05-07-2008, 11:25 PM
Hi Campbell,
I am not sure if you are following my other discussion regarding barrack sizes and fort layouts, but I have good reason to suspect the fort was not rectangular but rather square in shape.
It is possible to fit in 6 barracks blocks, the granaries, the CO's house and the headquarters in there, but not in the configuration hinted at by whoever did the 1986 sketch (sorry I forgot his name).
My theory also eliminates some problems the rectangular configuration created, such as the fort falling off a steep incline, not joining the wall, among other things.
Of course, as you said, we will never know untill the excavations are made (if ever), so what I have come to is conjectural, based on interpretation of evidence provided (perhaps wrongly, perhaps not) and so is not the ULTIMATE DEFINITIVE PLAN of what the fort looked like, but rather, how it MAY HAVE LOOKED LIKE.
I am not sure if you are following my other discussion regarding barrack sizes and fort layouts, but I have good reason to suspect the fort was not rectangular but rather square in shape.
It is possible to fit in 6 barracks blocks, the granaries, the CO's house and the headquarters in there, but not in the configuration hinted at by whoever did the 1986 sketch (sorry I forgot his name).
My theory also eliminates some problems the rectangular configuration created, such as the fort falling off a steep incline, not joining the wall, among other things.
Of course, as you said, we will never know untill the excavations are made (if ever), so what I have come to is conjectural, based on interpretation of evidence provided (perhaps wrongly, perhaps not) and so is not the ULTIMATE DEFINITIVE PLAN of what the fort looked like, but rather, how it MAY HAVE LOOKED LIKE.
