From the Rhône to Wansdyke: The Case for a Standardised Canal Boat in Prehistoric Britain

May 11, 2025 Trebor2510

Contents

1 Introduction
2 🧠 Conclusion:They put the pieces together logically:
3 Exploring Prehistoric Britain: A Journey Through Time
4 Further Reading
5 Other Blogs

Introduction

In 2004, archaeologists working near Arles in southern France discovered a remarkable Roman barge buried in the silt of the Rhône River. Named the Arles Rhône 3, this 1st-century AD vessel is a masterpiece of Roman-era inland water transport. But beyond its craftsmanship lies a deeper story—one that could reshape how we view Britain’s ancient linear earthworks.

Was this boat design truly Roman? Or did it originate earlier, as part of a pan-European river and canal culture? And if so, could Britain’s dykes and waterways—like the Car Dyke, Wansdyke, and the Vallum—have used similar vessels? Let’s dive in. (Rhône to Wansdyke).

The Arles Rhône 3: A Flat-Bottomed Marvel

The Arles Rhône 3 is about 31 meters long and 3 meters wide, with a flat-bottomed hull, shallow draft, and a side rudder for steering. These traits make it ideal for shallow rivers and canals—not the open sea. It was built with robust oak planks using mortise-and-tenon joinery, a technique consistent with Roman construction standards, though not unique to them.

This barge wasn’t designed for speed or waves. It was built to carry cargo—up to 30 tonnes—downriver efficiently, and then be towed back upstream by oxen, slaves, or ropes along towpaths. This was standard practice across the empire.

But here’s the crucial detail: this design predates Roman occupation. Flat-bottomed boats were used by Gauls and other European cultures for centuries before the Romans arrived. The Romans didn’t invent the design—they simply adopted and refined it. (Rhône to Wansdyke).

Roman Shipbuilding: The Great Inheritor

The Romans were not seafaring pioneers. Their naval tradition was built by copying and improving on the technologies of others—Carthaginians, Greeks, Celts, and Phoenicians. Even the famed Roman quinqueremes were based on captured Carthaginian ships.

What the Romans excelled at was standardisation and replication. Once they saw something that worked—be it a road, aqueduct, or barge—they duplicated it across the empire. The Arles Rhône 3 represents not an isolated invention, but a functional watercraft refined for mass deployment across inland Europe. (Rhône to Wansdyke).

Britain’s Dykes and Waterways: Built for Boats?

One of the strongest pieces of evidence supporting the canal hypothesis lies in the geography of Britain itself. Much of the island’s landscape is hilly and fed by abundant natural springs, particularly at higher elevations. These springs would have provided a consistent water source at altitude, ideal for feeding manmade waterways through gravity alone.

Now consider this: many quarries and prehistoric stone sources are found at the tops of hills. Flat-bottomed barges like the Arles Rhône 3, when used in this context, make perfect engineering sense. They could be dragged uphill while empty—a task made easier by constructing a large earthen bank or causeway—and then floated downhill fully loaded, using gravity and spring-fed water flow to move cargo efficiently.

This system would eliminate the need for locks or complex water-lifting infrastructure. The consistent gradient and the known spring-fed terrain match perfectly with this form of gravity-assisted water transport. It fits so well with the physical structure of earthworks like Wansdyke and the Vallum that it goes a long way to support the idea that these were never just boundaries or defensive moats—they were engineered canals, tailored for one-way barge traffic designed for the landscape.

Now let’s look at Britain. The Car Dyke, Wansdyke, and Vallum are long, linear earthworks that resemble canals more than fortifications. They run through low-lying, sloping terrain, have consistent gradients, and in many cases, align with rivers and spring sources. (Rhône to Wansdyke).

These are precisely the conditions that suit flat-bottomed barges like the Arles Rhône 3:

Shallow water: ✔️
Gentle gradients: ✔️
Cargo transport potential: ✔️
Limited need for locks: ✔️

If the Romans were using this design in Gaul and the Rhine, why wouldn’t they use the same boats in Britain’s engineered water routes?

