White Sheet Camp

Introduction

The video (not mine!!) provides a valuable visual of the landscape around White Sheet Camp, illustrating how much detail is obscured when viewed from ground level. This highlights why traditional methods of landscape surveying, which relied heavily on ground-based observation, often missed key features. Unsurprisingly, many peer-reviewed books contain inaccuracies, as walking the terrain without modern tools like LiDAR leads to an incomplete understanding of these ancient sites. The video helps to demonstrate the importance of using advanced technologies in revealing the full complexity of these historical landscapes, rather than subjective observations. Note that the Neolithic Causeway is the Cross-Dyke and the Barrow is probably a fire beacon for the boats to follow to the trading site.

According to Wikipedia

White Sheet Hill, also known as Whitesheet Hill, is a hill in the English county of Wiltshire. As one of the most westerly areas of downland in Britain the area is noted for its chalky farmland which contains a rich variety of rare and protected fauna and flora. The hill is also the site of a neolithic causeway camp and barrows; and an Iron Age hill fort. The Roman road which runs along the hill was at one time the main route through the Selwood Forest. The hill is part of the Stourhead estate and has been in the ownership of the National Trust since 1946.

The hill is the site of the 136.1 hectares (336 acres) Whitesheet Hill biological Site of Special Scientific Interest, notified in 1965.

There are some 12 ancient burial mounds (barrows) on the hill dating from 1800 BC,^[2] and a large Iron Age hillfort called White Sheet Camp.^[3]

The site was excavated by Sir Richard Hoare, 2nd Baronet in the early 19th century:^[4]

Immediately on ascending the hill called Whitesheet, we find ourselves surrounded by British antiquities. The road intersects an ancient earthen work, of a circular form, and which, from the slightness of its vallum, appears to have been of high antiquity. Adjoining it is a large barrow, which we opened in October 1807, and found it had contained a skeleton, and had been investigated before.

On a point of land near this barrow are three others, all of which, by the defaced appearance of their summits, seemed to have attracted the notice of former antiquaries. No 1, the nearest to the edge of the hill, had certainly been opened, and appears to have contained a double interment. The primary one was an interment of burned bones deposited within a shallow cist, in an urn rudely formed, and badly baked. Above it was a skeleton with its head laid towards the south, and which from its position and perfect preservation appears not to have been disturbed. Its mouth was wide open, and it “grinn’d horribly a ghastly smile,” a singularity we have never before met with.

Location

White Sheet Hill is divided between the civil parishes of Kilmington, Mere , and Stourton, along with Gasper. It is situated within the Cranborne Chase and West Wiltshire Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and has extensive views over Somerset, Dorset and Wiltshire. It is home to White Sheet Radio Flying Club, which uses it as a slope-soaring site for fun and competition flying.

Excavations/History

This monument includes a large multivallate hillfort with two bowl barrows and a beacon situated on the summit of a prominent south facing spur of White Sheet Hill at the top of a very steep scarp slope overlooking a dry valley. The hillfort survives as roughly oval enclosure defined by three widely spaced ramparts with ditches to the north and east and by a single ditch and slight rampart to the west and south where the steep natural scarps are augmented. The inner enclosure is approximately 2ha, the medial enclosed area 0.6ha and the outer 0.9ha and all three areas contain large quantities of circular platforms measuring up to 12m in diameter which indicate a proliferation of dense settlement throughout the entire interior.

The hillfort is thought to be multi-phased, to have started as a single univallate enclosure and to have expanded and become more complex through time. There is a complex entrance which has double portals. The ramparts appear to have been constructed as a series of shorter lengths of bank and ditch which were eventually amalgamated. There is also strong evidence of internal quarry scoops surrounding the interior side of the defences. To the south west two bowl barrows were incorporated into the defences and these survive as circular mounds of 10m and 12.5m in diameter, standing from 0.8m up to 1m high, surrounded by visible quarry ditches from which the construction material was derived of up to 3.5m wide and 0.6m deep.

