Prehistoric maps of South Downs show theory of recent floods

The Argus: Prehistoric maps of South Downs show theory of recent floods Prehistoric maps of South Downs show theory of recent floods

Prehistoric maps of the South Downs have gone on display.

The new maps, which can be viewed in a shop in Rottingdean, are part of a collection which aims to show how Britain suffered severe flooding directly after the Ice Age 10,000 years ago.

The maps are based on a recently published book, The Stonehenge Enigma by Robert Langdon, and are on display at Ology on the High Street until June.

In his book, Mr Langdon claims there is evidence of post-glacial flooding more recently than some academics initially believed.


MORE:


He claims the existence of ancient monuments on high ground prove that much of Britain was flooded as early as 10,000 years ago.

He said: “One thing I noticed was that all the sites were on high ground. The laws of maths say if it was done randomly you would have some down low. That was very curious to me.

“I look at things logically to see if there’s a connection and the connection was water. History tells us that the ice melted and a huge amount of water flooded the landscape. The Thames was a small river until the last Ice Age.”

The maps of the South Downs have been added to an existing collection which mapped 1,000 sites of monuments around 500 square miles of Wiltshire.

Mr Langdon said what the sites in Wiltshire and Sussex have in common, including Devil’s Dyke, is the prevalence of sand just 18 inches underneath the surface.

He said: “Water must have been there in more recent history because people built structures around waterways.

“Take Stonehenge for example – it is surrounded by big dry dips on all sides. How did ancient peoples get the stones to the site? By water of course. It’s just common sense.”

The store’s owner, Bob Davis, said: “The exhibition is relevant to everyone in the South Downs and gives people the chance to see their history. People can locate where they live in the flood areas and see if their houses would have been under water.”

Comments (12)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:31am Thu 2 Jan 14

PaulOckenden says...

"Prehistoric maps" ? That phrase is just wrong on so many levels.
"Prehistoric maps" ? That phrase is just wrong on so many levels. PaulOckenden

4:50pm Thu 2 Jan 14

John Steed says...

He said: “One thing I noticed was that all the sites were on high ground. The laws of maths say if it was done randomly you would have some down low. That was very curious to me. Not curious to me every body likes a good veiw, in days gone bye a good veiw was essential for warning of danger,
A nice theory but pure conjecture, not a lot to back it up
He said: “One thing I noticed was that all the sites were on high ground. The laws of maths say if it was done randomly you would have some down low. That was very curious to me. Not curious to me every body likes a good veiw, in days gone bye a good veiw was essential for warning of danger, A nice theory but pure conjecture, not a lot to back it up John Steed

6:45pm Thu 2 Jan 14

ourcoalition says...

Yup - completely agree.

And the book is total rubbish anyway - many prehistoric sites in Ireland, France, and the British Isles are at, and in some cases below sea level, nowadays, so unless there were Bronze Age deep sea divers, with advanced construction skills of a very different kind to those they did have................
!!!
Yup - completely agree. And the book is total rubbish anyway - many prehistoric sites in Ireland, France, and the British Isles are at, and in some cases below sea level, nowadays, so unless there were Bronze Age deep sea divers, with advanced construction skills of a very different kind to those they did have................ !!! ourcoalition

9:22pm Thu 2 Jan 14

Robert Langdon says...

John

A good view would be at the top of a hill - 95% of prehistoric monuments are NOT at the top but above half-way. This is proved in the maps of over 1000 sites in Wiltshire surrounding Stonehenge, 90% of them are on the shoreline of the ancient waterways. If you don't believe me come and have a look.

Ourcoalition

I doubt if you have read the book?

If you had you would know that the 'post glacial flooding' had finished by the bronze age (the book looks at just the Mesolithic and Neolithic sites) and we are talking about 'groundwater levels' not sea levels - in the book (as you know) we teach you about hydrology and how it is independent of sea levels.
John A good view would be at the top of a hill - 95% of prehistoric monuments are NOT at the top but above half-way. This is proved in the maps of over 1000 sites in Wiltshire surrounding Stonehenge, 90% of them are on the shoreline of the ancient waterways. If you don't believe me come and have a look. Ourcoalition I doubt if you have read the book? If you had you would know that the 'post glacial flooding' had finished by the bronze age (the book looks at just the Mesolithic and Neolithic sites) and we are talking about 'groundwater levels' not sea levels - in the book (as you know) we teach you about hydrology and how it is independent of sea levels. Robert Langdon

10:30pm Thu 2 Jan 14

ourcoalition says...

