Some readers, new to archaeology, particularly students like
those on MOOC courses, discover that the evidence based arguments about Roman Military archaeology found on this
blog , are not well received by their tutors. It is important to understand that many academics can only
understand archaeology when it is written down, having no experience of real archaeological
interpretation. As a result, the text of an archaeological report, rather
than the evidence can become an article of faith, and ideas become embedded at
a fundamental level, immovable objects, that actual serve to inhibit understand
in the subject.
Ideas developed around the evidence for a primary timber
phase of Hadrian's Wall, based on the reevaluating archaeological evidence from an
engineering point of view, have produced the only cohesive, coherent, and
consistent account of the early phases of the Wall. [here] However, while this blog may give the readers the arguments
to deconstruct existing ideas, that is not the name of the game.
Disappointingly, for students, it is a game, a bit like Chess,
only more expensive, in that the board and its pieces are fixed, you may not
bring in pieces from other games or remove any existing pieces; the object is
to remove the pieces from the box and arrange them in the correct order, going
beyond this and start making moves is to lose.
It is not just using the evidence, but arguments about the engineering
of timber structures is also going to get a chilly reaction; what cuts ice in Roman
studies is Latin.