quote:Originally posted by The Bobo: OK! To try to answer some more draco questions! The best surviving example of a draco is in the Mainz museum in Germany, and is known as the Niederbieber draco.
I believe that the draco(s) on display in Mainz are copies of the originals (there are two copies of the Niederbieber draco) But in reference material I have -references to the draco suggest that the original is in Koblenz this might be worth checking? JRMES vol 2 1991 The 'draco' Standard by JCN Coulston 'on the bottom surface there is a pair of 2cm long axial slits. This may have served to fix an internal mechanism designed to produce the desired hissing noise effect.' intersting also the reference to them making a hissing sound
the date was wrong mind - The Time Team work has shown that it was Antonine rather than Flavian on the basis of the finds. So much for the parrots beak ditch!
Im not satisfied that the date for the fort(s) on the site was established
1- IIRC at the beginning of the programme TT set out to prove (based on GdlB statement)that the fort either belonged to Agricolas campaigns or the period AD120-140 (approx)- the period between Hadrians Wall and the Antonine Wall being built 2- they found some 2nd century pottery - no closer date given on the programme 3- a coin possible date range based on size (which I cannot recall exactly) about AD130-170??- perhaps someone can clarify that? 4- an annex which is similar?? to a one at a 1st century fort
so at the and of the programme they were no closer to establishing a date
I am still not convinced that the two ditches were of separate dates.
What evidence was shown to say that they were?
Most forts that I have read off being reused usually show (if the first one has been destroyed) a slightly different alignment when they re-dug the ditches.
What evidence was there for the fort not having a double ditch?
quote: As far as 'rolling plains' are concerned, has anybody started a journey to Inverness on the A9 at its junction with the M8/80(?). There is a service station there with a balcony near the rear. The view from this balcony is breathtaking to say the least. Mile upon mile of near flat countryside with but 2 'rocks' protruding. Atop one stands Stirling Castle and on the other the Wallace Memorial.
I haven't been to that service station, but the view from Stirling Castle on a clear day is superb - Edinburgh to the East, Ben Lomond to the West (but not many clear days!) Anyway, Stirling is about 30 miles or so north of Drumlanrig - and beyond the Antonine Wall.
I'm going to buy me a barrel, stock it with fish, and then take potshots.The one saving grace, the possibility of an earlier site,was left dangling in the air. Thank you,TT, for pointing out the obvious.Hopefully one day some real archaeologists will take on the site.
'Sir' Mark -Cor Et Manus- 'I want the last cheque I write to bounce' - Carl Reiner, 'Oceans 12'
the date was wrong mind - The Time Team work has shown that it was Antonine rather than Flavian on the basis of the finds. So much for the parrots beak ditch!
Im not satisfied that the date for the fort(s) on the site was established
1- IIRC at the beginning of the programme TT set out to prove (based on GdlB statement)that the fort either belonged to Agricolas campaigns or the period AD120-140 (approx)- the period between Hadrians Wall and the Antonine Wall being built 2- they found some 2nd century pottery - no closer date given on the programme 3- a coin possible date range based on size (which I cannot recall exactly) about AD130-170??- perhaps someone can clarify that? 4- an annex which is similar?? to a one at a 1st century fort
so at the and of the programme they were no closer to establishing a date
Point 1 is wrong - the two most likely periods for construction and use of the fort were the Flavian period and the Antonine period. Sorry, can't comment on what Guy said, because I missed the programme.
Therefore the fact that the pottery recovered was consistent with an Antonine date, and no Flavian pottery was recovered is fairly strong indication that the remains excavated are Antonine in date. None of the evidence found during the excavations indicated the presence of an earlier fort on the site, although only a small area could be covered in the time. The coin found dates to the second century.
quote:Originally posted by D: I am still not convinced that the two ditches were of separate dates.
What evidence was shown to say that they were?
Most forts that I have read off being reused usually show (if the first one has been destroyed) a slightly different alignment when they re-dug the ditches.
What evidence was there for the fort not having a double ditch?
I know that my memory is pretty poor, but I do remember that great emphasis was placed on cavalry being billetted there. Anyone remember the basis for this assumption?
Vlad mate. I don't know if anybody has answered your question but a 'scale' is, like in a fish, a small piece of a larger artefact made of the same items. In this case it was a small square(ish) piece of metal with holes placed appropriately to link to similar squares to form a protective 'scale shirt'. Later, metal links were used to form a chainmail shirt.
Point 1 is wrong - the two most likely periods for construction and use of the fort were the Flavian period and the Antonine period. Sorry, can't comment on what Guy said, because I missed the programme.
Therefore the fact that the pottery recovered was consistent with an Antonine date, and no Flavian pottery was recovered is fairly strong indication that the remains excavated are Antonine in date. None of the evidence found during the excavations indicated the presence of an earlier fort on the site, although only a small area could be covered in the time. The coin found dates to the second century.
perhaps this is my problem - I dont equate 2nd century with Antonine. I think of Antonine being the period 138-192, which is just over half of the 2nd century. Therefore when pottery is described as 2nd century to me that doesn't prove that the fort was built or occupied during the Antonine period. Perhaps the definition of Antonine is used diferently in archaeology/pottery dating? Also do the periods go straight from Flavian to Antonine? Or are the 'Trajanic' emperors regarded as a separate period?
quote:Originally posted by Ian G.: I know that my memory is pretty poor, but I do remember that great emphasis was placed on cavalry being billetted there. Anyone remember the basis for this assumption?
