Romans may have destroyed Moray metal-working site
1–10 of 32 posts
Re: Romans may have destroyed Moray metal-working site
#2It may have also been torched by the workers before they fled to prevent it from falling into Roman hands.
Re: Romans may have destroyed Moray metal-working site
#3It may have also been torched by the workers before they fled to prevent it from falling into Roman hands.
It's my belief, iron and ironstone being high value, they'd have taken what they could with them, the inputs. Charcoal aside, the remains otherwise are more marginal value, you can do Iron in a mud brick hearth, there wouldn't have been a lot of immovable fixed infrastructure to take really. The charcoal is a pain to make, time consuming. Maybe they burned that to avoid the romans having access, but I tend to think the Romans did this, to deny re-use when the inevitable re-occupation came. They'd have lifted what they could, and destroyed the rest.
Not an archeologist. The best way to get good input is to post bad input and wait to be corrected!
Re: Romans may have destroyed Moray metal-working site
#4It may have also been torched by the workers before they fled to prevent it from falling into Roman hands.
It's my belief, iron and ironstone being high value, they'd have taken what they could with them, the inputs. Charcoal aside, the remains otherwise are more marginal value, you can do Iron in a mud brick hearth, there wouldn't have been a lot of immovable fixed infrastructure to take really. The charcoal is a pain to make, time consuming. Maybe they burned that to avoid the romans having access, but I tend to think t…
Re: Romans may have destroyed Moray metal-working site
#5This is a good example of why archeologists shouldn't be believed. They've extrapolated the universe from a piece of fairy cake here. They found : burned buildings and a pot inside another pot. There are an infinite number of explanations for those two findings.
Re: Romans may have destroyed Moray metal-working site
#6This is a good example of why archeologists shouldn't be believed. They've extrapolated the universe from a piece of fairy cake here. They found : burned buildings and a pot inside another pot. There are an infinite number of explanations for those two findings.
You're saying that Romans destroying the mental works is just one possible explanation?
So are the archaeologists.
>Archaeologists suggest one possible explanation could be that it may have been the actions of Roman soldiers following their victory over Caledonians at the Battle of Mons Grapius around AD 83.
Re: Romans may have destroyed Moray metal-working site
#7This is a good example of why archeologists shouldn't be believed. They've extrapolated the universe from a piece of fairy cake here. They found : burned buildings and a pot inside another pot. There are an infinite number of explanations for those two findings.
I think you’re reading journalists, not the actual archeologists.
They saw evidence and suggested a hypothesis, not a conclusion.
I personally have never read an archeologist state a conclusion they didn’t directly observe. Sometimes they’ll note loose threads for further study.
Scientific literature has gotten terrible about drawing conclusions from too few points and over reliance on flawed statistical analysis.
But archeology doesn’t even pretend from what I’ve seen in the past few years.
Re: Romans may have destroyed Moray metal-working site
#8This is a good example of why archeologists shouldn't be believed. They've extrapolated the universe from a piece of fairy cake here. They found : burned buildings and a pot inside another pot. There are an infinite number of explanations for those two findings.
This is a boring, overplayed, anti-science trope. The uncertainty is even visible in the title: "Romans may have destroyed..." It's a headline to draw interest to the story about a dig. Journalists need a hook. Nobody clicks on "Archaeologists found a pot on Tuesday."
Re: Romans may have destroyed Moray metal-working site
#9This is a good example of why archeologists shouldn't be believed. They've extrapolated the universe from a piece of fairy cake here. They found : burned buildings and a pot inside another pot. There are an infinite number of explanations for those two findings.
This is a boring, overplayed, anti-science trope. The uncertainty is even visible in the title: "Romans may have destroyed..." It's a headline to draw interest to the story about a dig. Journalists need a hook. Nobody clicks on "Archaeologists found a pot on Tuesday."
No post body was provided.
Re: Romans may have destroyed Moray metal-working site
#10This is a good example of why archeologists shouldn't be believed. They've extrapolated the universe from a piece of fairy cake here. They found : burned buildings and a pot inside another pot. There are an infinite number of explanations for those two findings.
This is a boring, overplayed, anti-science trope. The uncertainty is even visible in the title: "Romans may have destroyed..." It's a headline to draw interest to the story about a dig. Journalists need a hook. Nobody clicks on "Archaeologists found a pot on Tuesday."
Mostly agree, but I would click the shit out of "Archaeologists found a pot on Tuesday." :)