Unmasking the “Iron Age Hillfort” Myth

Introduction

I’m challenging the long-held belief that many sites across Britain, traditionally labeled as “Iron Age Hillforts,” were built primarily for defence. Instead, I argue these sites, rather than being fortresses meant for warfare, were vibrant centres of trade and commerce, with unique features that connect them to waterborne transport and economic activity. By meticulously examining archaeological findings and employing the latest LiDAR technology, I aim to deconstruct the conventional narrative surrounding these sites, focusing on three prominent examples: Danebury, Maiden Castle, and Old Sarum.

At the heart of this reassessment is a fundamental question: were these sites indeed conceived as fortifications, or have modern interpretations mistakenly imposed a militaristic lens onto structures with potentially diverse purposes? While these sites might have been repurposed for defence in later periods, I propose that their original function was far removed from warfare. This theory gains strength by thoroughly examining the three case studies, each offering compelling evidence to support this new perspective.

Starting with Danebury, located in Hampshire, England, it exemplifies the limits of current archaeological classifications. Often cited as a quintessential Iron Age Hillfort, Danebury’s true origins, as I see it, lie further back in history. Carbon dating of artefacts within the site suggests a history stretching into the Bronze Age, possibly even as far back as the Neolithic, undermining the “Iron Age” label.

I point to the design of Danebury’s ditches as a clue to its original purpose. The fact that more earthwork material is deposited on the outer side of the ditch, unlike a typical defensive design, raises doubts about its purely defensive role. Further, LiDAR analysis reveals a linear earthwork or dyke that connects to the outer ditch, hinting at a possible connection to an ancient river system. I believe this suggests that Danebury may have served as a vital access point to a navigable waterway, facilitating trade and movement along the river.

Then there’s Maiden Castle, Britain’s largest hillfort in Dorset. Its sheer size and strategic location seemingly support the traditional idea of a fortress, yet I highlight the logistical hurdles inherent in defending such a vast space. Maintaining a defensive stance at Maiden Castle would have required an immense workforce and a supporting infrastructure of water sources, food supplies, and facilities for weapon and armour production. However, despite extensive archaeological surveys and detailed LiDAR scans, evidence of such infrastructure is notably absent. This lack of essential defensive elements doubts the idea of Maiden Castle as a military stronghold.

In addition, the flat-bottomed ditches at Maiden Castle resemble those found at other prehistoric sites, like Avebury, Stonehenge, and Old Sarum. These unique ditches weaken the argument for a purely defensive function, hinting instead at a shared purpose across these sites.

Old Sarum, a site in Wiltshire with a rich and layered history, further supports my argument against the simplistic “Iron Age Hillfort” label. Located in a floodplain on an island rather than a hill, as one would expect for a “hillfort,” Old Sarum’s placement raises immediate questions. LiDAR analysis shows that the spoil from its ditch was placed on the outside rather than inside—again, contradicting defensive design conventions. Examining the site’s water table and discovering a deep well suggest that the ditches may have once acted as moats. These moats, filled by a higher water table in the past, could have served as part of a waterborne trade system, allowing boats to navigate to the site.

Another aspect that supports my theory is the logistical impracticality of maintaining multiple “hillforts” close to each other. Given the likely limited population in prehistoric Britain, building and sustaining numerous large-scale defensive structures in a relatively small area would have strained resources and human resources. This suggests these sites may have served purposes that fostered cooperation and economic exchange rather than conflict.

Finally, a compelling “smoking gun” for this theory is the complete absence of human remains within the ditches of these so-called “Iron Age Hillforts.” If battles had occurred at these sites, we would expect to find evidence of casualties within the defensive perimeter. The lack of such evidence is significant, prompting a reconsideration of their true nature.

Drawing on archaeological evidence and insights from LiDAR technology, I present a strong case for a paradigm shift in our understanding of these enigmatic sites. The traditional interpretation of “Iron Age Hillforts” as primarily defensive structures doesn’t hold up under scrutiny, paving the way for a new perspective. Instead, I believe these sites were bustling centres of trade and commerce, intricately connected by waterways and essential hubs for economic activity in prehistoric Britain.

