| Science Forum Index » Archaeology Forum » Evidence for a pre-Claudian Roman presence from the Big Roma |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Doug Weller |
 Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:00 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I don't think anyone has actually pointed out what the evidence presented
for these claims actually was.
Two pieces of evidence were put forward Saturday night. One was a piece of
an amphora -- which of course is just one more bit of evidence for the
trade that we are already convinced existed.
The second was a Roman scabbard fitting, uncertainly dated but around
10-20 CE probably. Does it prove that there was a Roman soldier there at
that time? I think the most likely scenario is that it finally fell apart
around 43 CE and was lost or tossed into a ditch when the IInd legion was
operating near the fortress at the Chichester oppidum. (information
derived from watching the program and from various discussions on the
British Archaeology mailing list).
--
Doug Weller -- exorcise the demon to reply
Doug & Helen's Dogs http://www.dougandhelen.com
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Alaca |
| Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:58 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Doug Weller wrote: k0opc1ta0mnig505e4236345fs1firju8q@4ax.com,
[quote:d74848d307]I don't think anyone has actually pointed out what the evidence
presented for these claims actually was.
Two pieces of evidence were put forward Saturday night. One was a
piece of an amphora -- which of course is just one more bit of
evidence for the trade that we are already convinced existed.
The second was a Roman scabbard fitting, uncertainly dated but around
10-20 CE probably. Does it prove that there was a Roman soldier there
at that time? I think the most likely scenario is that it finally
fell apart around 43 CE and was lost or tossed into a ditch when the
IInd legion was operating near the fortress at the Chichester
oppidum. (information derived from watching the program and from
various discussions on the British Archaeology mailing list).
[/quote:d74848d307]
Thank you.
Do you know if that fitting typological or stratigraphical dated?
--
¨°º°¨Peter Alaca¨°º°¨°º°¨°º°¨°º°¨°º°¨°º°¨°º°¨°º°¨°º°¨°º°¨ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Doug Weller |
| Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2005 3:59 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 10:58:33 +0200, in sci.archaeology, Alaca wrote:
[quote:70bef28e11]Doug Weller wrote: k0opc1ta0mnig505e4236345fs1firju8q@4ax.com,
I don't think anyone has actually pointed out what the evidence
presented for these claims actually was.
Two pieces of evidence were put forward Saturday night. One was a
piece of an amphora -- which of course is just one more bit of
evidence for the trade that we are already convinced existed.
The second was a Roman scabbard fitting, uncertainly dated but around
10-20 CE probably. Does it prove that there was a Roman soldier there
at that time? I think the most likely scenario is that it finally
fell apart around 43 CE and was lost or tossed into a ditch when the
IInd legion was operating near the fortress at the Chichester
oppidum. (information derived from watching the program and from
various discussions on the British Archaeology mailing list).
Thank you.
Do you know if that fitting typological or stratigraphical dated?
[/quote:70bef28e11]
Typological.
Doug
--
Doug Weller -- exorcise the demon to reply
Doug & Helen's Dogs http://www.dougandhelen.com
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| IEJ |
| Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2005 8:48 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Doug Weller" <dweller@ramtops.removethis.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
news:k0opc1ta0mnig505e4236345fs1firju8q@4ax.com...
[quote:f9786c5440]I don't think anyone has actually pointed out what the evidence presented
for these claims actually was.
[/quote:f9786c5440]
Sorry Doug, but that was and is(?) still in the texts of the site in
question where the full background is presented.
Inger E
[quote:f9786c5440]
Two pieces of evidence were put forward Saturday night. One was a piece of
an amphora -- which of course is just one more bit of evidence for the
trade that we are already convinced existed.
The second was a Roman scabbard fitting, uncertainly dated but around
10-20 CE probably. Does it prove that there was a Roman soldier there at
that time? I think the most likely scenario is that it finally fell apart
around 43 CE and was lost or tossed into a ditch when the IInd legion was
operating near the fortress at the Chichester oppidum. (information
derived from watching the program and from various discussions on the
British Archaeology mailing list).
