Wednesday, 16 January 2013

Time Team - In desperate need of my Post Glacial Flooding hypothesis

By Robert John Langdon

One of my old past times, was to watch Tony Robinson and he's time team explain the archaeology of prehistoric sites armed with the untamed wit of Francis Pryor and he's fellow 'so called' experts - trying to explain prehistoric history, that has a gigantic hole in it!

A recent episode started with an exciting beginning - for me at least.

An inland shoreline, this is not the first time that TT has excavated a plot of land that was once by the shoreline - so I was looking forward to the explanation of why the shoreline looked so different just 1,900 years ago.  Here is a view of the Banchester of Norfolk.

Banchester - satellite view

As you can see its currently on the shoreline of the sea and a few waterways still exist that spread to the town and TT's Roman Site to the East of the town.  Here is how Tony saw the river and why the fort was built in this location by the shoreline.

Notice how the Romans placed their forts by the shorelines of rivers and coasts - the simple reason is because you can supply them quicker and more efficiently that by road.   Roman's traded throughout the known world, but history has forgotten that ALL civilisations have traded for the last 10,000 years.

So we now know that the fort was built at the shoreline of the river 2,000 years ago and that the river is now much smaller than today - why?

Banchester - old map

This map shows the original extent of the camp (missed by the TT team!) and the road that led to the shoreline and no doubt mooring place of the Roman settlement - or the beach as they estimated.  Shame they did not look and Geophysics this area (too busty making beer and digging pointless holes in the ground -come back Mick Aston all is forgiven and yes we agree that they have 'dumb down' the series).

So back to the question - why is the shoreline lower today than in the past?  The normal 'excuse' peddled by geologists is that the mud flats or sand dunes move over time.  Sadly for them, so does the sea level - so lets have a look at what height the sea was in the Roman period of Britain.

Banchester - water levels

This graph of the North Sea is typical of today's geological views of the last 2000 years - showing that the sea level in Roman times was at zero or just below 0.2m.  What is more interesting is that we are now 2m above sea level (answers on a post card or the comments section if that makes sense to you!).  So the video of Tony Robinson on his boat, is showing the current sea level - either at 0 or 2m it really does not matter as what all experts conclude is that that tributary was much deeper and wider  in the past than today.

How can it be deeper if this is the highest the sea has been for over 2000 years?

Well it can't, its impossible as the graph proves.  Unless the water was not sea water but fresh groundwater from a river.  I have wrote about this in a previous blog about the same thing in Somerset:

Time Team clearly had come across this paradox about the waterline and their explanation was.... nothing!!  they just ignored the obvious and carried on regardless - more dumbing down??

But that was not the last mystery that they allowed to go without explanation and this was in the final seconds of the program during the conclusion.

An earlier Iron Age (could be much earlier as they found just 3 pieces of pot in a ditch and with such scant evidence most 'intelligent' people would conclude that this is the 'latest' date for this site, NOT the exact date) was just north of the Roman fort closer to the river and about in line to the road (as pointed out previously) which was used as a unloading route for the Romans.  But hang on!!

Why would the 'iron Age' Britain's have an 'enclosure' by the river/port - are they trading by boat??

You see without my hypothesis, the entire history of Britain becomes a paradox of impossibilities, all prehistoric sites are on rivers and trading has been universal since the dawn of mankind and he has done this by boat - not only in this county but throughout the world.  All the Roman's did is carry on the tried and tested formula - they did not invent trading as some archaeologists and historian would have you believe.

What is even more interesting is that the road from the 'Enclosure' moves up hill to a place known as 'Barrow Common' a much older link than the Iron Age (as TT suggested).  Shame they never consulted me on this episode - it would have turn out a lot more interesting and they could have saved the series!!

Can't quite get you head around these facts?

My new years message showed you a Video showing increased water levels in Egypt, allowing them to build the pyramids and trade.  Now take a look at this lecture from the Smithsonian institute who now endorse one of my blogs:

And the next book of the Trilogy 'Dawn of the Lost Civilisation' on how Cro-Magnon man traded throughout the world including America at the time of Stonehenge's construction in the 9th millennium.

Update 17th Feb 2013 - Time Team Series 20 | Episode 8 | Mystery of the Thames-side Villa

Would you believe the same thing has happened in episode 8 of this series on the Thames Villa in Didcot.  This programme was quite ordinary in its findings but the most interesting aspect of the episode was the location of the site.  It took a while and a helicopter ride for 'Stewart' to reliase the site of the Villa was due to the location of the River Thames in Roman times - the alleluia cry was sadly short lived, as although they found the shore lines of the ancient Thames  Steward INCORRECTLY concluded (based on no evidence) that the river had changed course!!

