The Stonehenge Enigma (Prehistoric Britain Book 1)

by Langdon, Robert John

  Section Two - Archaeological Evidence

  The following section looks at the existing archaeological evidence within prehistoric sites in Britain to see if there is further evidence to prove my hypothesis. Surprisingly, the most undeniable evidence comes from past archaeological excavations, the findings of which have been misinterpreted. These misinterpretations are due to archaeologists’ fixation with convention so when an ‘unusual’ find appears, it is not fully recognised as it does not fit into accepted archaeological conventions.

  Now we have established that there is compelling evidence of prehistoric groundwater, as shown on the geological maps of Britain, we must now look to see if we can find more realistic dates for these waterways. The most effective way in establishing if the raised groundwater levels affected our ancestors is to look at the landscape features to see if they have evidence of this groundwater in there construction.

  We have concentrated on the Stonehenge region as it is the only area in Britain that provides sufficient detail to be able to test my hypothesis. Nevertheless, I have also found similar evidence throughout Britain, perhaps less detailed but nonetheless firm evidence, which will be offered in further books, blogs and articles.

  Chapter 5 - Dykes and other Earthworks

  The modern word dike or dyke most likely derives from the Dutch word „dijk”, with the construction of dikes in the Netherlands well attested as early as the 12th century. The 126 kilometres (78 mi) long Westfriese Omringdijk was completed by 1250, and was formed by connecting existing older dikes. The Roman chronicler Tacitus even mentions that the rebellious Batavi pierced dikes to flood their land and to protect their retreat (AD 70). The word dijk originally indicated both the trench and the bank.10

  If you study archaeology at university or even on a ordinance survey map at length, you will notice strange earthworks on the sides of hills of Britain, with no rational explanation as to why there are where they are. At university, these features are mostly ignored or an excuse is made for their construction. The reality is that these features do not make any sense unless there is another factor in operation we have ignored or are oblivious to.

  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 real 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 true empirical evidence?

  “Offa’s Dyke (Welsh: Clawdd Offa) is a massive linear earthwork, roughly followed by some of the current border between England and Wales. In places, it is up to 65 feet (19.8 m) wide (including its flanking ditch) and 8 feet (2.4 m) high. In the 8th century it formed some kind of delineation between the Anglian kingdom of Mercia and the Welsh kingdom of Powys.”11

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

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

  So the Romans built it 700 years before Offa, or did they?

  Offa's Dyke

  For they are now finding Neolithic flints inside the ditch of the dyke - so how did they get there? As we will show in our case study on Old Sarum in this section, the Romans are famous for taking existing features, such as ditches and adding a defensive bank for their own use as did the Normans who followed them some time later in history. So Offa’s Dyke has nothing to do with Offa, but this archaeological reality or misinterpretation is the key to why our history is not as we perceive.

  But that is not enough to prove the higher groundwater levels in prehistory contributed to these strange earthworks, so let’s look at some in our study area where we have the prehistoric maps of the Mesolithic and Neolithic area.

  CASE STUDY - Wansdyke

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

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

  West Wansdyke, although the antiquarians like John Collinson considered West Wansdyke to stretch from south east of Bath to the west of Maes Knoll, a review in 1960 considered that there was no evidence of its existence to the west of Maes Knoll. Keith Gardner refuted this with newly discovered documentary evidence. In 2007 a series of sections were dug across the earthwork which showed that it had existed where there are no longer visible surface remains. It was shown that the earthwork had a consistent design, with stone or timber revetment. There was little dating evidence but it was consistent with either a late Roman or post-Roman date. A paper in „The Last of the Britons” conference in 2007 suggests that the West Wansdyke continues from Maes Knoll to the hill forts above the Avon Gorge and controls the crossings of the river at Saltford and Bristol as well as at Bath.

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

  The area of the western Wansdyke became the border between the Romano-British Celts and the West Saxons following the Battle of Deorham in 577 AD. According to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, the ‚Saxon’ Cenwalh achieved a breakthrough against the British Celtic tribes, with victories at Bradford on Avon (in the Avon Gap in the Wansdyke) in 652 AD, and further south at the Battle of Peonnum (at Penselwood) in 658 AD, followed by an advance west through the Polden Hills to the River Parrett. It is however significant to note that the names of the early Wessex kings appear to have a Brythonic (British) rather than Germanic (Saxon) etymology.12

  I thought I should give you all the ‘considered’ opinion of this dyke, just to show how confused and inaccurate our history books are today. Go get yourself a OS map and have a look at this Dyke.