One barrow mound has a central hollow. Almost central to the inner enclosure is a circular feature that survives as a ring bank measuring 15m in diameter, 4m wide, and 0.5m high, surrounded by an outer ditch of 2m wide and 0.4m deep. These surround a slightly dished interior with a small central mound of 6m in diameter and 0.2m high with a central hollow. A beacon is shown at this position on Saxton’s map of 1576. Although this feature has been interpreted as a disc barrow, possible pond barrow, tree ring or a beacon’s exact date and function is unknown. Still, the beacon appears very likely, given the prominent location and early map depiction. Other features investigated by Colt Hoare as potential barrows were found not to be sepulchral but formed part of the hillfort defences. Iron Age pottery and animal bone have also been recovered within the hillfort as stray surface finds.

Maps

1800s OS Map

GE Satellite Map

LiDAR Map

Investigation

Site Flyaround

Site Flyover

Flyover showing that it was once a landing site for boats as the surrounding area was flooded in Prehistory (Blue)

The SE section of White Sheet Camp shows that a cut was made in the bank so that boats could be placed inside the camp in the moats for loading. Notice also the shape of the moat – is u-shaped and a shallow 3m deep and 18m wide, again no remotely the the classic V-shaped 2m deep 2m wide Roman ankle breaker defense.

The Closed Dyke that goes NE to SW has no defensive bank (clearly with the spoil on both sides of the Ditch, which is 1m deep and 11m wide – allowing boats to be dragged across the hill from one paleochannel to the other.

The NE side of this same Dyke shows (unlike on OS Maps) that the ditch goes all the way down to the bottom of the Paleochannel (natural harbour), suggesting that the boats were hauled up using the bank (with men or animals) as a ‘towpath’ as we see in later Victorian Canals.

Causewayed Enclosure

Historic England Summary

An Early Neolithic causewayed enclosure on Whitesheet Hill. It lies on the western edge of the Wessex downland overlooking the Vale of Wardour. The Neolithic enclosure has one probable entrance, and consists of a single ovoid circuit enclosing 2.3 hectares. It may form part of a larger complex of Neolithic earthworks, comparable to that on Hambledon Hill, although they may also relate to an Iron Age hillfort 350 metres to the south. These include traces of what may be an earlier ditch circuit beneath the hillfort itself and a univallate ovoid enclosure 300 metres to the north-east. Beyond this is an undated cross-ridge dyke which cuts off another spur. Leslie Grinsell identified the site as a causewayed enclosure and Stuart Piggott later carried out limited excavations in 1951. Earthwork survey further excavation took place in 1989-90. Artefacts included pottery, animal bone, and struck flint. Recent research into the dating of causewayed enclosures has indicated that the enclosure was probably built in 3595-3550 cal BC. The circuit seems to have been used for a relatively brief period, probably for up to 55 years. The main phase of activity may have only lasted for a few generations or less.

Comment from RJL

It is truly astonishing that archaeologists continue to label Dykes as Saxon boundary markers, giving them names like Offa’s Dyke and Wansdyke. This stance persists despite evidence that Cross-Dykes are prehistoric. If Dykes were constructed over 4,000 years before the Saxons, it raises the question: was this an engineering skill lost and then reinvented, or is the dating simply incorrect?

My research on Offa’s Dyke and Wansdyke (detailed in my books and blogs) suggests they were built during the Mesolithic/Neolithic periods and later reused by the Romans. This theory is now substantiated by my latest investigation into Car Dyke, which, through Bayesian and spatial (Monte Carlo) mathematics, has been confirmed as the longest dyke in Britain and dates back to the Mesolithic/Bronze Age. Despite this, some archaeologists still label Car Dyke as Roman due to the discovery of a boat laden with goods at its bottom, indicating later usage rather than original construction.

The approach to White Sheet Camp by some archaeologists shows a surprising lack of connected thinking. Classified as a “causewayed enclosure,” which usually involves more than one ring and features causeways between the rings, White Sheet Camp only has a single ring. LiDAR analysis and excavation reports reveal that this ring consists of pits joined together, a construction method similar to Stonehenge Phase I, which our mathematical dating places at 8300 BCE. This aligns with the high river levels of that period, suggesting that the ditches could have been viable for boat use.