Other Information

Debunking the Iron Age Hill Fort: A Review of Robert John Langdon’s Claims

This briefing document reviews the main themes and arguments presented by independent researcher Robert John Langdon on his website Prehistoric Britain. Langdon challenges the traditional interpretation of numerous archaeological sites in Britain, specifically those categorized as “Iron Age Hill Forts.” He posits that these sites, based on his analysis of LiDAR data and reinterpretations of existing archaeological evidence, pre-date the Iron Age, served purposes other than defense, and are often misclassified. (Unmasking the “Iron Age Hillfort” Myth)

Main Themes:

• Misclassified as “Iron Age”: Langdon argues that many sites labeled as Iron Age hill forts contain evidence (primarily flint artifacts) pointing to significantly earlier occupation, potentially dating back to the Neolithic or even Mesolithic periods. He uses Danebury and Maiden Castle as primary examples. He states, “a significant proportion of these hillforts, often exceeding a staggering 95%, have unveiled themselves to be significantly more ancient than the Iron Age.”
• Not Primarily Defensive Structures: Langdon challenges the defensive interpretation of these sites, citing the lack of skeletal remains indicative of warfare found within their ditches. He argues that the shape and size of ditches at some sites, such as Maiden Castle and Old Sarum, are more consistent with moats, suggesting alternative functions like water management, trade, or symbolic boundaries. He emphatically states, “Not a solitary remains of a life extinguished in conflict has ever been unearthed within the confines of the ditches encircling any of the two thousand so-called ‘Iron Age Forts’ that punctuate history.”
• LiDAR Reveals a Different Story: Langdon heavily relies on LiDAR technology to support his claims. He argues that LiDAR reveals features missed by traditional archaeological methods, such as the true extent of linear earthworks at Danebury and the absence of wells at Maiden Castle, which would have been essential for sustaining a large defending population. He also uses LiDAR to dispute the existence of Roman roads at Old Sarum, challenging established narratives.
• Logistical Impossibility of Defense: Using Maiden Castle as an example, Langdon argues that defending such a large site would have required an enormous and unsustainable logistical effort in terms of manpower, food, water, and weaponry. He contrasts this with the lack of archaeological evidence for such infrastructure, concluding that the traditional narrative of a heavily defended fortress is untenable.

Important Ideas/Facts:

• Danebury: While traditionally classified as an Iron Age site, Langdon highlights radiocarbon dating results placing its origins in the Bronze Age. He emphasizes the discovery of Neolithic and early Bronze Age flints and questions the defensive nature of the site’s ditches based on their construction.
• Maiden Castle: Langdon disputes its Iron Age designation based on the presence of Neolithic artifacts. He argues that the scale of the site would have necessitated a massive logistical network to sustain a large population, which is unsupported by archaeological findings. He also questions the defensive purpose of the ditches based on their shape and the lack of evidence for essential infrastructure like wells.
• Old Sarum: Langdon challenges its categorization as a hill fort due to its location in a floodplain. He uses LiDAR data to refute the existence of Roman roads through the site and suggests that the ditches might have been moats, potentially used for water management or trade.

(Unmasking the “Iron Age Hillfort” Myth)

Critical Analysis:

While Langdon raises thought-provoking points and emphasizes the potential of LiDAR technology, several aspects of his argument require careful consideration:

• Overreliance on Absence of Evidence: The lack of skeletal remains within ditches doesn’t definitively rule out the possibility of conflict. Warfare might have occurred elsewhere, bodies could have been removed, or preservation conditions might be unfavorable.
• Selective Interpretation: While emphasizing inconsistencies in traditional narratives, Langdon’s interpretations of LiDAR data and archaeological evidence may also be subjective. Alternative explanations for the observed features might exist.
• Lack of Peer Review: As an independent researcher, Langdon’s work hasn’t undergone the rigorous scrutiny of academic peer review, which is essential for validating his claims and interpretations.

