If we had a bit more roundness it would be a Roman no-brainer, so the conversation is about the degree of acceptable roundness. The Water Newton site has "roundness" described in the finer outer ditch (IMHO) but the inner one seems unfeasibly angular. So I'm fishing for less round corners than is the cliche (or immutable fact) in order to explore Windridge better.
However the the Windridge NMR shot is really good, well worth my monthly allowance. A four sided rectangular enclosure (with an oblique northwest side) apparent central entrances, possible gate structures, double ditches, parallel to the alignment of the adjacent Roman road, immediately adjacent to a significant Roman settlement, on an important marching route without the capacity to house a large body of troops on the march, AND several cart loads of first century sling shot (rumour is there were thousands of them). All the circumstantial evidence you would need for a Roman camp but the corners are just TOO angular...... if it's not a Roman camp what could it be? to be drainage it would have to have a certain Escheresque quality to it, so sparing those pesky corners it's still in the Roman box, until a better specific alternative is advanced.
If either could be conclusively dated Windridge might prove Water Newton to be Roman, or Water Newton might prove Windridge to be Roman......
As it stands we have two very similar ditches, appearing to be parts of distinct rectangular enclosures, fairly close to significant Roman settlements. Working hypothisis is Paulinus' straight line surveyor laid out the camps but his mate, the surveyor in charge of elegant curved corners, got knocked off by Boudiccas lot.....
This sample seems suitably angular, in Qreiyeh, Syria;
http://www.arup.cas.cz/wp-content/upload...vities.pdf
http://www.nsgg.org.uk/meetings/old/nsgg...G2012p.pdf
The justification for this discussion to be in this particular thread is that if this "angular ditch" typology is Roman military we may be seeing the camps of Paulinus' sweeping up operation which may help us hone in on the battle site. Moderators are free to bump this to another thread if it is too oblique for the thread definition, someone will bitch about it sooner of later.
126943
However the the Windridge NMR shot is really good, well worth my monthly allowance. A four sided rectangular enclosure (with an oblique northwest side) apparent central entrances, possible gate structures, double ditches, parallel to the alignment of the adjacent Roman road, immediately adjacent to a significant Roman settlement, on an important marching route without the capacity to house a large body of troops on the march, AND several cart loads of first century sling shot (rumour is there were thousands of them). All the circumstantial evidence you would need for a Roman camp but the corners are just TOO angular...... if it's not a Roman camp what could it be? to be drainage it would have to have a certain Escheresque quality to it, so sparing those pesky corners it's still in the Roman box, until a better specific alternative is advanced.
If either could be conclusively dated Windridge might prove Water Newton to be Roman, or Water Newton might prove Windridge to be Roman......
As it stands we have two very similar ditches, appearing to be parts of distinct rectangular enclosures, fairly close to significant Roman settlements. Working hypothisis is Paulinus' straight line surveyor laid out the camps but his mate, the surveyor in charge of elegant curved corners, got knocked off by Boudiccas lot.....
This sample seems suitably angular, in Qreiyeh, Syria;
http://www.arup.cas.cz/wp-content/upload...vities.pdf
http://www.nsgg.org.uk/meetings/old/nsgg...G2012p.pdf
The justification for this discussion to be in this particular thread is that if this "angular ditch" typology is Roman military we may be seeing the camps of Paulinus' sweeping up operation which may help us hone in on the battle site. Moderators are free to bump this to another thread if it is too oblique for the thread definition, someone will bitch about it sooner of later.
126943