Prehistoric Britain – Page 9 – Prehistoric Britain

Archaeology: Fact or Fiction?

Posted on January 18, 2025 by admin

Introduction

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

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

Subjectivity vs. Scientific Rigour

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

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

Interpretative Bias

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

Lack of Reproducibility

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

Emphasis on Probability

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

Resistance to New Technologies

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

LiDAR Technology

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

OSL Dating

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

Integration Challenges

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

Funding, Egos, and Sensationalism

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

Ego-Driven Research

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

Sensationalised Interpretations

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

Ignoring Contradictory Evidence

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

Misinterpretations of Key Sites

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

Stonehenge

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

Iron Age Hill Forts

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

Linear Earthworks

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

Woodhenge

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

The Impact of Post-Glacial Flooding

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

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

The Peer-Review Process

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

Accessibility and Public Engagement

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

Specific Examples of Flawed Practices

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

Craig Rhos-y-Felin

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

Waun Mawn

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

Professor Ray’s Journey

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

The Path Forward

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

Embrace New Technologies

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

Promote Interdisciplinary Collaboration

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

Strengthen Scientific Rigour

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

Encourage Critical Analysis

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

Enhance Public Engagement

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

Reduce Sensationalism

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

Conclusion

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

Briefing Document: Re-evaluating Prehistoric Britain

Introduction

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

Key Themes and Ideas:

Prehistoric Canals and Linear Earthworks (Dykes):

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

Mesolithic Seafaring and Early Boats:

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

The Problem of “Iron Age Forts”:

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

Roman Ports and Shifting Coastlines:

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

Raised Beaches and Post-Glacial Activity:

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

Giant Skeletons and Early Human Populations:

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

Ancient Knowledge and Weather Patterns:

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

Mythological Dragons as Reality:

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

Doggerland/Atlantis and a Lost Civilization:

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

Alexander the Great and Ancient Waterways:

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

Challenging Mainstream Archaeology:

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

Stonehenge Transportation:

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

Contradictions and Questions:

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

Concluding Thoughts:

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

Exploring Prehistoric Britain: A Journey Through Time

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

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

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

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

(The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

Other Blogs

2024 Prehistoric Britain Blog Review

8000-year-old Cro-Magnon skull

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

The Great Antler Pick Hoax

Posted on January 15, 2025 by admin

Introduction

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

The Archaeological Evidence Presented Currently

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

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

The Problems with This Hypothesis

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

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

(The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

Lack of Evidence in Large Ditches

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

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

The Lack of Antler Pick Marks in Ditches

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

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

(The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

The Role of Other Tools in Prehistoric Excavation

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

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

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

Comparison of Stone Axes and Antler Picks for Cutting Chalk Bedrock

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

Reassessing Radiocarbon Dates and Antler Pick Contexts

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

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

(The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

New Hypotheses and Directions

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

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

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

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

What makes this tool different from a modern axe?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

Set the story back on its feet:

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

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

(The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

Glossary of Key Terms

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

(The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

Exploring Prehistoric Britain: A Journey Through Time

(The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

Other Blogs

2024 Prehistoric Britain Blog Review

8000-year-old Cro-Magnon skull

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

(The Great Antler Pick Hoax).

Extreme Weather & Ancient Subterranean Shelters

Posted on January 14, 2025 by admin

Introduction

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

Somerset Flooding – (Extreme weather and Ancient Subterranean shelters)

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

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

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

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

Extreme Weather

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Durrington Walls

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

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

So what was its original use?

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

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

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

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

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

Unbelievably, the answer is yes!

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

Avebury

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But was the weather much worse than today?

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

Subterranean Shelters

According to Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

Earth Houses – Modern use

Fogous – Cornwall

Pictish Houses – Found in Scotland

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

Caves – Ireland

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

Location, Location, Location

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But there is a problem – what happened to Wales?

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

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

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

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

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

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

But is there any other evidence that tornadoes hit Britain?

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

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

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

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

Exploring Prehistoric Britain: A Journey Through Time

Other Blogs

2024 Prehistoric Britain Blog Review

8000-year-old Cro-Magnon skull

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

(Extreme Weather and Ancient Subterranean Shelters)

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

Posted on January 10, 2025 by admin

Preamble

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

1. Introduction

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

2. The Traditional Theories

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

3. Where Theory and Reality Diverge

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

4. The Enigma of Offa’s Dyke

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

5. Misreported Defensive Features

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

6. Gaps and Their Implications

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

7. Simpler Methods: The Humble Fence

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

8. Living Hedges as Boundaries

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

9. The Great Hedge of India

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

10. Walls and Fortified Edges

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

11. Roman Frontier Systems

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

12. Enclosure and Boundary in Early Modern Britain

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

13. Unusual Alignments and Topography

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

14. Reimagining Their Purpose

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

15. Toward a Deeper Understanding

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

(Why a Simple Fence Beats a Massive Dyke)

Dykes Ditches and Earthworks

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cross-Dykes

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

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

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

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

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

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

Boundary Markers

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

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

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

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

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

Defensive Features

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

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

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

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

(Why a Simple Fence Beats a Massive Dyke)

2025 Update

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

Why Offa’s and Wansdyke Are Not Saxon Ditches

By The Prehistoric AI Team

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

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

1. Historic England’s Own Words

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

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

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

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

2. Confusion by Reuse

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

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

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

3. Historic England Admits Mis-Dating Risks

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

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

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

4. Functional Variety, Not Fortification

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

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

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

5. The Official Timeline

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

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

The Saxon period doesn’t even feature.

