7 ms·

Unearthed near Hadrian’s Wall: lost secrets of first Roman soldiers

171 points by Shivetya 9y ago

hanoz 9y ago
I came across a couple of features (https://houseprices.io/lab/lidar/map?ref=NY7569166021 https://houseprices.io/lab/lidar/map?ref=NY7569166021) about 1km west of Vindolanda (https://houseprices.io/lab/lidar/map?ref=NY7705466352 https://houseprices.io/lab/lidar/map?ref=NY7705466352) on a Lidar Map I made. I assume they're not unknown to science as they're pretty prominent, but then again they're not marked on the Ordnance Survey map as such things tend to be, like the Roman Camps just to their north west for example (http://streetmap.co.uk/grid/375689_566022_120 http://streetmap.co.uk/grid/375689_566022_120). Any archaeologists in the house?
- arethuza 9y ago
  Whatever they are they are fairly visible in Bing Aerial view (NB I used Bing as they have OS 1:25,000 maps). Edit: Speaking of things not being on OS maps - I've noticed that over the last ~40 years (since I started looking at OS maps at an early age) that they show far less historical details than they used to. I don't know if this is policy to keep maps less cluttered or because many things in agricultural areas simply have been ploughed over so many times that nothing remains. A shame either way.
- ascorbic 9y ago
  The best place to look is Heritage Gateway. http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/gateway/ http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/gateway/
- davidvaughan 9y ago
  They do appear as "Roman camp" on an OS at the right scale - try the website, where you can sign up for free for a week. Or the Heritage Gateway website mentioned by ascorbic. There's a lot in the area that's still to be dug. It's a matter of finding the money to fund digs.
brownbat 9y ago
Some historians think for a few hundred years Hadrian's Wall was a megastructure where the locals had no solid understanding of who built it, how they managed it, or why. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01kkr42 http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01kkr42 It's admittedly debated, but even if just plausible, still fascinating to contemplate. If not for the wall, there were probably periods in the local history around the pyramids that would qualify. Julius Caesar is closer to our time than he was to the time when they were built. There's a lot of time for people to forget other civilizations in there.
- careersuicide 9y ago
  There's also The Great wall of Gorgan: http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/irans-great-wall-is-now-buried-and-forgotten http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/irans-great-wall-is-now... > It was so well-known that it allegedly factored into the plans of military legends such as Genghis Khan. Today, however, it’s been almost entirely forgotten—many locals living within a few miles of it don’t even know of its existence.
- TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
  This is still true of Stonehenge, Avebury, and some of the less well-known archaeological remnants in that area. (Durrington Walls, Marden Henge, and so on.)
  - adrianratnapala 9y ago
    I think with Stonehenge and the like, the thing some people find mysterious is how they were built using the technology of the day. (I don't find it mysterious, I think they did things by working hard and being clever). The claim about Hardian's wall is that after the fall of the Roman Empire, the medieval people didn't know how to build such things at all, and could only guess how the Romans had done it. And part of those guesses might well have been "by magic".
    - arethuza 9y ago
      We still have no idea how or why people would melt the rock walls of fortresses to create "vitrified" forts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitrified_fort https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitrified_fort
odammit 9y ago
I get the idea of grabbing the things most important to you before you and leaving your stuff behind in favor of kids (I guess), but what I'm curious about is what caused them to cover the barracks in the first place. I mean if you have got the time to cement over barracks for 1000 people surely you have time to pack up!
- mentos 9y ago
  Maybe they intentionally left a time capsule?
  - odammit 9y ago
    It's pretty interesting. I wonder if the wooden tablets have information on what the intention was.
- edmccard 9y ago
  >if you have got the time to cement over barracks for 1000 people surely you have time to pack up! FTA: "a concrete floor laid by the Romans about 30 years after the barracks was abandoned" So the people covering it up were probably not the same as the ones who left in the first place.
  - odammit 9y ago
    I missed that I suppose. Even more interesting not to pick up a bunch of potentially valuable stuff. Certainly not in my d&d campaign.
- dogruck 9y ago
  I had the same thought. I've poured some slabs. We might've covered some smokes or trash, but we picked up every weapon and dry good. I suppose they were burrying the stuff like Hoffa's corpse.
