There are always holes and questions in science and archaeology, which is what makes it so interesting. In the absence of those gaps though, I think we need to continue to use as best modern practices as we know to continue to learn. Robert and his theories, disregard so many of those modern techniques and questions, seemingly land at 6000 year old canal that traverses gradients of 1 in 4 without any locks.... stating.. "Aquifers mate". Anyway, all that aside, I believe a date is about to be released by a University after some very modern techniques, the implication is perhaps 6th to 7th C.
Thanks Paul & Rebecca. I love aerial photography, but have recently become increasingly interested in history. This place seemed expecially interesting. Especially after reading RJL's work. If Roman coin has been found 'on top' of the ditch at Verlucio, it does challenge the C6/7th date. Notwithstanding, Stukeley's first sketch of Wansdyke, which clearly shows the Roman Road on top of Wansdyke. Furthermore, to excavate that amount of earth, it would require centuries ... so I am unsure how they could pin point Wansdyke to a specific time. Regardless, my main aim was to tell a story and to get folk thinking, despite whether the history books are right or wrong. It is a magnificent place irrespective of when it was it built, who built it and why it is there. Finally, thanks for watching and commenting, I follow your 'much bigger' channel, so it's a privilege to have you both here 🙂 👋
@LamboPhoto optical stimulated luminescence I believe. Dates the last time soil saw sunlight so pretty conclusive. That being the case we need to ask why Stukeley painted/drew it like that... and why the saxons had Roman coins in their hand! The production value was great, really enjoyed that aspect... more on the channel like this??
@@pwhitewick had to google 'optical stimulated luminescence'! But yes, your description is what I understand it to be. By the way, I was up there last week, and the ditch was holding water. You may be interested in the more recent Devil's Den and, certainly Avebury video. Although, I am sure you will comment on the latter 😉Not sure on the production value 😅 ... I am still learning, I love the history and LiDAR aspect, and I enjoy the story telling, and if folk enjoy too - that's enough for me 🙂
I’m liking your work but isn’t there elevation changes in the land around that area? Canals work on the principles of level water with elevation changes achieved by a lock system that works on the equalisation of the pressure by water achieving an even and equal height. Would love to chat about your work though 👍🏻
Thanks for watching and commenting. The major difference between modern day canal systems and ancient canal systems (of which there are many) was the technique used to maintain the water levels within the canal. The Victorian used a lock system entrapping river flow; the ancients used a much more sophisticated natural system of ground water levels, which allowed the canal to be shorter and more direct. FYI - I have merely used a historian article for the basis of this video, the facts and theories are not mine. For further info, I would recommend speaking to Robert John Langdon, who wrote the article (see description). Thanks.
My thoughts exactly no way would you be able to keep the higher sections in water without the flow of water down the slope making navigation impossible. It would be like trying to move a boat up a series of rapids . See the Fossdyke canal as a comparison The absence of the remains of aquatic lifeforms in the bottom of the dyke would seem to be conclusive. Also if the gaps were full of water that would negate the need for defensive earthworks in the valleys too sounds like the author is trying to have his cake and eat it with that one.
You seem to have missed the part about the post glassial landrise. It is still happening in Scandinavia for example. When land rises it doesn’t necessarily do so uniformly.
Either the land was flat then it rose, negating the need for gaps, or the land was always hilly and therefore the water would not flow up the hilly sections. Also if the land surrounding was filled with water, you wouldnt need a canal would you?
Interesting video and theory. Thank you for sharing it, I enjoyed it. Firstly may I say I have no idea what Wansdyke is. I have walked parts of the Wansdyke and also some of Grims Ditch and various parts of other dykes thought the last 20 years. One thing I noticed while walking the Wiltshire stretch of the Wansdyke is that the dyke runs up and downhill and some stretches are fairly steep. After watching your video, with this in mind, I went straight to Google Earth, with the path tool I plotted out about 8 miles stretch of the Wiltshire part of Wansdyke Then I selected Show Elevation Profile. On this 8-mile stretch, the Wansdyke ascends and descends 6 times up and downhill between 600ft and 900ft. with some of the steepest sections rising by 300ft within half a mile with no visible breaks in the dyke. So I'm imagining to make this work as a canal there must be some kind of lock system to stop the water from running into the valleys. If so I imagine there would be signs of this in the ground. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this. Kind regards Peter
Hi Peter, thanks for watching and for your comment. I also didn't know anything about Wansdyke until February this year. I immediately thought it to be another defensive earthwork. But then I found Mr Langdon's published article. He states there are no locks due to the variation in groundwater level, and because of the size, height and speed of the rivers back then. I am no hydrologist or geologist, so can't comment. Yet I did not see anything that looked like a lock on my travels, and nor is there any supporting information suggesting this. I can certainly vouch for the difference in elevation (300ft/100m), as my knees are still recovering! I do like the canal theory, and yes it gaps (no pun intended), but so too do the other theories. Such as ... if it is a defensive structure - why are there 'original' breaks in the dyke, why does it end abruptly 3km from a natural defensive boundary, why does it stop in several places either side of a dry valley, and why were Roman artifacts found on top (not below) the dyke? A mystery that may remain unsolved - like many others around Britain! Thanks again, all the best, Chris.
Why would a canal end abruptly as well . Clearly the earth work had an important reason to be done . Unless the land has changed due to the glacial weight removal since the dyke was built I cannot believe it's purpose was to carry water due to the height changes and no evidence for locks . Also clay lining would have been needed in the bottom of a canal built , or dug , on limestone to seal it .... the clay would be evidence for a canal , or water supply line . There really is no need for artificial rivers in that region . If the 'dyke' is not a defensive ditch , or a political boundary , could it have been a route to herd animals to markets ?
@@oreilly1237878 I have recently walk most of the Wansdyke and other dykes, ditches and also many canals and also having chatted to some friends that use canals and also some friends that are Archeologists with this video in mind. I am now very doubtful that this is a canal. I personally think its a fortified bank and ditch. It is very similar to Grims ditch near the Thames river on the ridgeway and many other ditch features across the UK. Long sections of the Wansdyke run up and down hill. I really don't think this would work as a Canal.
Brilliant, breathtaking, informative and thought provoking! Your attention to detail and research is superb and only matched by your videography and editing skills!
Thank you Adrian! You are too kind! But I am glad that you enjoyed this. There is so much history, theories and speculation about Wansdyke, I wanted to do it justice - and share how amazing the place really is with everyone else 😉👍
Evidentally, there were no locks - not that I could tell, from aerial photography, LIDAR or research. The authors states it wouldn't need them due to variation in groundwater level, and the height and speed of the meltwater/rivers back then. Who knows 🤷♂️ Regardless, and interesting theory! One of many - and the mystery remains! Thanks for watching and commenting, all the best 👍
I'm very much interested in ancient technology but to me I don't see how it would of been a water way with out some serious locks, regardless of water table level, to me the boundary/statement ditch theory holds more water ( pun unintended ) rather than actually being defensive. More a ' look how big and powerfull I am ' kinda of boundary ditch. It's the gaps along it that kind of take way from that theory though it seems, Maybe there were wooden fence posts on these sections at one time that joined the gaps ?
Replying to an old post, but at 3:31 you can see that the bank on the defenders side is built up to give a height advantage against the attacking side. Any water would run out to form isolated pools at best. If there is a natural vally, the defenders don't need to build a defensive ditch to gain a height advantage - they just wait up hill as the attachers cross the natural ditch. "variation in groundwater level" would just give you a spring.
They would use animals to pull the vessels up to ,or down to the next level, because they couldn't come up with the lock system yet, or was that another example obscure hidden tech from a twisted past in earths long history, I often think I could've been the lock inventor if I was working around these waterways
Because the canals connection, I'm gonna go a bit off track and mention the highest underground canals in central Brittany look like the Willie Wonka waterway tunnel, did they use that for the movie?❤
Interesting video. Thanks for making it. However, I fundamentally disagree with your conclusion that it was a canal. Parts of it have a gradient of greater than 25% (source OS Maps). The amount of water required to fill that continually would be more than the aquifers and streams you refer to were capable of. Such water flows would have caused massive erosion of the chalk. No sign of such erosion exists. Also at the lower portions of the dyke the ramparts would need to be significantly taller than they are due to the pooling of water at the lower points. They are not. Such water flows would have left tell tale signs at the bottom of the dyke. To the best of my knowledge no such evidence has been found. My favourite part, though, is where you state that Mortimer Wheeler did an extensive survey of the dykes of southern England! I bet he had a great time 🤣🤣
Thanks for the comment. I do present several theories in the vid, the dyke is just one of them ... and it's not my theory, but Robert John Langdon's. Which to be fair, I like - as it challenges the history books - which are often wrong. Whatever the reason for Wansdyke, it was a pleasure to capture the footage and make this video, which is after all, for entertainment purposes. And hopefully ... you were entertained 👍
Very very interesting, food for thought. I have walked here many many times. I’m not sold On the idea of a canal but then I wasn’t sold on the idea of a defence system. In fact I think it’s a lot older than the start of the Saxon times. Very interesting indeed 🤔
Thanks for the comment! Glad you found it interesting. Yes, the canal system theory is out there, but it's an entertaining notion all the same. But definitely agree that the history books are wrong, and that Wansdyke is much older than currently stated. Take care and thanks again 😉👍
Chris, this is another one of your top productions. Not defensive - too easy to breach with a regiment of soldiers with shovels. Boundary marker - too much effort for no gain. I'm digging the canal idea but why did they need it? For water or transportation? I find it amusing that Robert Langdon is the same name as the Da Vinci code character. lol
Thanks Christian!! They needed it for trade, to get across Britain which was covered with a lot more water back then. You're the first person to pick up on his name (other than me). I was waiting for someone else to mention this! 😉👍
Thank you so much for the kind words. I thoroughly loved making this video and learnt so much about all of theories behind Wansdyke. I still visit Pewsey Downs regularly, but now look at Wansdyke in a different light. Thanks for the sub! All the best 👍
Great video, I enjoyed it and will keep an eye out for your work. I can't agee with the conclusion, but I absolutely respect the open-minded approach and question setting. Throughout my life, I've explored the countryside and been curious about what I've seen. There's so much keep discovering. Cheers!