6. What This Means

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

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

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

7. A New Understanding

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

Sources:

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

Exploring Prehistoric Britain: A Journey Through Time

(Why a Simple Fence Beats a Massive Dyke)

Other Blogs

2024 Prehistoric Britain Blog Review

8000-year-old Cro-Magnon skull

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

(Why a Simple Fence Beats a Massive Dyke)

Mesolithic Stonehenge

Posted on January 5, 2025 by admin

Introduction

Mesolithic Stonehenge

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

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

Blick Mead - Mesolithic Stonehenge — Blick Mead – Mesolithic Stonehenge

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

Stonehenge Bottom - Mesolithic Stonehenge — Stonehenge Bottom – Mesolithic Stonehenge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Stonehenge Book

Video

(Mesolithic Stonehenge)

Synopsys

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

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

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

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

FREE LiDAR Maps

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

FREE Stonehenge LiDAR 8K Map

FREE Stonehenge LiDAR water Map

FREE Stonehenge LiDAR 3D Map

Exploring Prehistoric Britain: A Journey Through Time

(Mesolithic Stonehenge)

Other Blogs

2024 Prehistoric Britain Blog Review

8000-year-old Cro-Magnon skull

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

(Mesolithic Stonehenge)

Antonine Wall – Prehistoric Canals (Dykes)

Posted on January 4, 2025 by admin

Introduction

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

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

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

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

Case Study – The Antonine Wall

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

Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

Grim’s Dyke

Wikipedia

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

Our Research and LiDAR Investigation

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

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

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

Castlecary Fort Section (Antonine Wall)

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

Castlecary Fort - Antonine Wall — Castlecary Fort – Antonine Wall

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

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

(Antonine Wall)

Conclusion

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

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

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

The Book

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

Product details

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

Exploring Prehistoric Britain: A Journey Through Time

Other Blogs

2024 Prehistoric Britain Blog Review

8000-year-old Cro-Magnon skull

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

Statonbury Camp near Bath – an example of West Wansdyke

Posted on January 2, 2025 by admin

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

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

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

The Post-Truth Challenge

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

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

Resistance and Fundamentalism

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

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

Conclusions and Moving Forward

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

The reason I have dismissed West Wansdyke

West Wansdyke

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

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

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

West Wansdyke Excavation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statonbury Camp near Bath – an example of West Wansdyke

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They continue

General Pitt-Rivers, also had misgivings,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He suggests that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exploring Prehistoric Britain: A Journey Through Time

Other Blogs

2024 Prehistoric Britain Blog Review

8000-year-old Cro-Magnon skull

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

Wansdyke LiDAR Flyover

Posted on January 1, 2025 by admin

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

Introduction

Wansdyke

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

The Eastern Start of Wansdyke

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

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

The Role of LiDAR in Revealing Wansdyke’s History

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

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

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

Gaps and Deviations in Wansdyke’s Structure

Wansdyke start meets the Mesolithic waterline

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

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

Connections to Other Features

Wansdyke Pits — Wansdyke pits shows why the Dykes were Built

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

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

Later Modifications and Roman Influence

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

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

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

Wansdyke as a Window Into Prehistoric Innovation

How Wansdyke may have looked in the Mesolithic Period

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

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

Implications for Archaeological Methods

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

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

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

A Legacy of Adaptation and Innovation

Massive Engineering Project as Romans reused and recut the dyke

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

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

Exploring Prehistoric Britain: A Journey Through Time

Other Blogs

2024 Prehistoric Britain Blog Review

8000-year-old Cro-Magnon skull

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

2024 Prehistoric Britain Blog Review

Posted on December 28, 2024 by admin

Introduction

Prehistoric Britain Blog Review 2024

Welcome to the Cutting Edge of Archaeological Discovery

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

Revolutionary Discoveries in 2024

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

Challenging the Status Quo

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

Unlocking the Secrets of the Past

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

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

● The Great Dorchester Aqueduct Hoax

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

● Rediscovering the Winter Solstice: The Original Winter Festival

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

● Wansdyke: A British Frontier Wall – ‘Debunked’

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

● AI now Supports – Homo Superior

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

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

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

● AI now supports my Post-Glacial Flooding Hypothesis

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

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

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

● Unmasking the “Iron Age Hillfort” Myth

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

● Exploring Britain’s Flooded Past: A Personal Journey

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

● Lidar Investigation Cissbury Ring through time

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

● Car Dyke – ABC News PodCast

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

● Pillow Mounds: A Bronze Age Legacy of Cremation?

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

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

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

● Lidar Investigation White Sheet Camp

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

● Archaeology: A Bad Science?

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

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

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

● Lidar Investigation Car Dyke – North Section

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

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

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

● Professor Bonkers and the mad, mad World of Archaeology

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

● Lidar Investigation South Cadbury Castle – Camelot

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

● The Stonehenge Hospital

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

● Prehistoric Burial Practices of Britain

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

● Is Archaeology a dying discipline?

