6 historical sites hiding in plain sight

[Imperial Dave]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/z6qndnb

Some of these are hopefully of interest

[Jim Webster]

The St Dunstan In The East Church is interesting. There is at least one other London church where they did the same thing, Christchurch Greyfriars church has something similar

[DBS]

Piercebridge is also fascinating for Selkirk's controversial, but to my mind well reasoned, theory that the supposed Roman bridge piers are in fact the remains of a Roman lock, evidence that the streams and rivers in the area were partially canalised to ease logistic for the military installations.

[Imperial Dave]

Oooohhhh...love a controversy! 

[Jim Webster]

Piercebridge is also fascinating for Selkirk's controversial, but to my mind well reasoned, theory that the supposed Roman bridge piers are in fact the remains of a Roman lock, evidence that the streams and rivers in the area were partially canalised to ease logistic for the military installations.

It's one of those controversies that I've read a little about.
I'm just left wondering exactly how much of this partial canalisation was done, and is there any evidence of it being done elsewhere in Europe?

[DBS]

Selkirk wrote a very interesting book, The Piercebridge Formula, published in the 1970s by PSL (once so beloved or wargamers    ).  He was a retired merchant navy officer who also had a pilot's licence and used to fly Cessnas for northern England archaeologists in the early days of systematic searches for crop marks.  His theory rested on various strands: the size and placement of remaining foundations of Roman "bridge piers" which he thought could be locks; the sheer advantages of riverine transport over horse/ox drawn transport, especially given the Roman prediliction for straight roads up hill and down dale which might be ok for infantry, cavalry and pack mules, but would risk strangling a horse in an ancient yoke system; the proximity of so many forts to rivers - just for fresh water, or also ease of supply?  He pointed out that even very modest canalisation would have made even small streams capable of managing barges with a couple of tons of cargo, moveable by Lurkio and his donkey.

He had an interesting further thought, might the terraces at Housesteads and elsewhere just possibly have been for rice?  Having plied the Yellow and Yangtze Rivers with the Merchant Navy, he was struck by similarities of climate, and rice would certainly have been a good crop for a garrison.  However, this was very much a separate idea, not related to the canal thesis.

His canalisation theory encountered hostility from archaeologists; as a student I got the impression that there was more than a whiff of "Biggles should stick to flying us experts around to take photos," rather than necessarily a reasonably open minded consideration of his lock evidence.

[Cantabrigian]

rather than necessarily a reasonably open minded consideration of his lock evidence.

Annoying as it may be to those of us with pet theories, I don't actually think it's in the job descriptions of academics to perform open minded consideration of theories from amateurs.

That's not the way the system works, and it's difficult to imagine a system that could economically provide that.

The best we amateurs can hope for is dropping the odd hint and hoping that they might act as some sort of catalyst...

[Erpingham]

Though, in this case, the book did attract some academic attention.  I recall it being mentioned in my undergraduate degree course, for example.

[DBS]

Though, in this case, the book did attract some academic attention.  I recall it being mentioned in my undergraduate degree course, for example.

Exactly. I got a rather sniffy response when I very delicately mentioned it as an undergrad in the 80s at a class at the Institute of Archaeology.  The point was that the prof was very aware of it, just feared I might have been led astray by it 😃