08-19-2009, 10:43 AM
Most peculiar. But I suppose that's what you get when three medievalists dig a Roman site. It's not unusual in the current UK climate of budget-driven archaeology. But it makes you wonder why people specialise in the first place, if it's deemed acceptable to permit the excavation of a Roman fort by non-Romanists. And a high-profile one, too.
It can't be a good sign when the sole Roman reference in the interim report (http://people.exeter.ac.uk/pfclaugh/mhinf/Roman%20fort%20-%20Tamar%2030.pdf) is a general overview of Roman Britain. Nothing about Roman military archaeology. Nothing about forts. As a Romanist, I'd've been immediately suspicious of the "inner" and "outer" ramparts. When was the last time you saw a Roman fort with two ramparts,and two ditches in between?! I'd be looking for the subtle signs of phasing. But our medievalist friends have arrived with no preconceptions and a clear conscience.
Let's hope they don't miss too much through not knowing what they're looking for.
hock: (And let's hope I'm being unduly pessimistic.)
(Official report here.)
It can't be a good sign when the sole Roman reference in the interim report (http://people.exeter.ac.uk/pfclaugh/mhinf/Roman%20fort%20-%20Tamar%2030.pdf) is a general overview of Roman Britain. Nothing about Roman military archaeology. Nothing about forts. As a Romanist, I'd've been immediately suspicious of the "inner" and "outer" ramparts. When was the last time you saw a Roman fort with two ramparts,and two ditches in between?! I'd be looking for the subtle signs of phasing. But our medievalist friends have arrived with no preconceptions and a clear conscience.
Let's hope they don't miss too much through not knowing what they're looking for.
hock: (And let's hope I'm being unduly pessimistic.) (Official report here.)