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

● Lidar Investigation Top Ten misidentified Fire Beacons in British History

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

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

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

● The Logistical Impossibility of Defending Maiden Castle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

● Mysteries of the Oldest Boatyard Uncovered

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

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

● ATLANTIS: Discovery with Dan Snow Debunked

Dan Snows Documentary debunked with Bob and Alice.

● The Troy, Hyperborea and Atlantis Connection

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

● Hollows, Sunken Lanes and Palaeochannels

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

● Stonehenge: Discovery with Dan Snow Debunked

Dan Snows Documentary debunked with Bob and Alice.

● Stonehenge, Doggerland and Atlantis connection

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

● The Bluestone Enigma

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

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

● Digging Up Britain’s Past – Debunked

Dig Up Britain Stonehenge Documentary debunked with Bob and Alice.

● FREE Stonehenge LiDAR Maps

● Prehistoric Canals – Wansdyke

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

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

● The Great Stone Transportation Hoax

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

● Stonehenge Stone Transportation

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

●Archaeology in the Post-Truth Era

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

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

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

● Mesolithic River Avon

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

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

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

● How Lidar will change Archaeology

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

● Caerfai promontory fort – archaeological nonsense

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

● Digging for Britain Debunked – Cerne Abbas 2

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

● Avebury Post-Glacial Flooding

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

● Digging for Britain – Cerne Abbas 1 of 2

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

● Britain’s First Road – Stonehenge Avenue

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

Other Blogs

2024 Prehistoric Britain Blog Review

8000-year-old Cro-Magnon skull

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

(2024 Prehistoric Britain Blog Review)

The Great Dorchester Aqueduct Hoax

Posted on December 25, 2024 by admin

Introduction

The first question we address is the gradient of the watercourse, a critical factor for any functioning aqueduct. The report claims a 1:2700 gradient ratio, yet an elevation analysis reveals inconsistencies, with over 14 peaks along the route that would obstruct continuous water flow. Without evidence of additional water sources, such as springs or siphons, the practicality of this gradient as a reliable mechanism for water transport is highly questionable. Understanding whether these claims hold up under scrutiny is essential to reassessing the feature’s functionality.

Next, we investigate the watercourse design, which deviates significantly from typical Roman aqueducts. Rather than following a direct route, it hugs the hillsides in a winding path, much like Linear Earthworks or dykes. This design raises questions about whether it was intended for water transport or repurposed from an earlier feature. Comparing its structure to other earthworks, such as the Car Dyke, may offer insights into its original purpose and whether it truly served the Roman settlement at Dorchester.

We also examine the capacity of the aqueduct to deliver water to its destination. The report provides dimensions for a one-meter-wide section of the channel but fails to calculate flow rates or compare this with the water supply from the River Frome or wells. This omission highlights a recurring issue in archaeological reporting: the lack of practical, critical analysis of large-scale constructions’ economic and logistical considerations. Understanding the volume and practicality of water delivery is essential to determine whether this feature justified the investment in labour and resources.

Finally, we explore an alternative interpretation of the feature, informed by comparisons to other earthworks like Offa’s Dyke and Wansdyke. Often assumed to have continuous, singular functions, these structures have been reinterpreted as fragmented constructions with economic purposes, such as transporting minerals or resources. The proximity of quarry pits and the feature’s connection to Poundbury suggest it may have played a role in trade or resource transport rather than as a water conduit. This broader context challenges the long-held assumption of its Roman origins and function.

Through this analysis, we aim to uncover the realities behind the Dorchester watercourse, questioning assumptions and presenting evidence-based interpretations. By applying modern methods and critical thinking, we seek to highlight the complexities of such archaeological features and the potential for misattribution in historical narratives. (The Great Dorchester Aqueduct Hoax)

A Source of Confusion: New Archaeological Evidence for the Dorchester Aqueduct

This research paper re-examines the Dorchester Roman aqueduct, a famous but incompletely understood water system in Britain. Utilizing new geophysical surveys, LiDAR data, and GIS analysis, the authors reassess previously proposed aqueduct routes and water sources. They challenge earlier interpretations, particularly those of Bill Putnam, by presenting evidence that extends the aqueduct’s known length and suggests a different origin point near Notton on the River Frome. This work integrates a century’s worth of archaeological research with modern technology for a more comprehensive understanding. A trial excavation supports these findings.

Briefing Document: Dorchester Aqueduct Re-evaluation

1. Introduction

This document summarizes the key findings of a recent study re-examining the Dorchester Aqueduct, a well-known Roman watercourse in Britain. The study, conducted by Harry Manley, Paul Cheetham, Dave Stewart, and Miles Russell, utilizes new geophysical and topographic data, along with a reappraisal of past excavations, to challenge previous assumptions about the aqueduct’s route and water source. The document highlights the study’s methodology, findings, and their implications.