More information : (ST 802352) Camp (GT).- From Historic England

Whitesheet Hill: Neolithic causeway camp. Identified by Grinsell in 1950. Trial trenches by Stuart Piggott in 1951 revealed Windmill Hill potsherds and an ox-skull in the ditch silting. A probably EBA barrow (ST 83 NW 49) overlies bank and ditch on the SE. See illustration card. Finds in Devizes Museum, Acc No 10/52/39-54. (2-3)

ST 80173519. A well defined ‘egg shaped’ causewayed camp measuring approximately 200 x 140 metres. The bank, ditch and causeways are clearly visible. Surveyed at 1:2500. (4)Visible on air photographs. (7-8). This Neolithic causewayed camp lies on the edge of a plateau on Whitesheet Hill, at 235m above OD above steep chalk scarps to the south and west and approached by level ridges from the north east and south east. The irregularly interrupted ditch measures 5.0m wide, and 0.4m deep, and has causeways approximately 4m wide. The inner bank is 6.0m wide; it stands up to 1.5m above the ditch bottom and is 0.4m above the interior. The level interior measures 185m north east to south west by 140m transversely, enclosing approximately 2.0 ha. A hollow-way, and a modern road have cut through the camp, but it is otherwise in good condition.

Whitesheet Hill causewayed enclosure has been surveyed by staff of RCHME Salisbury as part of a project focussing on the earthworks of South Wiltshire. The following is abstracted from the archive report:

This oval enclosure is defined by an internal bank and external ditch. Both circuits are interrupted and there are in excess of 23 individual segments of ditch. The enclosure is best defined to the NE of the existing trackway which crosses the site. Here the ditch is identifiable as a series of elongated hollows up to 0.5m in depth, max 0.4m wide and 4-5m long. Within some ditch segments are smaller ’causeways’. The internal bank is correspondingly well-preserved in this area, surviving to a height of c0.7m above the ground surface. It is generally continuous, although there are occasional isolated segments. Although not all discontinuities in the line of the rampart are mirrored in the ditch, these dumps of material relate directly to the excavated ditch sections. Slightly off-set alignments between ditch and rampart causeways are also evident. The enclosure SW of the modern track is less substantial, damage reducing the bank to a series of mound-like dumps. These too tend to occur opposite ditch segments, which in this area are noticeably more irregular and slighter constructions.

Recent quarrying has damaged the NW quadrant of the enclosure. Here, a stone extraction pit c60m in length, 10m wide and 2-4m deep, running parallel to the enclosure has encroached upon c40m of the latter’s ditch.

One potential entrance was located 35m to the W of the round barrow (ST 83 NW 49) which impinges upon the enclosure. The approach to the entrance itself is defined by a double lynchet trackway c10m wide, traceable to the SE for c45m. The entrance itself consisted of a simple gap in the defences c10m wide. Two noticeable misalignments occur in the course of the enclosure boundary. The first of these consists of a misclosure 8m in length between two sections of bank and ditch. The second is a staggered gap of 2-5m. This apparent misplacement of c170m of enclosure circuit (one-third of the entire circuit) suggests non-contemporaneity with the remaining two-thirds.

Comment from RJL

First of all, the ‘hollow way’ is a Dyke that connects to the road and goes down to the bottom of the Paleochannel – the Dyke was replaced by the road when the water table fell, and the shoreline fell down the hill until it reached the present ground level – Probably in the Bronze Age. This means that the Romans also quarried here, as we can see when they cut a path to the Roman Road that replaced the Dyke going down from the site to the paleochannel shoreline.

The so-called Causewayed Enclosure is of great interest as it is near to three other barrows (to the top Right) but is much bigger (the video has the chap climbing it to find a flat top and a crater) – is it a Fire Beacon to attract ships to the Cross-Dyke – there seems to be a part in that direction that stops. The beacon seems to have a moat surrounding it, built on the direct line of one of these 10m long ditches. The other three barrows (HE:1005674) have never been excavated, so dates are speculative, but it doesn’t seem logical to build three round barrows of a size and the one seven times larger unless it had a different purpose.

This would suggest that the ditches were part of the manufacturing process for the site and the likelihood it was to obtain groundwater as the ditches are very narrow and shallow (The irregularly interrupted ditch measures 5.0m wide and 0.4m deep, and has causeways approximately 4m wide) and this water level and alignment would have filled the ditch of the fire beacon also.

