Stonehenge forum 180 room
Image by Snap
close
more_vert

jimit wrote:
"This is shown by the location of Roman British ports and docks
well inland of todays sea shore. Archaeology and History show the sea level charts are just plain wrong."

Haven't heard this theory before?

hi

I think this is referring to places like Pevensey. This was a roman saxon-shore fort, and the site of the 1066 landing. It's now several miles in-shore. This is not due to a change in sea-level, but because of a drift in coastal shingle in the middle ages, and drainage of the salt marshes for arable. I know this because I looked it up when we went to the castle - I was confused as to why William the Conqueror had made his army carry the boats inland for 4 miles, when they could have stopped at the perfectly good beach down the road.

sam

It's the same all along that coast too - Rye is miles from the sea, but operated as a major port through to the end of the 19thC.

The Isle of Oxney was an island in its own right though, and a 10 minute visit to the area shows how small it would have been, one look at a map confirms it!

I have an old book written by a guy who toured Kent on foot, and the placenames would suggest that way back there was more inland water than there is now - mills and small jetties way upstream from any navigable water nowadays suggests that the water level was at least higher, for whatever reason.

The Darenth is a good example - 18 years ago it was drying up, literally down to a trickle at best and in some places totally dry http://www7.caret.cam.ac.uk/gw_57.jpg caused by a lot of extraction and diversion of water upstream. That section in the pic is 500 yards downstream from a Roman grain store and mill, and at least 8 miles from the most upstream villa, of which there were probably 10 alternating along the bank. Every one of them placed by a usable river.

Now it's healthy again, thanks to a lot of pressure on Thames Water [water pressure!].