  - pjc50 9y ago
    I suspect the artefacts weren't in a brick-and-tile building but a wood-and-thatch outbuilding, which after 30 years of abandonment would have collapsed and rotted over the contents. It's now 3.5m below "ground" level.
dmix 9y ago
> As well as other weapons, including cavalry lances, arrowheads and ballista bolts – all left behind on the floors – there are combs, bath clogs, shoes, stylus pens, hairpins and brooches. Reading about these digs I've always been curious that given the large number of artifacts found if it is a common phenomenon for the people involved in the dig to 'steal' or bring home certain items for themselves that we'd never find out about? Clearly these are people most interested in the subject at hand so I could see a motivation...
- avenoir 9y ago
  I'd imagine that most of the wall has been metal detected by hobbyists throughout the years. I don't know how much of it is under protection but from various videos on YouTube it seems like a great section of it goes thru farmlands out in the boonies. A pretty easy target to hit with a metal detector without anyone noticing.
mncharity 9y ago
Was the site under threat of looting or construction, or was this a massive stewardship failure? For context, once upon a time, archaeologists "carefully" used dynamite, and excavated entire sites. Leaving nothing at all behind, but for a few "carefully" washed and polished artifacts (the "important" trophies, like weapons and jewelry), and perhaps some "carefully" hand-drawn sketches of some big things (formerly) at the site. Nowadays, archaeologists "carefully" crack open an anaerobic site, ... and I just don't have the heart to finish this post. Does anyone have a good link on archaeological ethics, and limiting excavation to only threatened sites? The idea is to avoid unnecessary excavation, because it destroys vastly more information than it preserves. Information which could have been captured with improving technology, if only the excavation had happened later. This article is ghastly, close to parody. Picture of volunteer displaying "the icing on the cake" trophy in ambient atmosphere, sitting on newspaper, the 'who cares about dirt?' brushed off, at best coarsely sieved, then discarded on a big pile. The Birley quotes... show no recognition that anything unfortunate has happened.
- kijin 9y ago
  If we follow your logic, when do we ever get to excavate anything? We can always anticipate even better technology that could capture even more information. But if we keep waiting, we'll end up with no information at all. The article seems to suggest that the archeologists broke through a concrete barrier during routine excavations at an already heavily disturbed site without realizing that the soil underneath was anaerobic. In that case, it might be better to dig up everything as quickly as possible, since the soil is no longer anaerobic and there will be nothing to see if you wait too long.
  - dogruck 9y ago
    I read OP as suggesting that we prioritize sites threatened by nature, and work to leave some sites pristine.
    - mncharity 9y ago
      Since at least the 1970's, there's been a trend towards the current "Archaeological Ethics, Principle No. 1: Stewardship - The archaeological record, that is, in situ archaeological material and sites, archaeological collections, records and reports, is irreplaceable. It is the responsibility of all archaeologists to work for the long-term conservation and protection of the archaeological record by practicing and promoting stewardship of the archaeological record." And the mantra "excavation is destruction". As non-invasive archaeology advances, and technology progress in general accelerates, the range of plausibly ethical excavation seems to narrow. Towards a limit of rescue-only. Of sites threatened by whatever - looting, construction, climate change. Or here, by surprised archaeologists. A perhaps overly-aggressive excavation for large artifacts, seems to have become a challenge of molecular archaeology rescue. And there seems no awareness of that change. Just happiness at finding well-preserved curios.
nether 9y ago
A Roman makeup container was found a while ago, with fingerprints still visible in the cream: https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/makeup-science https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/makeup-scienc...
Agnes314 9y ago
In article they pointed out that cavalry lances have been found. Few hundred years before they were invented by first knights??? That might have been a mistake, i get it. I'm very curious if they find some Sarmatian auxiliaries items like composite bows or eastern swords. Or some more information about Picts. I will keep my eye on this, thank you Shivetya
ionised 9y ago
Someone in the comments section actually blamed the fall of the Roman Empire on socialism. See this is what not making education a priority gets you.