Conclusion:

Langdon’s work serves as a reminder that archaeological interpretations are constantly evolving with new discoveries and technologies. His challenges to established narratives, while requiring further scrutiny, highlight the importance of reassessing assumptions and integrating new data into our understanding of the past.

(Unmasking the “Iron Age Hillfort” Myth)

Briefing Doc: Rethinking Prehistoric Britain

Source: Excerpts from “Old Sarum Lidar Map – Prehistoric Britain” and “The Great Iron Age Hill Fort Hoax – Prehistoric Britain” on prehistoric-britain.co.uk

Author: Robert John Langdon

Main Themes:

• Challenging Conventional Archaeological Narratives: Langdon questions long-held assumptions about prominent prehistoric sites in Britain, particularly the classification and function of “Iron Age Hill Forts.” He utilizes LiDAR technology to re-examine these sites, proposing alternative interpretations based on new evidence.
• The Post-Glacial Flooding Hypothesis: This hypothesis, central to Langdon’s work, suggests that rising sea levels after the last Ice Age significantly impacted the British landscape and the lives of its inhabitants. He posits that many sites currently categorized as defensive structures may have served different purposes, potentially related to a maritime civilization.
• The Importance of LiDAR in Archaeological Research: Langdon emphasizes the transformative power of LiDAR technology in revealing hidden landscape features and challenging traditional interpretations. He argues that LiDAR data compels a reevaluation of many archaeological assumptions.

Key Ideas/Facts:

• Reinterpreting “Iron Age Hill Forts”:Location: Langdon challenges the assumption that these sites were exclusively hilltop fortifications. He cites Old Sarum, located in a floodplain, as an example.
• Ditch Construction: The construction of ditches at sites like Danebury and Maiden Castle, with more material deposited on the outer side and flat-bottomed profiles, raises questions about their defensive purpose. This construction style resembles Norman castle moats, which were filled with water.
• Lack of Battle Evidence: The absence of any human remains found within the ditches of these “hill forts” casts doubt on their role in warfare.
• Alternative Function: Langdon suggests that these sites may have served as centers for trade and transportation, possibly linked by a network of canals and navigable waterways.
• The Impact of Post-Glacial Flooding:Elevated Water Tables: Higher water tables in prehistoric times would have made the ditches at these sites readily floodable, creating moats.
• Maritime Civilization: Langdon proposes the existence of a sophisticated maritime civilization in prehistoric Britain, capable of constructing and utilizing these sites for navigation and trade.
• LiDAR as an Archaeological Tool:Revealing Hidden Features: LiDAR helps uncover previously unknown landscape features, such as the “Dyke” at Danebury, providing new insights into the connections between sites and their potential functions.
• Challenging Assumptions: LiDAR data forces archaeologists to reconsider traditional interpretations and develop new hypotheses based on a more comprehensive understanding of the landscape.

Supporting Quotes:

• “In archaeology, I believe honesty is paramount. Categorising sites under broad labels like “Iron Age Forts” oversimplifies their complexities.”
• “This new understanding of the water table also opens up the possibility that the outer ditch was also moated up to the Norman conquest and moreover, during the Roman period – this is something that needs urgent explanation and further study.”
• “Might we be gazing upon prehistoric moats, which, in the bygone era of elevated water tables, would have readily filled to assume the characteristics of a moat?”
• “Not a solitary remains of a life extinguished in conflict has ever been unearthed within the confines of the ditches encircling any of the two thousand so-called ‘Iron Age Forts’ that punctuate history.”

Significance:

Langdon’s work presents a provocative challenge to traditional archaeological interpretations of prehistoric Britain. By utilizing new technologies like LiDAR and questioning long-held assumptions, he opens up new avenues of research and encourages a more nuanced understanding of the past. His work has implications for how we view the capabilities and complexities of prehistoric societies and the forces that shaped the British landscape.

