If you're going to argue that Rome is relevant today specifically because we use the Latin alphabet, that also means that about twelve other steps in a long transmission chain from the late Bronze Age/early Iron Age Levant to me writing this post are at least as relevant, and mostly they're far less studied and understood in the modern west.
Broadly we are talking about the alphabet first being developed by the Phoenicians in the aftermath of the Bronze Age collapse, and spreading through their trade and other contacts to the ancient Greeks and their Italian colonies (this alphabet also forming the ultimate basis of most other alphabets), then the Etruscans then to the Latins who formed the Roman empire. But just talking about the territorial extent of the western roman empire doesn't actually get us the Latin script being used for English in England, that's a post-Western Empire story about the development of the Church.
For that strand of the story, we're starting from pretty much those same Iron Age Canaanites and heading to the development of Judaism from the Yahweh cult, to the emergence of Christians as an offshoot Jewish sect, to the adoption of said religion as the state religion in Rome, then the emergence of the Church as a key institution after the end of central political power in the Western Empire and its remaining separated from, and aloof from, the church in Constantinople with its shift to Greek predominance. Then eventually we get to the 7th century and Latin Church missionaries reaching England and bringing with them the Latin script that would come to replace the Germanic runic writing previously used by the Anglo Saxons.
Like, yep, the Western Roman Empire was a link in that chain but it's just one element, and honestly far from the most interesting!
We talk about fall of Rome, important, but not capital city in late Roman Empire?
Or fall of Roman Empire? If last, so what date we take for it "Fall" and more serious question - what description we gave for Roman Empire - what "KPI" describe an Empire as Roman Empire?
Most things (including living and non living) that last over time, age. Systems and organizations do also. "Aging" is the process of change over time. Whatever Rome was, from its founding through its final end in 1453, was a dynamic entity subject to change. The western Empire's systems (economic, social, military, etc.) evolved, expanded and then broke down. It may have taken 100 years or so to do so, but nonetheless, it died a slow death. The Eastern Empire seemed to have been backed into a corner and bludgeoned to death. I think "aging" is an apt metaphor for most things that exist over time. Nations, as well as, ideas spring to life, grow and evolve; they can die and then spring back to life in some new form. Western Rome had outlived it "usefulness" as a entity. It had become outdated and not suitable to meet the needs of the 5th century Europe. It aged out after ~1200 years.
Most things (including living and non living) that last over time, age. Systems and organizations do also. "Aging" is the process of change over time. Whatever Rome was, from its founding through its final end in 1453, was a dynamic entity subject to change. The western Empire's systems (economic, social, military, etc.) evolved, expanded and then broke down. It may have taken 100 years or so to do so, but nonetheless, it died a slow death. The Eastern Empire seemed to have been backed into a corner and bludgeoned to death. I think "aging" is an apt metaphor for most things that exist over time. Nations, as well as, ideas spring to life, grow and evolve; they can die and then spring back to life in some new form. Western Rome had outlived it "usefulness" as a entity. It had become outdated and not suitable to meet the needs of the 5th century Europe. It aged out after ~1200 years.
Most things (including living and non living) that last over time, age. Systems and organizations do also. "Aging" is the process of change over time. Whatever Rome was, from its founding through its final end in 1453, was a dynamic entity subject to change. The western Empire's systems (economic, social, military, etc.) evolved, expanded and then broke down. It may have taken 100 years or so to do so, but nonetheless, it died a slow death. The Eastern Empire seemed to have been backed into a corner and bludgeoned to death. I think "aging" is an apt metaphor for most things that exist over time. Nations, as well as, ideas spring to life, grow and evolve; they can die and then spring back to life in some new form. Western Rome had outlived it "usefulness" as a entity. It had become outdated and not suitable to meet the needs of the 5th century Europe. It aged out after ~1200 years.
I've been reading a bit about the fall of the Western Empire, emphasis on what was going on in Britain (since I've got a massive fanfiction project going on with the Merlin series, which I take to be set in the early 6th century and there would still be fallout from Rome's departure). There's a documentary on YT I keep meaning to watch.
My interest in the Eastern Empire was initially sparked by Robert Silverberg's novel Up the Line, about a group of Time Couriers whose job is to escort time tourists on a one or two-week tour into the past, and their last stop is, of course, 1453. Silverberg signed my copy of this novel at a convention in Calgary in the mid-'80s, and someone nearby mentioned the Varangians (I'd just joined the SCA and was in the process of creating my persona). So I did some research and was able to create a persona that combined Norse and Byzantine cultures. I belong to Robert Silverberg's email group, and some of us were discussing this novel just recently, within the last couple of weeks.