--
Doug Weller -- exorcise the demon to reply
Doug & Helen's Dogs http://www.dougandhelen.com
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk
[/quote:f9786c5440] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Alaca |
| Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2005 9:25 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
IEJ wrote: 5hbze.141668$dP1.494463@newsc.telia.net,
[quote:b097667a83]"Doug Weller" skrev
I don't think anyone has actually pointed out what the evidence
presented for these claims actually was.
Two pieces of evidence were put forward Saturday night. One was a
piece of an amphora -- which of course is just one more bit of
evidence for the trade that we are already convinced existed.
The second was a Roman scabbard fitting, uncertainly dated but around
10-20 CE probably. Does it prove that there was a Roman soldier
there at that time? I think the most likely scenario is that it
finally fell apart around 43 CE and was lost or tossed into a ditch
when the IInd legion was operating near the fortress at the
Chichester oppidum. (information derived from watching the program
and from various discussions on the British Archaeology mailing
list). --
Sorry Doug, but that was and is(?) still in the texts of the site in
question where the full background is presented.
[/quote:b097667a83]
Liar! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2005 9:38 am |
|
|
|
|
Apparently on date Thu, 07 Jul 2005 09:00:17 +0100, Doug Weller
<dweller@ramtops.removethis.co.uk> said:
[quote:4cc466ff0f]I don't think anyone has actually pointed out what the evidence presented
for these claims actually was.
Two pieces of evidence were put forward Saturday night. One was a piece of
an amphora -- which of course is just one more bit of evidence for the
trade that we are already convinced existed.
[/quote:4cc466ff0f]
Yes, this is one of the trade goods you can find from any period, as far as I
understand it. It proves contact, but we know there was contact right the way
up to 43 CE. It's definitely no surprise to find wine being traded prior to the
invasion.
[quote:4cc466ff0f]The second was a Roman scabbard fitting, uncertainly dated but around
10-20 CE probably. Does it prove that there was a Roman soldier there at
that time? I think the most likely scenario is that it finally fell apart
around 43 CE and was lost or tossed into a ditch when the IInd legion was
operating near the fortress at the Chichester oppidum. (information
derived from watching the program and from various discussions on the
British Archaeology mailing list).
[/quote:4cc466ff0f]
If that's the lot, it's not very compelling, is it? As you say, 20 - 30 years
is quite possibly a scabbard's useful life, depending on how they dated it, and
even if it was deposited in 10 CE, it says nothing much about who dropped or
discarded it.
I can see nothing curious about a Roman carrying a sword on a visit to Britain
in 10 CE, nor would it stretch plausibility to have a legionnaire serving as a
bodyguard to a diplomat or trader.
Hardly "turns the world of history umop episdu" stuff, is it? Mainly just hype
for the programme. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Doug Weller |
| Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2005 10:49 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 14:48:33 GMT, in sci.archaeology, IEJ wrote:
[quote:7697e31efe]
"Doug Weller" <dweller@ramtops.removethis.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
news:k0opc1ta0mnig505e4236345fs1firju8q@4ax.com...
I don't think anyone has actually pointed out what the evidence presented
for these claims actually was.
Sorry Doug, but that was and is(?) still in the texts of the site in
question where the full background is presented.
Inger, that has nothing whatsover to do with this thread, with the Time[/quote:7697e31efe]
Team program segment I'm referring to, or the article in the Independent.
Again, feel free to show me exactly where I'm wrong. If you don't, I will
presume you are either confused as to what we are talking about or not
telling the truth. Tell me what the site is, give me the url.
[quote:7697e31efe]Inger E
Two pieces of evidence were put forward Saturday night. One was a piece of
an amphora -- which of course is just one more bit of evidence for the
trade that we are already convinced existed.
The second was a Roman scabbard fitting, uncertainly dated but around
10-20 CE probably. Does it prove that there was a Roman soldier there at
that time? I think the most likely scenario is that it finally fell apart
around 43 CE and was lost or tossed into a ditch when the IInd legion was
operating near the fortress at the Chichester oppidum. (information
derived from watching the program and from various discussions on the
British Archaeology mailing list).
--
Doug Weller -- exorcise the demon to reply
Doug & Helen's Dogs http://www.dougandhelen.com
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk
[/quote:7697e31efe]
--
Doug Weller -- exorcise the demon to reply
Doug & Helen's Dogs http://www.dougandhelen.com
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