Robert Langdon wrote:
John

A good view would be at the top of a hill - 95% of prehistoric monuments are NOT at the top but above half-way. This is proved in the maps of over 1000 sites in Wiltshire surrounding Stonehenge, 90% of them are on the shoreline of the ancient waterways. If you don't believe me come and have a look.

Ourcoalition

I doubt if you have read the book?

If you had you would know that the 'post glacial flooding' had finished by the bronze age (the book looks at just the Mesolithic and Neolithic sites) and we are talking about 'groundwater levels' not sea levels - in the book (as you know) we teach you about hydrology and how it is independent of sea levels.
I have no problem accepting most sites are by or near waterways - that is a fact, in whatever age. But, the assertion that most sites are high up due to the principle of flooding, in the Mesolithic or Neolithic, does not stand up to the evidence - the very common sites of shell middens, for example, commonly found in eroding beaches in the west of Ireland, all on very low lying land, contradict the views in the book.

By the way, I have no problem with theories that challenge, or extend, our knowledge of this period - quite the opposite - and particularly, when these ideas seek to challenge the very compartmentalised disciplines of archaeology, and the like, which the book does.

My recommendation for Book of the Decade on this subject is Gobekli Tepe, by Klaus Schmidt, working on a stone age site in Turkey - the finds there are rewriting much of the accepted "history" of the Stone Age - the book was translated from German to English, last year, and is full of interpretations which will be debated for many years in my view.
[quote][p][bold]Robert Langdon[/bold] wrote: John A good view would be at the top of a hill - 95% of prehistoric monuments are NOT at the top but above half-way. This is proved in the maps of over 1000 sites in Wiltshire surrounding Stonehenge, 90% of them are on the shoreline of the ancient waterways. If you don't believe me come and have a look. Ourcoalition I doubt if you have read the book? If you had you would know that the 'post glacial flooding' had finished by the bronze age (the book looks at just the Mesolithic and Neolithic sites) and we are talking about 'groundwater levels' not sea levels - in the book (as you know) we teach you about hydrology and how it is independent of sea levels.[/p][/quote]I have no problem accepting most sites are by or near waterways - that is a fact, in whatever age. But, the assertion that most sites are high up due to the principle of flooding, in the Mesolithic or Neolithic, does not stand up to the evidence - the very common sites of shell middens, for example, commonly found in eroding beaches in the west of Ireland, all on very low lying land, contradict the views in the book. By the way, I have no problem with theories that challenge, or extend, our knowledge of this period - quite the opposite - and particularly, when these ideas seek to challenge the very compartmentalised disciplines of archaeology, and the like, which the book does. My recommendation for Book of the Decade on this subject is Gobekli Tepe, by Klaus Schmidt, working on a stone age site in Turkey - the finds there are rewriting much of the accepted "history" of the Stone Age - the book was translated from German to English, last year, and is full of interpretations which will be debated for many years in my view. ourcoalition

12:22pm Fri 3 Jan 14

Robert Langdon says...

Ourcoalition

" the very common sites of shell middens, for example, commonly found in eroding beaches in the west of Ireland,"

In the Mesolithic Period these were not beaches. The sea level was 60m lower than today so the beaches you see today were inland. In the Neolithic the sea was 30m lower and therefore still inland.

Gobeki Tepe today looks isolated and inland - in the Mesolithic it was on the shoreline of a great waterway - this has been shown from work undertaken by the Russian Archaeological Academy on the Black and Caspian seas which shows they doubled their size directly after the last ice age, due to the same 'post glacial flooding' that affected Britain.

All in my next book 'Dawn of the Lost Civilisation' to be published in June this year.

RJL
Ourcoalition " the very common sites of shell middens, for example, commonly found in eroding beaches in the west of Ireland," In the Mesolithic Period these were not beaches. The sea level was 60m lower than today so the beaches you see today were inland. In the Neolithic the sea was 30m lower and therefore still inland. Gobeki Tepe today looks isolated and inland - in the Mesolithic it was on the shoreline of a great waterway - this has been shown from work undertaken by the Russian Archaeological Academy on the Black and Caspian seas which shows they doubled their size directly after the last ice age, due to the same 'post glacial flooding' that affected Britain. All in my next book 'Dawn of the Lost Civilisation' to be published in June this year. RJL Robert Langdon

12:50pm Fri 3 Jan 14

ourcoalition says...

