Pons Aelius Wikipedia Article

[Gluteus Maximus]

Yuri. I do understand very well and I can only say here here, and I am not at war with archaeologists but I just wish that many of them would try to understand that all of we here are indeed experimental archaeologists.

Sometimes archaeologists miss points that other experts might explain, especially when it comes to forming an hypothesis with which to build a reconstruction model. A while back I started a comparative study of 2nd century and fourth century barrack blocks. This study is still ongoing; however, as anyone familiar with Hadrian's Wall knows, some of the forts had their barracks rebuilt during the late third/early fourth century. Gone were the straight, collonaded buildings of the second century, to be replaced by an almost shambolic arrangement of chalets, built on the foundations of the original building. It has long been a puzzle as to why these bildings should have been thus altered.

A friend of mine came to visit and saw the two models of the same building, and commented on the fourth century barrack building. 'Its obvious why they rebuilt it like that' he said. I asked why. 'Well, its availability of timber, isn't it? You dont need roof joists as long or thick if you demolish the lengthways roof, and re-align it so it is a series of gables'.

He was right- the roof joists can be made much shorter, much more cheaply, and - in an area significantly deforested after 150 years of intensive Roman occupation, out of poorer quality wood.

My friend's profession? Builder!

Sorry to stray off topic a bit, but when it comes to making reconstruction models, archaeologists might not always have the most logical or simple ideas about things.