If it is similar to the Stonehenge ditch/individual pits, then it could be for the same function—bathing pools. Were the minerals from the quarries (like the bluestones) extracted for health reasons? Archaeologists and geologists alike have never looked at the minerals ancient quarries extracted, and so, sadly, we have a massive hole in our history due to dumb, subjective guesswork and bad science.

Neolithic Camp

No information is available on the Neolithic Camp at any of the official archaeology sites (Earthworks on White Sheet Downs 800yds S of Coombe Barn—1003006), as no excavations have been undertaken, and so the classification is just a guesstimate from the past.

It offer very little in detail in comparison to the other ‘Causedwayed Enclosure’ and so looks like an earlier site abandoned when the waters of the prehistory fell – as the enhancement shows the natural harbour and possibly some path lines to the camp – excavation is required to furrther our understanding of the site (but don’t hold your breath!).

Dykes

The entire site is surrounded by Dykes (as seen on the LiDAR Maps by depressions that are green in colour and red/white banks).

The two main Dykes are NE and NW of the main site (White Sheet Camp). These are classified as ‘Cross-Dykes’ by archaeologists, who now accept that they are Bronze Age in origin (still not correct – but better than the Saxon boundaries of 50 years ago). As we have already shown above, the Dyke to the NW (in green at the start of the blog) dips down into the valley that is dry today but was a river in the Mesolithic period. This LiDAR map below shows how all of the Dykes would have connected to the shorelines of the Mesolithic and hence the reason for their construction.

LiDAR analysis of these Dykes quickly dispels the notion that they were either defensive or markers at any time, as they are only 1m deep. The ditch spill is evenly distributed with slightly more to the right-hand bank (the wrong one if it’s defensive!!) but perfect if you are dragging across a boat full of goods as you have a towpath for yourself or animals to pull the boats across from the natural harbour to the open river.

White Sheet Camp

Accodring to English Hertitage

This monument includes a large multivallate hillfort with two bowl barrows and a beacon situated on the summit of a prominent south facing spur of White Sheet Hill at the top of a very steep scarp slope overlooking a dry valley.

The hillfort survives as roughly oval enclosure defined by three widely spaced ramparts with ditches to the north and east and by a single ditch and slight rampart to the west and south where the steep natural scarps are augmented. The inner enclosure is approximately 2ha, the medial enclosed area 0.6ha and the outer 0.9ha and all three areas contain large quantities of circular platforms measuring up to 12m in diameter which indicate a proliferation of dense settlement throughout the entire interior.

The hillfort is thought to be multi-phased, to have started as a single univallate enclosure and to have expanded and become more complex through time. There is a complex entrance which has double portals. The ramparts appear to have been constructed as a series of shorter lengths of bank and ditch which were eventually amalgamated. There is also strong evidence of internal quarry scoops surrounding the interior side of the defences.

To the south west two bowl barrows were incorporated into the defences and these survive as circular mounds of 10m and 12.5m in diameter, standing from 0.8m up to 1m high, surrounded by visible quarry ditches from which the construction material was derived of up to 3.5m wide and 0.6m deep. One barrow mound has a central hollow.

Almost central to the inner enclosure is a circular feature which survives as a ring bank measuring 15m in diameter, 4m wide and 0.5m high surrounded by an outer ditch of 2m wide and 0.4m deep these surround a slightly dished interior with a small central mound of 6m in diameter and 0.2m high which has a central hollow.

A beacon is shown at this position on Saxton’s map of 1576. Although this feature has been interpreted as a disc barrow, possible pond barrow, tree ring or a beacon its exact date and function is not known but the beacon appears very likely given the prominent location and early map depiction. Other features investigated by Colt Hoare as potential barrows were found not to be sepulchral but formed part of the hillfort defences. Iron Age pottery and animal bone have also been recovered within the hillfort as stray surface finds.

Comment from RJL

The central ‘circular feature with moat is the exact same size as the one found to the NW of the Site at the edge of the so-called ‘Causewayed Enclosure’ except it is not as high – probably as it was reused as a beacon later in history and hence it’s been hollowed out. But the function did not cahnge in over 5,000 years as it was a fire beacon to attact boats to the new harbour to the SE of the site and hence the enhanced Dyke features.