Much appreciated! And yes, the prehistoric canal is but one of many theories. I think it's fair to say that regardless of what it actually is, there are far too many gaps and inconsistencies in the history books. Thanks for watching and commenting.
Looks to me like it was for driving cattle long distances during dry periods, with the bonus of providing dry footfall and an easy route on the tops of the banks during wet weather. Wasn't Somerset traditionally really soggy in the winter, so you would take your livestock to a drier area in the late summer?
Great vid by the way....very well produced. I think the most likely site for the battle of Badon is "Mynydd Baedon" in south Wales. The topography also fits the description. It is also where the River Severn can be seen from the battlefield as described.
A great presentation. My money is in the canal system. As I am a bit of a canal fan. Loved the history and you put it all together brilliantly. Great job. 👍🏻👏🏻👏🏻🚶🏻♂️🚶♀️
Cheers Jason! I'd love nothing better than to give up my day job and do this full time - if it paid the bills 🤣 Cheers mate, thanks for your support 😉👍
Great video and very interesting subject. Would the canal theory work with the earth works going up and down hills and I think you mentioned the earth works are not continuous but broken. Thanks, Martin.
Good question! And one that I don't have the answer to, sorry. The author of the published article seems to think so (link in the description). From what I undertstand (and I am no Hydrologist or Geologist) is that the groundwater levels vary significantly across the dyke, with natural springs feeding the dyke. Just one of several theories - like many other sites, it may remain a mystery forever more 😉👍
Very well done video, photography is amazing, however when postulating a theory as to why these structures were built, if you apply logic that it can't be a canal as the water, or a boat can not flow uphill fighting gravity, also if the water table was so high - why build a canal system when the swollen rivers would be more than adequate to use as the transportation of goods - we also forget that boats in ancient times were very small and only capable of carrying maybe a few head of cattle, and as cattle were the currency of the time it makes more sense that both what have called hill forts and these dykes are nothing more than protected areas not only to keep the cattle safe but also to transport them for sale or trade. Sunken roads are a common thing all over England although they have no bearing in relation to the length of the dykes, I believe they are of the same purpose, with a simple palisade either side on the banks (this includes hillforts) it would have reduced the chance of your animals being taken by other tribes as well as the animals being eaten by predatory animals such as bears and wolfs - which many seem to forget were native to this country right up to only a few hundred years ago when they were killed off - and funnily enough the cull was done to protect livestock. Some may say that the length of the dykes is the issue with them being a trackway, well you only have to look at the ridgeway in Wiltshire and Pilgrims Way which goes through Hampshire, Surrey and Kent. These ancient trackways could have also been easily defended from animals again by a simple wooden palisade on either side with gates to allow access points as shown on the dykes such as Wansdyke and so on, and not to mention the lack of evidence for water proofing the said canal which would have to be done given the underlying strata in some areas of gravel, lime stone and chalk - which are all permeable and don't hold water. Moreover the Romans during their first and second invasions used already existing trackways and later modified them into roads, which I also think adds weight to this hypothesis.
I like this theory, too. Still quite ancient, would have solved problems prehistoric Britons were concerned about, and doesn't have the issues of water flow/sediment, etc.
Your argument would be far more compellingly if you’d overlaid a TOPO map on thesupposed canal. 😊 Your aerial shots indicate that water would have a tough time flowing in that ditch, with or without locks.
Very interesting. One piece of evidence against an early (prehistoric) date is that the parish boundaries around the Wansdyke all seem to ignore it. If it was so old you would expect them the use the Wansdyke as a boundary marker. In contrast, the Ridgeway known to be prehistoric forms the boundaries of many parishes on its route. Even some late Roman roads (though not the early one in the Kennet Valley) are used as parish boundaries .
@@LamboPhoto Catching on what? Maybe the Ancient locals had Extraterrestrial anti gravity specialisation in making water on a slope level to the slope, slope.. Not a lot.. Half of the comments are recognising the absurdity of the idea, the other half, sorry, but sound like truly witless people who don't see the obvious..
Cattle run - for moving herds from enclosure to enclosure- remember, were talking AUROCHS here, not easy beasties to controll if they go on the run, so a gentle curving bank and ditch with high hedgerows atop, ideal for the job - the breaks are the access and exit points ino and out of the enclosures/ pastures - idea anyhow?!?!
@TheSSoSS I’d go along with that and I’d also say they were constructed as a windbreak route for humans , a lot more comfortable and potentially a lifesaver in bad weather . The cattle following the shepherds out of the wind and also traders in the area.
Thank you so much for commenting. It's not my own theory, but Robert John Langdon's. I came across his research and thought ... wow, I know Wansdyke - that could make a great video. Thanks for stopping by 😃
Great video! I think we should give weighting to the economic consequences of labour intensive, pre-historic remains - from hand axes to earthworks. Apart from a few blessed places, like the Fertile Crescent, the people were very poor, so costly enterprises have to have a pay-off.
It's not my theory, I read it and like you, I thought that is fascinating. And thought that would make a good video. I am glad you liked it, thank you for the kind comment 😉👍
This is utter nonsense. I have walked that part of the Wansdyke many times. Firstly it is high, near the top of the chalk escarpment. It is not lined, and it is free draining soil. Canals need water sources and reservoirs. There is neither a water source, nor any place for reservoirs. Then there are the changes in levels. Wansdyke is not level. It rolls up and down with the escarpment. . Wansdyke is just about the worst possible place you could imagine to put a canal in the area. The irony is, of course, that you can see the where you would build a canal from Wansdyke, and it is down below in the vale of Pewsey where you can find John Rennie's Kennet and Avon Canal. The Kennet and Avon canal was plagued with water supply problems at its summit, despite following a valley route. That required the building of the famous Crofton steam engine, which you can visit a few miles away. The idea that Wansdyke was a canal is in defiance of basic engineering, physics and common sense.
Thanks for the fascinating video and the great visuals. I haven't read all the other comments, but I love the idea and would agree that the other theories of its origin have weaknesses. I have walked parts of it and loved it. I saw the comment about the dyke not being level which make it being an ancient canal difficult unless springs were continuously feeding it? I do believe the mesolithic and neolithic are under-appreciated for people's cleverness at the time, but was the population density there to create such large earth works and/or was there the need? Unless there is much more that we are wrong about our understanding of this period I struggle to see how the canal theory can be true, but I'd love it to be true....
The dykes of Britain are a mystery that's for sure. Robert John Langdon's thesis explains it was due to the different heights of ground water levels and hundreds of springs across the 30+ mile dyke. Thanks for watching 🙂
A very interesting,absorbing and thought provoking video and why not agree with Rob Langdons Canal Theory it certainly worth a thorough investigation as the O/S Maps show Roman Aqueducts following Land Contours and Canals have been with us for many many years before the Greeks and Romans,The Norse built, canals there is a nice example on Skye so the Galley's could reach an Lochan from the sea for Wintering.
Fascinating. As you say it is clearly not defensive. But it cannot be a canal as the sections are not level. It seems too extravagant to be a boundary marker, but then again Offas Dyke clearly was. We have a multitude of similar earthworks in the Pennines that were active as drove roads until Victorian times, so I think that is the most likely explanation. Very impressive for a civilisation that appears to be pre Roman. Effectively a motorway that connected the Severn and the Thames. It looks wide enough to be portage way for large boats, maybe with some canalised sections. Fascinating.
building dykes is maybe as old as doggerland, people that build stone henges could also have managed waterways to some amount. at least to the same level as beavers are used to. they also build fish-weirs, traps from sticks to catch fish on the low tide. Salmon swims upstream riversystems, maybe an existing natural system was enlarged to provide more people with healthy fish protein ? would have been worth the efforts. Not neccessarilly salmon but I'm also thinking of thick, fat atlantic eels.
Isostatic lift changes topographical heights over time. After ice melts compressed land surface rebound upwards,still going on today in places. Cheers.
...Though this factor now puts a different light on the issue, but would have to be confirmed, somehow.. Next to South Crofty ex Copper and Tin, Zinc, Arsenic and Plutonium Mine, Camborne, Cornwall / (surface and under the Poldice and Carnon River Valleys, coast to coast, of this part of Cornwall) ../ on the northern edge of the biggest largest derelict mining area of all of Europe, by one account; there is a very odd and unique and semi-surreal natural freak-looking, big massive solidified bubble, come up from under the earth surface.. Its Granite, and when it was created, it was the molten lava that was creating a general volcanic upheaval in the area.. So it's not unthinkable that when the 'Wansdyke' was built, the terrain was much flatter, before the ice melting effect occurred.. Looking at how the 'channel' hasn't 'tipped' over, as connected to the earth around it; as it would be if the terrain around it had been flatter; puts the ice melting factor on a very unlikely, while the ditch and bank look like they were built when the slopes it was built on were as they are, and visible, to date.. As a defensive ditch and bank, the broken and missing sections could be explained by a demographics etc factor, like the need for the defence was decided it was no longer needed, while building was going on, and the breaks because of practical reasons like being built in stages, sections that would eventually all join up, when the digging was done.. The banks along the ditch are on the uphill side of the ditch, so consistent to a defensive factor, and completely not a sign or trace of water works and water source courses, so the canal idea more unlikely again..
