score:7
'Ghost walls' is a concept that is used in archaeology. But maybe not just so fanciful as in these historical fiction books:
Meanwhile, trial trenches at the north end of the adjacent long and narrow meadow—on the surface of which, when ploughed, stray finds of Roman pottery and coins had often been made—revealed a well-defined layer of Roman building debris associated with ‘ghost-walls’, or foundation-trenches from which all masonry had been removed by stone-robbers. Below this was a stratum of dark occupation-earth with an abundance of pottery indicating the presence of an extensive Early Iron Age settlement.
The Oxford Archaeology Dictionary refers to this as:
Or examplified in Hadrian's Ghost Wall:
The key to understanding Hadrian’s Wall is that the Romans built a temporary frontier of wood in the East, and wood and earth in the West, to protect them while they constructed the permanent stone frontier. It follows that there would also be temporary forts and other structures amounting to a whole ghost timber and earth version of Hadrian’s Wall.
It seems reasonable to assume that the fancy name gives rise to imagination if you hear it.
Some books mention 'ghost fences' en passant in the way described in the question:
Alistair Moffat: "The Borders: A History of the Borders from Ealiest Times", Birlinn, 2011.
Alistair Moffat: "The Sea Kingdoms: The History of Celtic Britain and Ireland", Birlinn, 2011
And a few more. Seemingly with a claim to be real science.
But, as you can see, this concept seems to be a pet peeve of one man, outside of fiction and academia.
Upvote:0
A causewayed enclosure was a Neolithic site that was enclosed by multiple earthen ditches. Dozens have been identified in the UK.
The purpose of these locations is not well understood, but they have been interpreted by some as early or temporary forts.
It was apparently common to bury the dead in these ditches. As an example, the limited excavation at The Trundle identified a woman buried in a chalk cairn in one ditch.
It is not known what the significance - if any - these burials had. But it is easy to see how one could construct the story of "Ghost Walls" around them.
These ditches appear defensive at first glance, but don't have evidence of walls or other defensive structures. And many people were apparently buried in them. Therefore - ah! - the ditches must exist for the burials, and they must defend against something walls cannot defend against: Ghosts!
Personally, I lean towards the theory that they were meeting sites for trade or ritual, and they needed some kind of paddock to keep the cattle in, so they dug ditches. Anyone who happened to die while at the meeting place might be buried in the ditch out of convenience.
Upvote:2
Never happened. Celts regarded heads as trophies, they were considered important enough to show guests when they arrived. They had a similar place as trophy heads of modern hunters.
There were a couple of temple sites in southern Gaul such as Roquepertuse where niches were cut into stone pillars and skulls placed in them. This was for display not a warning. The skulls were possibly enemy warriors as the site contained a number of seated warrior statues including what appears to be them holding severed heads on their laps.
A different site at a temple in northern Gaul was the remains of hundreds of headless warriors found at Ribemont-sur-Ancre. The bones were stacked together but believed to have originally been part of a large trophy where the (headless?) bodies of fallen enemies were tied to racks to be eaten by birds and weather away, the remains finally being buried.
It's reasonable to assume that had the Celts created any kind of ghost wall the Romans would have mentioned it as proof of their barbarity. As it was the Romans talked about the sacred groves as places of dread.