DEVA VICTRIX, Chester's In Situ Roman Remains, Part 4

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 4 гру 2024

КОМЕНТАРІ • 30

  • @mikeg3293
    @mikeg3293 7 місяців тому +3

    So interesting, and nice to see no happy clappy tv presenters, just pure walk through history. Thank you.

  • @anthonymoore6009
    @anthonymoore6009 10 місяців тому +5

    The real joy of Pastfinder films is the the amount of hidden history that is only hidden because we don't know where to look, that your films bring to the surface. As ever, top job Bob.

  • @dystopia00
    @dystopia00 20 днів тому +1

    Watched all 4 episodes and learnt a lot about roman Chester. I'm from there and didn't know half of what was in the videos. The overlay of the lines showing the barracks and the other sites were excellent and really easy to imagine and understand the reasons behind why and where etc. Best doc I've seen on this subject. Keep up the good work.

    • @PASTFINDERexploring
      @PASTFINDERexploring  19 днів тому +1

      Thank you so much, your kind comments are appreciated. There should be another instalment at some point, showing the locations of Deva's larger buildings and where they would have been in modern Chester. Watch this space, thank you for watching.

  • @museonfilm8919
    @museonfilm8919 10 місяців тому +4

    Great, I've been waiting for part 4 - thanks for your hard work and diligence.
    Those tombstones are fascinating.

  • @charlesgarvey1325
    @charlesgarvey1325 2 місяці тому +1

    Brilliant series. Great filming. Well done. So informative.

  • @steveharwood5824
    @steveharwood5824 10 місяців тому +2

    Another fascinating explore Bob.

  • @chesterdays2299
    @chesterdays2299 10 місяців тому +3

    This is a really good video. The bridge is especially difficult. The debris field and likely pier bases will be from the Roman bridge. I would expect the earliest Roman bridge to have been the stone pier and timber superstructure design, although we have no idea if it was rebuilt in stone, possibly in the Third Century during the great stone rebuilding of the fortress, resulting in the most complete stone phase of Deva. Medieval rolls, however, report the funding of repairs to the derelict bridge with timber - that doesn't mean it was still the timber superstructure as the broken stone bridge could have been repaired with wood. It's a difficult problem, and arguably has no resolution with so little evidence. Given the status of the fortress, both at the beginning and in the Third Century rebuild, I would be surprised if there had not been a full stone bridge. I have also noticed the construction pavement beneath the arches - a Roman and Medieval technique, which can be examined in detail at Piercebridge, where the remains of the bridge are now well away from the river. Upper Bridge Street aligns nicely with the bridge and Watling Street as it crosses the bridge, the line of the debris field. Lower Bridge Street is later and aligns with the Old Dee Bridge and Medieval road path. Very little serious work has ever been done on the Old Dee Bridge and the Roman crossing here. Recognition of the pier bases seems largely accepted, but remains to be proved. As you noted, there are also natural plates of sandstone along that line that will be part of the shallow bedrock here, like a terrace, but which clearly have also been worked to have straight edges. Again - a very decent video.

    • @PASTFINDERexploring
      @PASTFINDERexploring  10 місяців тому +1

      Thank you Julian for your kind words. It's a tough call is the bridge. It's hard not to look at it from anything other than what we see today. We have to remove the current bridge gate from the equation and instead focus upon the former Porta Praetoria which was located on the north side of Pepper Street. If we draw a direct line using the Via Praetoria as it passes through the fortress, the roadway would arrive at the river a few yards downstream. The fact that the current 14th century bridge replaced the Norman structure which presumably replaced the Roman confounds the thinking somewhat but only if it's assumed they were built upon the same alignment? Without hard archaeological evidence it's very difficult to determine.

    • @chesterdays2299
      @chesterdays2299 10 місяців тому +2

      The story of the bridges is one of the most difficult and frustrating aspects of early and Medieval Chester. The only one we can be sure about is the Old Dee Bridge, and the fact that there was at least one Roman bridge. One bridge, in the Middle Ages, was repaired many times. Another was swept away in a tsunami caused by a seabed fault slip in the Irish Sea. The alignments of Upper and Lower Bridge Street add to the uncertainty, although personally I think the Roman bridge(s) were always along the line of the debris field, not just on the basis of Watling Street but also the presence of a section of ramp in the cellars of the Bear and Billet, just north of the Bridgegate, which is supposed to have carried Watling Street across the marsh land there and up to the sandstone bedrock above Duke Street. I think the best we can do is collate what evidence there is, both physical and textual, and hope for more in the future. Some things we will never now know and have to accept it - frustrating all the same. Keep up the great work!

