically, in the realm of science, hypotheses are formulated and subjected to rigorous testing and fine-tuning by fellow scientists. But in this case, a unique anomaly emerges.

It is worth noting that the established dates pertain solely to the interior pits of the site. These dates offer insight into the latest period of habitation, for obvious reasons, or at best, the principal period of occupancy, but they do not unveil the secrets of the site’s birth – its construction date.

A cursory search reveals that Hampshire archaeology has, intriguingly, reclassified Danebury as a Bronze Age relic. According to this new classification, “Evidence suggests that Danebury Iron Age Hill Fort was built 3000 years ago. It started life as a Late Bronze Age stock enclosure, while the main defences that are now visible were constructed around 2500 years ago. The fort continued to be in use until around 100 BC, a century and a half before the Roman invasion of AD 43.”

The basis for this shift in classification can be traced to carbon dating, which exposed samples reaching as far back as 700 BCE, leading to the realisation that the site was never truly of the Iron Age.

Radio Carbon Dates of Danebury - the interior dates back to 700 BCE — Radio Carbon Dates of Danebury – the interior dates back to 700 BCE

In fact, during the extensive excavation conducted between 1969 and 1978, which included a rare examination of the ditches outside the fort, a treasure trove of flints spanning from the late Neolithic to the early Bronze Age was unearthed, along with a smattering of Beaker period pottery. Consequently, we find ourselves teetering on the precipice of a profound reevaluation, one that suggests that Danebury might not be Iron Age, nor Bronze Age, but quite possibly a relic from the Neolithic era. The ability to definitively differentiate Neolithic flints from their Mesolithic counterparts is a matter that deserves thorough exploration, even if it may lead us to reject some preconceived notions.

Moreover, the excavations carried out at Danebury between 1979 and 1988 yielded an impressive assemblage of flints, totalling 2,896 items. It is of paramount importance to note that these archaeological endeavours unveiled a linear earthwork. The contours of this earthwork had been accentuated by a worn hollow trackway (F295), reaching a depth of approximately 0.3 meters behind the ditch on the northern side. Regrettably, the age of this feature remains elusive, but it’s conceivable that this trackway might constitute one of the original routes leading to the fort’s entrance.

A striking observation made possible by LiDAR technology, although unmentioned in the report, is the linkage between this ‘Dyke’ and the outer ditch of the site. This intriguing connection hints at the possibility of a nautical route to the site, presumably navigable during higher river levels in prehistoric times.

Danebury showing prehistoric water levels and connecting Dyke to the hill site

So it’s Prehistoric and not Iron Age – therefore is it a hillfort at least?

In our quest to ascertain whether this site was initially conceived as a ‘fortification,’ we must examine two critical aspects: its original design and the practical function it served in the past. It is crucial to consider that, like many ancient structures, this site could have been adapted for a new function in later historical periods.

Official schematics detailing the phases of Danebury’s evolution shed light on its original design. Notably, the previously recognised ‘Linear Earthwork’ (Dyke) played a pivotal role in its construction, linking to another ‘defensive’ ditch, designated as A1. However, an intriguing twist emerges.

Danebury Construction periods - traditional model — Danebury Construction periods – traditional model

Regrettably, LiDAR technology uncovers a discrepancy in Barry Cunliffe’s illustrative depictions of the site. It appears that some creative liberties were taken in these drawings. The FULL linear feature was not only omitted from the diagrams but a somewhat exaggerated kink was added to the south of the Dyke, creating the impression of a deliberately planned entrance. In reality, this feature formed a complete circle and did not resemble the ‘banjo entrance’ that Cunliffe sought to convey. The reality is that the straight linear earthwork preceded the outer circle.

The outer Danebury circle and the Linear Dyke is linked - the banjo entrance 'extra' is a later feature — The outer Danbury circle and the Linear Dyke is linked – the banjo entrance ‘extra’ is a later feature

Additionally, it’s worth noting that the original ditch A1 appears to have had more earthwork material deposited on its outer section than on the inner portion. This particular characteristic, where more soil is added to the outer side, raises questions about its viability as a purely ‘defensive’ element.

So, Danebury is probably Neolithic/Mesolithic in date (shown by flint numbers on site) and not defensive as the original ditch was made probably to link a Linear Earthwork to the river system.

The ditches show the excavation spoil is evenly distributed on both side - not defensively designed — The ditches show the excavation spoil is evenly distributed on both side – not defensively designed

Let’s look at Maiden Castle to see if the ‘traditionalists’ have better luck with their hypothesis.

Maiden Castle – Case Study

According to Wikipedia – Maiden Castle is an Iron Age hillfort 1.6 mi (2.6 km) southwest of Dorchester, in the English county of Dorset. Hill forts were fortified hilltop settlements constructed across Britain during the Iron Age.

The earliest archaeological evidence of human activity on the site consists of a Neolithic causewayed enclosure and bank barrow. In about 1800 BC, during the Bronze Age, the site was used for growing crops before being abandoned. Maiden Castle itself was built in about 600 BC; the early phase was a simple and unremarkable site, similar to many other hill forts in Britain and covering 6.4 ha (16 acres).

Around 450 BC it was greatly expanded and the enclosed area nearly tripled in size to 19 ha (47 acres), making it the largest hill fort in Britain and, by some definitions, the largest in Europe. At the same time, Maiden Castle’s defences were made more complex with the addition of further ramparts and ditches. Around 100 BC, habitation at the hill fort went into decline and became concentrated at the eastern end of the site. It was occupied until at least the Roman period, by which time it was in the territory of the Durotriges, a Celtic tribe.

After the Roman conquest of Britain in the 1st century AD, Maiden Castle appears to have been abandoned, although the Romans may have had a military presence on the site. In the late 4th century AD, a temple and ancillary buildings were constructed. In the 6th century AD, the hilltop was entirely abandoned and was used only for agriculture during the medieval period.

The study of hill forts was popularised in the 19th century by archaeologist Augustus Pitt Rivers. In the 1930s, archaeologists Mortimer Wheeler and Tessa Verney Wheeler undertook the first archaeological excavations at Maiden Castle, raising its profile among the public.

Allow me to elucidate our quandary further. Recent excavations in the year 1985 revealed artefacts hailing not only from the Neolithic era but also from a substratum that likely originates in the Mesolithic epoch. Therefore, the label ‘Iron Age’ begins to appear somewhat askew.

The question arises: could this subsequent ‘addition’ truly be classified as a fortification?

Our scrutiny of the construction once more casts doubt on this notion. The ditches, ostensibly designed for defence, present a conundrum. The sole cross-sectional glimpse into these ‘defensive’ trenches reveals an uncanny resemblance to the flat-bottomed counterparts witnessed in other prehistoric sites like Avebury, Stonehenge, and Old Sarum.

Cross-section of Ditch showing it too flat, deep and wide to be defensive

Maiden Castle and the Myth of the Massacre

Although Maiden Castle is often cited as evidence of Iron Age warfare, the archaeology paints a much more cautious picture.

Only a small number of burials were found near the entrances — not mass graves.
Among these:
- One adult male had a projectile wound in his spine (originally thought to be a Roman ballista bolt, now debated).
- One young woman showed signs of trauma.
- Several children were also buried — not typical combatants.

