+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Time Team fails again (/showthread.php?tid=3719)
Time Team fails again - Stephen Jack - 30th January 2011
If you find this post slightly disjointed that is because it had to be edited according to the unofficial AUP.
Piercebridge TT episode 3 series 17.
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/time-team/episode-guide/series-17/episode-3
In this program Dr Robinson, describes part of the stone structure 200m down stream from Piercebridge as, “Massive great stones one on top of the other and this is a big bridge abutment”. Dr Robinson also goes on to say the “the river has shifted” as the explanation for the present day river being 100 meters from the abutment and 10 feet lower down, “rivers are dynamic”
To put this “big bridge abutment” into perspective, it's the same size as the Cong Burn abutment at Chester-le-Street “a stream of only 10 feet wide and 6 inches deep” Selkirk 'On the trail of the legions'
Neil Holbrook 'Roman bridges in Britain' describes the abutment as “a relatively small structure (8.05m long by 3.1m wide) and lay 100m to the south of the present channel of the Tees.”
There are six slots cut into the abutment, they are not shown in the program. Being just 2 feet above the stone paving, the range of uses for the slots is very limited, a complete waste of time for formwork when you are hardly off the ground, and it is double the number of slots require for formwork if the intention was to build a stone bridge. The only real use would be to support timber members in compression for a timber bridge, something which can be easily demonstrated by placing a shaped piece of timber in one of the slots.
In this “the river has shifted” explanation there are a few laws of physics which must have taken a vacation. Roman piles on the line of Dere Street are cut flush with the current river bed (Selkirk) There is no impact on the 3000 plus items found in a small area 200m upstream. Piles have been found in the current river bed on the line with the stone structure (NAG). 500 meters down stream there are pile holes with roman coins in the bottom (Selkirk) The bridge starts at a height of 2 feet, and the south side abutment is the size you would find on a small stream. So where is the river modelling, and scientific analysis, to prove that the river moved? All the evidence which does exist says the river bed level has changed very little in 2000 years.
Piercebridge, Neil Holbrook 'Roman bridges in Britain'“Even allowing for the northward shift of the river it would appear that a length of the flood plain must have originally been bridged.” Absolutely, but this can only give half the picture as a large part of the structure is missing.
If we look at Willowford bridge on Hadrian's Wall, Colin O'Connor in 'Roman Bridges' quoted a sign at the site “The river has changed its course since Roman times, leaving the eastern abutments of a series of bridges, built and rebuilt over many years, high and dry.” Aerial photographs of Willowford bridge show the high and dry part of the bridge is actually on the edge of a flood plain, exactly where it would have to be in order to allow continuous use during periods of flooding. The Willowford bridge abutments are still there after being rebuilt several times, why were the abutments rebuilt? what was the height of the flood plain?
On a standard Roman bridge, flow area is reduced by 25%. As this bridge carried Hadrians wall extra loading may have reduce flow area by 33.3% or more, barriers to people would also restrict flow. This in its self changes the flood height. Secondly the major flaw in Roman bridges, the large size of the piers, increases water velocity which subsequently undermines the foundations (O'Connor) The rebuilding at Willowford bridge was certainly the result of this process.
So was it the river that moved or the bridge that was removed?
Selkirk argued that the structure at Piercebridge was a spillway for a dam, structurally there are only three players in the game, bridging of the flood plain, a spillway or a combination of the two. Selkirk's reasoning is very good but there are a couple of problems. For starters the bridge timber work starts too low for a dam spillway, a weir is more feasible.
Secondly Selkirk argued that a bridge already existed on Dere street and you would not build one off this line. But if it was a bridge, why build it 200m down stream from Dere Street, this is unusual. Typically you would upgrade the existing structure or build a new one along side, but I think there is a sound geological reason for moving the bridge. The south bank has slipped in the past along a considerable length, The name of this area is Clife, today there is no cliff, just a slope. Although I would like to agree 100% with Selkirk’s conclusions, bank stability appears to be a very strong contender in the Roman engineers reasoning. . Future more this would mesh in with the high number of finds at the site of the original Dere Street bridge. A bridge accessible from one side, a bridge to no where, an example of Roman change of use, from bridge to shrine. Also the confined area in which the 3000 plus finds are located would suggest that there was a pool just after the bridge, it could have been caused by a dam, but erosion caused by bridges creates pools naturally.
Personally I think TT work falls way below the mark interms of what can be done in such a program. What could they have done?
Example GIS data.
They have an under worked surveyor on site with GPS. He could have surveyed the river and flood plain, made the data available on TT website and let it be analysed by 'others'.
Input from 'others'
O'Connor Roman bridges data
Environment agency data.
Local flood data
Free river modelling and analysis software HEC-RAS
Out of this you would have greater internet presence, follow up material for programs, modelled solutions for the downstream river structure at Piercebridge.
As well, important sources are not cited.