I don't think that its a canal, for it to work as such there would need to be locks and the like, the technology would have been there in the minds of the builders but where are the remains? Defence works are a possibility but the gaps in the Dyke perhaps seem to discredit this theory, unless they where intended to be killing grounds. The constructions where thought out and planned , they required massive amounts of time, resources, and energy, more importantly massive amounts of agreements of the use and timing of manpower and community resources, harvests had to be collected , land prepared for sowing and community defence all needed to happen as well. The gaps in the Dyke could of occurred because the people of a named area did not show/failed to complete there allotted section of the earthworks. My thoughts favour a land boundary/defence construction but by who , Britons and the Anglo-Saxons where all capable of massive community efforts like this , and it would need a strong leader or desperate community to make this happen , quite possibly both. The last consideration would be religious reasons , to the Britons this part of the world seems to be a holy/sacred part of the landscape with many ancient stone/woodwork's and rings not to far away. Perhaps this was some sort of dividing line between the holy/none holy world? One small correction , It wasn't Woden who carried the dead spirits to Valhalla but Valkyries.
Love this,I live on the kennet & avon & I dont believe the narrative even for this canal,I also think this was fed previously by rivers & springs. I will look further into the gentleman you mentioned whose theory this is. Thankyou,I found this fascinating,great footage also,will be sharing with many.
Awesome, I was looking at Marlborough and the water courses going to Avesbury and Towards the Thames when this video popped up, I think this is pre historic and this would have been how they brought the stones from Wales to Stonehenge :) Apart from the Orkney Altar Stone, although I think they are trying to debunk that one at mo. We also have tunnels in the Scottish Isles, maybe they are also canals for transporting stones/wares. They have often speculated how they transported many things up and down the hills, I think this is the answer as otherwise they would have got bogged down constantly by our famous misty isle weather. Now I wonder where else this mysterious canal system will pop up. think of the tracks on Malta leading to the sea, or the boats they know from Wales that had three runners like a catamaran-where there is no longer any water only leaving ancient evidence of boats and boat building. Very interesting!
How is this how things were transported up and down hills in boats? For big stones it would have been in dual purpose flat bottomed barges, and so either on rollers, or following Rivers inland, with dam and lock systems relatively simple to install for the purpose, where necessary. So there was no River system available to do this for this ditch / canal? and it looks more important to keep it near as a straight line, rataher than follow River Valleys, is again making look defensive not canal. and except for the unlikely ice age movement factor, it still goes up and down hills, so still just a question mark... Sorry, no rewriting of history going on here, to see..
GREAT VIDEO- Further excavations are essential to solving the riddle - a friend of mine told me years ago he thought it was the route used by ancient Brits to transport the Blue Stones from Wales. Laughable, maybe but as good as any other theory as things stand today.
It's not level so water is not its purpose. It can't be irritation or a "canal" it's just not level enough. Perhaps a flood defense moving waters to dispersement areas? That implies a reason to drain an area and areas that had run off after in the water had been moved, perhaps even water storage? Doggerland disappeared under the sea some 8000-6000 years ago. So water levels must be taken into account. If there was a rapid rise in water levels maybe this was a defensive move to prevent existing settlement from being overwhelmed in a deluge, similar to the flood plains and houses that fall prey to regular flooding we see today? A drainage ditch? Which might explain why they go only far enough to move the water away from settlements? As a drainage ditch it's more practical being unlevel as it's logical to move water than contain it. It could have been an ancient tributary that was dug out to improve water flow? Hence they only dug what they had too to make it work. If it were a military defensive line, any breaks can be explained by military outposts, settlements or buildings. You would need access points to traverse it yourself if it was a military defensive feature, wouldn't you?
Brilliant video! Yes, I side with you and Robert Langdon. What you presented makes complete sense once the mapping showed how much water was present many thousands of years ago. Well Done😊
Many thanks! I am glad you enjoyed it. Yes, I totally agree - when you stack up the evidence, it is pretty much overwhelming. Thanks for the kind comment, take care 😉👍
Well thought out And open minded Well done And yes maybe repurposed as an obvious boundary markings after in Romans invaded and settled and or later times when conflicts and wars occurred along its routes. Agree your ideas stack up well against conclusions of 19 and 20th century thinking about Wansdykes
Interesting theory. It would be great if it could be dated with radioisotopes. Was there a forest at one end. Maybe it was used to transport logs to something being constructed at the other end? A city? A fleet?
It goes quite steeply up and down hills, so the canal thing is absolute nonsense! As for the age, recent-ish excavations have found Roman coins just under the first layers, so it's definitely not pre-Roman. The breaks are probably due to not needing to build it across flooded or marshy areas. The abrupt stop of it in a field most likely is evidence that it wasn't completed as a project. It's most likely a late-Roman piece of work, perhaps to help defend the wealthy South West against Irish, Saxon and Pictish incursions.
Before locks were invented, people floated crafts upriver by damming the river behind them in stages to maintain enough depth, these were built as required and leave little or no traces.
One thing it is not is a canal system. Many dykes or ditches similar to this are found throughout england, particularly in the south. Most are called locally ‘the devil’s dyke or ditch’, just type that in to a search engine and numerous examples come up. Interestingly, most run across what is still heathland.
That's more than likely true, especially considering how many centuries it would have taken to build the massive set of earthworks. Thanks for watching and commenting!
Robert John Langdon's thesis explains it was due to the different heights of ground water levels and hundreds of springs across the 30+ mile dyke. Thanks for watching 🙂
It was a canal accross southern England beginning at Bristol.The word Dyke means canal .Fascinating archeological vlog,thankyou.The Romans inherited their roads from a previous much more ancient advanced civilisation which was completely destroyed in a massive cataclysm.This canal has been lost to us in the myths and legends of England.Our entire history has been stolen from us.Further ressearch Sylvie Ivanova at newearth.Happy searching.
Very interesting ! But two observations: 1. The bottom of any V shaped ditch will fill with organic matter over time and flatten out. This could be proven, or disproven by a cross section dig. 2. The terrain looks way too hilly for a canal. It undulates - water would drain straight out of something so shallow. Especially when there is flat land where the most recent canal runs across flat land. Why wouldn't the builders have dug in the flatter area, unless it was under water? And if it was under water, why not just use that instead of going to the effort of digging a canal ? Fascinating video though - sure there's a better explanation than "defensive works" - worthy of further investigation. Thank you for filming this, very thought provoking.🙂
A peculiar characteristic of the kingdom of Wessex was that it's royal family had exclusively *British* given names until Wessex merged with the originally separate Germanic kingdom of the upper Thames Valley.
Most rivers,no matter how shallow. Had there routes formed into short/long stretches,made navigable for small punts that can sail in very shallow water. 3/6 inches etc . With no roads and goods to either bring in or take out,one needed a way of moving things. Heavy loads of rock can be moved this way,for instance. A canal seems to be more of a common sense thing. Sometimes the "professional " get it astoundingly wrong. With the evidence you give its hard to see it being anything else. Thanks for taking me along on your wander through British history 🏴👍🏻😃🏴
I first heard about Wansdyke as a child at school and I realise that my history teachers got an awful lot wrong about English history . They said it was an ancient British defensive system. They also said Britain never lost a war and were kind and beneficial rulers of a colonial empire and Britain was the best country in the world.
I agree that it was built a very long time ago because the evidence for other explanations is pretty thin at best. It might also make sense if subsequent groups of people over the millennia appropriated it for their varied purposes thus obscuring the origin. I also agree that History everywhere must be reexamined and updated based on evidence because "it is full of holes". Thank you. Happy 2024 !
Like you, I cannot see any reason to build a defensive ditch with two banks. Makes no sense at all, just put the effort into a bigger single bank. I am not convinced with the idea of a canal though, BUT, it gets the mind working. Thanks
There are some misconceptions about "defensive" earthworks, unless you are protecting a smaller site like a fort, castle or depot then restrictions to mobility or providing advantage to a smaller number of defenders is the goal. Just the same way today a line of bunkers/pillboxes and minefields can be crossed, engineers form breaches or simply going around it all means time and anyone attempting these things will find defenders waiting for them. You can go through parts of Wansdyke but thats where you concentrate your forces, you can go around it and thats also where you concentrate your forces and you can swarm over it but try doing that with your horses and supplies whilst archers are treating you like fish in a barrel. Even if you can just swarm it you still are not bringing your horses in great numbers or a short period of time, by the time you can the defenders have ridden off and reported the situation and you might get caught trying to get your army/raiding party across. Its just about providing time or advantage, its not impassable and it certainly improves the situation compared to more open terrain where the enemy can maneuver at will.
Oliver Cromwell faced a similar challenge, how to get along, and up and down and around sets of straight line defences, when it was the Lancashire Thorn Hedges, that forced his army to chase up and down and along and around the impassable lines of prickly Thorn Hedge. The battle involved just turned to a state of chaos, one moment they're getting ahead, the next moment the opposition has pushed them back, along the road and around the hedge lines involved, and so the shredded up army to's and fro's on and on, till Cromwell's forces having the greater numbers and better equipped, win the day, and move on from The Battle of Preston, as it's known, though began at Longridge, some way to the north from Preston; and so went to and froing and along and around all the way to Preston, and so then on to Warringtton (a final battle before he got to London to kill the King)..
Perhaps if those post ice-age rivers were channeled into this canal at various points it could be used for fluming timber logs, to another area. Cut a tree down on the mountain and how do you get it to the building site? Or possibly, as others have mentioned, simply a way to funnel animals, whether wild or domestic, from point A to point B with possible stops along the way. a couple herders walking along each bank with a stick to keep them moving and prevent escapees. No different than herding cattle along a laneway with fences or hedges on either side. Given the elevation changes I doubt the canal theory with no evidence of locks or marine railways or similar.
I do not like any of the explanations. BUT it is in the wrong place for a canal! Canals do not go on the top of hills. And why was it excavated when it would have been easy to sail or paddle around it with the much higher water table? What draught of boats are you conceiving of using it. Canals only need very shallow draught boats. My thought IF it had a practical use at all is as an ice road.