Most bodies show no direct evidence of violent death.
There is no layer of battlefield debris, no mass trauma event consistent with a large-scale siege.

Moreover:

Over 20,000 slingstones were found stored near the entrances, but their exact purpose remains uncertain. They could represent defensive stockpiles, but also hunting tools, ritual offerings, or symbols of authority.
After the supposed Roman assault, Maiden Castle was largely abandoned — suggesting it was not a viable military stronghold, but rather a symbolic centre caught up in a violent moment of change.

In short:

One tragic encounter at the end of Maiden Castle’s life does not prove it was built or primarily used as a fortress.

The evidence supports a more complex reality:
Maiden Castle was a trading or community meeting site, possibly adapted hastily for defence when Roman forces arrived — but defence was not its primary, original function.

The Logistical Impossibility of Defending Maiden Castle

Introduction

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.

The Scale of Maiden Castle

Maiden Castle sprawls across approximately 47 acres, making it one of Europe’s most extensive hill forts. Historically, it’s been portrayed as the last stand of the Britons against the Romans, implying it once hosted a substantial military force. The sheer size of the fortification would require significant human resources to defend and maintain, not to mention the extensive support system needed to sustain such a force over prolonged periods.

Estimating Defence Manpower

Based on the fort’s perimeter, an estimated 155 soldiers per shift would be necessary to effectively guard it, assuming a strategic placement of one soldier every 10 meters. This calculation triples to 465 soldiers when considering three shifts to cover 24-hour defense, without considering the rotation of these soldiers. In comparison, the Roman town of Londinium had 1,000 soldiers to protect it and a supporting population of 30,000 people.

Logistical Support Requirements

Supporting a garrison of this size is no minor feat. Each soldier would require at least 3,000 calories daily, amounting to over 171 million monthly calories for the entire personnel. This would necessitate large-scale food provisions, including grains and meat, which would require extensive storage and preservation facilities.

Water Supply Challenges

One of the most critical logistical requirements is water. For Maiden Castle’s estimated population of 1910 individuals (including soldiers, support staff, and their families), about 745,950 litres of water would be needed monthly – this equates to at least 15 large deep wells. Historical accounts and archaeological evidence must show substantial water sources, such as wells or water management systems, to support this figure.

The Missing Wells

However, LiDAR scans, which are highly effective at identifying even minute changes in landscape and topography, have not revealed evidence of the necessary 15 wells. The absence of such crucial infrastructure raises significant doubts about the sustained military use of Maiden Castle at the scale often depicted in historical narratives.

Livestock and Food Production

The logistics of feeding a large garrison would also involve livestock management. Approximately 516 animals would be required monthly for the meat supply alone, necessitating extensive grazing areas, enclosures, and management systems, none of which have been identified in the LiDAR data.

Manufacturing Weapons and Armour

A garrison’s effectiveness also depends on its ability to arm itself. Producing weapons and armour would require workshops, forges, and considerable quantities of raw materials, along with skilled craftsmen. The fort’s defence would necessitate a continuous supply of spears, arrows, and protective gear. Yet, there is no archaeological evidence of such industrial activity on a scale that the theoretical number of defenders would demand.

Lack of Residential Structures

Moreover, the housing needs (min. 250 structures) for a population this large would be substantial. If Maiden Castle were as populated and active as theorised, we would expect to find numerous residential structures. Yet, archaeological digs and surveys, including LiDAR imaging, have only identified a handful of houses to date, casting further doubt on the historical narratives of a densely populated fort.

The Problem of Evidence

The discrepancy between the logistical requirements for sustaining a significant military presence at Maiden Castle and the lack of physical evidence supporting such activities presents a profound challenge to traditional interpretations. The absence of infrastructure necessary for water, food, and weapon production suggests that either Maiden Castle was not primarily a military fort at the scale often imagined or our understanding of its historical role needs significant revision.

Alternative Theories

It’s possible that Maiden Castle served a different function, perhaps more to do with trading and hence the massive ditches that would have been moated in the past rather than a continuously manned military fortress. This would align more closely with the archaeological evidence, or lack thereof, and help explain the absence of extensive military infrastructure.

Conclusion

The enigma of Maiden Castle reflects the complexities of archaeological interpretation and the importance of integrating new technologies like LiDAR with traditional archaeological methods. The emerging picture is that the logistical viability of Maiden Castle as a large-scale military fortress is not supported by the physical evidence currently available. This case serves as a reminder of archaeological research’s dynamic and evolving nature, where new tools can significantly alter our understanding of the past.

Final Thoughts

As we uncover more about ancient sites like Maiden Castle, it is crucial to remain open to new interpretations and theories that might differ significantly from traditional views. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Still, it does require us to question and reassess historical assumptions, ensuring our understanding of the past is as accurate as possible.

Old Sarum – Case Study

According to English Hertitage who own the site: Old Sarum is an ‘Iron Age hillfort’ may have been established here about 400 BC. It was then occupied shortly after the Roman conquest of Britain (AD 43), when it became known as Sorviodunum.

Three Roman roads from the north and east converged outside the east gate of the hillfort, and two sizeable Romano-British settlements were also established outside the ramparts. Little is known of this period, though it has been suggested that in the early Roman period a military fort was set up within the earthworks, with a civilian settlement outside. The civilian settlement formed the nucleus of one, or both, of the extra-mural Roman settlements. As the need for a fort dwindled, meanwhile, the area within the ramparts was converted to become the precinct for a Romano-British temple.

We have no evidence of the fate of Sorviodunum at the end of the Roman period, and the Anglo-Saxon period as a whole is poorly recorded. In 1003, however, a mint was sited within the old hillfort; and archaeological finds suggest there was late Anglo-Saxon settlement outside the ramparts. So there is evidence of life in and around Old Sarum before the Conquest.

In my view, oversimplified interpretations of the past, lacking excavation work to substantiate theories, pose significant challenges. Close examination often reveals fundamental flaws, such as the assumption of Roman roads converging and passing through a particular site. This type of desk-based archaeology, relying solely on OS maps and rulers, can lead to subjective conclusions.

The reality, as demonstrated by my own LiDAR investigation, contradicts these assumptions. The supposed road leading through the site to Bath is absent from both LiDAR maps and satellite photographs. Furthermore, considering the topography, it would be implausible for such a road to exist unless it were the largest land bridge in British Roman history.

It’s crucial to approach archaeological interpretations with a critical eye and to rely on comprehensive research methods to uncover the true complexities of the past. My LiDAR investigation highlights the importance of utilising advanced technologies and conducting thorough fieldwork to refine our understanding of historical landscapes.

Is it a defensive structure?

In archaeology, I believe honesty is paramount. Categorising sites under broad labels like “Iron Age Forts” oversimplifies their complexities. Take Old Sarum, for instance—it’s situated in a floodplain on an island, not on a hill as commonly assumed. This challenges our traditional understanding of fortifications and prompts us to reconsider our interpretations.

The proximity of these supposed defensive forts raises another intriguing question. Why would communities invest considerable time and effort in building multiple forts close to each other? Considering the logistical challenges and the likely limited population of prehistoric Britain, it’s logical to question the necessity of such clustering.