Even more compelling—what if these British earthworks predate Roman occupation, and the Romans simply inherited them, just as they did the boat design?

The Logic of a Pan-European Canal Culture

Flat-bottomed barges are functionally inevitable in any society using water transport through shallow inland terrain. If Gauls had them before the Romans, and Romans used them everywhere from the Rhône to the Po, there’s every reason to think that prehistoric Britons used them too.

Perhaps the real question isn’t whether Roman barges came to Britain—but whether Britain’s prehistoric canal system inspired the very model the Romans used elsewhere. (Rhône to Wansdyke).

Arles Rhône 3: Evidence of One-Way Flow Design

🔻 1. Hull Design: One-Way Flow Bias
The flat-bottomed hull is ideal for shallow, slow-moving water.

But crucially: this shape is not suited to sailing upstream—especially in rivers with even modest currents.

The boat’s structure lacks features (like a deep keel or robust rigging) needed to tack against the flow—meaning it could go downstream easily, but upstream only with assistance.

🐂 2. Towpaths and Towing Evidence
Roman documents (like those by Pliny the Elder) describe towpaths along rivers and canals.

In many parts of the empire (e.g. the Moselle, Po, Tiber, Rhône), goods were floated downstream, and barges were then dragged back by animals or slaves.

Archaeological traces of towpaths—flattened, eroded soil tracks along riverbanks—appear alongside known Roman transport routes.

🔄 3. Wear Patterns and Construction
The wear on the hull of Arles Rhône 3 is consistent with slow, controlled navigation, not being battered by surf or fast-moving water.

Its broad beam and robust timber joinery would have made it sturdy under lateral stress—ideal for being dragged when empty.

📦 4. Transport Economics: Gravity Efficiency
Roman freight economics favoured downhill bulk movement (grains, wine, amphorae) from inland settlements toward ports like Arles, where goods could be offloaded to sea vessels.

It was far more efficient to send heavy goods downstream and then haul the empty barge back uphill.

Example: A full barge might carry 15–30 tonnes of goods downstream, but return empty or lightly loaded—making overland or riverbank hauling feasible.

🧾 5. Roman Textual Support
The Codex Theodosianus and other Roman records refer to barge haulers (tractores or halatores) as part of commercial operations.

Writings from the late Empire reference teams of oxen or slaves towing barges upstream, including detailed provisions for how and when they were paid or taxed.

🏞️ 6. Rhône Geography
The Rhône is a strongly flowing river—even today.

Before modern locks and dams, upstream sailing was nearly impossible for heavy vessels.

Barges like Arles Rhône 3 were almost certainly floated downstream from Roman workshops or upriver loading points, then dragged back to repeat the cycle.

🧠 Conclusion:
They put the pieces together logically:

The design says “downstream floater.”
The Roman transport economy says “drag it back up.”
The archaeological context shows towpath-compatible riverbanks.
The written sources say “yes, we hauled stuff.”

So the idea that Arles Rhône 3 and its ilk were floated with gravity and hauled by muscle is not just theory—it’s a conclusion based on design pragmatism, textual evidence, and site context. (Rhône to Wansdyke).

Reclaiming the Narrative

The Arles Rhône 3 doesn’t just tell us about Roman logistics. It gives us a template for understanding the practicality of prehistoric British water transport.

Roman or not, the boat’s design proves one thing: if you have a canal, you need a barge like this. And if Britain has thousands of kilometres of mysterious linear earthworks designed for water—then we know exactly what kind of boat would have sailed through them.

It’s time to stop calling them ditches and start recognising them for what they may truly be: the ancient motorways of a forgotten seafaring civilisation. (Rhône to Wansdyke).

Exploring Prehistoric Britain: A Journey Through Time

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

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

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

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