2. Background: The Dorchester Aqueduct & Previous Investigations

Significance: The Dorchester Aqueduct is described as “arguably the most famous and well-examined Roman watercourse in Britain,” though it’s also noted that Roman aqueducts in Britain are generally “a comparatively poorly understood element of the provincial civilian infrastructure.”
Purpose of Aqueducts: Roman aqueducts were essential for supplying water to towns and forts, especially bathhouses. These systems operated by gravity, channeling water from a source to its destination. While less grand than those in Gaul and Spain, British aqueducts were a point of civic pride.
Past Investigations: Investigations have occurred sporadically over the last 100 years, particularly in the 1990s with Bill Putnam’s work. However, the upper reaches and the water source(s) of the aqueduct have remained a source of debate.
Conflicting Theories on Water Source: Several sources have been proposed, including:
Foxlease Withybed (Coates)
Notton Mill (Foster)
Stream at Steppes Farm (Farrar)
Spring at Nunnery Mead (Sparey-Green)
Artificial lake near Steppes Farm (Putnam) – Note: This was Putnam’s conclusion after extensive work, including his suggestion of a dam.

3. New Research Approach & Methodology

New Research Project: In 2020, a research project was initiated by Bournemouth University to clarify the aqueduct’s route in its upper section and determine the water source.
Integrated Approach: This project used a combination of:
GIS-based landscape modeling
Airborne Laser Scanning (ALS/LiDAR) data
Geophysical surveys (magnetometry and Ground Penetrating Radar – GPR)
Targeted excavation
Integration with existing historical and archaeological evidence.
GIS for Data Management: A GIS (Geographic Information System) was created to manage spatial datasets, allowing the synthesis and viewing of different data layers (LiDAR, geophysical survey data, aerial photographs, excavation records, etc.).
Hydrological Modeling: High-resolution LiDAR data was used to create detailed ground surface contours, allowing for accurate hydrological modeling. This model enabled a more precise analysis of potential aqueduct routes by examining slope gradients.
They created a model that assumed a constant gradient, based on a 7.2m elevation change over a 20km distance, resulting in a 0.1m vertical change every 270m horizontally.
This hydrological model allowed the research team to compare the theorized routes of previous researchers and understand the validity of their suggested routes.

4. Key Findings & Analysis

Re-evaluation of Previous Routes: The hydrological model was used to evaluate the routes proposed by Coates, Foster/Farrar, Sparey-Green, and Putnam.
Problems with Previous Interpretations:Coates, Foster/Farrar: Their routes diverge from the hydrological model in Steppes Bottom, particularly their trajectory up the eastern flank of the coombe before returning to Steppes Bottom.
Sparey-Green: His suggested source at Nunnery Mead doesn’t fit the hydrological model, dropping too quickly in elevation to be a viable source for the aqueduct.
Putnam: The study challenges Putnam’s conclusions by showing that his 1992 excavation trench in Steppes Bottom was located ~250m too far upslope, based on the current hydrological model. This meant that he never encountered the actual aqueduct route, leading to his conclusion that the aqueduct did not extend beyond the bottom of the valley. Additionally, an earthwork interpreted by Putnam as a medieval water channel is now seen as potentially part of the Roman aqueduct. The hydrological model suggests this earthwork was actually part of the aqueduct, based on its close alignment.
Geophysical Survey & Excavation at Nunnery Mead:Magnetometry: Revealed a linear anomaly (Anomaly A) consistent with a buried structure running along a contour line on the hillside and not a boundary marker.
GPR: Confirmed Anomaly A as a cut feature with terrace deposits and a clay lining.
Excavation (Trench 1): The evaluation trench exposed a terraced cut feature containing clay layers surrounding a soil core with evidence of decayed wooden planks, indicating a constructed channel. This feature aligned with the magnetic and GPR anomalies.
Aqueduct Construction at Nunnery Mead:The aqueduct at Nunnery Mead is consistent with Putnam’s ‘Phase 1b’ typology and thus Roman in origin.
The channel is approximately 1.0m wide and 0.35m deep.
Wooden planks formed a box-shaped conduit.
Clay was used for lining and bedding layers.
Constructed on a terraced platform cut into the hillside to aid construction.
Implications for Water Source: The excavation at Nunnery Mead extends the aqueduct’s route further upstream than previously established. It also challenges the theory that the source was at Steppes Bottom. The authors suggest that the aqueduct may have continued to Notton on the River Frome.

5. Key Quotes

“Although the locations of the lower sections of the aqueduct as it approaches Dorchester are well known, the upper reaches… are less visible in the landscape and can only be inferred using elevation data and archaeological excavation.”
“Each of these suggested sources will be reviewed here in the light of current research by the authors.”
“The availability of elevation data through ALS using LiDAR has allowed archaeologists to investigate ground surface microtopography in greater detail than traditional survey methods and over larger spatial extents.”
“The hydrological model derived from airborne laser scanning has produced a theoretical route of the aqueduct based upon an assumed gradient. This model has, for the first time, provided a basis for a critical evaluation of each of the different conjectured aqueduct routes…”
“Not finding the aqueduct where it was expected to be in Barrow Plantation cemented in Putnam’s mind the idea that the aqueduct did not continue west of Steppes Bottom to a source at Notton, and therefore influenced his fieldwork strategy and interpretations for the rest of his research project.”
“The archaeological evidence found in Trench 1 suggests that the Dorchester Aqueduct continues up the Frome valley to at least Nunnery Mead.”
“The location of the aqueduct at Nunnery Mead demonstrates that Putnam’s assertion that the source of the water was further downstream at Steppes Bottom must now be questioned.”