Banchester - showing post glacial flooding
The excavation area showing were the water would have been

My app which shows the water levels in Roman times, clearly indicates that the river would indeed meet the Villa farmland - if they had this knowledge surely we could have made this episode so much more intresting as we could have looked for the mooring spot on the shoreline.

Banchester - showing post glacial flooding
Excavation site shown the surrounding towns
Or even better archaeology how the rivers course created the surrounding towns and the shoreline paths became the main roads of today.  Unfortunately, due to outdated dogma we was left with a damp squib!!


(by Robert John Langdon)


  1. Robert,

    The much wider river at Banchester of Norfolk during Roman times (just 1900 years ago) is consistent with what I have been arguing also. Namely, MPP's “human quarry” for Stonehenge at Rhosyfelin could not have been possible because Crag Rhosyfelin was engulfed by a much wider river at the time. From your reporting of the Time Team episode, that time may have been as early as 2000 years ago.

    Interesting post! Thanks.


    1. Kostas

      If you read the blog on Rhosyfelin:;postID=6497663369838392144

      You will see that although the river was higher in the Mesolithic / Neolithic, it assisted the Stonehenge Builders as the quary was on the shoreline and made it simple to move the bluestones by boat or log raft.

      BUT you are suggesting a total flood of the area which is possible - AT SOME POINT AFTER THE GREAT MELT - but clearly between that date and today the waters must have been lower and more suitable for quarrying - if you are quoting MPP dates of 3000BCE then the water level will be only a small margin higher than today!!


    2. Robert you write,“ if you are quoting MPP dates of 3000BCE then the water level will be only a small margin higher than today”

      Were you there 3000BCE? Do you have any pictures to show me this was so? RC-dating done right can answer this question. But MPP is not making any of that 'proprietary data' public. Not until he has sorted out the rest of the story to his narrative.

      But if you are arguing in your post for a much wider river 1900 years ago at the Banchester of Norfolk (and your aerial photo clearly shows this), why it wont be so also at Rhosyfelin? After all, both would be subjected to the same ground water level rise after the Great Melt.


    3. Kostas

      Its a question of mathematics.

      With Banchester the groundwater was about 3m higher in the Roman period. A 30m increase at Rhosyfelin is needed to flood the site up to the area where the rocks were quarried (much more to flood the entire site) we see the same 30m groundwater increase at Stonehenge with the river Avon. So we probably looking at the same date of 8500BCE +/- 1000 years.

      Groundwater drains to the sea very slowly, hence the gradual sea level rises over the millenniums - the period MPP talks about 3000BCE the river would be only 10m higher than today, but 20m below the quarry level.


    4. Robert you write, “the period MPP talks about 3000BCE the river would be only 10m higher than today”. The grounds around Crag Rhosyfelin are currently prone to flooding when the river overflows. If the river was 10 m higher 3000BCE than today (as you argue), surely the area will be completely engulfed in water. Furthermore, the whole Crag does not need to be completely under water for the site not to be a “human quarry” 3000BCE. Just the grounds around the Crag will suffice!

      As you see, Robert, it is indeed “a question of mathematics”. But whereas figures don't lie, liars do figure!


    5. Kostas

      I don't understand your argument.

      If you are suggesting that the surrounding waters would be impossible for Bluestones to be moved overland only then you will be correct - but no intelligent person would suggest that these rocks were dragged 200 miles to Stonehenge, they would have been taken by boat or raft.


    6. Robert you write, “I don't understand your argument.” I understand!

      You are thinking only of boats and rafts carrying stones to Stonehenge. While I am arguing the impossibility of “human quarrying” from a Crag in the middle of a wide and deep river 3000BC. Whereas the water level being 10 m higher then than today makes no difference for your 'boat transport', it makes a huge difference in MPP's “human quarry” existence.


    7. Kostas

      Why does Rhosyfelin being 'on an island' in a major river stop the quarrying of stone?


    8. Robert,

      We are talking about a Crag in the middle of a deep river. Not an island! Hard to cut stones from a rock face partially submerged in water! Or you don't see it!


    9. Kostas

      I don't see or understand it!

