|
Title: Roman fields? Post by: kevinmansfield on October 25, 2015, 07:54:46 PM Hmm,
I was detecting the other day in nice field and I found 6 Roman coins scattered around in it. I detected it for about 6 hours and didn't find any other coins, or much else in it, apart from a few buttons which were probably 20th Century. That got me thinking. Why? Has nobody been in the field since Roman times? If so why not? Can anybody enlighten me? Title: Re: Roman fields? Post by: probono on October 25, 2015, 09:21:36 PM Hmm, I was detecting the other day in nice field and I found 6 Roman coins scattered around in it. I detected it for about 6 hours and didn't find any other coins, or much else in it, apart from a few buttons which were probably 20th Century. That got me thinking. Why? Has nobody been in the field since Roman times? If so why not? Can anybody enlighten me? I had a field like that - then I found a medieval hoard in it..... It's quite possible that the fields were cultivated / inhabited in roman times, but got wooded after they were abandoned - and it might be only comparatively recently that the land has been brought back into cultivation - there's plenty of areas where there are roman remains that are still wooded. Title: Re: Roman fields? Post by: outlaw on October 26, 2015, 06:55:40 AM If I was you when returning to the field, detect in as low a discrimination as you can get to all metal, and sweep very slowly, chances are you will be very surprised in what you have missed.
Dig all sounds, doesnt matter if junk, well that is my opinion and advice. ;) Title: Re: Roman fields? Post by: Chef Geoff on October 26, 2015, 09:52:57 AM I would totally agree with both the above answers with coins possibly representing a ploughed out "Foundation Deposit" which is beginning to be thought common in the late 3rd early 4th centuries which means that there's a great likelihood of many more coins being there, but these could still lie below detector depth :-\
As Roland says change of land use can be the main reason for finds or no finds with refuse and nightsoil being the main reason for finds but this was only dumped on arable land and so if pasture or woodland then it wouldn't even have the footfall for casual losses it's difficult for us to imagine just how much of the land was forested but if you think that right up until the Tudor period wood was the main building material for just about everything then you can appreciate how much there had to be then WWII saw a massive drive to bring uncultivated land under the plough with Wales alone going from 5,300 hectares of land growing wheat in 1939 to 53,000 hectares in 1943 much of which was old woodland. I've just finished reading a book about medieval woodland and wildlife which does help you realise just why they didn't get the footfall, we read things like Little Red Riding Hood to our children as fairytales and think nothing more about them though this story was originally written down in the 12th century up to which time woods even in the UK still contained bears, wolves, lynx and wild boar not the sort of place to go wandering about in.... Title: Re: Roman fields? Post by: kevinmansfield on October 26, 2015, 08:25:38 PM I would totally agree with both the above answers with coins possibly representing a ploughed out "Foundation Deposit" which is beginning to be thought common in the late 3rd early 4th centuries which means that there's a great likelihood of many more coins being there, but these could still lie below detector depth :-\ As Roland says change of land use can be the main reason for finds or no finds with refuse and nightsoil being the main reason for finds but this was only dumped on arable land and so if pasture or woodland then it wouldn't even have the footfall for casual losses it's difficult for us to imagine just how much of the land was forested but if you think that right up until the Tudor period wood was the main building material for just about everything then you can appreciate how much there had to be then WWII saw a massive drive to bring uncultivated land under the plough with Wales alone going from 5,300 hectares of land growing wheat in 1939 to 53,000 hectares in 1943 much of which was old woodland. I've just finished reading a book about medieval woodland and wildlife which does help you realise just why they didn't get the footfall, we read things like Little Red Riding Hood to our children as fairytales and think nothing more about them though this story was originally written down in the 12th century up to which time woods even in the UK still contained bears, wolves, lynx and wild boar not the sort of place to go wandering about in.... Thanks for the replies folks, Yep I thought perhaps it had turned to wood. It is incredible to think how much land would have been woodlands back in the day. Scary woodlands too with all those beasts. I guess the Romans would have cleared a fair bit to grow all the different fruit and veg they introduced. Makes you think, the Romans introduced carrots, peas, onions, tomatoes, apples, pears even cabbages. If you were a vegetarian Celt (not that I imagine there were many of them) you would eat a lot of Turnip. Title: Re: Roman fields? Post by: probono on October 28, 2015, 10:52:58 AM I don't think the romans introduced tomatoes, as these are a South American crop......
|