Robert Langdon wrote:
Ourcoalition

" the very common sites of shell middens, for example, commonly found in eroding beaches in the west of Ireland,"

In the Mesolithic Period these were not beaches. The sea level was 60m lower than today so the beaches you see today were inland. In the Neolithic the sea was 30m lower and therefore still inland.

Gobeki Tepe today looks isolated and inland - in the Mesolithic it was on the shoreline of a great waterway - this has been shown from work undertaken by the Russian Archaeological Academy on the Black and Caspian seas which shows they doubled their size directly after the last ice age, due to the same 'post glacial flooding' that affected Britain.

All in my next book 'Dawn of the Lost Civilisation' to be published in June this year.

RJL
In which case, I will look forward to its publication - always open to persuasion, so that's a definite sale.

Not very convinced by your point on "beaches/sea levels", as that doesn't prove the assertion that sites were high up due to water levels.
[quote][p][bold]Robert Langdon[/bold] wrote: Ourcoalition " the very common sites of shell middens, for example, commonly found in eroding beaches in the west of Ireland," In the Mesolithic Period these were not beaches. The sea level was 60m lower than today so the beaches you see today were inland. In the Neolithic the sea was 30m lower and therefore still inland. Gobeki Tepe today looks isolated and inland - in the Mesolithic it was on the shoreline of a great waterway - this has been shown from work undertaken by the Russian Archaeological Academy on the Black and Caspian seas which shows they doubled their size directly after the last ice age, due to the same 'post glacial flooding' that affected Britain. All in my next book 'Dawn of the Lost Civilisation' to be published in June this year. RJL[/p][/quote]In which case, I will look forward to its publication - always open to persuasion, so that's a definite sale. Not very convinced by your point on "beaches/sea levels", as that doesn't prove the assertion that sites were high up due to water levels. ourcoalition

5:58pm Fri 3 Jan 14

VoxUnpopuli says...

Staying with the maps of Sussex, the terrain then and up till comparatively recently was densely forested. The drainage of so many tree roots would have meant the river valleys would have been swampy marshes rather than navigable waterways. Although the stones for Stonehenge were quite probably transported from Wales by ship or raft across the Bristol Channel they were then moved across land using wooden rollers and stone balls (the remains of which are often found near henges). Lastly, the moats which surround many such sites were not usually water filled but were instead deep polished chalk trenches. Theories include a "separation" of a sacred site from the mundane outside, or, more likely, a shielded approach to the centre to heighten the sense of theatre upon entering what would have been an awesome arena to people of the time.
Staying with the maps of Sussex, the terrain then and up till comparatively recently was densely forested. The drainage of so many tree roots would have meant the river valleys would have been swampy marshes rather than navigable waterways. Although the stones for Stonehenge were quite probably transported from Wales by ship or raft across the Bristol Channel they were then moved across land using wooden rollers and stone balls (the remains of which are often found near henges). Lastly, the moats which surround many such sites were not usually water filled but were instead deep polished chalk trenches. Theories include a "separation" of a sacred site from the mundane outside, or, more likely, a shielded approach to the centre to heighten the sense of theatre upon entering what would have been an awesome arena to people of the time. VoxUnpopuli

7:47pm Fri 3 Jan 14

Roundbill says...

Oh f'fucksake, another revisionist nut-job with some woo-waa alternative historical theory - it's Nick Austin's "Secrets of the Norman Invasion" all over again. Someone keep this freak away from Tony Robinson - Time Team can't survive another humiliation so soon after the last drubbing they received from English Heritage. And someone buy this loon a model train set, before he starts digging up scheduled ancient monuments by moonlight.
Oh f'fucksake, another revisionist nut-job with some woo-waa alternative historical theory - it's Nick Austin's "Secrets of the Norman Invasion" all over again. Someone keep this freak away from Tony Robinson - Time Team can't survive another humiliation so soon after the last drubbing they received from English Heritage. And someone buy this loon a model train set, before he starts digging up scheduled ancient monuments by moonlight. Roundbill

10:26pm Fri 3 Jan 14

Robert Langdon says...

voxunpopuli

Lots of points to clarify!

"river valleys would have been swampy marshes rather than navigable waterways" If you look at the empirical evidence in cliff face on the undercliff, you will notice what is called unstructured chalk, this hows how deep the valleys were during the post glacial period, most are in excess of 5m deep so not the swampy forest your perceive.

" they were then moved across land using wooden rollers and stone balls " nice idea but as you have just suggested the land was a forest so you can not use either chalk balls or wooden rollers unless you have a road - then you will need to wait for the Romans.