The Angles and Saxons were two different migrant groups, originating from different locations in north europe with different languages and systems of deity and worship. Furthermore, whilst the saxons spread west, the angles headed north.
My favourite theory on this is that it must be pre-Roman; as for when and why, god knows. Too many discrepancies to be a defensive structure, and frankly too many for it to be a canal. I'm wondering if it may have been used in some way as a route to transport stones from Wales to Wiltshire for Stonehenge? (Still some distance from Stonehenge though, and how as well would be a mystery!)
High standard of production, however your argument for a prehistoric canal holds very little water... you have chosen to exclude the mention of Wansdyke in a local context, the whole region has a string of Iron age Hill fort earthworks demonstrating other large contemporary investments in the defense of the region. AND why would anyone build a canal if it was surrounded by water?! You give good estimations on the man hours required to build it, and state its similar in design (and scale) to other Roman defenses found in the UK, but fail to relate the two points. The manpower in one Roman legion would significantly reduce how long you estimate it took to construct, to 2-4 years of work.
Thanks for watching and commenting. There are many ironage hillforts in the area, but then there also over 4,000 in Britain. Wiltshire is by no means the most concentrated. Notwithstanding, Wansdyke bears no characteristics to 'defensive' earthworks, as shown in the video. A canal system, is but one theory (and not mine, I have just be given permission to use it for YT content), but as I understand it, the canal system was built to "link" the areas covered in water, i.e. natural water didn't exist for the 33 mile stretch from A to B without this structure. And the drastically higher ground water levels back then fed the canal.
I walked Offa's dyke years ago , well the extreme southern end in the Wye valley . In places I saw walls built on the edge of cliffs .... seemed a bit pointless . So trying to fathom the minds of our ancients to find reason in what they do might be quite challenging . The reason for Wansdyke is most unlikely relate to water for many reasons listed in other comments found here . Ridiculous notion in my opinion . @@LamboPhoto
Flood defense. We have this on Romney Marsh. The beach used to be the North Downs. A road called Wall End runs East West across the middle of the marsh. Flood is my theory for hill forts. The memory of Doggerland going under.
Was the original author of the idea affected by looking at a map of the Pennines, where the River Calder emerges from both sides of the ridge of hills?.. Looking for the source of the River, (Calder), following it up from Hebden Bridge and Myth Holm Royd, pronounced My-Them-Royd, locally, Luddenden's Other Foot, (Luddenden Foot), all along the River Calder, so on up past 'Drippy Bridge' and Calais Lock, (on the Canal), (Callis Lock, real name), and so on up to Todd Morte Den, pronounced Todmdn, locally, (Todd means death in German, and Morte means death in French), there is a fork in the valley system here, turn left to 'Summit' and Rochdale, to the South, or follow the Calder River, on the right fork of the valleys.. And so up and up, and looking at maps, the Calder goes up and up, towards the Spring, then continues down-hill to Burnley... Em, that's what the map is showing, so a closer look with a detailed enough scale of map, to trace the Calder River to its Spring, is looked at. Within a stones throw, almost literally, in easy view from the Spring, there is another Spring, with its stream flowing in the opposite direction to the Calder River, back toward Tod - Todmdn, and Hebden Bridge.. 'Someone having a laugh' naming two Rivers with their Springs almost next to each other, and flowing in opposite directions, the same name, both are named River Calder.. (up and down hills by water, with no locks or water supply, except for two trickles of two Springs). The Calder Valley is / was very aware of the need for a comprehensive extensive water supply system, reservoirs, including the highest beach in all England, a sandy beach in a corner of one of the canal water collection reservoirs, up on the tops of the moors, all around.. Wave a Wand at Wandsdyke, to make boats go up and down hills?..
Most nights have an evening walk and listen to something on UA-cam and frequently UA-cam then plays something else, so I stumbled across this via the algorithm, the music is too loud compared to the narration. I was carrying two bags of shopping and the ground was very wet so I did not put them down and turn down the sound but for anyone who is not deaf your sound levels for the music are too loud.
Great film but as far as the Canal system goes, just the 3D representation used in the video near the end makes it obvious that the idea is preposterous. Its right in front of your eyes that its not possible as the drops in height on the parts that are meant to be canal are massive (I've cycled it) and water doesn't flow up hill and in areas it sits on the highest points of the landscape so to flood it the water would have to be at the same level so there'd be no point as it would all be underwater. If you believe this then its probably because you also believe the earth is flat!
I think you may have missed the bit where I mention that the groundwater table is not constant, and there are hundreds of natural springs that feed it. This is Hydrology 101. I am not suggesting water runs up hill. And no, I don't believe the earth is flat. Finally, it is not my theory. I am merely creating a video of many theories for your entertainment. You're welcome 🙋♂️
Clearly this was never a defensive feature for multiple reasons. The only small problem with your alternative theory is that water tends not to flow uphill and the soil here is very thin on top of chalk. Basically you couldn't have a worse situation to try and build a canal. For these obvious reasons, all known canals have been built to follow the lie of the land, minimising gradients, and lined with clay - just like the Kennet and Avon canal very nearby! If the water table was as high as you say - and high enough to fill the Wansdyke at the tops of the hills it crosses - then you wouldn't need any canal, you could just take your boat on the seas all around! The other problem with any canal theory is that canals go from point A to point B and both points need to be important enough to justify the colossal effort involved in building and maintaining. Since neither London nor Bristol cities existed in prehistoric times, you need to come up with a massive economic reason to justify such a bizarre theory as linking the Thames and Severn thousands of years before it actually happened.
Makes sense they just use water to architect the landscape. They wouldn't use manual labor. Water hydrolics. Those smarties. They knew how to use the nature. The wind and the water .
Interesting theory for sure, the gaps being rivers of melt water, but was the population 6-8,000 years ago large enough for this kind of undertaking, that's a mind blowing amount of work for thousands of men who were living in small tribes consumed with the daily tasks of hunting to feed their families 24/7 when the entire population of British Isles at that time was thought to be less than maybe a few thousand. Plus would they have all come together to be organised by a commanding administration with a scheme and who was the group with the plan? What would be the incentive and benefits to leaving their families to work there at that period? It would require not only massive amounts of food for the workers themselves but also family food to replace what they had lost by not hunting and why even build it, it wasn't needed....unless they were slaves, native or invading, taking from their tribes and forced to work and then they would require a huge amount of guarding again by a large central administration, does sound like the Romans were the only ones who could have done this with native slaves. So much to consider with a theory such as this. 6-8k years ago men would have had ample water and no need for a canal going anywhere.
E: Brilliant video - unbelievably professional!! Look forward to seeing you and your work on the TV in the near future?
Thank you Robert! I couldn't have done this without your help. Hopefully, others enjoy it too 👍
TV would be a step backwards
Water all together was much higher at the time lakes and river plotted the land
there was actually trees back then too lol
There are always holes and questions in science and archaeology, which is what makes it so interesting. In the absence of those gaps though, I think we need to continue to use as best modern practices as we know to continue to learn. Robert and his theories, disregard so many of those modern techniques and questions, seemingly land at 6000 year old canal that traverses gradients of 1 in 4 without any locks.... stating.. "Aquifers mate". Anyway, all that aside, I believe a date is about to be released by a University after some very modern techniques, the implication is perhaps 6th to 7th C.
Thanks Paul & Rebecca. I love aerial photography, but have recently become increasingly interested in history. This place seemed expecially interesting. Especially after reading RJL's work. If Roman coin has been found 'on top' of the ditch at Verlucio, it does challenge the C6/7th date. Notwithstanding, Stukeley's first sketch of Wansdyke, which clearly shows the Roman Road on top of Wansdyke. Furthermore, to excavate that amount of earth, it would require centuries ... so I am unsure how they could pin point Wansdyke to a specific time. Regardless, my main aim was to tell a story and to get folk thinking, despite whether the history books are right or wrong. It is a magnificent place irrespective of when it was it built, who built it and why it is there. Finally, thanks for watching and commenting, I follow your 'much bigger' channel, so it's a privilege to have you both here 🙂 👋
@LamboPhoto optical stimulated luminescence I believe. Dates the last time soil saw sunlight so pretty conclusive. That being the case we need to ask why Stukeley painted/drew it like that... and why the saxons had Roman coins in their hand!
The production value was great, really enjoyed that aspect... more on the channel like this??
@@pwhitewick had to google 'optical stimulated luminescence'! But yes, your description is what I understand it to be. By the way, I was up there last week, and the ditch was holding water. You may be interested in the more recent Devil's Den and, certainly Avebury video. Although, I am sure you will comment on the latter 😉Not sure on the production value 😅 ... I am still learning, I love the history and LiDAR aspect, and I enjoy the story telling, and if folk enjoy too - that's enough for me 🙂
Hi Paul. I agree with your comments. No way was this a canal. Water would have to flow uphill!
I’m liking your work but isn’t there elevation changes in the land around that area? Canals work on the principles of level water with elevation changes achieved by a lock system that works on the equalisation of the pressure by water achieving an even and equal height. Would love to chat about your work though 👍🏻
Thanks for watching and commenting. The major difference between modern day canal systems and ancient canal systems (of which there are many) was the technique used to maintain the water levels within the canal. The Victorian used a lock system entrapping river flow; the ancients used a much more sophisticated natural system of ground water levels, which allowed the canal to be shorter and more direct. FYI - I have merely used a historian article for the basis of this video, the facts and theories are not mine. For further info, I would recommend speaking to Robert John Langdon, who wrote the article (see description). Thanks.