There is no evidence that it was occupied, and the likelihood is that it was a trading centre and processing site for the raw minerals excavated by the causewayed enclosure. The LiDAR map confirms that this was made in stages, with the middle ditch first and complete, then the Inner Ditch NW side – with the rest added in patches at a later date again. The outer bank is of great interest (and missed by archaeologists, as it does not have an associated ditch and the spoil has come from both sides of the bank – this looks like a Roman Feature and no doubt will be revealed if an excavation is done as I suspect a palisade will be found on top of the bank.

Lastly, let’s look at this area in the Mesolithic before the natural harbours were formed in the Late Mesolithic/early Neolithic. We see that this was an isolated island in the landscape. Moreover, we find within this island a Dyke going through the centre and, on the Eastern side, hundreds of small 4m – 8m quarry pits as we have seen with all our investigations of Dykes in Prehistory – this Dyke cuts through both ‘Cross-Dykes’ and terminates at the ‘Causewayed Enclosure. It should be noted that all the Dykes have associated prehistoric Barrows by the side of the cuttings, which confirms the early Neolithic Dates of these features.

Defence Strategy 101

Roman Defense System

Roman defences (of the same period as the ‘Iron Age’ ), we notice the ditches were relatively small and narrow. These ditches were called ‘Ankle Breaker’ as the purpose was for the assailant to fall into the ditch (usually containing pointed wooden stakes to either injure or kill the assailant) or to at least break their ankle from the fall, making them immobile. These ditches would be 3 to 4 m wide and about 2m deep and could be dug quickly.

The spoil from the ditch would be placed on the defended side of the ditch to give the defendants higher ground and be able to look and fight down against their assailants. Finally, as standing on higher ground without any other defence would make you a clear target, they constructed a fortification of either wood stakes or, later on, if the defence was to be more permanent and substantial of stone so that you could hide looking down above the conflict giving you the needed cover from spears, arrows or stones. This is a basic 1-1 defence that has not changed in thousands of early years as we saw a thousand years onwards with the Normans who had Castles with moats who wanted to slow down assailants so they could use their cross-bows if they attempted to sail across the wide moats as it was too deep to wade across.

Lidar Maps Showing No Defences – South Cadbury Castle Illustration

Ditches

The LiDAR Maps also show that the ditch of the ditches indicate that they were built for water, as shown by the blue on these images – this then allows us to look at the design of the earthwork in detail, which shows that the banks have been cut by not roads but other ditches. These ditches that cut across the circumference moats cut into them that, suggest that if water had been contained in these ditches, then the vertical dykes could have been used to gaol boats up from the bottom of the dyke ditch to one of these upper moat levels. These same LiDAR maps also show how the soil was distributed to the outside of the moats to enhance and make the feature deeper.

Water Table

This hypothesis of using these ditches can only be proven if we find the natural springs that could have fed these earthworks in the past. We know from our work in studying Rivers such as The Thames and Avon that they were both much higher and of greater volume in the past and at their highest directly after the last ice age and continued to be much higher than today for ten thousand years. This greater height in Rivers is reflected and caused by a higher water table. Within these water tables, natural springs are formed, and water leaks into the land, creating rivers and streams. Although we do not have geological information that allows us to trace past springs, we do find existing springs in this location (still active today at a time of Britain’s lowest water levels ), which suggests our hypothesis is correct.

Dykes

As we have already suggested, other undocumented features show that this is far from being defensive and used as a trading site. We have noticed that this trading was achieved by creating other earthworks called Linear Earthworks (also known as Dykes). Dykes were introduced when the waters of the Prehistoric fell, and they wanted to continue to use the trading sites, and also they used the Dykes to transport minerals extracted from the many quarries that uncommonly surround these Dykes. Here in South Cadbury Castle, we see not only Dykes feeding the local quarry sites but also placed on the side of the Trading side to allow boats to be parked/moored on the moats of the site ready for unloading/loading.

The second old earthwork identified via LiDAR technology is a secondary slipway, distinguishable from the initial structure by its lack of connection to a dyke or river. This slipway appears to traverse from the lowest moat up to the top of the site. While photographs may provide a visual reference, the full extent and significance of this feature are best understood through LiDAR models, which enhance the landscape to reveal these historical elements with greater clarity.

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’.

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

Other Blogs