"I think so, yes. "
Well that's putting your neck unnecessarily on the line . You feel comfortable writing off a potential Roman origin for any of the earthworks in the Church Stowe complex, your brave but dangerous call.
This thread is in the business of questioning some long held (and still held) theories by some pretty heavy hitting academics from Webster to the current Mancetter champions. But you seem to be unquestioningly standing by the definitions of less rigorously researched conclusions by historians of lesser reputation by accepting the "Motte and Bailey" and "Hillfort" definitions as they stand. Such meak acceptance doesn't sit well with your/our robust questioning of other theories (Mancetter)
"The motte and bailey doesn't appear to be Roman at all. "
nor does the Motte and Bailey appear to be much like a Motte and Bailey, having no raised motte and surrounded by three enclosures all within and existing ditch. I'm happy to look at any similar Motte and Baileys, but I haven't seen any yet where the motte is the same level or lower than the supposed three baileys. On site the protagonists for two of the other sites and the local landscape archaeology group representative all concurred that the character was closer to Iron Age than anything else they had seen. I am no expert, but on the basis of reports of Roman finds and the view of others that the earthworks are in part potentially Iron Age in origin I wouldn't feel comfortable writing off any Roman association of the basis of an emphatic statement from EH/HE that it is of Medieval origin, but you may......
http://www.pastscape.org/hob.aspx?hob_id=341511
"The hillfort, being a bit more rectilinear, might have been tempting if we didn't already know it was a hillfort!"
Well again do we really "already know" it is a hillfort? Sure EH/HE tells us it's a hillfort, but they even quote Bakers' assumption it was Roman due to form and finds;
http://www.pastscape.org.uk/hob.aspx?hob_id=341517
So let me run the 2005 aerial by you one more time to make sure you really, really, really want to stick with your assertion there is no possibliity of a Roman origin for any of the earthworks....
HAPPY NEW YEAR
75,418
Well that's putting your neck unnecessarily on the line . You feel comfortable writing off a potential Roman origin for any of the earthworks in the Church Stowe complex, your brave but dangerous call.
This thread is in the business of questioning some long held (and still held) theories by some pretty heavy hitting academics from Webster to the current Mancetter champions. But you seem to be unquestioningly standing by the definitions of less rigorously researched conclusions by historians of lesser reputation by accepting the "Motte and Bailey" and "Hillfort" definitions as they stand. Such meak acceptance doesn't sit well with your/our robust questioning of other theories (Mancetter)
"The motte and bailey doesn't appear to be Roman at all. "
nor does the Motte and Bailey appear to be much like a Motte and Bailey, having no raised motte and surrounded by three enclosures all within and existing ditch. I'm happy to look at any similar Motte and Baileys, but I haven't seen any yet where the motte is the same level or lower than the supposed three baileys. On site the protagonists for two of the other sites and the local landscape archaeology group representative all concurred that the character was closer to Iron Age than anything else they had seen. I am no expert, but on the basis of reports of Roman finds and the view of others that the earthworks are in part potentially Iron Age in origin I wouldn't feel comfortable writing off any Roman association of the basis of an emphatic statement from EH/HE that it is of Medieval origin, but you may......
http://www.pastscape.org/hob.aspx?hob_id=341511
"The hillfort, being a bit more rectilinear, might have been tempting if we didn't already know it was a hillfort!"
Well again do we really "already know" it is a hillfort? Sure EH/HE tells us it's a hillfort, but they even quote Bakers' assumption it was Roman due to form and finds;
http://www.pastscape.org.uk/hob.aspx?hob_id=341517
So let me run the 2005 aerial by you one more time to make sure you really, really, really want to stick with your assertion there is no possibliity of a Roman origin for any of the earthworks....
HAPPY NEW YEAR
75,418