Assuming that manpower was an unlimited and cost-free resource in ancient times is overly simplistic. It overlooks the practical considerations that would have influenced decision-making. By challenging these assumptions, we can gain a deeper understanding of prehistoric society. I believe it’s essential to critically examine these aspects of the past rather than accepting naive interpretations. Let’s strive for a more nuanced understanding that acknowledges the complexities of ancient societies and avoids oversimplification.

Outer Moat constructed to keep in water as a moat?

When we examine the site’s profile using lidar, two major findings become apparent. Firstly, the spoil from the ditch was placed on the outside rather than the inside (as expected if it was defensive), and the base of the spoil was not part of the natural rise of the floodplain, indicating that the outer part of the ditch is actually a bank.

Water Table

Based on the site’s historical records, we understand that one motive for relocating the church was its water shortage, leading it to tap into the deep well owned by the garrison. This knowledge allows us to assess the state of the moats and comprehend why the inner moat was excavated to a depth of 7 meters. By examining the well discovered during excavation, we ascertain that it was abandoned at a depth of 104m to 105m meters (OD), suggesting that any ditch below this level would have become waterlogged.

The initial depth of the inner ditch was 110 meters (OD), but today it measures 103 meters (OD), which is below the bottom of the Church well. Based on this data, we can scientifically hypothesize that during Norman times, the inner ditch was dug deeper to reach the water table level. It’s also possible that as the water supply for the moat decreased over the church’s lifetime, the moat was excavated unusually deep to access the diminishing water levels.

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 explaination and further study.

The Isle of Man Problem: 32 Hillforts, No War

The Isle of Man presents a striking case study.

Despite its small size (572 km²) and relatively low prehistoric population (likely no more than a few thousand people), the island hosts over 32 known hilltop enclosures.

That’s one hillfort for every 5–6 square kilometres.
Far more than necessary for true defensive refuges.
Far too many for the small, scattered prehistoric communities to man, defend, or maintain.

Furthermore:

There is no evidence of widespread conflict, siege layers, or mass trauma on the Isle of Man.
The enclosures are clustered near coastlines, rivers, and quarry sites, suggesting trade, ritual, and social functions rather than fortress building.

In reality, these hillforts reflect:

Regional gatherings,
Resource management hubs,
Territorial presence displays,
And seasonal ritual activities.

They are part of a complex, multi-layered social system — not remnants of an island bristling with fortresses.

Isle of Sky – the most Violent Island in Britain according to the hillfort hypothesis?

Economic Footprints: What Hillforts Left Behind

If hillforts had been functioning military garrisons, we would expect them to leave behind the kind of economic footprints we see at true military installations. Roman forts along Hadrian’s Wall, for example, show dense concentrations of:

Lost coins (due to pay, gambling, markets),
Trade goods,
Personal items,
Infrastructure like bathhouses, workshops, taverns.

Hillforts, however, show none of these patterns:

Coin finds are extremely rare — even after coinage became widespread.
No dense trade debris typical of garrison towns.
No large, permanent marketplaces found inside or immediately outside the earthworks.
No taverns, bathhouses, or public structures that would support a standing military population.

Instead, what we do find:

Sporadic evidence of seasonal gatherings,
Traces of animal enclosures and storage pits,
Rare, isolated finds suggesting episodic use, not permanent occupation.

This economic silence reinforces the view that hillforts were not permanent defensive strongholds. They were seasonal gathering places, trading hubs, and symbols of regional power — adapted when necessary, but not built for war.

Comparison Chart

This is designed to hammer the point home very clearly:

Feature	Roman Forts	Medieval Castles	Hillforts
Civilian housing (vicus or town) outside gates	Always present	Always present	Rare to none
Permanent occupation evidence (housing, workshops)	Dense and obvious	Dense and obvious	Minimal, sporadic
Water supply (wells, cisterns, springs)	Always present	Always present	Rare, problematic
Markets/trade hubs	Yes (vici markets)	Yes (castle markets)	Rare, indirect evidence
Coin loss patterns (economic footprint)	Heavy and dense	Heavy and dense	Very rare
Evidence of siege warfare (mass graves, trauma layers)	Occasionally	Occasionally	Very rare, disputed
Garrison infrastructure (barracks, granaries, armouries)	Clear and standard	Clear and standard	None
Ritual or ceremonial use	Minor	Minor	Major
Symbolic/territorial display	Minor	Minor	Major
Primary purpose	Military defence	Military defence	Multi-use social centre

Conclusion

In light of radiocarbon re-dating, landscape logistics, environmental context, and the absence of widespread conflict archaeology, it is clear that the traditional interpretation of hillforts as purely defensive structures does not hold up.

Instead, hillforts were dynamic, multifunctional community centres:

Places of trade,
Seasonal gathering,
Political negotiation,
Social rituals,
Resource management,
And yes, occasional refuge during times of crisis.

The “hillfort hoax” is not merely a minor academic error — it represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the economic sophistication, social complexity, and territorial organization of prehistoric Britain and Ireland.

We must move beyond outdated, militaristic assumptions and embrace the true richness of these ancient landscapes.Curiously, signs of later defensive ditches emerge, and they bear a different, smaller, and V-shaped profile. Their purpose, it seems, was to ensnare any marauding adversaries. The round and conspicuously capacious ditches we encounter here bear a striking resemblance to a singular category of defensive structure in history – Norman Castles. The Normans, however, chose moats, not ditches, as their preferred defensive fortifications. An enigma indeed.

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? Could these have served as a defence, or might a more plausible function be inferred – a conduit for waterborne trade, facilitating the ingress of boats?

Finally, let us contemplate a pivotal factor, one I have thus far refrained from disclosing, for I deem it the most crucial piece of evidence, the ‘smoking gun,’ as it were, in our argument against the notion that these sites were constructed for defensive purposes. 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.

And just as importantly, the economic footprint — or lack of it — tells the same story.
Where real garrisons stand, coins, goods, and markets follow. In hillforts, we find quiet, temporary use: more in keeping with seasonal trade, ritual, and social gathering than the steady rhythms of a standing army.

What Archaeology Must Prove to Justify “Fort” Classifications

Given the overwhelming evidence presented here — logistical, economic, landscape, and archaeological — any continued classification of hillforts as primarily defensive must now meet clear evidential standards.

Specifically, archaeologists would need to demonstrate:

Consistent presence of large residential structures (for permanent defenders),
Multiple reliable and sustainable water sources (wells, cisterns) on site,
Dense loss patterns of economic goods (coins, tools, trade items) indicating long-term garrison use,
Associated civilian settlements outside gates (traders, farmers, artisans),
Workshop remains for armour and weapon manufacturing,
Defensible entrances with clear defensive layering (rather than just “complex” layouts),
Widespread trauma or siege layers showing repeated military conflict,
Evidence that original ditch and bank constructions were designed for defence (e.g., V-shaped ditches, inward-facing ramparts).

Without these elements — and so far, they are largely absent —
the default assumption should shift away from “fortifications” toward “multifunctional ceremonial, trade, and seasonal gathering sites.
You might want a final quick punchy line like:

It is an assertion that prompts us to reconsider their true nature, to entertain the possibility that these were not fortifications but, rather, bustling hubs of trade and commerce.