The book proves that the moats were filled with water as chalk is a porous material ideal for moats as seen even today on the south downs by the numerous 'dew pounds' that originated in the Neolithic Period.

I'm not one for this sacred or ceremonial nonsense - the megalithic builders are practical people and built things for a real practical purpose.

Roundbill

You have issues my friend!

If you watched the TT special on Hastings this Christmas, you will notice that they failed to find the site for the famous battle and had to use a 'post glacial flood' map to find its new location.

This is now accepted by mainstream archaeologists as you can see if you visit my blog site.

RJL
voxunpopuli Lots of points to clarify! "river valleys would have been swampy marshes rather than navigable waterways" If you look at the empirical evidence in cliff face on the undercliff, you will notice what is called unstructured chalk, this hows how deep the valleys were during the post glacial period, most are in excess of 5m deep so not the swampy forest your perceive. " they were then moved across land using wooden rollers and stone balls " nice idea but as you have just suggested the land was a forest so you can not use either chalk balls or wooden rollers unless you have a road - then you will need to wait for the Romans. The book proves that the moats were filled with water as chalk is a porous material ideal for moats as seen even today on the south downs by the numerous 'dew pounds' that originated in the Neolithic Period. I'm not one for this sacred or ceremonial nonsense - the megalithic builders are practical people and built things for a real practical purpose. Roundbill You have issues my friend! If you watched the TT special on Hastings this Christmas, you will notice that they failed to find the site for the famous battle and had to use a 'post glacial flood' map to find its new location. This is now accepted by mainstream archaeologists as you can see if you visit my blog site. RJL Robert Langdon

10:24am Sat 4 Jan 14

Roundbill says...

We're still not going to buy your book. Maybe Sussex Stationers, or that discount book shop at Brighton Marina? I'm sure you can save a couple of them from ending up at the pulp works.
We're still not going to buy your book. Maybe Sussex Stationers, or that discount book shop at Brighton Marina? I'm sure you can save a couple of them from ending up at the pulp works. Roundbill

2:38pm Sat 4 Jan 14

VoxUnpopuli says...

I think that Robert Langdon (nom de plume/real name or Dan Brown character btw?) has a right to raise queries about what conventionial history holds as fact. As someone mentioned above, accepted "facts" about temple building following house building has been turned upside down by the discovery of the Gobeki Tepe temple in Turkey which is far older than any human habitation tet discovered. What is fact today can be wrong tomorrow. Conversely, I am sure Robert will agree that his field is crowded with nonsensical books about lost cities, aliens, time travellers and so on.
Moving on to his reply, reconstructions using stone balls and/or timber rollers show that it required lots of trees to be cut down to provide said rollers or runners for the balls. A path to the site is made as you go by this very process. As an aside there were "roads" in Britian long before the Romans - The Ridgeway for one.
The practical purpose behind Stonehenge etc., was to accurately foretell the seasons by mapping the Sun and the Moon through the year. Those solar allignments at henges are not coincidences. This was essential for crop seeding, ploughing etc at a time when we lived and died by our labours. The ceremonial aspect crept in as (i) the knowledge memorised by the keepers of the henges must have seemed like magic to those who spent all their days farming and (ii) human nature - people love a touch of theatre!
I think that Robert Langdon (nom de plume/real name or Dan Brown character btw?) has a right to raise queries about what conventionial history holds as fact. As someone mentioned above, accepted "facts" about temple building following house building has been turned upside down by the discovery of the Gobeki Tepe temple in Turkey which is far older than any human habitation tet discovered. What is fact today can be wrong tomorrow. Conversely, I am sure Robert will agree that his field is crowded with nonsensical books about lost cities, aliens, time travellers and so on. Moving on to his reply, reconstructions using stone balls and/or timber rollers show that it required lots of trees to be cut down to provide said rollers or runners for the balls. A path to the site is made as you go by this very process. As an aside there were "roads" in Britian long before the Romans - The Ridgeway for one. The practical purpose behind Stonehenge etc., was to accurately foretell the seasons by mapping the Sun and the Moon through the year. Those solar allignments at henges are not coincidences. This was essential for crop seeding, ploughing etc at a time when we lived and died by our labours. The ceremonial aspect crept in as (i) the knowledge memorised by the keepers of the henges must have seemed like magic to those who spent all their days farming and (ii) human nature - people love a touch of theatre! VoxUnpopuli

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree