[reidacdc]

Interestingly (to me), I learned about the "ridgeway" just a few days ago, from Jim Leary's episode on the "History Rage" podcast, where historians vent about popular historical misconceptions.

For the Ridgeway in particular, the claim from the podcast is that there is in fact no archaeological evidence that this was a prehistoric routeway, nor that it was a single coherent long-distance entity. The claim is that it appears this way because highland areas and ridges are better preserved, because they're generally not cultivated and are less subject to erosion, so the whole thing is just a selection effect.

Discussion starts around 39:25 in the podcast[1]

Jim Leary has a book about this, "Footmarks: A Journey into our Restless Past"[2].

To be fair, I personally am ill-equipped to assess the claim, and it does look like an interesting place to ramble. The linked article also, to continue being fair, does not call it a road, they limit themselves to calling it a "prehistoric trackway", which may well be defensible.

[1] https://www.historyrage.com/episodes/episode/69e607e6/histor...

[2] https://uk.bookshop.org/p/books/footmarks-a-journey-into-our...

[rvense]

It's a nice place to walk, either way.

I walked part of the way about (oh dear) twenty years ago and arrived in Stonehenge for the summer solstice bash. That was fun.

[lmm]

> For the Ridgeway in particular, the claim from the podcast is that there is in fact no archaeological evidence that this was a prehistoric routeway, nor that it was a single coherent long-distance entity. The claim is that it appears this way because highland areas and ridges are better preserved, because they're generally not cultivated and are less subject to erosion, so the whole thing is just a selection effect.

I had a search around and came across four or five citations claiming that the ridgeway wasn't actually the long-distance path it's popularly known as... all of which were dead links. So I'm inclined to suspect that it really is exactly what it's thought to be; at a minimum I'd want to see a publicly available text for why it's not, rather than a podcast or paid book.

[kitd]

There's no question that the tops of chalk ridges were used for route making in centuries past. They tend to be drier, less boggy and less woody (and safer from attack) than low-lying routes. So it may have not been one long trail, but as a succession of trails, it is still highly likely.