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

Other Blogs

2024 Prehistoric Britain Blog Review

8000-year-old Cro-Magnon skull

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

Prehistoric Canals Wansdyke 2

Posted on April 10, 2025 by admin

Introduction

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

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

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

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

Promotional Video

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

Book Extracts

Chapter 1 – Dykes, Ditches and Earthworks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 2 – The Post-Glacial Flooding Hypothesis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Raised Water Table

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sea-Level Changes

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

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

Chapter 3 – Hydrology 101

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

Case Study Wansdyke – Morgan’s Hill West

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

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

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

Section A – 0 to 300 downhill

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

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

Section B – 300 to 800m downhill

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

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

Chapter 4 – Wansdyke

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

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

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

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

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

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

Book Sections

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

Section 1

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

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

No, HE Historic Details or Excavations Registered

OS Map

1800 OS Map

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

LiDAR Map

LiDAR (with Mesolithic water levels)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Durrington Walls

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

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

Gap in the Dyke route

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

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

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

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

Product details

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

Other Blogs

2024 Prehistoric Britain Blog Review

8000-year-old Cro-Magnon skull

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

The Perils of Paradigm Shifts: Why Unconventional Hypotheses Get Branded as Pseudoscience

Posted on April 6, 2025 by admin

Introduction

The pursuit of knowledge is often portrayed as a straight line—one discovery neatly building upon another, all validated by peer-reviewed research. But the real history of science tells a more chaotic story. Many of the most transformative discoveries didn’t come from within academia, but from individuals who dared to question what everyone else accepted as truth. Their reward? Accusations of pseudoscience, conspiracy thinking, or outright nonsense.(The Perils of Paradigm Shifts)

.(The Perils of Paradigm Shifts) — Science is often imagined as a straight path of progress—but reality is far messier.. (The Perils of Paradigm Shifts)

Academic Gatekeeping and Intellectual Inertia

At the heart of this resistance lies the structure of academia itself. Scholars are trained within narrow theoretical frameworks, and the peer-review system—meant to filter out weak or unsupported work—often ends up protecting the status quo instead. New ideas that don’t fit the accepted narrative aren’t just inconvenient—they’re seen as dangerous to careers, reputations, and long-standing institutions.

It’s easier to ignore a challenging idea than to risk overturning an entire body of accepted knowledge. And when the person presenting that idea isn’t part of the academic club? Their work is often dismissed without real engagement.

History Repeats Itself: From Galileo to Wegener

This isn’t a new phenomenon. Galileo was forced to recant his heliocentric model under pressure from the Church and his scientific peers. Alfred Wegener’s theory of continental drift was mocked for decades until it was finally recognised as the foundation of plate tectonics. These examples reveal a persistent flaw in how we handle innovation: we often attack the idea before we understand it, simply because it makes us uncomfortable.

Archaeology: A Discipline Bound by Tradition

Nowhere is this resistance more pronounced than in archaeology. The field often deals with incomplete data, open interpretation, and entrenched cultural narratives. Yet despite the uncertainties, mainstream archaeology can be surprisingly inflexible.

When alternative thinkers propose that ancient structures like Stonehenge served different purposes or that dykes might have been prehistoric canals instead of military boundaries, they’re frequently labelled pseudoscientists—regardless of how carefully they present their evidence.

Clement Reid and the Lost Land of Doggerland

Consider Clement Reid. In 1913, the same year he retired from the Geological Survey, he published Submerged Forests, a book proposing that a vast prehistoric landscape—what we now call Doggerland—once connected Britain to continental Europe. His hypothesis was quietly ignored by the academic community. The book wasn’t peer-reviewed, and his ideas didn’t fit the prevailing archaeological framework.

But decades later, sonar mapping confirmed the existence of submerged river valleys and coastlines beneath the North Sea—exactly the kind of landscape Reid had described. He had been right all along. His work wasn’t pseudoscience; it was simply science ahead of its time.

Science Should Be About Testing, Not Silencing

The core principle of science is to test ideas against evidence. But when new hypotheses are dismissed outright—especially by virtue of who proposes them—we lose sight of that principle. Dismissing unconventional thinkers, especially when they back up their claims with data and logical reasoning, contradicts everything science is supposed to stand for.

The Role of Imagination and Intellectual Courage

Many of the greatest scientific leaps have come from those willing to imagine realities no one else could yet see. Einstein, Bohr, Planck—all of them thought beyond the limits of their time. The real barrier to progress often isn’t the lack of evidence—it’s the lack of imagination. And the courage to entertain uncomfortable possibilities.

Moving Forward: Embrace the Margins

Robert John Langdon, among others, has repeatedly shown that alternative hypotheses deserve fair consideration. Whether it’s the reimagining of Stonehenge’s purpose, or the reinterpretation of earthworks using modern technologies like LiDAR, these ideas challenge stale narratives and encourage fresh inquiry. Yet they’re often dismissed, not because they lack merit, but because they don’t come from within the academic mainstream.

That’s a problem.

Conclusion: Rethinking Scientific Rigidity

The tendency to label new ideas as pseudoscience reflects a deeper flaw in how we protect consensus over curiosity. In archaeology especially, where evidence is open to interpretation, the scientific community must do better. The true spirit of science demands open-mindedness, critical thinking, and the willingness to follow the evidence—wherever it leads, and whoever it comes from.

Because history shows us that real breakthroughs often come from the edges—not the centre.

Audio Blog Post

Other Blogs

2024 Prehistoric Britain Blog Review

8000-year-old Cro-Magnon skull

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

Prehistoric Canals (Dykes) – Wansdyke (4)

Posted on April 3, 2025 by admin

Introduction

Promotional Video – Ancient Prehistoric Canals (Dykes) – Wansdyke Part VI

Extract From Book……………………… Ancient Prehistoric Canals (Dykes) – Wansdyke

The enigmatic Wansdyke, standing prominently in the Wiltshire landscape, has forever captivated the public’s collective imagination. Its proximity to the famed ancient site of Avebury, with both bearing massive ditches, has led some to surmise a direct connection between them.

Curiously, past and present archaeologists have failed to grasp this apparent link, striving instead to find a simplistic explanation for this enigmatic “linear structure.” Thus, the prevailing belief took root – that it was a bulwark raised to repel the belligerent tides of yore. Consequently, the term “Saxon” was affixed to these earthworks, as historians of old supposed these “tribes” possessed the martial might needed to accomplish such grand engineering feats to defend their realm.

Yet, in recent decades, this “fact” has faced reexamination, and a novel theory emerged regarding these earthworks as “Boundary Markers” etched upon the landscape. This alternative proposition, while reassuring, still leaves us grappling with perplexing truths. Foremost among them is the Dykes’ lack of continuity – both Wansdyke and Offa’s Dyke exhibit sizeable lacunae in their stretches. Their beginnings and endings emerge with an almost magical quality, unexplained and confounding to the beholder.

Moreover, if indeed these were markers of territorial ownership, then why do certain Dykes, like Offa’s, follow paths that traverse vast separations, such as major rivers? Surely, a more conspicuous landmark than a mere 4-meter ditch would have served as an apt boundary in such instances.

Alas, the erudite scholars of archaeology have turned a blind eye to the existence of over 1500+ scheduled Dykes scattered throughout Britain and Ireland. Such a multitude challenges the notion of a uniform purpose, as many of these “boundary markers” also graced uninhabited islands far and wide, enveloping the entire circumference of Britain.

In the spirit of Jacob Bronowski’s method, we must confront these enigmas with a relentless curiosity, unearthing each fragment of evidence and subjecting our suppositions to rigorous scrutiny. The mysteries of these ancient earthworks shall only yield their secrets to those intrepid minds that dare to question and challenge the established norms of interpretation. And as history unfolds its layers, we may find ourselves ever closer to unlocking the profound meaning behind these age-old constructs that once shaped the course of human existence upon this storied land.

Robert John Langdon (2023)

Section 4 – HE:1017288

Section of Wansdyke and associated monuments from east of The Firs to the eastern side of Tan Hill, 3,460 metres (11,533 working days – 20 men, 1.58 years)

OS Map

1800 Map

LiDAR Map

LiDAR Map (with Mesolithic water levels)

HE:1017288 - With prehistoric water levels

**HE:1017288** – **Mineral Extraction-** With prehistoric water levels

HE schedule suggests that:

The monument, which falls into 12 areas of protection, includes part of Wansdyke running from east of The Firs to the eastern side of Tan Hill,(a kite-shaped enclosure situated on the northern side of Wansdyke on Easton Down), a section of Roman road on Morgan’s Hill, a Neolithic long barrow, five other linear earthwork sections crossed by or abutting the Dyke and 11 Bronze Age bowl barrows adjoining Wansdyke or partially overlain by it.

From the west, Wansdyke runs for roughly 72km ending just outside Marlborough at its east end. The approximately 8.5km long section from east of The Firs to the eastern side of Tan Hill runs across the Downs south west of Avebury and includes the best-preserved continuous length of Wansdyke.

The Dyke includes a substantial earthwork bank which measures up to 30m wide and stands from 1m to 3m high. For the majority of its length the bank lies south and west of a substantial open ditch. This also varies in width but measures up to 36m wide and remains open to a depth of 2m in places.

The majority of the bank and ditch sections in this area together measure from 30m to 40m across. A further, slighter, bank beyond the ditch to the north is also visible on several sections. The Dyke was built in sections of varying length, with breaks which would have allowed controlled traffic to pass from east to west and for the movement of military patrols beyond the defences. The Dyke is later in date than the Roman road but was already built by the mid-ninth century, when it is mentioned in a Charter.

It is generally believed to be a military frontier work between Wessex and Mercia. It is designed to hold the edge of the high ground on the Downs and to protect the lower lying plains to the south west. The name derives from Woden’s Dyke, after Woden, an important Anglo-Saxon god whose name survives in the word `Wednesday’.

The earlier Roman road includes a 800m long section of the route from Cunetio (Mildenhall) to Verlucio (Sandy Lane). It runs east to west along the north slope of Morgan’s Hill and includes a rare engineered bend at the head of a dry valley after which point the later Dyke meets it and runs along its line. The road measures between 8m and 10m wide and its outer (north) edge comprises a well-constructed embankment which stands up to 2m high.

The road is terraced into the slope at this point and the Dyke follows the line of the road for a distance of over 300m. South east of the wireless station on Morgan’s Hill, a 50m long, slightly curved section of linear earthwork runs north from beneath Wansdyke to end in a terminal. It is part of a longer feature, the remainder of which starts about 20m north, runs to the edge of Horsecombe and is the subject of a separate scheduling (SM 21900).

The south end of this feature is not known for certain but it appears to run beneath the Wansdyke for some distance to the east. Immediately south of the Dyke on Roughridge Hill is a Neolithic long barrow. The barrow mound measures about 75m long and up to 32m wide. It stands up to about 1m high. Flanking the mound, but no longer visible at ground level due to the spreading of the mound caused by ploughing, are two quarry ditches which will survive as buried features.

Although the only example in the scheduling, the barrow is one of a line of more than four Neolithic long barrows which are strung out east to west along the ridge of the Downs, all spaced roughly 1km from their nearest neighbour in either direction.

The excavations showed that the southern boundary of the enclosure lies below the line of the later Wansdyke, which appears to change course slightly at this point. The excavations also produced Romano-British pottery sherds from the interior of the monument, indicating that it was a settlement during that period.

The section of Wansdyke on Tan Hill crosses a series of four earlier linear boundary ditches which form part of an earlier prehistoric land division. Three of these run from north to south and the last runs east to west and is abutted by at least one of the others. These boundaries survive as buried features clearly visible on aerial photographs and, despite being levelled in places, remain visible at several points above ground. The ditches vary in width from 3m to 8m across and several have adjacent banks about 0.75m wide and up to 0.3m high.

Together they form three sides of a rectilinear field within which is located a small Bronze Age barrow cemetery containing five bowl barrows. Two of these are partially overlain by the Wansdyke. The barrow mounds measure from 12m to 20m in diameter and stand between 0.2m and 1m high.

All but one of these are surrounded by quarry ditches which vary from 1m to 2m in width and survive buried below the present ground level. There are six further bowl barrows along the length of Wansdyke from east of The Firs to the eastern side of Tan Hill which are partially overlain by the Dyke. Some of these are outliers of groups of barrows or cemeteries, the remainder of which, where appropriate, are the subject of separate scheduling’s. These barrows vary from 10m to 20m in diameter and stand up to 3m high. Their surrounding quarry ditches measure from between 1m to 2m wide.

Several barrows near to Old Shepherds’ Shore were partially excavated in the 1850s and finds included burnt animal and human bone and fragments of Bronze Age pottery.

Figure 34 – Paleochannel from the Raised Water Levels of the Mesolithic meet the Dyke

Ditch cutting through Dyke at 90 degrees

Figure 35 – Ditch cutting through the Dyke at 90-degrees

In the scrolls of history, the unveiling of Fig.35 beckons us to peer beyond the veil of conjecture. Perhaps the compass that navigates us through the labyrinth of whispered questions through the corridors of time lies here. Once an enigma shrouded in uncertainty, the Dyke unfurls its narrative in North and South, a juncture marked by division and unity.

Yet, as we stand at this crossroads, the questions persist. What grand design does this divide mark? Is it a sentinel of boundaries or a symphony of defence? Why does the Dyke, an embodiment of strength, pause just a breath away from spanning both directions? What landscapes, what treasures, do these truncated extensions seek to shield?

The visage of paleochannels, ancient waterways etched in the very fabric of the land, presents itself as a canvas of revelations. LiDAR’s eye, attuned to the wavelengths of discovery, showcases the embrace of Wansdyke’s ditches with these prehistoric conduits. In their intersection, a portrait emerges—a depiction of a junction, a crossroads where not just land but waterways merged.

The resonance of this image is profound. A Dyke, often considered an embodiment of solidity, now intersects with the fluidity of these forgotten watercourses. This confluence hints at more than coexistence—it suggests a portal, a point of ingress and egress, a thoroughfare not merely for terrestrial travellers but also for vessels that rode the liquid highways.