My thoughts exactly no way would you be able to keep the higher sections in water without the flow of water down the slope making navigation impossible. It would be like trying to move a boat up a series of rapids . See the Fossdyke canal as a comparison The absence of the remains of aquatic lifeforms in the bottom of the dyke would seem to be conclusive. Also if the gaps were full of water that would negate the need for defensive earthworks in the valleys too sounds like the author is trying to have his cake and eat it with that one.
You seem to have missed the part about the post glassial landrise. It is still happening in Scandinavia for example. When land rises it doesn’t necessarily do so uniformly.
Yep im fascinated with the canals o Brittany
Either the land was flat then it rose, negating the need for gaps, or the land was always hilly and therefore the water would not flow up the hilly sections.
Also if the land surrounding was filled with water, you wouldnt need a canal would you?
Interesting video and theory. Thank you for sharing it, I enjoyed it. Firstly may I say I have no idea what Wansdyke is. I have walked parts of the Wansdyke and also some of Grims Ditch and various parts of other dykes thought the last 20 years. One thing I noticed while walking the Wiltshire stretch of the Wansdyke is that the dyke runs up and downhill and some stretches are fairly steep. After watching your video, with this in mind, I went straight to Google Earth, with the path tool I plotted out about 8 miles stretch of the Wiltshire part of Wansdyke Then I selected Show Elevation Profile. On this 8-mile stretch, the Wansdyke ascends and descends 6 times up and downhill between 600ft and 900ft. with some of the steepest sections rising by 300ft within half a mile with no visible breaks in the dyke. So I'm imagining to make this work as a canal there must be some kind of lock system to stop the water from running into the valleys. If so I imagine there would be signs of this in the ground. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this. Kind regards Peter
Hi Peter, thanks for watching and for your comment. I also didn't know anything about Wansdyke until February this year. I immediately thought it to be another defensive earthwork. But then I found Mr Langdon's published article. He states there are no locks due to the variation in groundwater level, and because of the size, height and speed of the rivers back then. I am no hydrologist or geologist, so can't comment. Yet I did not see anything that looked like a lock on my travels, and nor is there any supporting information suggesting this. I can certainly vouch for the difference in elevation (300ft/100m), as my knees are still recovering! I do like the canal theory, and yes it gaps (no pun intended), but so too do the other theories. Such as ... if it is a defensive structure - why are there 'original' breaks in the dyke, why does it end abruptly 3km from a natural defensive boundary, why does it stop in several places either side of a dry valley, and why were Roman artifacts found on top (not below) the dyke? A mystery that may remain unsolved - like many others around Britain! Thanks again, all the best, Chris.
Why would a canal end abruptly as well . Clearly the earth work had an important reason to be done . Unless the land has changed due to the glacial weight removal since the dyke was built I cannot believe it's purpose was to carry water due to the height changes and no evidence for locks . Also clay lining would have been needed in the bottom of a canal built , or dug , on limestone to seal it .... the clay would be evidence for a canal , or water supply line . There really is no need for artificial rivers in that region . If the 'dyke' is not a defensive ditch , or a political boundary , could it have been a route to herd animals to markets ?
Used for over so many years, perhaps it’s part of both, or more than two uses, stitched together or taken apart to facilitate the current need!
It's a canal all right but we're missing some of the brilliant technology involved.
@@oreilly1237878 I have recently walk most of the Wansdyke and other dykes, ditches and also many canals and also having chatted to some friends that use canals and also some friends that are Archeologists with this video in mind. I am now very doubtful that this is a canal. I personally think its a fortified bank and ditch. It is very similar to Grims ditch near the Thames river on the ridgeway and many other ditch features across the UK. Long sections of the Wansdyke run up and down hill. I really don't think this would work as a Canal.
Brilliant, breathtaking, informative and thought provoking!
Your attention to detail and research is superb and only matched by your videography and editing skills!
Thank you Adrian! You are too kind! But I am glad that you enjoyed this. There is so much history, theories and speculation about Wansdyke, I wanted to do it justice - and share how amazing the place really is with everyone else 😉👍
Thank you! It certainly is a wonderful ancient feature.
The canal notion is ludicrous, and that is the wiggliest roman road I've ever clapped eyes on.
How did they make the water flow up hill and over hill with no locks ? The locks would of had to be huge and still showing up on Lidar surely ?
Evidentally, there were no locks - not that I could tell, from aerial photography, LIDAR or research. The authors states it wouldn't need them due to variation in groundwater level, and the height and speed of the meltwater/rivers back then. Who knows 🤷♂️ Regardless, and interesting theory! One of many - and the mystery remains! Thanks for watching and commenting, all the best 👍
I'm very much interested in ancient technology but to me I don't see how it would of been a water way with out some serious locks, regardless of water table level, to me the boundary/statement ditch theory holds more water ( pun unintended ) rather than actually being defensive.
More a ' look how big and powerfull I am ' kinda of boundary ditch.
It's the gaps along it that kind of take way from that theory though it seems, Maybe there were wooden fence posts on these sections at one time that joined the gaps ?
Replying to an old post, but at 3:31 you can see that the bank on the defenders side is built up to give a height advantage against the attacking side. Any water would run out to form isolated pools at best. If there is a natural vally, the defenders don't need to build a defensive ditch to gain a height advantage - they just wait up hill as the attachers cross the natural ditch. "variation in groundwater level" would just give you a spring.
They would use animals to pull the vessels up to ,or down to the next level, because they couldn't come up with the lock system yet, or was that another example obscure hidden tech from a twisted past in earths long history, I often think I could've been the lock inventor if I was working around these waterways
Because the canals connection, I'm gonna go a bit off track and mention the highest underground canals in central Brittany look like the Willie Wonka waterway tunnel, did they use that for the movie?❤
Interesting video. Thanks for making it. However, I fundamentally disagree with your conclusion that it was a canal. Parts of it have a gradient of greater than 25% (source OS Maps). The amount of water required to fill that continually would be more than the aquifers and streams you refer to were capable of. Such water flows would have caused massive erosion of the chalk. No sign of such erosion exists. Also at the lower portions of the dyke the ramparts would need to be significantly taller than they are due to the pooling of water at the lower points. They are not. Such water flows would have left tell tale signs at the bottom of the dyke. To the best of my knowledge no such evidence has been found.
My favourite part, though, is where you state that Mortimer Wheeler did an extensive survey of the dykes of southern England! I bet he had a great time 🤣🤣
Thanks for the comment. I do present several theories in the vid, the dyke is just one of them ... and it's not my theory, but Robert John Langdon's. Which to be fair, I like - as it challenges the history books - which are often wrong. Whatever the reason for Wansdyke, it was a pleasure to capture the footage and make this video, which is after all, for entertainment purposes. And hopefully ... you were entertained 👍
Which kind of dyke ? Lol , ducky ! @@LamboPhoto
Very very interesting, food for thought. I have walked here many many times. I’m not sold
On the idea of a canal but then I wasn’t sold on the idea of a defence system. In fact I think it’s a lot older than the start of the Saxon times. Very interesting indeed 🤔
Thanks for the comment! Glad you found it interesting. Yes, the canal system theory is out there, but it's an entertaining notion all the same. But definitely agree that the history books are wrong, and that Wansdyke is much older than currently stated. Take care and thanks again 😉👍
Chris, this is another one of your top productions. Not defensive - too easy to breach with a regiment of soldiers with shovels. Boundary marker - too much effort for no gain. I'm digging the canal idea but why did they need it? For water or transportation? I find it amusing that Robert Langdon is the same name as the Da Vinci code character. lol
Thanks Christian!! They needed it for trade, to get across Britain which was covered with a lot more water back then. You're the first person to pick up on his name (other than me). I was waiting for someone else to mention this! 😉👍
This is simply the best video I've seen on this subject. Well done mate. I've just subscribed to your channel.
Thank you so much for the kind words. I thoroughly loved making this video and learnt so much about all of theories behind Wansdyke. I still visit Pewsey Downs regularly, but now look at Wansdyke in a different light. Thanks for the sub! All the best 👍
Really interesting and superbly produced. Definitely agree with the canal theory!
Much appreciated! Really great feedback, thank you. It seems that everyone agrees on the canal theory! Time to start rewriting those history books 😉👍
Great video, I enjoyed it and will keep an eye out for your work. I can't agee with the conclusion, but I absolutely respect the open-minded approach and question setting. Throughout my life, I've explored the countryside and been curious about what I've seen. There's so much keep discovering. Cheers!
Much appreciated! And yes, the prehistoric canal is but one of many theories. I think it's fair to say that regardless of what it actually is, there are far too many gaps and inconsistencies in the history books. Thanks for watching and commenting.
Looks to me like it was for driving cattle long distances during dry periods, with the bonus of providing dry footfall and an easy route on the tops of the banks during wet weather. Wasn't Somerset traditionally really soggy in the winter, so you would take your livestock to a drier area in the late summer?
Great vid by the way....very well produced. I think the most likely site for the battle of Badon is "Mynydd Baedon" in south Wales. The topography also fits the description. It is also where the River Severn can be seen from the battlefield as described.
A great presentation. My money is in the canal system. As I am a bit of a canal fan. Loved the history and you put it all together brilliantly. Great job. 👍🏻👏🏻👏🏻🚶🏻♂️🚶♀️
Cheers matey 👍 Yes, defo a canal system for me too! It was a challenge this one, but glad it's complete and folk seem to like it 😀 Thanks Watto 😉👍
History channel where are you? This needs to be on your channel! Enjoyed this very much and you need your own show!
Cheers Jason! I'd love nothing better than to give up my day job and do this full time - if it paid the bills 🤣 Cheers mate, thanks for your support 😉👍
@@LamboPhoto you made me think of this in your video hope it gives you a laugh. ua-cam.com/video/nTT2fNyKgUE/v-deo.html
Nothing on the "History Channel" has anything to do with "History". There are no ancient aliens.