  But, before you do, remember Offa’s Dyke, which carries the same Saxon name and estimated date?

  Well again recent archaeologists have found in the bottom of one of the ditches evidence that can be carbon dated and the results - Radiocarbon laboratory of Queen’s University, Belfast on 7 July 1997 (sample number UB-4158), is 1571 ± 69 years BP (Before
Present).

  It was there during the Roman period and predates the Saxon King Offa by about four hundred years. Moreover, Romans did not built pointless earthworks (as we will see from our OS map) therefore it must predate even the Roman Invasion.

  So let’s have a look at the map - to the East the ditch ends at the village of Cadley, which borders the forest of Savernlake. Now archaeologists would say ‘perfect cover’ for the end of your ‘defensive ditch’, except the forest was not there when the ditch was built as a Roman road goes through the centre and Romans did not put roads through the middle of forests because of ambush, so the forest was planted after the Roman invasion.

  If you continued another 6km you would have reached water - a natural boundary, remembering you have already cut 19km, or turn south and that’s just 3km. To the west it’s even worse, you could go south again and connect to the river, using that as a natural defensive boundary, but it just stops. If you were to attack the ditch you’d be nuts as you can just walk around it as the German’s did on the Siegfried line at the outbreak of world war two.

  Now let us consider the manpower it needed to create such a structure. At 65 km in length (65,000m), its volume can be calculated as about 1.2 million m3 of soil and turf (if it is 2.5m deep and 7.5m wide as an average) at least, this is the approximate volume of material removed from the ditch. This is ten times greater than what was excavated at Avebury, which is estimated to take 1.5 million man -hours - so are we looking at 15 million man hours?

  That would equate to 100 men working non-stop for 40 years to complete the task - they must have had a very good reason to this and clearly it was not for defence.

  If we add the known prehistoric groundwater we have found then the absurd ditch becomes clear. For the ditch is in the middle of an island and perfectly cuts the island into two. This ditch is not a defensive earthwork it is what we would call a ‘canal’ that allowed boats to sail from one end of the island to the other in the Mesolithic period (8500BCE - 4500BCE). There are even signs as suggested by John Collinson (as above) that as the groundwater levels fell at the end of the Mesolithic Period about 4,500 BCE, they extended it to meet the Neolithic Shoreline.

  But these canals are not limited to massive constructions like Wansdyke, they can be found within a stone’s throw of Stonehenge and it’s these smaller canals that give us our first hint to why they used them apart from the obvious transportation links.

  Proof of Hypothesis No. 8

  Wansdyke has no military advantage as it seems to end without any defences on both edges. Yet when our proposed prehistoric waterways are introduced, both ends of this earthwork meets shorelines showing that it was in fact a canal.

  Case study - Winterbourne Crossroads at Stonehenge

  The Winterbourne Stoke Crossroads round barrow cemetery comprises a linear arrangement of 19 late Neolithic / Early Bronze Age circular earthwork monuments, commonly known as round barrows. Winterbourne Stoke 3 (Monument Number 870372) to 10 (870444) are aligned to the north-east of the Neolithic long barrow known as Winterbourne Stoke 1 (Monument Number 219696). They extend south-west / north-east for nearly 600m: this alignment continues after a gap of circa 100m (see Winterbourne Stoke 22: Monument Number 219720). A roughly parallel secondary alignment immediately to the west comprises Winterbourne Stoke 2a (Monument Number 866648) to 12 (Monument Number 870446). A cluster of barrows sits slightly apart, circa 250m north-west of the main alignment (Monument Number 215072). Most of the barrows were excavated by Sir Richard Colt Hoare in the early 19th century.13

  As you see from the above explanation from English Heritage the earthworks are not even mentioned let alone measured and excavated. This is because the most fundamental understanding of the environment at the time of these barrows construction is unknown or misunderstood. If they looked under the surface of the soil they would see that not too far away from this large number of barrows are the remains of a prehistoric river shoreline.