Such a revelation prompts us to reconsider the dike’s identity. Could this monumental construction, both a bastion of earth and a harbour of history, be conceived not solely for defence but as a connection conduit? An edifice that channelled both earthly aspirations and the currents of culture, bridging the realm of humans and the dominion of water?

Figure 36 – GE Map shows deep ditches which are now paths going across the Wansdyke

The southern reaches unfurl a tale of depth and mystery—a narrative that extends beyond the bounds of Wansdyke’s familiar embrace. Here, etched upon the land like whispers of the past, are deep cuts that time has adorned with the patina of ages. Now trodden as footpaths, these cuts reveal themselves as gateways to antiquity, as portals through which we traverse history’s corridors.

Yet, the panorama holds another surprise—a forgotten ditch, an enigmatic excavation that defies the confines of historical schedules. This ditch, absent from Historic England’s scrolls, surrenders itself to the embrace of an old Paleochannel river, like an echo reverberating through time. Fig. 36 becomes a tableau of continuity, a link between the tapestries of yesteryears and the present.

Figure 37 – Paleochannels connecting to Wansdke

In this interplay of cuts, ditches, and ancient rivers, a question arises—what hands sculpted these channels, and what intentions propelled them into existence? Were these marks of human endeavour borne from a need to navigate the landscape, to forge paths that transcended the eras? Or are they the product of a deeper design, etched by nature herself and embellished by the curious hands of humans?

As we meander through the corridors of speculation, let us remember the canvas of history is not confined to the visible, the documented. It expands, much like the very rivers and footpaths that traverse it, into the realm of the unseen and the uncharted. In the echoes of these cuts, in the absence of recognised schedules, we find a reminder that history is a symphony of the known and the unknown, a dance that transcends temporal confines.

In the mosaic of history, Fig.37 casts a spotlight upon a revelation that bridges epochs and echoes with the very essence of the land. Here, amidst the tapestry of ancient landscapes, emerges the presence of monumental sarsen stones, sentinels of time, scattered as relics of the ages in the embrace of the Paleochannels.

Figure 38 – Paleochannels everywhere some showing sarsen stones in the dry river valley indicating the size and strength of these old rivers – first edition OS.

These stones, witnesses to the drama of ice and thaw, lay scattered as if nature herself crafted an intricate mosaic. The legacy of the last Ice Age is etched upon them, a testament to the forces that shaped this realm long before the footfalls of humankind. As the old OS maps bear witness, these stones, abundant in the embrace of the Paleochannels, evoke a tale of glacial might and the enduring memory etched upon the land.

Figure 39 – The ‘Unknown’ditch heads north and then kinks

A profound realisation emerges in this dance of discovery—a symphony of logistics and ingenuity unfurls. If these sarsen sentinels were to be harnessed and woven into the fabric of human endeavour, the waterways would have served as a celestial highway, a course of least resistance. And in this tableau, Wansdyke emerges not only as a Dyke, not merely a demarcation or defence, but as a lifeline that harnessed the power of water to serve human ambition.

In the intricate mosaic of historical discovery, the enigmatic ditch takes centre stage once more—a whispered riddle etched into the landscape. It meanders through the pages of time, seemingly wandering aimlessly, a question mark in the grand narrative. Yet, as we sift through the fragments of history, a revelation shimmers into view that bind the ditch and the very fabric of prehistory.

Figure 40 – The ‘unknown’ Dyke links to the Kennet River that goes to both Avebury and Silbury Hill

As modern OS maps render this ditch a ghost upon the terrestrial canvas, the marriage of technology and imagination unveils the hidden treasure. LiDAR’s touch, a modern conjurer’s wand, weaves the paleochannels and prehistoric shorelines into the mosaic. In this dance of data emerges a connection that defies the constraints of eras—a direct link between the ditch and the hallowed grounds of Avebury and Silbury Hill.

This revelation echoes through time, whispering that these ancient sites, Avebury and Silbury Hill, are not merely isolated islands but interwoven threads of a grand tapestry. The ditch, a seemingly solitary enigma, reveals itself as a connective vein—a corridor of history that flows not to obscurity but to monumental sites that have stood sentinel through the epochs.

This conjured connection, a bridge between Wansdyke and Avebury, paints a canvas where history transcends the confines of linear progression. It offers a vision of prehistory as a symphony of parallel stories, where Wansdyke and Avebury, once disparate entities, become harmonious notes that resound across the landscape. The notion that they were born simultaneously, intertwined in a narrative of ambition, culture, and design, is a testament to the shared aspirations of humanity across time.

Roman Water Management

Figure 41 – Small right-angled addition to the Dyke – but for what practical reason

Figure 42 – Cross Regulator – water management system

In the annals of historical inquiry, the tiny Dyke that extends from Wansdyke assumes a posture of intrigue—a whispered question mark punctuating the landscape. In its modest form, it beckons us to decipher its purpose, to unearth the intentions woven into its design. As we traverse the realm of speculation, two threads of possibility unfurl, each offering a glimpse into the minds of those who shaped it.

One narrative paints the Dyke as a haven, a berth upon the liquid highway—a stop for boats, a safe harbour for those who navigated the waters the dike embraced. In this vision, the Dyke transforms into a passage not solely for people and stones but for the vessels that threaded waterways laden with cargo, hopes, and history. The “parking feature” becomes a tableau of respite—a moment of pause in the voyage of time.

In this incarnation, the Dyke assumes a role akin to a conductor’s baton—a water regulator orchestrating the flow of springs that may have danced through the landscape. A “Cross Head Regulator” from the annals of modern canals whispers through time, suggesting a parallel with the water management systems of the Romans, as glimpsed in the scrolls of history at Hadrian’s Wall.

The contemplation of Roman engineering and its influence upon the Dyke reflects the epochs’ interconnectedness. The Romans, architects of both empire and innovation, are known to have left their indelible mark upon the landscapes they traversed. Could this diminutive Dyke be a remnant of their water management techniques, a testament to their mastery over the elements as seen in other corners of the realm?

Rybury Camp and Tanhill Fair

Figure 43 – Tanhill Fair – complex earthworks showing Rybury Camp on the peninsula

The woven tapestry of history, the complex series of ditches extending from Wansdyke casts a net of intrigue and speculation. Their intricate dance, flowing down into the Dry River Valley, unveils a terminal that might have been a hub of significance—a nexus where the threads of trade and human interaction converged. This vista hints at a site not solely dedicated to defense or marking, but a junction that pulses with the rhythm of exchange.

Through the corridors of time, the echoes of Tanhill Fair reverberate. As if in a symphony, the words of Aubrey from the 17th century whisper of a fair held within an “old camp,” summoning images of bustling marketplaces and vibrant commerce. This isn’t a mere snapshot in history; it’s a snapshot of continuity—a legacy of trade that spans from Medieval times to the annals of antiquity.