Very professional video! Can't wait to see more.
Thank you Ziggy! That is great feedback 🤩 Stay tuned for more 😉👍
Great video and very interesting subject. Would the canal theory work with the earth works going up and down hills and I think you mentioned the earth works are not continuous but broken. Thanks, Martin.
Good question! And one that I don't have the answer to, sorry. The author of the published article seems to think so (link in the description). From what I undertstand (and I am no Hydrologist or Geologist) is that the groundwater levels vary significantly across the dyke, with natural springs feeding the dyke. Just one of several theories - like many other sites, it may remain a mystery forever more 😉👍
@@LamboPhoto ..rather than admit that it's not a canal?
This was a great documentary. The canal system is interesting .
Thank you Elly! Glad you enjoyed it! Yes, the canal theory is an interesting theory 😉👍
excellent ,very interesting evidence presented in an easy to follow narrative. Many thanx
Another great video!
Thanks Chris! That is great to hear! I haven't forgotten about your Cherhill White Horse request - it's on the list 😉👍
@@LamboPhoto brilliant, weekdays are best to go up there if you can as much more quiet.
@@chrisgale5634 Most definitely. I have come to realise this for most 'well known' sites, especially Avebury - which is constantly overun at weekends.
Awesome sharing & beautiful narure bravo my friend
Thank you very much! Glad you enjoyed it!! 😉👍
Very well done video, photography is amazing, however when postulating a theory as to why these structures were built, if you apply logic that it can't be a canal as the water, or a boat can not flow uphill fighting gravity, also if the water table was so high - why build a canal system when the swollen rivers would be more than adequate to use as the transportation of goods - we also forget that boats in ancient times were very small and only capable of carrying maybe a few head of cattle, and as cattle were the currency of the time it makes more sense that both what have called hill forts and these dykes are nothing more than protected areas not only to keep the cattle safe but also to transport them for sale or trade.
Sunken roads are a common thing all over England although they have no bearing in relation to the length of the dykes, I believe they are of the same purpose, with a simple palisade either side on the banks (this includes hillforts) it would have reduced the chance of your animals being taken by other tribes as well as the animals being eaten by predatory animals such as bears and wolfs - which many seem to forget were native to this country right up to only a few hundred years ago when they were killed off - and funnily enough the cull was done to protect livestock.
Some may say that the length of the dykes is the issue with them being a trackway, well you only have to look at the ridgeway in Wiltshire and Pilgrims Way which goes through Hampshire, Surrey and Kent. These ancient trackways could have also been easily defended from animals again by a simple wooden palisade on either side with gates to allow access points as shown on the dykes such as Wansdyke and so on, and not to mention the lack of evidence for water proofing the said canal which would have to be done given the underlying strata in some areas of gravel, lime stone and chalk - which are all permeable and don't hold water.
Moreover the Romans during their first and second invasions used already existing trackways and later modified them into roads, which I also think adds weight to this hypothesis.
That's a good theory. Would explain why the bottom was flat, and also the gaps as you say.
Makes sense to me 👍
I like this theory, too. Still quite ancient, would have solved problems prehistoric Britons were concerned about, and doesn't have the issues of water flow/sediment, etc.
Your argument would be far more compellingly if you’d overlaid a TOPO map on thesupposed canal. 😊 Your aerial shots indicate that water would have a tough time flowing in that ditch, with or without locks.
Incidentally nice video very professionally made and presented.
Great video, thank you 👏🇬🇧
Very interesting. One piece of evidence against an early (prehistoric) date is that the parish boundaries around the Wansdyke all seem to ignore it. If it was so old you would expect them the use the Wansdyke as a boundary marker. In contrast, the Ridgeway known to be prehistoric forms the boundaries of many parishes on its route. Even some late Roman roads (though not the early one in the Kennet Valley) are used as parish boundaries .
Great to see RJL's ideas catching on
Absolutely! And thanks for watching and commenting.
@@LamboPhoto Catching on what? Maybe the Ancient locals had Extraterrestrial anti gravity specialisation in making water on a slope level to the slope, slope.. Not a lot.. Half of the comments are recognising the absurdity of the idea, the other half, sorry, but sound like truly witless people who don't see the obvious..
Cattle run - for moving herds from enclosure to enclosure- remember, were talking AUROCHS here, not easy beasties to controll if they go on the run, so a gentle curving bank and ditch with high hedgerows atop, ideal for the job - the breaks are the access and exit points ino and out of the enclosures/ pastures - idea anyhow?!?!
nice idea! seems sensible to me, we may never know but I like this kind of thinking.
@TheSSoSS I’d go along with that and I’d also say they were constructed as a windbreak route for humans , a lot more comfortable and potentially a lifesaver in bad weather . The cattle following the shepherds out of the wind and also traders in the area.
Definitely going with the 6-8000 year old canal system
100% agree!!! 👍
Very interesting. Thanks.
Glad you enjoyed it! And thanks for spending the time to say so, many don't 😃👍
So interesting! All the more so as I grew up in the district of Wansdyke (now abolished) in NE Somerset. The canal theory is definitely convincing.
Thank you so much for commenting. It's not my own theory, but Robert John Langdon's. I came across his research and thought ... wow, I know Wansdyke - that could make a great video. Thanks for stopping by 😃
cám ơn bạn đã c hia sẻ video nhìn quá tuyệt vời trong rất hay mình rất thích chúc bạn luôn luôn vui vẻ nhé👍💕
Tôi rất vui vì bạn thích nó. Cảm ơn vì bình luận dễ thương của bạn! 😉👍
Great video! I think we should give weighting to the economic consequences of labour intensive, pre-historic remains - from hand axes to earthworks. Apart from a few blessed places, like the Fertile Crescent, the people were very poor, so costly enterprises have to have a pay-off.
New friend here. So beautiful place!
Thanks and welcome! Yes, it is a lovely part of Britain, amazing landscapes!! Thank you 😉👍
Is it level ? If not, how could it be a canal ?
Brilliant 👏
Fascinating. I was very skeptical at first. This theory makes sense. I hope it becomes fact someday.
It's not my theory, I read it and like you, I thought that is fascinating. And thought that would make a good video. I am glad you liked it, thank you for the kind comment 😉👍
To carry water. Great video. Thank You.
This is utter nonsense. I have walked that part of the Wansdyke many times. Firstly it is high, near the top of the chalk escarpment. It is not lined, and it is free draining soil. Canals need water sources and reservoirs. There is neither a water source, nor any place for reservoirs. Then there are the changes in levels. Wansdyke is not level. It rolls up and down with the escarpment. . Wansdyke is just about the worst possible place you could imagine to put a canal in the area. The irony is, of course, that you can see the where you would build a canal from Wansdyke, and it is down below in the vale of Pewsey where you can find John Rennie's Kennet and Avon Canal.
The Kennet and Avon canal was plagued with water supply problems at its summit, despite following a valley route. That required the building of the famous Crofton steam engine, which you can visit a few miles away. The idea that Wansdyke was a canal is in defiance of basic engineering, physics and common sense.
Aye
Thanks for the fascinating video and the great visuals. I haven't read all the other comments, but I love the idea and would agree that the other theories of its origin have weaknesses. I have walked parts of it and loved it. I saw the comment about the dyke not being level which make it being an ancient canal difficult unless springs were continuously feeding it? I do believe the mesolithic and neolithic are under-appreciated for people's cleverness at the time, but was the population density there to create such large earth works and/or was there the need? Unless there is much more that we are wrong about our understanding of this period I struggle to see how the canal theory can be true, but I'd love it to be true....
The dykes of Britain are a mystery that's for sure. Robert John Langdon's thesis explains it was due to the different heights of ground water levels and hundreds of springs across the 30+ mile dyke. Thanks for watching 🙂
A very interesting,absorbing and thought provoking video and why not agree with Rob Langdons Canal Theory it certainly worth a thorough investigation as the O/S Maps show Roman Aqueducts following Land Contours and Canals have been with us for many many years before the Greeks and Romans,The Norse built, canals there is a nice example on Skye so the Galley's could reach an Lochan from the sea for Wintering.
Fascinating. As you say it is clearly not defensive.
But it cannot be a canal as the sections are not level.
It seems too extravagant to be a boundary marker, but then again Offas Dyke clearly was.
We have a multitude of similar earthworks in the Pennines that were active as drove roads until Victorian times, so I think that is the most likely explanation. Very impressive for a civilisation that appears to be pre Roman. Effectively a motorway that connected the Severn and the Thames. It looks wide enough to be portage way for large boats, maybe with some canalised sections. Fascinating.
building dykes is maybe as old as doggerland, people that build stone henges could also have managed waterways to some amount. at least to the same level as beavers are used to. they also build fish-weirs, traps from sticks to catch fish on the low tide.
Salmon swims upstream riversystems, maybe an existing natural system was enlarged to provide more people with healthy fish protein ? would have been worth the efforts. Not neccessarilly salmon but I'm also thinking of thick, fat atlantic eels.
Its truly amazing to know that the stone age peoples could build canals.
Isostatic lift changes topographical heights over time. After ice melts compressed land surface rebound upwards,still going on today in places. Cheers.
...Though this factor now puts a different light on the issue, but would have to be confirmed, somehow..
Next to South Crofty ex Copper and Tin, Zinc, Arsenic and Plutonium Mine, Camborne, Cornwall / (surface and under the Poldice and Carnon River Valleys, coast to coast, of this part of Cornwall) ../ on the northern edge of the biggest largest derelict mining area of all of Europe, by one account; there is a very odd and unique and semi-surreal natural freak-looking, big massive solidified bubble, come up from under the earth surface.. Its Granite, and when it was created, it was the molten lava that was creating a general volcanic upheaval in the area..