(Unmasking the “Iron Age Hillfort” Myth)

Further Reading

For information about British Prehistory, visit www.prehistoric-britain.co.uk for the most extensive archaeology blogs and investigations collection, including modern LiDAR reports.  This site also includes extracts and articles from the Robert John Langdon Trilogy about Britain in the Prehistoric period, including titles such as The Stonehenge Enigma, Dawn of the Lost Civilisation and the ultimate proof of Post Glacial Flooding and the landscape we see today.

Robert John Langdon has also created a YouTube web channel with over 100 investigations and video documentaries to support his classic trilogy (Prehistoric Britain). He has also released a collection of strange coincidences that he calls ‘13 Things that Don’t Make Sense in History’ and his recent discovery of a lost Stone Avenue at Avebury in Wiltshire called ‘Silbury Avenue – the Lost Stone Avenue’.

(Unmasking the “Iron Age Hillfort” Myth)

Langdon has also produced a series of ‘shorts’, which are extracts from his main body of books:

The Ancient Mariners

Stonehenge Built 8300 BCE

Old Sarum

Prehistoric Rivers

Dykes ditches and Earthworks

Echoes of Atlantis

Homo Superior

(Unmasking the “Iron Age Hillfort” Myth)

For active discussions on the findings of the TRILOGY and recent LiDAR investigations that are published on our WEBSITE, you can join our and leave a message or join the debate on our Facebook Group.

Unlocking the Mysteries of British Prehistory

Delve into the depths of time, as we embark on a captivating voyage into the enigmatic world of British prehistory. www.prehistoric-britain.co.uk is your portal to a treasure trove of archaeological wonders, modern LiDAR reports, and fascinating insights from the Robert John Langdon Trilogy. This immersive digital hub is your key to unlocking the secrets of Britain’s ancient past.

(Unmasking the “Iron Age Hillfort” Myth)

A Glimpse into the Robert John Langdon Trilogy

Step into the shoes of Robert John Langdon, a dedicated explorer of Britain’s prehistoric mysteries. His trilogy, comprising “The Stonehenge Enigma,” “Dawn of the Lost Civilization,” and “The Post-Glacial Flooding Hypothesis,” is a literary marvel that unravels the untold tales of our ancestors. These books take you on an exhilarating journey through time, meticulously researched and backed by over 125 references from esteemed scientists, archaeological experts, and geological researchers.

(Unmasking the “Iron Age Hillfort” Myth)

Dive into the World of LiDAR

At www.prehistoric-britain.co.uk, we harness the power of LiDAR technology to unearth hidden landscapes and archaeological marvels. Our LiDAR reports offer a modern lens through which you can peer into ancient history. Explore the effects of flooding on the British environment after the great ice age melt, a phenomenon that has shaped the landscape we see today. Join us in decoding the mysteries of our past using cutting-edge technology.

(Unmasking the “Iron Age Hillfort” Myth)

A Multimedia Experience

Our commitment to storytelling extends beyond the written word. Robert John Langdon has curated a rich multimedia experience, including a YouTube web channel featuring over 100 investigations and video documentaries. These visual journeys complement his classic trilogy, providing a multi-dimensional understanding of prehistoric Britain. From Stonehenge’s construction in 8300 BCE to the lost Stone Avenue at Avebury in Wiltshire known as ‘Silbury Avenue,’ these documentaries offer an immersive experience that brings history to life.

(Unmasking the “Iron Age Hillfort” Myth)

Explore the ’13 Things that Don’t Make Sense in Ancient History’

History is replete with anomalies and enigmas that defy explanation. Robert John Langdon has curated a collection of such historical curiosities in ’13 Things that Don’t Make Sense in History.’ These peculiar occurrences and unanswered questions will leave you pondering the mysteries of the past, inviting you to join the debate on their possible interpretations.

(Unmasking the “Iron Age Hillfort” Myth)

More Blogs

(Unmasking the “Iron Age Hillfort” Myth)