171 points by Shivetya 9y ago

I came across a couple of features (https://houseprices.io/lab/lidar/map?ref=NY7569166021 https://houseprices.io/lab/lidar/map?ref=NY7569166021) about 1km west of Vindolanda (https://houseprices.io/lab/lidar/map?ref=NY7705466352 https://houseprices.io/lab/lidar/map?ref=NY7705466352) on a Lidar Map I made. I assume they're not unknown to science as they're pretty prominent, but then again they're not marked on the Ordnance Survey map as such things tend to be, like the Roman Camps just to their north west for example (http://streetmap.co.uk/grid/375689_566022_120 http://streetmap.co.uk/grid/375689_566022_120). Any archaeologists in the house?

arethuza 9y ago
Whatever they are they are fairly visible in Bing Aerial view (NB I used Bing as they have OS 1:25,000 maps). Edit: Speaking of things not being on OS maps - I've noticed that over the last ~40 years (since I started looking at OS maps at an early age) that they show far less historical details than they used to. I don't know if this is policy to keep maps less cluttered or because many things in agricultural areas simply have been ploughed over so many times that nothing remains. A shame either way.
ascorbic 9y ago
The best place to look is Heritage Gateway. http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/gateway/ http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/gateway/
davidvaughan 9y ago
They do appear as "Roman camp" on an OS at the right scale - try the website, where you can sign up for free for a week. Or the Heritage Gateway website mentioned by ascorbic. There's a lot in the area that's still to be dug. It's a matter of finding the money to fund digs.

brownbat 9y ago

Some historians think for a few hundred years Hadrian's Wall was a megastructure where the locals had no solid understanding of who built it, how they managed it, or why. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01kkr42 http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01kkr42 It's admittedly debated, but even if just plausible, still fascinating to contemplate. If not for the wall, there were probably periods in the local history around the pyramids that would qualify. Julius Caesar is closer to our time than he was to the time when they were built. There's a lot of time for people to forget other civilizations in there.

careersuicide 9y ago
There's also The Great wall of Gorgan: http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/irans-great-wall-is-now-buried-and-forgotten http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/irans-great-wall-is-now... > It was so well-known that it allegedly factored into the plans of military legends such as Genghis Khan. Today, however, it’s been almost entirely forgotten—many locals living within a few miles of it don’t even know of its existence.
TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
This is still true of Stonehenge, Avebury, and some of the less well-known archaeological remnants in that area. (Durrington Walls, Marden Henge, and so on.)
- adrianratnapala 9y ago
  I think with Stonehenge and the like, the thing some people find mysterious is how they were built using the technology of the day. (I don't find it mysterious, I think they did things by working hard and being clever). The claim about Hardian's wall is that after the fall of the Roman Empire, the medieval people didn't know how to build such things at all, and could only guess how the Romans had done it. And part of those guesses might well have been "by magic".
  - arethuza 9y ago
    We still have no idea how or why people would melt the rock walls of fortresses to create "vitrified" forts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitrified_fort https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitrified_fort

odammit 9y ago

I get the idea of grabbing the things most important to you before you and leaving your stuff behind in favor of kids (I guess), but what I'm curious about is what caused them to cover the barracks in the first place. I mean if you have got the time to cement over barracks for 1000 people surely you have time to pack up!

mentos 9y ago
Maybe they intentionally left a time capsule?
- odammit 9y ago
  It's pretty interesting. I wonder if the wooden tablets have information on what the intention was.
edmccard 9y ago
>if you have got the time to cement over barracks for 1000 people surely you have time to pack up! FTA: "a concrete floor laid by the Romans about 30 years after the barracks was abandoned" So the people covering it up were probably not the same as the ones who left in the first place.
- odammit 9y ago
  I missed that I suppose. Even more interesting not to pick up a bunch of potentially valuable stuff. Certainly not in my d&d campaign.
dogruck 9y ago
I had the same thought. I've poured some slabs. We might've covered some smokes or trash, but we picked up every weapon and dry good. I suppose they were burrying the stuff like Hoffa's corpse.
- pjc50 9y ago
  I suspect the artefacts weren't in a brick-and-tile building but a wood-and-thatch outbuilding, which after 30 years of abandonment would have collapsed and rotted over the contents. It's now 3.5m below "ground" level.