So it's not unthinkable that when the 'Wansdyke' was built, the terrain was much flatter, before the ice melting effect occurred.. Looking at how the 'channel' hasn't 'tipped' over, as connected to the earth around it; as it would be if the terrain around it had been flatter; puts the ice melting factor on a very unlikely, while the ditch and bank look like they were built when the slopes it was built on were as they are, and visible, to date.. As a defensive ditch and bank, the broken and missing sections could be explained by a demographics etc factor, like the need for the defence was decided it was no longer needed, while building was going on, and the breaks because of practical reasons like being built in stages, sections that would eventually all join up, when the digging was done.. The banks along the ditch are on the uphill side of the ditch, so consistent to a defensive factor, and completely not a sign or trace of water works and water source courses, so the canal idea more unlikely again..
I don't think that its a canal, for it to work as such there would need to be locks and the like, the technology would have been there in the minds of the builders but where are the remains?
Defence works are a possibility but the gaps in the Dyke perhaps seem to discredit this theory, unless they where intended to be killing grounds.
The constructions where thought out and planned , they required massive amounts of time, resources, and energy, more importantly massive amounts of agreements of the use and timing of manpower and community resources, harvests had to be collected , land prepared for sowing and community defence all needed to happen as well.
The gaps in the Dyke could of occurred because the people of a named area did not show/failed to complete there allotted section of the earthworks.
My thoughts favour a land boundary/defence construction but by who , Britons and the Anglo-Saxons where all capable of massive community efforts like this , and it would need a strong leader or desperate community to make this happen , quite possibly both.
The last consideration would be religious reasons , to the Britons this part of the world seems to be a holy/sacred part of the landscape with many ancient stone/woodwork's and rings not to far away. Perhaps this was some sort of dividing line between the holy/none holy world?
One small correction , It wasn't Woden who carried the dead spirits to Valhalla but Valkyries.
Love this,I live on the kennet & avon & I dont believe the narrative even for this canal,I also think this was fed previously by rivers & springs.
I will look further into the gentleman you mentioned whose theory this is.
Thankyou,I found this fascinating,great footage also,will be sharing with many.
Is there a second half to this Wansdyke video? This cuts off right when you start making your case for prehistoric!
Sorry, no. My case was for mesolithic, not prehistoric. But thank you for spending the time to watch and comment.
Awesome, I was looking at Marlborough and the water courses going to Avesbury and Towards the Thames when this video popped up, I think this is pre historic and this would have been how they brought the stones from Wales to Stonehenge :) Apart from the Orkney Altar Stone, although I think they are trying to debunk that one at mo. We also have tunnels in the Scottish Isles, maybe they are also canals for transporting stones/wares. They have often speculated how they transported many things up and down the hills, I think this is the answer as otherwise they would have got bogged down constantly by our famous misty isle weather. Now I wonder where else this mysterious canal system will pop up. think of the tracks on Malta leading to the sea, or the boats they know from Wales that had three runners like a catamaran-where there is no longer any water only leaving ancient evidence of boats and boat building. Very interesting!
How is this how things were transported up and down hills in boats?
For big stones it would have been in dual purpose flat bottomed barges, and so either on rollers, or following Rivers inland, with dam and lock systems relatively simple to install for the purpose, where necessary. So there was no River system available to do this for this ditch / canal? and it looks more important to keep it near as a straight line, rataher than follow River Valleys, is again making look defensive not canal. and except for the unlikely ice age movement factor, it still goes up and down hills, so still just a question mark...
Sorry, no rewriting of history going on here, to see..
There needs to be some careful excavation of the sedimentary layers in some key areas...
There are problems with Robert Langdon's highly speculative ideas many of which seem implausible.
And yet even more holes in the history books and academia today. Thanks for watching 🙂
@@LamboPhotobut you can’t fill holes with speculative theories based on dreams
GREAT VIDEO- Further excavations are essential to solving the riddle - a friend of mine told me years ago he thought it was the route used by ancient Brits to transport the Blue Stones from Wales. Laughable, maybe but as good as any other theory as things stand today.
It's not level so water is not its purpose. It can't be irritation or a "canal" it's just not level enough. Perhaps a flood defense moving waters to dispersement areas? That implies a reason to drain an area and areas that had run off after in the water had been moved, perhaps even water storage?
Doggerland disappeared under the sea some 8000-6000 years ago. So water levels must be taken into account. If there was a rapid rise in water levels maybe this was a defensive move to prevent existing settlement from being overwhelmed in a deluge, similar to the flood plains and houses that fall prey to regular flooding we see today? A drainage ditch? Which might explain why they go only far enough to move the water away from settlements?
As a drainage ditch it's more practical being unlevel as it's logical to move water than contain it. It could have been an ancient tributary that was dug out to improve water flow? Hence they only dug what they had too to make it work.
If it were a military defensive line, any breaks can be explained by military outposts, settlements or buildings. You would need access points to traverse it yourself if it was a military defensive feature, wouldn't you?
Brilliant video! Yes, I side with you and Robert Langdon. What you presented makes complete sense once the mapping showed how much water was present many thousands of years ago. Well Done😊
Many thanks! I am glad you enjoyed it. Yes, I totally agree - when you stack up the evidence, it is pretty much overwhelming. Thanks for the kind comment, take care 😉👍
Well thought out And open minded Well done
And yes maybe repurposed as an obvious boundary markings after in Romans invaded and settled and or later times when conflicts and wars occurred along its routes. Agree your ideas stack up well against conclusions of 19 and 20th century thinking about Wansdykes
Thanks for the lovely comment. Thanks for watching 🙂
Interesting theory. It would be great if it could be dated with radioisotopes. Was there a forest at one end. Maybe it was used to transport logs to something being constructed at the other end? A city? A fleet?
From what I remember, Wansdyke isn't continuously downhill
Is Wansdyke a completed structure, or were sections built before interest was lost in the project?
That's the million dollar question. It would have taken centuries to construct. The Romans built a road over the middle section. Thanks for watching 🙂
It goes quite steeply up and down hills, so the canal thing is absolute nonsense! As for the age, recent-ish excavations have found Roman coins just under the first layers, so it's definitely not pre-Roman. The breaks are probably due to not needing to build it across flooded or marshy areas. The abrupt stop of it in a field most likely is evidence that it wasn't completed as a project. It's most likely a late-Roman piece of work, perhaps to help defend the wealthy South West against Irish, Saxon and Pictish incursions.
Use of canal systems and bigger water courses of post glacial period explains a lot of megalithic building too.
Before locks were invented, people floated crafts upriver by damming the river behind them in stages to maintain enough depth, these were built as required and leave little or no traces.
One thing it is not is a canal system. Many dykes or ditches similar to this are found throughout england, particularly in the south. Most are called locally ‘the devil’s dyke or ditch’, just type that in to a search engine and numerous examples come up. Interestingly, most run across what is still heathland.
I think in different times it had different roles. It could have been everything you suggested.
That's more than likely true, especially considering how many centuries it would have taken to build the massive set of earthworks. Thanks for watching and commenting!
interesting ---- but how did it fill with water as its not flat. In some areas the fall and rise is considerable and so could not of held water.
Robert John Langdon's thesis explains it was due to the different heights of ground water levels and hundreds of springs across the 30+ mile dyke. Thanks for watching 🙂
It was a canal accross southern England beginning at Bristol.The word Dyke means canal .Fascinating archeological vlog,thankyou.The Romans inherited their roads from a previous much more ancient advanced civilisation which was completely destroyed in a massive cataclysm.This canal has been lost to us in the myths and legends of England.Our entire history has been stolen from us.Further ressearch Sylvie Ivanova at newearth.Happy searching.
Very interesting ! But two observations:
1. The bottom of any V shaped ditch will fill with organic matter over time and flatten out. This could be proven, or disproven by a cross section dig.
2. The terrain looks way too hilly for a canal. It undulates - water would drain straight out of something so shallow. Especially when there is flat land where the most recent canal runs across flat land. Why wouldn't the builders have dug in the flatter area, unless it was under water? And if it was under water, why not just use that instead of going to the effort of digging a canal ?
Fascinating video though - sure there's a better explanation than "defensive works" - worthy of further investigation.
Thank you for filming this, very thought provoking.🙂
A peculiar characteristic of the kingdom of Wessex was that it's royal family had exclusively *British* given names until Wessex merged with the originally separate Germanic kingdom of the upper Thames Valley.
Thank you - yes the canal system makes sense.
Most rivers,no matter how shallow. Had there routes formed into short/long stretches,made navigable for small punts that can sail in very shallow water. 3/6 inches etc . With no roads and goods to either bring in or take out,one needed a way of moving things. Heavy loads of rock can be moved this way,for instance. A canal seems to be more of a common sense thing. Sometimes the "professional " get it astoundingly wrong. With the evidence you give its hard to see it being anything else.
Thanks for taking me along on your wander through British history 🏴👍🏻😃🏴
I concur with your theory
Glad to hear it! Thanks for watching and commenting 👍
Any thoughts on Offa's Dyke sir?
Good stuff, makes you think, I favour pre roman. But boy that's some graft! Kiwi.
I first heard about Wansdyke as a child at school and I realise that my history teachers got an awful lot wrong about English history . They said it was an ancient British defensive system. They also said Britain never lost a war and were kind and beneficial rulers of a colonial empire and Britain was the best country in the world.
I agree that it was built a very long time ago because the evidence for other explanations is pretty thin at best. It might also make sense if subsequent groups of people over the millennia appropriated it for their varied purposes thus obscuring the origin. I also agree that History everywhere must be reexamined and updated based on evidence because "it is full of holes". Thank you. Happy 2024 !
