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-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

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

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

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

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

(Why a Simple Fence Beats a Massive Dyke)

Further Reading

For those interested in British Prehistory, visit www.prehistoric-britain.co.uk, a comprehensive resource featuring an extensive collection of archaeology articles, modern LiDAR investigations, and groundbreaking research. The site also includes insights and extracts from the acclaimed Robert John Langdon Trilogy, a series of books exploring Britain during the Prehistoric period. Titles in the trilogy include The Stonehenge Enigma, Dawn of the Lost Civilisation, and The Post Glacial Flooding Hypothesis, offering compelling evidence about ancient landscapes shaped by post-glacial flooding.

To further explore these topics, Robert John Langdon has developed a dedicated YouTube channel featuring over 100 video documentaries and investigations that complement the trilogy. Notable discoveries and studies showcased on the channel include 13 Things that Don’t Make Sense in History and the revelation of Silbury Avenue – The Lost Stone Avenue, a rediscovered prehistoric feature at Avebury, Wiltshire.

In addition to his main works, Langdon has released a series of shorter, accessible publications, ideal for readers delving into specific topics. These include:

• The Ancient Mariners
• Stonehenge Built 8300 BCE
• Old Sarum
• Prehistoric Rivers
• Dykes, Ditches, and Earthworks
• Echoes of Atlantis
• Homo Superior
• 13 Things that Don’t Make Sense in History
• Silbury Avenue – The Lost Stone Avenue
• Offa’s Dyke
• The Stonehenge Enigma
• The Post-Glacial Flooding Hypothesis
• The Stonehenge Hoax
• Dawn of the Lost Civilisation
• Darwin’s Children
• Great Chester’s Roman Aqueduct
• Wansdyke

For active discussions and updates on the trilogy’s findings and recent LiDAR investigations, join our vibrant community on Facebook. Engage with like-minded enthusiasts by leaving a message or contributing to debates in our Facebook Group.

Whether through the books, the website, or interactive videos, we aim to provide a deeper understanding of Britain’s fascinating prehistoric past. We encourage you to explore these resources and uncover the mysteries of ancient landscapes through the lens of modern archaeology.

For more information, including chapter extracts and related publications, visit the Robert John Langdon Author Page. Dive into works such as The Stonehenge Enigma or Dawn of the Lost Civilisation, and explore cutting-edge theories that challenge traditional historical narratives.

(Why a Simple Fence Beats a Massive Dyke)

Other Blogs

(Why a Simple Fence Beats a Massive Dyke)

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.

 

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 KINDLE (£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

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

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

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

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

Further Reading

For those interested in British Prehistory, visit www.prehistoric-britain.co.uk, a comprehensive resource featuring an extensive collection of archaeology articles, modern LiDAR investigations, and groundbreaking research. The site also includes insights and extracts from the acclaimed Robert John Langdon Trilogy, a series of books exploring Britain during the Prehistoric period. Titles in the trilogy include The Stonehenge Enigma, Dawn of the Lost Civilisation, and The Post Glacial Flooding Hypothesis, offering compelling evidence about ancient landscapes shaped by post-glacial flooding.

To further explore these topics, Robert John Langdon has developed a dedicated YouTube channel featuring over 100 video documentaries and investigations that complement the trilogy. Notable discoveries and studies showcased on the channel include 13 Things that Don’t Make Sense in History and the revelation of Silbury Avenue – The Lost Stone Avenue, a rediscovered prehistoric feature at Avebury, Wiltshire.

In addition to his main works, Langdon has released a series of shorter, accessible publications, ideal for readers delving into specific topics. These include:

• The Ancient Mariners
• Stonehenge Built 8300 BCE
• Old Sarum
• Prehistoric Rivers
• Dykes, Ditches, and Earthworks
• Echoes of Atlantis
• Homo Superior
• 13 Things that Don’t Make Sense in History
• Silbury Avenue – The Lost Stone Avenue
• Offa’s Dyke
• The Stonehenge Enigma
• The Post-Glacial Flooding Hypothesis
• The Stonehenge Hoax
• Dawn of the Lost Civilisation
• Darwin’s Children
• Great Chester’s Roman Aqueduct
• Wansdyke

For active discussions and updates on the trilogy’s findings and recent LiDAR investigations, join our vibrant community on Facebook. Engage with like-minded enthusiasts by leaving a message or contributing to debates in our Facebook Group.

Whether through the books, the website, or interactive videos, we aim to provide a deeper understanding of Britain’s fascinating prehistoric past. We encourage you to explore these resources and uncover the mysteries of ancient landscapes through the lens of modern archaeology.

For more information, including chapter extracts and related publications, visit the Robert John Langdon Author Page. Dive into works such as The Stonehenge Enigma or Dawn of the Lost Civilisation, and explore cutting-edge theories that challenge traditional historical narratives.

Other Blogs

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

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.

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’.

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

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

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

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

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

Further Reading

For those interested in British Prehistory, visit www.prehistoric-britain.co.uk, a comprehensive resource featuring an extensive collection of archaeology articles, modern LiDAR investigations, and groundbreaking research. The site also includes insights and extracts from the acclaimed Robert John Langdon Trilogy, a series of books exploring Britain during the Prehistoric period. Titles in the trilogy include The Stonehenge Enigma, Dawn of the Lost Civilisation, and The Post Glacial Flooding Hypothesis, offering compelling evidence about ancient landscapes shaped by post-glacial flooding.

To further explore these topics, Robert John Langdon has developed a dedicated YouTube channel featuring over 100 video documentaries and investigations that complement the trilogy. Notable discoveries and studies showcased on the channel include 13 Things that Don’t Make Sense in History and the revelation of Silbury Avenue – The Lost Stone Avenue, a rediscovered prehistoric feature at Avebury, Wiltshire.

In addition to his main works, Langdon has released a series of shorter, accessible publications, ideal for readers delving into specific topics. These include:

• The Ancient Mariners
• Stonehenge Built 8300 BCE
• Old Sarum
• Prehistoric Rivers
• Dykes, Ditches, and Earthworks
• Echoes of Atlantis
• Homo Superior
• 13 Things that Don’t Make Sense in History
• Silbury Avenue – The Lost Stone Avenue
• Offa’s Dyke
• The Stonehenge Enigma
• The Post-Glacial Flooding Hypothesis
• The Stonehenge Hoax
• Dawn of the Lost Civilisation
• Darwin’s Children
• Great Chester’s Roman Aqueduct
• Wansdyke

For active discussions and updates on the trilogy’s findings and recent LiDAR investigations, join our vibrant community on Facebook. Engage with like-minded enthusiasts by leaving a message or contributing to debates in our Facebook Group.

Whether through the books, the website, or interactive videos, we aim to provide a deeper understanding of Britain’s fascinating prehistoric past. We encourage you to explore these resources and uncover the mysteries of ancient landscapes through the lens of modern archaeology.

For more information, including chapter extracts and related publications, visit the Robert John Langdon Author Page. Dive into works such as The Stonehenge Enigma or Dawn of the Lost Civilisation, and explore cutting-edge theories that challenge traditional historical narratives.

Other Blogs