Twigs, Charcoal, and the Death of the Saxon Dyke Myth

June 22, 2025 Trebor2510

Contents

1 Introduction
2 Conclusion: Follow the Data, Not the Doctrine
3 References
4 Annex: The “Twig” Radiocarbon Dates—Technical Details
5 Further Reading
6 Other Blogs

Introduction

For over a century, British archaeology has repeated the same tale: Offa’s Dyke and Wat’s Dyke were built by Saxon kings to define borders and display royal power. But each time we peel back another layer—literally and figuratively—the data tells a radically different story. This is no longer about interpretation or fringe theory. The scientific evidence, especially from radiocarbon dating, blows the Saxon myth apart.(Twigs, Charcoal, and the Death of the Saxon Dyke Myth)

1. The Mesolithic Nuts Beneath the Bank

At Gobowen, Shropshire, archaeologists uncovered pits beneath Wat’s Dyke filled with charred hazelnut shells and twigs. Radiocarbon dating placed these at 5210–4840 BC—deep into the Mesolithic. This is not “background noise.” It proves the site was in use—and likely managed—thousands of years before any so-called Saxon activity. (Twigs, Charcoal, and the Death of the Saxon Dyke Myth)

2. The “Twigs” and the Bronze Age Pattern

Here’s where things get explosive. Two different digs—at Gobowen and Maes-y-Clawdd—each pulled a charred twig from the primary fill of the dyke’s ditch. Both were sent to modern AMS labs for dating. These were sent to independent AMS labs for testing:

Gobowen: 2825 ± 40 BP, calibrated to 1120–890 BC
Maes-y-Clawdd: 2855 ± 40 BP, calibrated to 1120–890 BC

Different labs, different sites, nearly identical dates: Late Bronze Age.
Some might claim “residuality” or accident, but when the same date keeps showing up in primary contexts at different sites, the odds of pure coincidence plummet.(Twigs, Charcoal, and the Death of the Saxon Dyke Myth)

3. Erddig and Chirk: More Prehistoric Dates

The new gold standard in the debate is the peer-reviewed Archaeologia Cambrensis study (Malim et al. 2021), which returned:

Erddig: Alder charcoal under the bank, 1414–1258 BC (Bronze Age)
Chirk: Charcoal at base of bank, 776–543 BC (Iron Age)

These aren’t rogue samples. They are part of a systematic pattern. (Twigs, Charcoal, and the Death of the Saxon Dyke Myth)

4. The Car Dyke and Wansdyke Parallels

Our recent research on Car Dyke—summarised in my book, Car Dyke: The Lost Waterways of Prehistoric Britain—shows exactly the same pattern. LiDAR analysis, gradient modeling, and dated artefacts reveal this “Roman” canal sits atop a much older, prehistoric water-management system, later adapted by the Romans. The same sequence—prehistoric construction, Roman enhancement, and later reuse—emerges at other great linear earthworks.

Wansdyke: More than Just a Saxon Bank and Ditch

Roman Water System at the Summit:
Topographic and archaeological evidence shows that a Roman water-management system, likely an aqueduct or channel, was constructed along sections of Wansdyke near Cliffe Pypard and Cherhill. The Roman works appear to incorporate the line and gradient of the existing dyke, indicating that the dyke was already present and subsequently adapted for Roman infrastructure needs. This reuse implies that the dyke is pre-Roman in origin, forming part of an older, possibly prehistoric, water-management landscape. Rather than constructing a new route, the Romans modified what was already there—strong evidence that Wansdyke was not their creation, but an earlier engineering feature they found valuable enough to repurpose.
Roman Road Laid On the Dyke:
To the north of Morgan’s Hill, a documented Roman road is physically laid on top of the Wansdyke bank. The logical sequence? The dyke had to exist before the road. (For detail and field evidence, see: prehistoric-britain.co.uk/prehistoric-canals-dykes-wansdyke4)
The Implication:
These features make it impossible to honestly claim that Wansdyke is purely a Saxon or sub-Roman structure. Instead, we’re seeing a prehistoric engineering work—possibly a canal or water-management feature—repurposed by the Romans, and then again in later centuries.

(Twigs, Charcoal, and the Death of the Saxon Dyke Myth)

A Consistent Prehistoric Pattern

The parallels between Car Dyke, Wansdyke, Offa’s Dyke, and Wat’s Dyke are now undeniable:

All show prehistoric (Mesolithic, Bronze Age, or Iron Age) dates or structural evidence in primary contexts.
All were reused, enlarged, or recut by later societies—be it the Romans, Saxons, or Medievals.
All have been misunderstood because traditional narratives refuse to follow the evidence.

(Twigs, Charcoal, and the Death of the Saxon Dyke Myth)

5. Why the Saxon Narrative No Longer Holds

Traditional archaeology claims these dykes were built in the Dark Ages because it’s “what’s always been said” and because a handful of OSL dates cluster in the early medieval period. But with so many radiocarbon dates from secure, primary contexts returning Bronze Age and Iron Age results, the only scientific response is to question the narrative—not the data.