  • @peteb551
    @peteb551 8 місяців тому +2

    I thought the pronunciation was pretty good, the only obvious error was “Grosvenor” the S is silent as is always pronounced “Grovenor”. Really good series, as a born and bread cestrian you really showed and taught me a lot I didn’t know and haven’t seen. I must pay more attention next time I’m back there. Thanks

    • @PASTFINDERexploring
      @PASTFINDERexploring  8 місяців тому

      Thanks Pete. I learn a little more Latin pronounciation as people advise me along the way.

  • @Ben-bu2jg
    @Ben-bu2jg 10 місяців тому +4

    Thank you for the video. Where did you read or learn about the tomb stones being placed in the wall around the 4th century? My reason for asking is because where the wall extends to the point as far as the Water tower, is, from what I’ve read, built in the 4th century as there was the believed threat of the Barbarians attacking so I’m just thinking the 4th C date of the tomb stones fits in perfectly with that theory.

    • @PASTFINDERexploring
      @PASTFINDERexploring  10 місяців тому +1

      Hi Ben thank you. I was chatting to the staff at the Grovsner museum, they told me the dates re the tombstones. I also believe there is a bit about then in David Masons, Fortress at the edge of the world.

    • @Ben-bu2jg
      @Ben-bu2jg 10 місяців тому +2

      @@PASTFINDERexploring brilliant, thank you. Pretty sure that confirms the idea that it wasn’t actually the Saxons who extended the walls to the river like people often believe but the Romans. Fascinating stuff, pretty certain that you’re right when you say the walls beneath the Pembertons parlour are in situ. Thanks again

    • @PASTFINDERexploring
      @PASTFINDERexploring  10 місяців тому +1

      @@Ben-bu2jg It's a pretty logical theory when you look at a map, baring in mind the Dee came up to the water tower and up to Nuns Road in first few centuries of first millennium. A bit of a dig on the wall foundation in Pemberton's location would confirm or deny.

    • @Ben-bu2jg
      @Ben-bu2jg 10 місяців тому

      @@PASTFINDERexploring exactly, I hope one day they do that dig. I was thinking when you were looking for Roman foundations for the bridge, would the “new bridge” not have been built on a similar trajectory as the road layout is the same? Albeit the style of bridge is different so foundation placement may be off. I did actually read somewhere but can’t remember where that you can “maybe” see the foundation on the opposite side you were looking on, but again it’s almost impossible to distinguish bed rock and foundation, they’re one of the same really.

    • @PASTFINDERexploring
      @PASTFINDERexploring  10 місяців тому +1

      @@Ben-bu2jg it's something I though too. I did look on the East Side but water is a bit deeper. I think it was Chester Wiki, on thier Roman page, states that visible remains are in downstream side. Trouble is the current bridge is 700 years old and with a reused sandstone base regularly immersed in salt water,, how would you know?

  • @davidberlanny3308
    @davidberlanny3308 10 місяців тому +1

    Hi Bob, What a great series this has been, really enjoyed it.
    Interesting that they think it was a wooden bridge on stone foundations, I didnt realise it was still tidal at this point - I thought you were going to brave the waters for a couple of moments, the mud looked more treacherous than the water.
    The tombstones were the highlight in this one, they wouldnt look out of place in a later day graveyard. On one of them you mentioned that the person was based in South West Spain, did you work out where, maybe I didnt catch the name?
    I bet there are still more things waiting to be discovered too.
    All the best!!

    • @PASTFINDERexploring
      @PASTFINDERexploring  10 місяців тому

      Hi David, thank you. The bridge is pretty much the end of the Dee's tidal range. There's a weir a few more yards upstream. The Optio who's tombstone is featured is from Emirita Augusta. This is the Roman title but I looked it up and it's the present day city of Merida.

    • @davidberlanny3308
      @davidberlanny3308 10 місяців тому

      @@PASTFINDERexploring Merida is some 4.- 5 hours away from me, I would very much like to go. It's one of the principal archeological sites.
      Also nearby is Badajoz which was one of the key battles in the peninsular war, I believe the marines commemorate that battle.

  • @barrykrishna9981
    @barrykrishna9981 10 місяців тому +1

    No one knows what spoken Latin sounded like.

    • @PASTFINDERexploring
      @PASTFINDERexploring  10 місяців тому

      Except maybe the Roman Catholic church who still use it today.

    • @barrykrishna9981
      @barrykrishna9981 10 місяців тому +1

      They speak it but do not know how it originally sounded as there are no recordings of it. So it is guess work. There is much online that discusses this. It is true of all dead languages and Latin is a dead language.@@PASTFINDERexploring