This is a bit reminiscent of the work by the late Bill Putnam and his
investigation of the Dorchester Aqueduct.
A large cistern had been found in Dorchester which apparently served
many of the major buildings with water. The question that needed
answering was where was the water coming from?
There was evidence of a channel running into the town from the north
west, that ran alongside Poundbury hillfort, and it was thought that
the source of this water was from the River Frome further up the
valley. However Bill wasn't convinced. Not only was Bill interested in
the Roman military but also industrial archaeology, he thought that
matter didn't add up.
After years of research and excavation he discovered that the Romans
had dammed a side valley, much further up the Frome valley, and that
there was evidence of an intricate and well engineered aqueduct from
there to the town.
On 10/21/15, Michael <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I was trying to suggest that far too much attention is paid to trivial
> aspects of some sites, and that more time ought to be spent working out
> if and how the water flowed.
> OK, it's probably because I'm in that small minority of people who find
> plumbing fascinating. But the annoying thing about Bearsden, is that if
> there had been a ditch linking the site, it would have been fairly long
> and therefore relatively easy to find. But unfortunately, it doesn't
> seem to have been important to those originally digging the site and/or
> the path is now covered with houses.
> However, I would like to make a plea that next time someone digs a Roman
> fort, that they put some effort into finding out where the water came from.
> On 21/10/2015 11:37, John Wood wrote:
>> We have to keep nudging ourselves, as a gentle reminder, that organic
>> material/evidence doesn't usually survive on most archaeological sites
>> and this ought to be the case at Rockhenge as well as any other site.
>> The rocks at Rockhenge are just part of the story!
>> On 10/21/15, Michael <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> On 21/10/2015 09:22, Tony Marsh wrote:
>>>> Hmm, the claim seems a bit far fetched. It's a pity SU1142 and SU1143
>>>> absent from the gov lidar library. The lie of the land is weakly uphill
>>>> from the proposed moat only in a directly westerly direction and lidar
>>>> fails us 200 metres from the henge in that direction. Contours reveal
>>>> evidence of a depression that a stream would have created (anyway,
>>>> have looked for that before). A leet or stream from the north-west or
>>>> the north would have to cross a bit of a valley some 5 metres (at
>>>> lower that the proposed moat so one would expect to see some evidence
>>>> the construction, even today.
>>>> Tony Marsh
>>> I am reminded of the Roman baths in Bearsden. They show all the signs of
>>> being baths, they look like any other Roman bath I've seen, but then I
>>> realised there was one small problem.
>>> The site is located on a promontory with no obvious way to supply
>>> running water and absolutely no indication of any ditch or other feature
>>> through which water would have reached the site. But again, on Barr hill
>>> - there are Roman "baths" and no possibility of a stream on the top of
>>> the hill.
>>> Somehow the Romans managed to make water flow "up hill" and no one seems
>>> to be able to explain how they did this. Indeed, at a place like bar
>>> hill, if the water were carried up the hill in buckets, surely there
>>> must have been some kind of water storage - but if so where? The
>>> mechanics of moving water uphill appear to be missing from the
>>> archaeological record.
>>> ... so .... it seems to me that the druids must have had some magic that
>>> allowed water to flow uphill :)