This shift isn’t limited to a few isolated studies. In 2019, Historic England (formerly English Heritage) published a national overview of linear earthworks, concluding that most of the dykes they had investigated dated to the prehistoric period, not the early medieval one. Their guidance document, Prehistoric Linear Boundary Earthworks, situates these features firmly in the Late Neolithic through to the Iron Age, aligning with the growing body of radiocarbon evidence and undermining the traditional Dark Age attribution.

Rather than reinforcing the Saxon story, modern research now supports a much older, more complex landscape—one that was later reused and reinterpreted by the Romans and Saxons alike.

(Twigs, Charcoal, and the Death of the Saxon Dyke Myth)

6. AI and Modern Method: The Death of Peer-Reviewed Dogma

For years, peer review has failed to challenge inherited assumptions. “Authority” was all that mattered—a single, dramatic radiocarbon date (like the infamous 6.25 kg of charcoal at Maes-y-Clawdd) could define an entire monument’s chronology, regardless of context or contradictory data from other sites.

But now? AI is revolutionising how we check and interpret archaeological evidence.

Take our recent FB post, where we used AI to reassess the Maes-y-Clawdd excavation:

Myth: The excavation report’s headline date (c. 400 AD) from the charcoal was endlessly repeated as proof of a “Roman” or “sub-Roman” dyke.
AI’s Role:
- Pulled together site photos, original reports, ditch profiles, and stratigraphy from multiple digs.
- Flagged the ditch’s V-shape (classic recut) and the heavy truncation of the bank (over half missing)—which undermined the idea that the charcoal was securely “sealed” and contemporary with construction.
- Cross-referenced other sites (Gobowen, Erddig, Chirk), showing that Bronze Age and Iron Age dates in similar primary contexts kept reappearing—not as random “residuals,” but as a systematic pattern.
Outcome:
- Instead of blindly accepting published “facts,” AI let us validate or reject past interpretations using all the available primary evidence.
- The “Roman” story now stands exposed as an artefact of interpretation, not of data.

This is not “pseudoscience”—it’s the very definition of the scientific method:

Gather all the evidence.
Challenge every conclusion.
Rebuild the narrative when the facts demand it.

Just as AI is transforming genetics, climate science, and engineering, it’s now arming archaeology with the ability to see through myths, correct errors, and put our past on a solid, evidence-based footing. If you want real history, let the data—and AI—lead the way. (Twigs, Charcoal, and the Death of the Saxon Dyke Myth)

Conclusion: Follow the Data, Not the Doctrine

The parallels between Offa’s Dyke, Wat’s Dyke, Car Dyke, and Wansdyke are now undeniable:

All show prehistoric (Mesolithic, Bronze Age, or Iron Age) evidence in primary contexts
All were reused, recut, or adapted by Romans, Saxons, and Medieval societies
All have been misunderstood because inherited narratives resisted revision

The story we’ve been told—that Saxon kings built these monuments as borders—is no longer sustainable.

The data demands a paradigm shift. (Twigs, Charcoal, and the Death of the Saxon Dyke Myth)

References

Hannaford, H.R. (1997), SCCAS Report no. 111, An Interim Report on Archaeological Excavations on Wat’s Dyke at Maes-y-Clawdd, Oswestry.
Malim, T. & Hayes, L. (2008), The Date and Nature of Wat’s Dyke: a reassessment in the light of recent investigations at Gobowen, Shropshire, ASSAH 15.
Malim, T., Hoggard, C., et al. (2021). “Offa’s Dyke and Wat’s Dyke: Scientific Dating at Chirk and Erddig, North Wales.” Archaeologia Cambrensis, 170, pp. 93–117.
Langdon, R.J. (2024), Car Dyke: The Lost Waterways of Prehistoric Britain.
For Wansdyke Roman features and road evidence: prehistoric-britain.co.uk/prehistoric-canals-dykes-wansdyke4

Twigs, Charcoal, and the Death of the Saxon Dyke Myth

Annex: The “Twig” Radiocarbon Dates—Technical Details

For those who want the technical data, here are the exact C14 results from the two most cited Bronze Age “twig” samples:

Site	Sample Type	Lab Code	Radiocarbon Age (BP)	Error	Calibrated Range (2σ)	Context
Gobowen	Charred twig	GU-14866	2825	±40	1120–890 BC	Primary ditch fill
Maes-y-Clawdd	Charred twig	(various)	2855	±40	1120–890 BC	Lower ditch fill

Both dates are from independent, high-quality AMS labs, and ±40 years is standard error for these samples.
The calibration uses the most up-to-date IntCal curve.
Their remarkable similarity is not a flaw, but evidence for a real prehistoric episode.