6. Conclusions and Further Work

Challenging Established Ideas: The study demonstrates that previous interpretations, particularly those by Bill Putnam, were likely based on incomplete data and potentially mislocated excavations.
New Route: The study has extended the known route of the aqueduct to at least Nunnery Mead and suggests a source further upstream at Notton on the River Frome.
Importance of Integrated Approach: The study shows the value of combining GIS, LiDAR, geophysical surveys, and excavation data for accurate analysis.
Future Research:Integration of Putnam’s original excavation archive into their research.
Further geophysical and topographic surveys west of Nunnery Mead and at Notton are planned.
Reassessment of the construction phases and chronology of the aqueduct.

7. Implications

This research significantly revises our understanding of the Dorchester Aqueduct, providing a more accurate route and questioning the previously held theory of a source at Steppes Bottom. This has implications for the understanding of Roman engineering capabilities and civic infrastructure, demonstrating the importance of re-examining past research with new data and technologies.

This briefing document provides a comprehensive overview of the key findings and implications of the research. It emphasizes the value of the new research methods employed and challenges previous interpretations of the Dorchester Aqueduct, setting the stage for future research. (The Great Dorchester Aqueduct Hoax)

Our analysis

When you first examine the suspected “Roman Aqueduct” route, the most striking feature is its winding, irregular path that follows the elevated land of the flooded River Terrace. It hardly resembles the precise, straight lines we associate with Roman civil engineering, especially considering the presence of a few straight Roman roads running parallel to sections of this feature.

Reading through the accompanying document only deepens this scepticism. Much of the information presented is speculative, despite their commendable efforts to correct earlier, flawed conclusions that failed to meet the standards of modern archaeology. Ironically, the report falls short in some fundamental aspects, omitting key details you would expect in a thorough, contemporary archaeological study.

The authors emphasise using modern methods like LiDAR to investigate the site. However, the quality of their LiDAR data raises questions. The report’s illustrations, which should provide clarity and enhance understanding, fail to leverage the full potential of high-resolution LiDAR. This is a significant oversight, as high-resolution data is crucial for precise analysis. Using such tools to critique their findings, it becomes apparent that there are substantial gaps in their critical analysis of the site and their conclusions. (The Great Dorchester Aqueduct Hoax)

Elevation Map

When examining a water feature like an aqueduct, the key consideration is its ability to transport water effectively from a higher altitude to its intended destination. This requires a steep gradient to ensure a consistent flow while avoiding issues like blockages, leaks, or the need to overcome uphill sections, which would require additional force to move the water.

However, the information provided is surprisingly sparse when we look for detailed calculations on the gradient and flow dynamics used in this case. Here’s how AI interpreted the document and its explanation of the gradient:(The Great Dorchester Aqueduct Hoax)

The researchers calculated the gradient of the Dorchester aqueduct using a combination of LiDAR-derived topographic data, hydrological modelling, and GIS analysis. Here’s the process they followed, as described in the PDF:

1. LiDAR Data for High-Resolution Topography

They used Airborne Laser Scanning (LiDAR) to produce a detailed Digital Terrain Model (DTM) of the landscape. The LiDAR data provided a spatial resolution of 1 meter horizontally and allowed for precise identification of ground surface contours.
These contours revealed the microtopography of the Frome Valley and areas through which the aqueduct passed, even where surface traces of the aqueduct were no longer visible.

2. Defining Elevation Ranges

They determined the approximate elevation range of the aqueduct by analyzing its known locations and projecting where it likely ran.
The aqueduct’s inferred elevation ranged from 76.2 meters to 83.4 meters above Ordnance Datum (OD) over its course.

3. Hydrological Modeling with GIS

The researchers used GIS software to model a theoretical route for the aqueduct. They calculated a constant gradient by dividing the total elevation drop (about 7.2 meters) by the horizontal length of the aqueduct (approximately 20 kilometers).
This yielded a gradient of 0.1 meters drop per 270 meters of horizontal distance (1:2700), which aligns with standard Roman aqueduct construction principles.

4. Contour Line Tracing

Starting at the presumed water source near Notton, they traced the 83.4-meter contour line for 270 meters before stepping down by 0.1 meters to the next contour.
This process was repeated until they reached the aqueduct’s end at Dorchester, allowing them to project the likely course while respecting the calculated gradient.

5. Comparison with Conjectured Routes

The calculated gradient was compared to previous conjectured routes proposed by earlier researchers. Where the gradient of older routes diverged significantly, these were flagged as incorrect or improbable.

Summary of Method

This method ensured a scientifically consistent approach to mapping the aqueduct’s route, balancing the need for a manageable slope with the constraints of the landscape. However, the document acknowledges that earlier calculations and trench placements by researchers like Bill Putnam were misaligned with the actual gradient, leading to some erroneous conclusions in the past.

According to the PDF, the estimated gradient of the Dorchester aqueduct is approximately 0.1 meters of elevation drop per 270 meters of horizontal distance (1:2700). This gentle slope was carefully designed to ensure a steady flow of water while minimizing erosion and loss of water due to overflow. (The Great Dorchester Aqueduct Hoax)

Implications of This Gradient

Sustainability: A gradient this shallow is typical for Roman aqueducts, as it balances maintaining water flow with the need to manage the terrain.
Engineering Precision: Achieving such a consistent gradient over a long distance (approximately 20 km) would have required precise surveying and construction techniques.

Flow Rate: While gentle, this gradient was sufficient to provide a continuous supply of water, assuming proper maintenance and minimal interruptions in the channel.