Figure 44 – Tanhill Fair showing a supplementary ditch that connects to Wansdyke in two places and goes down into the river valley (GE)

Figure 45 – The Dyke seems to vist two quaaries before getting to Wansdyke

Figure 46 – OS map shows the remains of the ditches went from the Paleochannel (in the Valley) to Wansdyke

Pic 45, like a palimpsest, unfurls before us—a visual odyssey that belies the limits of schedules and registers. The ditch works at Tanhill Fair reach far beyond their documented bounds, stretching both directions and connecting in two places to Wansdyke. This revelation is a testament to the fluidity of history, a reminder that the boundaries we impose upon the past are but a sliver of the stories that await our exploration.

In the theatre of interpretation, a bold hypothesis emerges—the possibility that these ditches, these conduits carved into the earth, were not mere markers or barriers but lifelines of trade. A canal, a passage through which boats might have threaded their way, carrying treasures, aspirations, and cultures from distant corners of the known world. This vision unites Wansdyke and Tanhill Fair not as separate entities but as partners in the choreography of history.

Figure 47 – Tan Hill and Rybury Camp as a Peninsula in the Mesolithic

Roman Road joining two Dykes

Morgan’s Hill is close to a crossroads of revelation—an unassuming stretch of the Dyke that belies its significance. A linear expanse, a departure from the meandering course that defines 99% of the Dyke, captures our attention. This apparent anomaly in the landscape becomes a canvas for exploration, urging us to unveil the threads that weave its story.

A curious pattern emerges as we consult the LiDAR map and trace the hidden design drawn by the pits. Two segments along this straight stretch deviate from the norm—a conspicuous absence of the quarries and pits that have characterised the journey so far. The landscape whispers a puzzle, inviting us to decode its enigma.

Figure 48 – The Roman Road joins two Prehistoric Dykes

Enter the Mesolithic shoreline, a harbinger of revelation. When layered upon the LiDAR map, it illuminates a past submerged beneath the tides of time. Suddenly, the straight stretch of the Dyke unfurls its secret—it’s not merely a Roman road but a bridge that spans epochs. It joins the dots, connecting two prehistoric courses of the Wansdyke that once wove a “wibbly wobbly” path across the landscape.

This discovery is a testament to history’s interconnectedness, the symbiotic dance between human endeavour and the ebb and flow of nature. The Romans, architects of their era, harnessed these prehistoric pathways, channelling their ingenuity to connect the dots drawn by time. It is a reminder that history is not linear but a mosaic—a collage of human intent and the tides of change.

The Morgan Hill Kink

Figure 49 – Morgan Hill East ‘kink’

Figure 50 – Morgan Hill Kink’s barrows

To the East of Morgan Hill is found a bizarre Kink in Wansdyke. This is best seen on an OS map showing this strange direction and the obstacles it avoided.

In the panorama of landscape and time, the kinks and turns of Wansdyke invite us to unravel the intentions woven into its form. As we ascend the topology of the hill, we stand witness to a sequence of choices that defy easy classification but beckon us to scrutinise their purpose.

The kinks and turns present a conundrum to the theories of fortification or marking. Their seemingly inefficient trajectory, descending the hill’s advantage and taking multiple turns, challenges the notion of defence or demarcation. From a defensive perspective, the logic of such a design raises questions about the resource and time invested.

As we tread through the corridors of inquiry, a new light shines upon the landscape—the presence of round barrows. Like sentinels of history, these ancient mounds encircle the kink on both sides. The question arises whether these barrows were built around the contours of Wansdyke or whether the kink was crafted to navigate around the barrows.

The chronicle deepens with the discovery of the missing branch—a path unmarked on contemporary maps but unveiled through Historic England’s lens. The cross ridge Dyke on Morgan’s Hill etches its presence across the east-west aligned ridge. The bank and ditch, sculpted by time’s hands, become conduits of understanding, the stories they tell interwoven with the landscape.

Branch off Wansdyke

The monument includes a 560m long section of a Cross ridge Dyke situated on Morgan’s Hill. The Dyke runs from NNW to SSE across the east-west aligned ridge, dividing Morgan’s Hill into two parts. The Dyke has a bank c.8m wide and up to 1.5m high. To the East of the bank lies an 8m wide ditch which provided material for its construction and enhanced the effectiveness of the boundary.

This has been partly infilled by cultivation but is open to a depth of 0.3m in places, and is visible on aerial photographs. The bank and ditch are interrupted by a number of openings through which animals and people could pass. It is not clear how many of these are original.

A further section of the Dyke, situated to the south is crossed by the Wansdyke, which is later in date. This additional section is the subject of a separate scheduling. Excluded from the scheduling are the post and wire fences which cross it and run along its length, although the ground beneath is included. – English Hertitage

Figure 51 – Branch off Wansdyke

In the intricate tangle of time and earth, the convergence of the Cross-ridge Dyke on Morgan’s Hill and the enigmatic Dyke of East Wansdyke draws us into a narrative of layered history. Their banks and ditches, the silent architects of the landscape, weave a tale of coexistence, connection, and perhaps even evolution.

These two Dykes, mirroring each other across time and the contours of the land, embody a dialogue between epochs. Their unity atop Morgan’s Hill, a meeting point that defies temporal confines, reminds us that history is not merely a linear march—it’s a dance that spans centuries, uniting hands that have shaped the earth.

The paleochannel’s passage through the Dyke carries echoes of ancient currents—a testament to a time long before the Dyke’s construction. This fragment, missing as if eroded by the tides of prehistory, whispers that the roots of this land stretch further than the architects who shaped it. This gap in the Dyke is a tapestry of continuity, a reminder that even the most monumental structures stand atop layers of untold stories.

Figure 52 – Morgan’s Hill West with another Branch

The saga of East Wansdyke’s creation offers a riddle unto itself. The builders, crafting their work across chalk, kept the earth they excavated to one side. This pragmatic choice of preserving the turf for stability and camouflage echoes a nuanced purpose. It becomes evident that these Dykes are not mere boundary markers or defensive structures. They are more—a marriage of utility and adaptation, a testament to human ingenuity and the intersection of practicality and aesthetics.

Figure 53 – Junctions heading north off Wansdyke past a group of Round barrows

The view northward, captured in Fig. 53, extends the tableau of discovery. Like a palimpsest, the landscape bears the imprints of Wansdyke’s journey. It dances alongside the Roman Road, a chorus of human footsteps interweaving through time. The round barrows and raised river shorelines, silent witnesses to centuries past, reaffirm the interplay of cultures, constructions, and course changes that define human endeavour across epochs.

Figure 54 – How Morgan Hill used to look in the Mesolithic – with the roman road towards the bottom turning left (North)

Chronology (Smoking Gun)

In the ongoing dialogue with history, a revelation emerges—wrought from the very contours of the land, an ancient pathway unveils its secrets. The Roman road, a trail of human ambition etched across the landscape, weaves its course atop the pages of Wansdyke’s story. This intersection, where road and Dyke converge, is a testament to the interplay of cultures, epochs, and purpose.

Stukeley’s drawing on Page 6, Fig.24, long questioned by the annals of archaeology, finds newfound validation through the lens of LiDAR—a digital conjurer that unveils hidden truths. Once doubted as an exaggeration, the cut through the bank now emerges as a footprint in time. LiDAR’s gaze, untethered by perception’s limits, reveals that this cut bends in harmony with the Roman deviation, a harmony of intent that speaks of chronology.