  If you look at an OS map of this area you will see the modern crossroads that now lies in the middle of the barrow complex, this intersection is no accident of history. As we will explain in detail later in this section Round Barrows are markers for Neolithic pathways and therefore when these prehistoric roads cross, you will get a collection of barrows from separate directions. Morden roads are mainly built on the remains of former roads and former roads are built then again on their previous paths.

  Longbarrow Cross Road at Stonehenge - notice the Neolithic water levels

  The closest earthworks to the winterbourne crossroads run North West (NW) to South East (SE) for about 500m, it then seems to meet another earthwork running NNW to SSE for about the same distance making the entire earthwork about one kilometre long. If the size is like our Wansdyke earthwork, we are looking at a 20,000 cubic m3 excavation taking about 20,000 hours using antler picks and stone axes, or 100 men taking about 20 days or one man taking 5 years (non-stop) - so no small farming feature as archaeologists would have you believe.

  Sitting at a height of 110m above sea level it is a curious feature, it can’t be defensive as you can walk around the edge and it can’t be for animals as it stops nothing - fences are much cheaper and quicker to construct even in prehistoric times.

  But if we place into the landscape the prehistoric groundwater levels something incredible happens.

  With the Mesolithic groundwater level which would be at a height of around 95m - 100m the closer of the earthworks cuts into the shoreline of the river creating a canal. Even more surprising is the second earthwork that was in a different direction cuts into the Neolithic waterway which is 10m lower at this point.

  So why bother cutting a canal, where does it lead too?

  Both canals have been cut to lead to one of the oldest monuments ever built, the Long Barrow. As we will discuss later the Long Barrow is where our prehistoric ancestors buried their dead and therefore the symbolic ritual of taking the body by boat to the Long Barrow for their final resting place is very important, in fact we still act out this same ceremony today with the slow funeral hearse drive to our cemeteries.

  Clearly what we can see for the first time in history is the method and ideology of our ancestors bringing the body by boat to the shore where the Long Barrow was constructed. We can now estimate that initially (as not every Long Barrow has a canal associated to it) the shoreline was even higher at the time of the Long Barrow’s construction (so we can estimate a more accurate date of construction) and when the groundwater receded the option to relocate was ignored for cutting a canal the 500m to the Long Barrow during the 4,000 years of the Mesolithic period - so it may have been done in small stages over many years.

  Eventually, when the groundwater had dropped too low to keep the canal full, it was decided that it was more efficient to build a second Long Barrow on the shoreline. This again would have suffered from the drop of the groundwater level into the Neolithic, so a second canal was built from the shoreline of the Neolithic groundwater levels.

  This one example of how the raised ground groundwater levels of prehistoric times not only can give us the reason for these strange landscape features, but also dates and sequences for these Long Barrows at winterbourne. Moreover, it gives us a clear understanding of the ceremonies and consequently the beliefs as they undertook rituals which have changed very little even today.

  Proof of Hypothesis No. 9

  The Winterbourne Crossroad Long Barrows are built originally on the ancient shorelines from our hypothesis. But as time went by the shoreline receded from these original points, so our ancestors dug ‘canals’ to join the Long Barrows to the receding shoreline.

  Chapter 6 – Ditches better known as Moats

  Clearly, one of the most obvious pieces of evidence we can look at is within existing archaeological data. If groundwater was present in the past, some indication should still be present. Consequently, one of the more interesting facts found when studying any prehistoric monuments is that the constructors seemed
to spend a disproportionate amount of time digging ditches to surround their monuments, whether around henges or barrows.

  This practice would be considered strange, even if the prehistoric builders had effective and modern, labour saving tools. However, our ancestors only had the benefit of stone tools, bones and antler picks - making such excavation exceptionally slow, cumbersome and therefore even more bewildering.

  Looking at Avebury (a henge monument), as an example, the most conservative archaeological estimation, suggests that the ditches surrounding Avebury, would have taken 1.5 million man hours to build. That’s equivalent to 100 men working 12 hours a day, every day, for 3.5 years. In comparison, building a wooden palisade using the same tools, would have taken less than one month – merely 2% of the time and exhaustion.