      The worked rockface is not underwater, its 20m above the waterline. Here is one on the Thames where the boat race goes around - this one is quite dry some-much-so that houses have been built upon it!!,d.d2k&psig=AFQjCNF33eC3N4ABl-N_b44XWbMf5LH2QA&ust=1359544683631741


    10. Robert you write, “The worked rockface is not underwater, its 20m above the waterline.” That may be the case TODAY, but it wasn't the case 3000BP according to even your prior arguments! Then, the 'worked rockface' would have been 10 m submerged in water according to you!

      Please don't shift times in making reasoned arguments. Unless you purposely seek to confuse your readers to believe your flawed theories.


    11. Kostas

      You need to read the information SLOWLY and absorb!

      You suggest I said "the 'worked rockface' would have been 10 m submerged in water according to you!"

      I actually said "A 30m increase at Rhosyfelin is needed to flood the site up to the area where the rocks were quarried" and "about 3000BCE the river would be only 10m higher than today, but 20m below the quarry level."

      It's very straight forward.


    12. Robert,

      The grounds just around the Crag Rhosyfelin currently get flooded when the river (just meters away) overflows. The Crag cannot possibly be 20 m higher. But be that as it may for now. We cannot resolve this issue (Crag Rhosyfelin engulfed by water 3000BP) going back and forth on this. But RC-dating and other scientific methods can answer this question. Only … MPP has that data! And he's not telling!


    13. Kostas

      I have never accepted the premises of your argument.

      Here is a good picture of the crag showing its topology - the height of the camera is about 10m higher than the river and this would have flooded in 3000BCE and probably still has excess water draining after heavy rainfall.

      The site MPP has identified as the quarry site is open to debate - the logic is that this site (as the waters have dropped) have been open to possible quarrying for some 10,000 years, the chances of finding the exact spot is close to zero.

      All we know from scientific fact is that the outcrop (including the rocks shown in the picture) are of the same composition to that found at Stonehenge. I personally doubt that MPP or Rob Ixer has ever taken time out to climb the hanging rocks to see if there are quarry platforms at higher levels, as they are unaware that the landscape has changed radically since the stones were first quarried, which may have been as early as 12,000 BCE, as shown from the Chlorine-36 dating of the Bluestones and moved to another site before being taken to Stonehenge in 8500 BCE not 3000BCE as MPP incorrectly suggests.

      Forget the RC dating it will prove nothing!

      The ONLY scientific FACT is that these rocks have been exposed to the air for 14,000 years.


    14. Robert,

      We agree RC-dating is often meaningless. I argued as much often in the past. Take for example the dates given for Stonehenge from the RC-date of an antler buried in the ditch! But I think in some cases, we can draw meaningful conclusions from RC dates.

      For example, if some organic material taken from under the purported “orthostat” at Rhosyfelin dates to say 2000BP, we would know for certain the “orthostat” could not have been “quarried” any earlier. Or if fresh water shells are found buried on top of the Crag that RC date to say 3000BP, we would know that the Crag was submerged in water some 3000BP.

      Keep in mind, not all flood waters come from rising levels of ground water. Some come overland from melting glaciers collecting in glacier lakes. So your 10-20-30 arguments are meaningless here.


    15. Kostas

      My "10-20-30 argument was in response to your original question; ". Namely, MPP's “human quarry” for Stonehenge at Rhosyfelin could not have been possible because Crag Rhosyfelin was engulfed by a much wider river at the time."

      Which I have now shown is not possible in 3000BCE but quite possible in 8500BCE.


    16. Robert,

      Nowhere do I argue the wider river engulfing the Crag was due to rising levels of ground water. As you argue it was with your '10-20-30' reasoning. Floods can occur with overland meltwater streams collecting in glacier lakes. What was probably the case here as Brian been reporting.

      No one can know for sure with what we know. In my previous post I was suggesting how RC dating done right in this instance can answer some of our questions.


  2. Moreover...

    If you look at this picture:

    The site of MPP dig is the rocks to the far left of the picture - the Mesolithic/Neolithic landscape would have water up to or just below the road.

    The rationale: If you look at the road on a OS map is is very unusual as it is a hairpin bend which make no sense unless its very old and follows the contours of an earlier track which would have followed the contours of the ancient FLOODED landscape - i.e the shoreline of the river.

    The conclusion - you are correct the current MPP site would have been below the water level at the time of Stonehenges first construction in the Mesolithic. The Site MPP is digging would have been above water level in the late Neolithic Period about 2500BCE - so MPP will be happy, but as I have stated previously, the dates are meaningless as Stonehenge was not constructed in 2500 - 3000 BCE.