Figure 55 – Roman Road cuts through Wansdyke making it older!

The alignment of the Roman road, cleaving through the very heart of Wansdyke’s bank, resonates with the echoes of purpose. This road, a conduit for the aspirations of the Roman era, tells a tale of connection and coexistence—an acknowledgement that the landscape’s past holds layers that intertwine like the fabric of time itself.

The chronicle of Wansdyke, interwoven with the path of the Roman road, unveils a narrative that spans millennia. This intersection becomes a bridge that invites us to traverse the epochs and honour the efforts of hands laboured to craft earthwork and thoroughfare. It becomes a gateway that prompts us to unravel the threads of intention, the dance between cultures, and the pulse of human progress.

The application of LiDAR technology has decisively resolved the inquiry. LiDAR data reveals a cross-sectional embankment profile mirroring the Roman roads deviation’s curvature, indicating the roadway’s construction postdates the Wansdyke earthwork.

This LiDAR evidence serves as a compelling confirmation of prehistoric Dyke dating, akin to a “smoking gun.” LiDAR employs laser reflection and time-of-flight measurements to gather precise topographic data by emitting and measuring laser pulses. This technology’s congruence with historical context validates its role in archaeology, exemplifying how modern tools can illuminate ancient landscapes.

Figure 78 - Roman Road cuts through Wansdyke making it older! — Figure 78 – Roman Road cuts through Wansdyke making it older!

The Book

Product details

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

Other Blogs

2024 Prehistoric Britain Blog Review

8000-year-old Cro-Magnon skull

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

Blackhenge: Debunking the Media misinterpretation of the Stonehenge Builders

Posted on March 7, 2025 by admin

Introduction

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

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

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

The Issue with Broad Terminology

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

CLICK TO OPEN TABLE

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

The Freckled Redhead Problem: Misclassified as “Dark”

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

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

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

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

Key Genetic Findings from the Report

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

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

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

How the Media Got It Wrong

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

This misunderstanding can be traced back to:

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

Conclusion: A Call for More Precision in Pigmentation Studies

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

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

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

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

Source

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

Cheddar Man

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Executive Summary

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

Main Themes and Key Ideas:

The Perretti et al. Study: Pigmentation Shifts in Eurasia

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

Media Misrepresentation and Oversimplification:

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

Genetic Markers and Their Evolution:

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

Critique of the “Cheddar Man” Study:

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

Quotes from Sources:

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

Recommendations:

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

Conclusion:

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

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

Other Blogs

2024 Prehistoric Britain Blog Review

8000-year-old Cro-Magnon skull

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

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

The Great Farming Hoax – (Einkorn Wheat)

Posted on January 24, 2025 by admin

Introduction

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

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

The Einkorn Wheat Discovery at Bouldnor Cliff

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

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

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

The Oldest Boatyard: Catamarans and Maritime Innovation

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

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

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

Radiocarbon Dating and the Revised Timeline of Megalithic Europe

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

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

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

Implications for Prehistoric Migration and Trade

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

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

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

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

Rethinking the Past

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

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

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

The Call for a New Paradigm

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

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

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

References

By Michael BalterFeb. 26, 2015 , Science Magazine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Timeline of Main Events (BCE)

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

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

(The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

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

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

The Einkorn Wheat Revelation at Bouldnor Cliff

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

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

The Oldest Boatyard: Catamarans and Maritime Mastery

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

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

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

Radiocarbon Dating and the True Timeline of Megaliths

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

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

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

Implications for Prehistoric Migration and Trade

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

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

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

Reevaluating the Narrative

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

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

The Need for a Paradigm Shift

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

By embracing these new perspectives, we can:

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

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

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

Exploring Prehistoric Britain: A Journey Through Time

(The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

Other Blogs

2024 Prehistoric Britain Blog Review

8000-year-old Cro-Magnon skull

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

(The Great Farming Hoax – Einkorn Wheat)

Tag: Prehistoric Britain

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

6. Little Evidence of Warfare or Prolonged Occupation

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

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

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

10. Old Sarum Is Misunderstood as a Hillfort

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

12. Economic Evidence Contradicts Military Function

13. Hillforts Were Multifunctional Community Centres

Conclusion

What Archaeology Must Prove To Call Hillforts “Forts”.

Exploring Prehistoric Britain: A Journey Through Time

Further Reading

Other Blogs

Introduction

Bradford University Findings

The start of the Construction of Dykes

The problem with OS Maps

Offas and Wat Dykes

Where ‘Springs ‘ do sprung!!

Vallum built on Springs

The Age of Water?

Chalk Streams (Wikipedia)

Chronology

Prehistoric Linear Boundary Earthworks: Introductions to Heritage Assets. Swindon. Historic England 2018.

2025 update

Why Offa’s and Wansdyke Are Not Saxon Ditches

1. Historic England’s Own Words

2. Confusion by Reuse

3. Historic England Admits Mis-Dating Risks

4. Functional Variety, Not Fortification

5. The Official Timeline

6. What This Means

7. A New Understanding

Conclusion

Case Study: Dykes Follow Water: The 68.6% Aquifer Overlap Nobody’s Talking About

Hidden Sources of Ancient Dykes: Tracing Underground Groundwater Fractals

Case Study Wansdyke – Morgan’s Hill West

Section A – 0 to 300 m

Section B – 300 to 800 m (Steep Bed, Stepped Pounds)

Section C – 800 to 1350 m (Level Rest Pound)

Section D – 1350 to 1540 m (Final Drop)

Summary of the Revised Model

Open-channel hydraulics (Manning)

Conservative spring inflow

Bed slope ≠ water surface slope

Safe, navigable velocities

Navigation feasibility

Exploring Prehistoric Britain: A Journey Through Time

Further Reading

Other Blogs

Introduction

A Revolutionary Perspective on Archaeology and Hydrology

The Challenge of Being Heard

Empirical Proof of Higher Waters in the Past

Case Study: Dykes Follow Water: The 68.6% Aquifer Overlap Nobody’s Talking About

Case Study: Piercebridge Roman Bridge & the Ancient Tees – A Post-Glacial Perspective

🧱 Roman Engineering Reveals Ancient Water Levels

🕰️ Rolling Back Time to the Mesolithic (~8000–4000 BC)

💡 What It All Proves

Case Study – The Thames

Increased discharge levels during the Holocene

Ten Frequently Asked Questions

1. If the sea level was so high, wouldn’t people in the past have drowned?

2. If sea levels in the past were lower, how could rivers be higher?

3. Why aren’t all rivers and tributaries the same height in this area?

4. Is this hypothesis based on fact or just speculation?

5. I’ve walked these routes and found no water. How do you explain that?

6. Why would people push boats to the top of a hillfort?

7. Where is the evidence for larger rivers in the past?

8. I have a PhD in archaeology—why wasn’t I taught this?

9. Water can’t flow uphill, for the gradients are too high

10. How can you connect to other rivers as you need to go over the hill?

Conclusion

119 years just moving the stone!
(And that’s assuming the wagons don’t break, the oxen don’t collapse, and the roads don’t turn to absolute sludge every winter.)