The topography (I have read your posts earlier but am not aquainted with the area at all) and some cavalry fittings which the guy on horse back got excited about.
I take it that military horse fittings and those used for lugging carts/wagons about are different.
quote:Originally posted by Ian G.: I know that my memory is pretty poor, but I do remember that great emphasis was placed on cavalry being billetted there. Anyone remember the basis for this assumption?
Vlad mate. I don't know if anybody has answered your question but a 'scale' is, like in a fish, a small piece of a larger artefact made of the same items. In this case it was a small square(ish) piece of metal with holes placed appropriately to link to similar squares to form a protective 'scale shirt'. Later, metal links were used to form a chainmail shirt.
Cheers
Ian G.
_Resurgam_
thanks for the info Ian- although I know what a scale is what i was trying to find out was whether the recovered item was more postively identified- the computer reconstruction was not that useful-- IIRC it only had one hole for attching to the backing rather than between 2 and 6 which is rather more common. also the lower edge is more commonly rounded or sometimes pointed.
regarding you question about cavalry- there was no definite evidence for cavalry being based there--although perhaps the most interesting find was the horse harness fitting-- this unfortunately didnt get a close up
Sometimes I find it difficult to follow the reasoning behind some of TT's actions. Tonight, at a questionable site, phosphate samples were taken, and in copious amounts I believe. But, at Drumlanrig, supposed cavalry barracks, no such samples were taken. Surely a couple of represantitive samples from the 'long' barracks would have cleared the matter.
I am still not certain as to why the forts were there in the first place. They appear to serve no strategic/tactical function.
The programme claimed this particular fort was built to protect an important river crossing. In the event of an uprising it would've been vital to keep such places under Roman control so re-inforcements could be brought up or an escape route kept clear. The Romans may have been over-cautious in this case as it doesn't sound as though the local tribes were organised well enough to capture the ford whilst simultaneously giving the occupiers grief further north.
Unless the barracks/fort were well behind the supposed line of territory held. Or, they were well within the _territoria_ ?
Would that make more sense?
forts are found both behind the frontier and beyond them. this does not necessarily mean that the area beyond the frontier is hostile.
troops may be based in friendly lands to support the local ruler [pro-Roman! ] creating a buffer zone-- and of course the local infrastructure may not be able to support the billeting of troops in towns etc
Drumlanrig was my first experience of Time Team in the field, and I thought that I'd extend it to looking at the comments on this Forum about the programme and responding. All opinions are my own, of course.
Achievements? It was a good evaluation of a little-known site - perfect for a three-day project - with a fabulous fort geophysical survey and a good blend of detail, landscape shots and reconstructions in the final programme.
Dating evidence? A small but Antonine collection of pottery (AD140s-160s). Dorset Black-burnished ware, Central Gaulish samian and South Spanish Dressel 20 olive-oil amphora sherds, along with presumably more local grey and oxidised wares and a sherd of handmade pottery. Two of the BB1 sherds feature in the 'What They Found' website photos - one piece burnt orange.
My working hypothesis (as the pottery specialist on site) was that Drumlanrig might show evidence for Flavian occupation too (AD70s-90s), like many other forts in the region. The excavations recovered evidence of more than one phase all right, but probably not more than one period (to be more carefully nuanced in the final report).
Evidence of destruction? Burnt layers,burnt pottery and the disturbed construction trenches of the timber buildings. By analogy with more extensively-excavated sites and the critical assessments of Maxwell and Hanson on the evidence for the deaths of Roman forts, the evidence from the various sample trenches in the Drumlanrig fort interior fits right in (again to be given more nuanced treatment in the greater space available in the final report than Guy de la Bedoyere could do on screen).
The books The Romans in Scotland (Gordon Maxwell, 1989) and Rome's North West Frontier (Bill Hanson and Gordon Maxwell, 1983) will give anyone access to the sorts of background details that I brought to my viewing of the finished programme. But I thought that overall the programme did not demand too much prior knowledge of the viewer nor talk down to them too much.
It was interesting from a historical point of view to go back to a small-scale evaluation of a Roman fort in South-West Scotland - somewhat as was done by Birley, Richmond, St Joseph et al in the 1930s-1950s - but with the benefit of modern technology. See my comments above about the programme's achievements - which fully deserve to be published and therefore accessiblke in permanent form - if anyone out there at Time Team HQ and Wessex Archaeology are listening .
Yours sincerely, Colin Wallace Roman pottery specialist Edinburgh
quote:Originally posted by Colin Wallace: The books The Romans in Scotland (Gordon Maxwell, 1989) and Rome's North West Frontier (Bill Hanson and Gordon Maxwell, 1983) will give anyone access to the sorts of background details t Colin Wallace Roman pottery specialist Edinburgh
thanks for that info Colin -- a rather more useful summary of the evidence than given in the prog! useful books I agree- indeed 'Romes NW Frontier' is still sitting next to my PC
quote:Originally posted by Colin Wallace: See my comments above about the programme's achievements - which fully deserve to be published and therefore accessiblke in permanent form - if anyone out there at Time Team HQ and Wessex Archaeology are listening