You have summed it up better than I could have done. Totally agree. Thanks for watching and leaving a comment 🙂
Like you, I cannot see any reason to build a defensive ditch with two banks. Makes no sense at all, just put the effort into a bigger single bank. I am not convinced with the idea of a canal though, BUT, it gets the mind working. Thanks
Very impressive structure but it would have been impossible to get a supply of water up there
There are some misconceptions about "defensive" earthworks, unless you are protecting a smaller site like a fort, castle or depot then restrictions to mobility or providing advantage to a smaller number of defenders is the goal. Just the same way today a line of bunkers/pillboxes and minefields can be crossed, engineers form breaches or simply going around it all means time and anyone attempting these things will find defenders waiting for them.
You can go through parts of Wansdyke but thats where you concentrate your forces, you can go around it and thats also where you concentrate your forces and you can swarm over it but try doing that with your horses and supplies whilst archers are treating you like fish in a barrel. Even if you can just swarm it you still are not bringing your horses in great numbers or a short period of time, by the time you can the defenders have ridden off and reported the situation and you might get caught trying to get your army/raiding party across.
Its just about providing time or advantage, its not impassable and it certainly improves the situation compared to more open terrain where the enemy can maneuver at will.
Oliver Cromwell faced a similar challenge, how to get along, and up and down and around sets of straight line defences, when it was the Lancashire Thorn Hedges, that forced his army to chase up and down and along and around the impassable lines of prickly Thorn Hedge.
The battle involved just turned to a state of chaos, one moment they're getting ahead, the next moment the opposition has pushed them back, along the road and around the hedge lines involved, and so the shredded up army to's and fro's on and on, till Cromwell's forces having the greater numbers and better equipped, win the day, and move on from The Battle of Preston, as it's known, though began at Longridge, some way to the north from Preston; and so went to and froing and along and around all the way to Preston, and so then on to Warringtton (a final battle before he got to London to kill the King)..
Perhaps if those post ice-age rivers were channeled into this canal at various points it could be used for fluming timber logs, to another area. Cut a tree down on the mountain and how do you get it to the building site? Or possibly, as others have mentioned, simply a way to funnel animals, whether wild or domestic, from point A to point B with possible stops along the way. a couple herders walking along each bank with a stick to keep them moving and prevent escapees. No different than herding cattle along a laneway with fences or hedges on either side. Given the elevation changes I doubt the canal theory with no evidence of locks or marine railways or similar.
I do not like any of the explanations. BUT it is in the wrong place for a canal! Canals do not go on the top of hills. And why was it excavated when it would have been easy to sail or paddle around it with the much higher water table? What draught of boats are you conceiving of using it. Canals only need very shallow draught boats. My thought IF it had a practical use at all is as an ice road.
The Angles and Saxons were two different migrant groups, originating from different locations in north europe with different languages and systems of deity and worship. Furthermore, whilst the saxons spread west, the angles headed north.
So, getting the Stones from Wales to Stone Henge can be siplified by this method of canal building.
Have walked Wansdyke, it’s up and down like a bridesmaid’s dress. Seriously not a canal! 🤣😂
My favourite theory on this is that it must be pre-Roman; as for when and why, god knows. Too many discrepancies to be a defensive structure, and frankly too many for it to be a canal. I'm wondering if it may have been used in some way as a route to transport stones from Wales to Wiltshire for Stonehenge? (Still some distance from Stonehenge though, and how as well would be a mystery!)
High standard of production, however your argument for a prehistoric canal holds very little water... you have chosen to exclude the mention of Wansdyke in a local context, the whole region has a string of Iron age Hill fort earthworks demonstrating other large contemporary investments in the defense of the region. AND why would anyone build a canal if it was surrounded by water?!
You give good estimations on the man hours required to build it, and state its similar in design (and scale) to other Roman defenses found in the UK, but fail to relate the two points. The manpower in one Roman legion would significantly reduce how long you estimate it took to construct, to 2-4 years of work.
Thanks for watching and commenting. There are many ironage hillforts in the area, but then there also over 4,000 in Britain. Wiltshire is by no means the most concentrated. Notwithstanding, Wansdyke bears no characteristics to 'defensive' earthworks, as shown in the video. A canal system, is but one theory (and not mine, I have just be given permission to use it for YT content), but as I understand it, the canal system was built to "link" the areas covered in water, i.e. natural water didn't exist for the 33 mile stretch from A to B without this structure. And the drastically higher ground water levels back then fed the canal.
I walked Offa's dyke years ago , well the extreme southern end in the Wye valley . In places I saw walls built on the edge of cliffs .... seemed a bit pointless . So trying to fathom the minds of our ancients to find reason in what they do might be quite challenging . The reason for Wansdyke is most unlikely relate to water for many reasons listed in other comments found here . Ridiculous notion in my opinion . @@LamboPhoto
How can you have a canal going up and down gradients? the water would simply run away.
Flood defense. We have this on Romney Marsh. The beach used to be the North Downs. A road called Wall End runs East West across the middle of the marsh. Flood is my theory for hill forts. The memory of Doggerland going under.
Doggerland. Now there's a video right there. Thanks for watching my friend 😃👍
I do like the idea of the canals; but it does seem to go uphill and down dale/
Looks like water was reason for breaks. Connecting waterways?
The people that come up with such ideas as prehistoric canals, have great imagination but are devoid of logic.
Was the original author of the idea affected by looking at a map of the Pennines, where the River Calder emerges from both sides of the ridge of hills?.. Looking for the source of the River, (Calder), following it up from Hebden Bridge and Myth Holm Royd, pronounced My-Them-Royd, locally, Luddenden's Other Foot, (Luddenden Foot), all along the River Calder, so on up past 'Drippy Bridge' and Calais Lock, (on the Canal), (Callis Lock, real name), and so on up to Todd Morte Den, pronounced Todmdn, locally, (Todd means death in German, and Morte means death in French), there is a fork in the valley system here, turn left to 'Summit' and Rochdale, to the South, or follow the Calder River, on the right fork of the valleys.. And so up and up, and looking at maps, the Calder goes up and up, towards the Spring, then continues down-hill to Burnley... Em, that's what the map is showing, so a closer look with a detailed enough scale of map, to trace the Calder River to its Spring, is looked at.
Within a stones throw, almost literally, in easy view from the Spring, there is another Spring, with its stream flowing in the opposite direction to the Calder River, back toward Tod - Todmdn, and Hebden Bridge..
'Someone having a laugh' naming two Rivers with their Springs almost next to each other, and flowing in opposite directions, the same name, both are named River Calder.. (up and down hills by water, with no locks or water supply, except for two trickles of two Springs). The Calder Valley is / was very aware of the need for a comprehensive extensive water supply system, reservoirs, including the highest beach in all England, a sandy beach in a corner of one of the canal water collection reservoirs, up on the tops of the moors, all around.. Wave a Wand at Wandsdyke, to make boats go up and down hills?..
Must have been a common thing many centuries ago. We have remains of an ancient canal in America.
Most nights have an evening walk and listen to something on UA-cam and frequently UA-cam then plays something else, so I stumbled across this via the algorithm, the music is too loud compared to the narration. I was carrying two bags of shopping and the ground was very wet so I did not put them down and turn down the sound but for anyone who is not deaf your sound levels for the music are too loud.
makes sense to be canals, what else would you do with that much water
Great film but as far as the Canal system goes, just the 3D representation used in the video near the end makes it obvious that the idea is preposterous. Its right in front of your eyes that its not possible as the drops in height on the parts that are meant to be canal are massive (I've cycled it) and water doesn't flow up hill and in areas it sits on the highest points of the landscape so to flood it the water would have to be at the same level so there'd be no point as it would all be underwater.
If you believe this then its probably because you also believe the earth is flat!
I think you may have missed the bit where I mention that the groundwater table is not constant, and there are hundreds of natural springs that feed it. This is Hydrology 101. I am not suggesting water runs up hill. And no, I don't believe the earth is flat. Finally, it is not my theory. I am merely creating a video of many theories for your entertainment. You're welcome 🙋♂️
Clearly this was never a defensive feature for multiple reasons. The only small problem with your alternative theory is that water tends not to flow uphill and the soil here is very thin on top of chalk. Basically you couldn't have a worse situation to try and build a canal. For these obvious reasons, all known canals have been built to follow the lie of the land, minimising gradients, and lined with clay - just like the Kennet and Avon canal very nearby! If the water table was as high as you say - and high enough to fill the Wansdyke at the tops of the hills it crosses - then you wouldn't need any canal, you could just take your boat on the seas all around! The other problem with any canal theory is that canals go from point A to point B and both points need to be important enough to justify the colossal effort involved in building and maintaining. Since neither London nor Bristol cities existed in prehistoric times, you need to come up with a massive economic reason to justify such a bizarre theory as linking the Thames and Severn thousands of years before it actually happened.
neolithic canal. wow!
Thanks for watching 🙂
Why should the several thousand Mesolithic inhabitants of England spend their free time for a century to build this canal to transport What?
Makes sense they just use water to architect the landscape. They wouldn't use manual labor. Water hydrolics.
Those smarties.
They knew how to use the nature. The wind and the water .
Interesting theory for sure, the gaps being rivers of melt water, but was the population 6-8,000 years ago large enough for this kind of undertaking, that's a mind blowing amount of work for thousands of men who were living in small tribes consumed with the daily tasks of hunting to feed their families 24/7 when the entire population of British Isles at that time was thought to be less than maybe a few thousand. Plus would they have all come together to be organised by a commanding administration with a scheme and who was the group with the plan? What would be the incentive and benefits to leaving their families to work there at that period? It would require not only massive amounts of food for the workers themselves but also family food to replace what they had lost by not hunting and why even build it, it wasn't needed....unless they were slaves, native or invading, taking from their tribes and forced to work and then they would require a huge amount of guarding again by a large central administration, does sound like the Romans were the only ones who could have done this with native slaves. So much to consider with a theory such as this. 6-8k years ago men would have had ample water and no need for a canal going anywhere.