06-27-2008, 09:49 PM
Quote:I would still say yet that even with some of the archaeological finds that you have put forward Duncan, this still does not put any later date for the construction of this fort ...That's archaeology, Brian. Without a sealed foundation deposit, we are limited to the balance of probabilities.
The experts who have investigated the Newcastle site recognise that the finds assemblage is quite different from a standard Hadrianic assemblage. Either the Hadrianic garrison was incredibly tidy and managed to erase all traces of their presence, or we take the finds at face value and accept that they suggest a later foundation than other forts along Hadrian's Wall.
Quote:... and indeed does not show in any way that the fort stands behind the wall.That was not my purpose here. I was answering Yuri's question about dating, and your own statement, that
Quote:there is not a fort anywhere on Hadrians' Wall that is not attached to it in some way(see above regarding Carvoran).
The main points, I would say, are: (1) frontier forts do not need to be connected to a frontier barrier, so there's no problem in having a detached Newcastle fort; (2) the terrain around Newcastle makes a link between fort and Wall problematic; and (3) the finds assemblage from the site strongly suggests an Antonine or even third century foundation.
The onus is on anyone who disagrees with these points to present a counter argument.
Namely, (1) why does the fort have to be attached to Hadrian's Wall (when other frontier forts are not), (2) how could the fort, physically, have been attached to Hadrian's Wall (which seems to lie some way to the north) , and (3) why is the material assemblage from the site much later in date than the assemblages from other Hadrianic forts?
As someone once said: Occam's razor is your friend. Don't fight it.