Conclusion

So what we have is that – Starting at the presumed water source near Notton, they traced the 83.4-meter contour line for 270 meters before stepping down by 0.1 meters to the next contour – This yielded a gradient of 0.1 meters drop per 270 meters of horizontal distance (1:2700), which aligns with standard Roman aqueduct construction principles. The problem is that the Route is not 270m long it’s 18,482m long. To see how this would have looked, we traced the path of the supposed Aqueduct in our LiDAR mapping facility and created an elevation map to see if this conclusion was accurate. (The Great Dorchester Aqueduct Hoax)

The elevation map reveals that the aqueduct’s route does not maintain the claimed 1:2700 gradient ratio throughout its course. Contrary to the report’s assertions, the aqueduct would not be capable of carrying water unaided, as there are over 14 elevation peaks along the route that would obstruct the flow. The report fails to address these inconsistencies or explain how these obstacles could have been overcome.

Volume of Water Obtained

The next crucial aspect to examine is whether the gradient issues could have been mitigated by another, unmentioned source of additional water, such as siphons or natural springs, and whether the volume of water to be delivered justified the aqueduct’s construction over existing sources like wells or the nearby River Frome. The PDF outlines the duct dimensions used but provides no flow rate calculations that could be compared to the natural water supply already available at the site. This omission raises significant concerns. It reflects a broader issue in archaeology, where critical thinking about large-scale constructions’ practicalities and economic feasibility is often overlooked.

Societies, even ones reliant on slave labour like the Romans, did not build such infrastructure without weighing the costs in workforce and resources. Every project required justification, whether financial, logistical, or functional. Ignoring these commercial and societal factors limits our understanding of why specific constructions were prioritised over alternatives, such as using existing water sources or repurposing other features. For instance, if the aqueduct were not primarily for drinking water but for transporting minerals or other resources to the fort, this would fundamentally alter its interpretation. Historians and archaeologists must factor in these considerations to better understand the motivations and economics behind such constructions.

The Reoprt suggests (according to AI)

Dimensions of the Aqueduct

Channel Dimensions: The aqueduct had a wooden, box-shaped conduit approximately 1 meter wide and 0.35 meters deep. This size would have determined the volume of water that could flow through it at any given time.
Terracing and Gradient: The aqueduct followed a gentle gradient of approximately 1:2700, which would influence the velocity and flow rate of water.

Implications for Volume and Flow Rate

Using the channel dimensions (1 m x 0.35 m) and assuming a steady flow, the cross-sectional area of the channel would be approximately 0.35 square meters.
The flow rate would depend on the gradient and the channel’s condition (e.g., smoothness of the lining and obstructions), but the document does not provide detailed hydrological calculations or estimates.

Missing Data in the Report

The PDF does not include:

Any calculations of the discharge rate (e.g., cubic meters per second) based on the gradient and channel dimensions.
An estimate of how much water would be available at the terminal point in Dorchester, or any adjustment for water loss due to evaporation, leakage, or seepage along the 20 km route.

Conclusion

Unfortunately, the report fails to address the fundamental aspects required for a thorough analysis, focusing only on a small section to calculate the flow rate (as we saw ith the gradient calculations). This limited approach is inadequate for a modern study, especially one likely to be used as a foundation for future analysis and citations.

By applying LiDAR to the existing sections of the feature, we can gain a more accurate understanding of the true size of these water ducts along the entire route. This broader analysis will provide better insights than relying on a single segment, which may have been altered over time and might not reflect the original structure. This is yet another critical consideration that archaeologists often overlook in their assessments.

We have chosen the most observable points that still exist to get an idea of the size of this watercourse. (The Great Dorchester Aqueduct Hoax)

It should be noted that there is no existing channel to the Roman town of Durnovaria – it has always been summised. Yet we do know it went to the Prehistoric Site of Poundbury and was connected to one of it’s ditches. (The Great Dorchester Aqueduct Hoax)

There is no signs of the Aqueduct past this point although the report goes on for another 6 km down the river. What we have found in the LiDAR map is that the watercourse may have gone around the other side of this hill and has gone undiscovered. (The Great Dorchester Aqueduct Hoax)

The report’s focus on a single excavated section of the watercourse severely limits its relevance, especially compared to the extensive ditches on 19th-century OS maps. Additionally, the lack of investigation into the waterway beyond the prehistoric monument of Poundbury is a glaring oversight. This is a critical area to examine, as confirming whether the watercourse connected to the Roman site would make many assumptions moot if it did not serve the Romans.

Another significant issue is the reliance on calculations based solely on a one-meter-wide section of the aqueduct. This approach is problematic, as much larger sections of the watercourse—ranging from 15 to 23 times wider—exist. A more comprehensive analysis is essential to understand how the system functions practically. Without this broader perspective, the entire structure appears highly dysfunctional if interpreted as a single, unified construction. (The Great Dorchester Aqueduct Hoax)

Design

The report does not explicitly reference the aqueduct’s design in terms of its unusual alignment hugging the hillside rather than following the straight paths characteristic of Roman roads. It primarily focuses on the aqueduct’s dimensions, gradient, and some inferred routes but does not critically address this apparent deviation from typical Roman engineering practices. If we look at other Roman Aqueducts for information (via AI) we find that:

Typical Roman Aqueduct Design

Straight Alignments:
- Roman aqueducts often followed straight alignments where possible, reflecting their preference for efficient, direct routes, similar to their roads.
- Deviations usually occurred due to natural obstacles like mountains, valleys, or other terrain challenges.
Bridging and Tunneling:
- When confronted with significant elevation changes or natural obstacles, the Romans frequently used impressive bridging (e.g., the Pont du Gard) or tunneled through hills to maintain a direct route.
Standard Gradient:
- Aqueducts maintained a consistent, gentle gradient (typically around 1:500 to 1:3000) to ensure a steady flow of water without stagnation or overflow.