“Recently Mr R Selkirk has recovered a remarkable array of Roman coins and small
objects from around the piles and it has been suggested that they were votive offerings cast into the waters (Casey 1989).”
http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata/cbaresrep/pdf/094/09411001.pdf
Northern Echo 2005
“Rolfe and Bob were both members of a sub-aqua club and, their imaginations fired, when they heard Mr Selkirk wanted two divers to look for evidence to support his theory, they jumped at the chance.”
http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/archive/2005/10/14/The+North+East+Archive/7147382.Messing_about_in_the_river/
Time Team fails again - BAJR - 30th January 2011
Quote:edited according to the unofficial AUP.Er.... that would be the official AUP which clearly states the requirements to be able to post on BAJR. which is why the last one was removed.
This is now a reasoned opinion... rather than direct attacks on named individuals and organisations. Now we all know about Selkirk.... so job done.
Time Team fails again - Stephen Jack - 30th January 2011
BAJR Wrote:Er.... that would be the official AUP which clearly states the requirements to be able to post on BAJR. which is why the last one was removed.
Its unofficial due to the fact that it is not what people sign up to. The rules that we sign up to is not the AUP you refer to.
BAJR Wrote:This is now a reasoned opinion... rather than direct attacks on named individuals and organisations. Now we all know about Selkirk.... so job done.
No that's not correct either as the main criticism against <removed> could not be referred to. Great AUP that allows half a story, not impressed at all . To answer your question from several threads ago yes I do think I can do better job than this substandard archaeology, too many mediocre archaeologists masquerading as experts
Time Team fails again - BAJR - 30th January 2011
British Archaeological Jobs & Resources (BAJR) Federation Forum
Terms and Conditions
IF YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH THE CODE OF CONDUCT THEN YOU CANNOT PARTICIPATE ON THIS FORUM.
Basicly... if you do not agree with the AUP and the Terms and Conditions you cannot participate.
As it looks as if you refuse to acknowledge these simple terms, you should consider whether you are able to continue..
Do not try and tell me what is official and not official on BAJR .
Do not think you can make direct named complaints it may be half your story - but more than enough for most. Nobody else cares. you should be grateful that a UK forum actually allows you this much. As to comments about "mediocre archaeologists masquerading as experts - and yes I do think I can do better job than this substandard archaeology" What can I say..... that is your opinion, you have not named anyone, and so it can stand. the rest can't
Time Team fails again - Stephen Jack - 30th January 2011
http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/register.php
Forum Rules
Registration to this forum is free! We do insist that you abide by the rules and policies detailed below. If you agree to the terms, please check the 'I agree' checkbox and press the 'Proceed...' button below. If you would like to cancel the registration, click here to return to the forums index.
Although the administrators and moderators of BAJR Federation Forum will attempt to keep all objectionable messages off this site, it is impossible for us to review all messages. All messages express the views of the author, and neither the owners of BAJR Federation Forum, nor vBulletin Solutions, Inc. (developers of vBulletin) will be held responsible for the content of any message.
By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.
The owners of BAJR Federation Forum reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any content item for any reason.
Time Team fails again - Stephen Jack - 30th January 2011
Post removed.
Time Team fails again - mpoole - 30th January 2011
Stephen, change the record, please. It's Sunday, the moderators would like to be watching 'Becket' or something else, perhaps even Time Team.
Quote:Although the administrators and moderators of BAJR Federation Forum will attempt to keep all objectionable messages off this site, it is impossible for us to review all messages.
What part of this don't you understand?
You know, with a half-hour of effort you can actually start a forum.......
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=free+forums
Then you can post about Time Team and its perceived failings to your heart's content. Even on Sunday.
-Su
Time Team fails again - Stephen Jack - 30th January 2011
Stephen Jack Wrote:Post removed.
So the person who's name appears at the end of the link can be made fun of in breach of the AUP but I can't mention the fact?
All I want is a level field, not one with favoured status.
http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/showthread.php?3796-Alarm-Bells-Proposed-New-TV-Programme&highlight=paul+barford
MADWEASELS
"Hey! I've been Barfordised - you know, report something to the assembled innocently and with good intent and then feel Paul's wrath for getting it, allegedly, wrong. Yay!!!!"
BARJ
"You know when you've been Barforded. Join the growing club"
BAJR EDIT
<as it happens, there is little there which makes me think... ooooh thats a breach. these are simple statements of fact. based on what has been said on his blog.>
As it happens you decided to report it once more - withut waiting for me to decide what to do... as it happens, it would have stood, BUT you decided to go it alone again... and repost...
You are now on a day suspension...
Time Team fails again - mpoole - 30th January 2011
Frankly, all I want is to be able to watch 'Becket'. I removed the post and noted it was to be decided by the forum host as to its replacement. If you don't like it, address it to the host.
Time Team fails again - monty - 30th January 2011
Hey TT is TV man !
Chill out !
Surely you got something IMPORTANT
OR MEANINGFUL to think about than a goddamn bit of TV !!!!!!!!!!