dmix 9y ago

> As well as other weapons, including cavalry lances, arrowheads and ballista bolts – all left behind on the floors – there are combs, bath clogs, shoes, stylus pens, hairpins and brooches. Reading about these digs I've always been curious that given the large number of artifacts found if it is a common phenomenon for the people involved in the dig to 'steal' or bring home certain items for themselves that we'd never find out about? Clearly these are people most interested in the subject at hand so I could see a motivation...

avenoir 9y ago
I'd imagine that most of the wall has been metal detected by hobbyists throughout the years. I don't know how much of it is under protection but from various videos on YouTube it seems like a great section of it goes thru farmlands out in the boonies. A pretty easy target to hit with a metal detector without anyone noticing.

mncharity 9y ago

Was the site under threat of looting or construction, or was this a massive stewardship failure? For context, once upon a time, archaeologists "carefully" used dynamite, and excavated entire sites. Leaving nothing at all behind, but for a few "carefully" washed and polished artifacts (the "important" trophies, like weapons and jewelry), and perhaps some "carefully" hand-drawn sketches of some big things (formerly) at the site. Nowadays, archaeologists "carefully" crack open an anaerobic site, ... and I just don't have the heart to finish this post. Does anyone have a good link on archaeological ethics, and limiting excavation to only threatened sites? The idea is to avoid unnecessary excavation, because it destroys vastly more information than it preserves. Information which could have been captured with improving technology, if only the excavation had happened later. This article is ghastly, close to parody. Picture of volunteer displaying "the icing on the cake" trophy in ambient atmosphere, sitting on newspaper, the 'who cares about dirt?' brushed off, at best coarsely sieved, then discarded on a big pile. The Birley quotes... show no recognition that anything unfortunate has happened.

kijin 9y ago
If we follow your logic, when do we ever get to excavate anything? We can always anticipate even better technology that could capture even more information. But if we keep waiting, we'll end up with no information at all. The article seems to suggest that the archeologists broke through a concrete barrier during routine excavations at an already heavily disturbed site without realizing that the soil underneath was anaerobic. In that case, it might be better to dig up everything as quickly as possible, since the soil is no longer anaerobic and there will be nothing to see if you wait too long.
- dogruck 9y ago
  I read OP as suggesting that we prioritize sites threatened by nature, and work to leave some sites pristine.
  - mncharity 9y ago
    Since at least the 1970's, there's been a trend towards the current "Archaeological Ethics, Principle No. 1: Stewardship - The archaeological record, that is, in situ archaeological material and sites, archaeological collections, records and reports, is irreplaceable. It is the responsibility of all archaeologists to work for the long-term conservation and protection of the archaeological record by practicing and promoting stewardship of the archaeological record." And the mantra "excavation is destruction". As non-invasive archaeology advances, and technology progress in general accelerates, the range of plausibly ethical excavation seems to narrow. Towards a limit of rescue-only. Of sites threatened by whatever - looting, construction, climate change. Or here, by surprised archaeologists. A perhaps overly-aggressive excavation for large artifacts, seems to have become a challenge of molecular archaeology rescue. And there seems no awareness of that change. Just happiness at finding well-preserved curios.

nether 9y ago

A Roman makeup container was found a while ago, with fingerprints still visible in the cream: https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/makeup-science https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/makeup-scienc...

Agnes314 9y ago

In article they pointed out that cavalry lances have been found. Few hundred years before they were invented by first knights??? That might have been a mistake, i get it. I'm very curious if they find some Sarmatian auxiliaries items like composite bows or eastern swords. Or some more information about Picts. I will keep my eye on this, thank you Shivetya

ionised 9y ago

Someone in the comments section actually blamed the fall of the Roman Empire on socialism. See this is what not making education a priority gets you.