Dorchester Aqueduct’s Unusual Features

Hugging the Hillside:
- The winding path of the Dorchester aqueduct, following the contours of the hillside, is atypical compared to the more direct routes commonly seen in Roman engineering.
- This design suggests the engineers were constrained by local geography or aimed to minimize construction effort and costs by avoiding the need for extensive tunneling or bridging.
Deviation from Roman Norms:
- Unlike roads, which prioritized straightness to reduce travel time, aqueducts could afford to be more adaptive to the terrain, especially in less resource-rich provinces like Britannia.
- The Dorchester design may reflect a more pragmatic approach, prioritizing ease of construction over traditional Roman aesthetics or norms.

Similar Examples in Roman Engineering

Zaghouan Aqueduct (Tunisia):
- While relatively straight, it includes winding sections to avoid rugged terrain.
Ephesus Aqueducts (Turkey):
- Some sections wind along hillsides to follow natural contours, likely reducing the need for costly engineering solutions.

Why Might the Dorchester Aqueduct Hug the Hillside?

Geological Constraints:
- The hillside path may have been the most practical route due to the geology of the Frome Valley, avoiding unstable terrain or areas prone to flooding.
Cost Efficiency:
- Building along the hillside might have minimized the need for elaborate structures like bridges or retaining walls.
Non-Roman Influence:
- If the aqueduct was adapted from a pre-Roman feature (e.g., a prehistoric water management system), this design might reflect earlier practices rather than Roman engineering principles.

Looking at the way the aqueduct is influenced by the prehistoric Paleochannels we may get an indication to the origins and function of the Watercourse. AI suggested that it maybe something inherited in history by the Romans and recently we have found an almost exact feature on a once thought to be a roman feature but through mathematics we now know id prehistoric in date but used by the romans for their own use – Car Dyke.

Look at the comparisons of the two sites and see the almost identical use of the shorelines of the prehistoric waters for a watercourse. (The Great Dorchester Aqueduct Hoax)

Car Dyke – (The Great Dorchester Aqueduct Hoax)

Conclusion

Having examined the gradient, size, and design of the watercourse, we can confidently reinterpret this feature, traditionally attributed to a Roman aqueduct, for what it likely represents.

The gradient of the watercourse would require replenishment at intervals to maintain continuous flow. This could only be achieved through springs located at the base of the ditches, a characteristic commonly found in Linear Earthworks (Dykes). A similar phenomenon was identified during our research on Offa’s Dyke, where we discovered it is not a continuous structure but rather a series of more minor dykes that were mistakenly joined into a single monument. Using LiDAR, we demonstrated that this assumption was incorrect.

Likewise, this construction is unlikely to be a continuous aqueduct but rather a collection of separate Dykes. The width and design closely resemble those of other earthworks across Britain, particularly the Car Dyke, which shares similarities in ditch size, design, and water management strategies.

Adding to this theory is the fact that the feature terminates at the prehistoric monument of Poundbury, suggesting a connection to the Mesolithic or Neolithic period, similar to Car Dyke. Notably absent from the report is the observation that the surrounding area is rich with quarry pits, which may be critical to understanding its original purpose. (The Great Dorchester Aqueduct Hoax)

Our investigations into Offa’s Dyke, Wansdyke, and Hadrian’s Wall’s Vallum have led us to theorize that such earthworks were constructed to transport minerals to ports or harbours for trade, processing, or sale. By this logic, Poundbury may have been a hub for these goods, with the dyke connecting to ditches that functioned as mooring sites for boats to offload materials. This reinterpretation challenges the assumption that these features were purely defensive or infrastructural and suggests a deeper, more economic purpose tied to trade and resource management. (The Great Dorchester Aqueduct Hoax)

Chesters Roman Aqueduct

Like so many others, I, too, took for granted the story of Hadrian’s Wall. Its origins, its purpose, and the architects behind its construction had seemed well-established. It was, after all, a topic I had explored in my days as an aspiring archaeologist, back in the 1990s when I was pursuing my certificate in this discipline. Those days required us to delve deep into the annals of history, to scrutinise the facts, and to offer up our findings in carefully written essays. In those moments, there was no reason to cast doubt upon the authenticity of the information handed down to us through so-called ‘peer-reviewed’ publications.

The eminent archaeologists and historians who authored these works were seen as torchbearers of truth and custodians of knowledge. But, as is often the case in our intellectual journey, a disconcerting revelation lay ahead. It was in my pursuit of understanding a lesser-known segment of Hadrian’s Wall, a portion known as ‘The Vallum,’ that the foundation of my beliefs began to tremble. What I uncovered was a stark departure from what had been suggested by the established sources. It wasn’t just a matter of minor discrepancies; it was a revelation that shattered the very foundation of what I thought I knew. The accepted history of The Vallum was, to my astonishment, flawed, and the implications were profound. Intriguingly, this wasn’t the end of my scholarly quest for truth.

My journey into questioning the accepted narratives of ancient linear earthworks led me to another fascinating discovery – Offa’s Dyke. Much like Hadrian’s Wall, a certain authority on the subject, Fox, had long been regarded as the definitive source. Yet, as I delved deeper, the picture that emerged was one of imagination rather than accurate observation. The truths I sought to uncover lay in meticulous measurements and scientific precision, not mere conjecture. And so, the Vallum, like Offa’s Dyke, emerged as a complex tapestry of subjective fabrications. Not only the Vallum but also its associated features such as Stanegate Road, Military Way, and Great Chesters Viaduct came under scrutiny. The layers of history peeled back to reveal a more intricate, and often enigmatic, narrative. As we journey through the ever-evolving landscape of our understanding, it becomes evident that the past is not a static entity but a dynamic tapestry woven together by our collective pursuit of truth and knowledge.

Robert John Langdon (2023) – Great Chesters Roman Aqueduct

Langdon’s journey was marked by meticulous mapping and years of research, culminating in a hypothesis that would reshape our understanding of prehistoric Britain. He proposed that much of the British Isles had once been submerged in the aftermath of the last ice age, with these ancient sites strategically positioned along the ancient shorelines. His groundbreaking maps offered a fresh perspective, suggesting that Avebury had functioned as a bustling trading hub for our ancient ancestors. This audacious theory challenged the prevailing notion that prehistoric societies were isolated and disconnected, instead highlighting their sophistication in trade and commerce.

In the realm of historical discovery, it is often the audacious thinkers, the mavericks who dare to question established narratives, who propel our understanding forward. Robert John Langdon is undeniably one of these thinkers. With a deep passion for history and an unyielding commitment to his research, he has unearthed a hidden chapter in the story of Avebury—one that transcends the boundaries of time and offers fresh insights into our shared human history.

As Langdon’s trilogy, ‘The Stonehenge Enigma,’ continues to explore these groundbreaking theories, it beckons us to embark on a journey of discovery, to challenge our assumptions, and to embrace the possibility that the past is far more complex and interconnected than we ever imagined. Avebury, with its ancient stones and enigmatic avenues, continues to whisper its secrets to those who dare to listen, inviting us to see history through a new lens—one illuminated by the audacious vision of Robert John Langdon. (Great Chesters Roman Aqueduct)

Great Chesters Roman Aqueduct - Hoax — Great Chesters Roman Aqueduct – Hoax

Other Blogs

2024 Prehistoric Britain Blog Review

8000-year-old Cro-Magnon skull

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

Tag: Prehistoric Britain

Introduction

Subjectivity vs. Scientific Rigour

Interpretative Bias

Lack of Reproducibility

Emphasis on Probability

Resistance to New Technologies

LiDAR Technology

OSL Dating

Integration Challenges

Funding, Egos, and Sensationalism

Ego-Driven Research

Sensationalised Interpretations

Ignoring Contradictory Evidence

Misinterpretations of Key Sites

Stonehenge

Iron Age Hill Forts

Linear Earthworks

Woodhenge

The Impact of Post-Glacial Flooding

The Peer-Review Process

Accessibility and Public Engagement

Specific Examples of Flawed Practices

Craig Rhos-y-Felin

Waun Mawn

Professor Ray’s Journey

The Path Forward

Embrace New Technologies

Promote Interdisciplinary Collaboration

Strengthen Scientific Rigour

Encourage Critical Analysis

Enhance Public Engagement

Reduce Sensationalism

Conclusion

Briefing Document: Re-evaluating Prehistoric Britain

Exploring Prehistoric Britain: A Journey Through Time

Further Reading

Other Blogs

Introduction

The Archaeological Evidence Presented Currently

The Problems with This Hypothesis

Lack of Evidence in Large Ditches

The Lack of Antler Pick Marks in Ditches

The Role of Other Tools in Prehistoric Excavation

Comparison of Stone Axes and Antler Picks for Cutting Chalk Bedrock

Reassessing Radiocarbon Dates and Antler Pick Contexts

New Hypotheses and Directions

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

Conclusion

Glossary of Key Terms

Exploring Prehistoric Britain: A Journey Through Time

Further Reading

Other Blogs

Introduction

Extreme Weather

Durrington Walls

Avebury

Subterranean Shelters

Earth Houses – Modern use

Fogous – Cornwall

Pictish Houses – Found in Scotland

Caves – Ireland

Exploring Prehistoric Britain: A Journey Through Time

Further Reading

Other Blogs

Preamble

1. Introduction

2. The Traditional Theories

3. Where Theory and Reality Diverge

4. The Enigma of Offa’s Dyke

5. Misreported Defensive Features

6. Gaps and Their Implications

7. Simpler Methods: The Humble Fence

8. Living Hedges as Boundaries

9. The Great Hedge of India

10. Walls and Fortified Edges

11. Roman Frontier Systems

12. Enclosure and Boundary in Early Modern Britain

13. Unusual Alignments and Topography

14. Reimagining Their Purpose