So while I know much less about the Eastern Empire and the later Western Empire than I do about the 1st century, I am gradually learning.
As for your second point, I think we all live in the graveyards of empires and their relevance will always be there to educate and dare us to do better.
I think that this begins to break down the closer you look at it. We cannot learn much from Rome, because we can't physically quantify its dimensions, and no interpretation of its fall will consequently be well anchored to reality(and interpretations of modern society are similarly unanchored)
The history of the history shows the rise and fall of different interpretations of Roman collapse, and the modern consensus will similarly fall apart. Probably on the death of their generation, a new one will arise and reevaluate the groupthink, recognizing it retrospectively for what it was, but the authoritative transmission of thinking excessive in its conclusions will resume, as it always does, repeating the process.
There's not much useful extrapolation that can be made consequently. History is useful as a news record, not an explanation for how things occurred or why - even the idea of action for material gain is sorta... dicey, as an explanation, because it ignores social movements influential in determining societal behavior. We are sort of able to recognize those in our own time, usually, but we are terrible at recognizing them historically, or at least, estimating their influence and effect with confidence, much less certainty.
This is starting to remind me of a ridiculous debate I was assigned in my Grade 12 English class. My partner and I had to argue in the affirmative that history should not be taught in schools. I told the teacher it was a stupid thing to have to argue, but she wouldn't reassign us.
So we did the debate and won. And that's even with the teacher forgetting she was supposed to be impartial and she started blathering on about "what about the Bible? That's history." (she was fond of assigning interpretive essays using the Jerusalem Bible, which really wasn't appropriate in a public school)
I still think it was a stupid thing to have to debate. So many people don't learn history at home, so where else will they learn it?
Relevance how? In terms of changing Europe over the course of history, significant. In terms of lost technological or cultural progress, I’m not so sure about that. As a blueprint for what to avoid, I don’t think there’s much that can be learned that would serve as much utility.
You can be a history junkie and still not think there's much to be learned from it that can actually be acted upon beneficially.
It's not interpreted without the bias of modern social movements, factions, ideologies and organizations being applied. When the lens is different, one person sees something the other doesn't. From there, there's no consensus and thus, nothing really actionable.
I remember reading a Guardian article with the historian Mary Beard(I think?) 7 or 8 years ago. In it, she was discussing migrations and Rome, and the point of the printing of it was that maybe there're some lessons to be learned there. I think she was of the mind that migration itself didn't bring down the Roman state, failure to respond to societal challenges and issues it posed or excacerbated effectively accelerated its collapse, but it's been years. Recall imperfect.
Of course, if you read the comment section, multiple people were claiming Rome's failure to assimilate large incoming populations led to its fall. In the mind of these posters, Europe was in comparable territory with what they thought was a failure to assimilate Muslim immigrants, whom they feared would usurp the state if sufficiently powerful or populous enough to do so, advocating an immigration pause.
The Guardian is The Guardian, though, so this was immediately opposed, echoing Beard, they recommend the state ensure alienation is not felt comparably to greivances that launched the Visigoth revolt that led to Adrianople. The anti-immigration crew replied in turn that it was naive to believe assimilation is sure to succeed.
On and on it went.
What does Rome teach us about immigration, then? Well, arguably nothing: it can't be reduced to quantification and the debate can't be conclusively settled to any real satisfaction. Claims like "people couldn't imagine a world without Rome" can't be falsified nor evidenced, thus any claim that a social movement or group like the Goths woulda reacted differently with gentler policy just... can't be proven. Maybe they couldn't, or maybe they rejoiced at the thought of having the power to bring down Rome and discarding the pretentious games they played seeking advantages of Roman politics, eager to reform the sort of kingdom they(probably) had on the Black Sea.
Nobody really knows. Social movements, unpredictable, hard to analyze. Human as hell.
I'm not sure people's behaviour has changed since Roman times.
The fact that we live in SUCH a modern world and take it as a given does not mean that mankind could not have taken a different path - first of all, in terms of the organisation of society. We can convince ourselves that progress would have led us to such a social organisation sooner or later anyway (I mean the Western Roman way of life, which spread almost everywhere).
To think that the history of Rome is not relevant to us is naive. Given that we are still living in Roman empires today.
UPD. Roman social conditioning is strong enough to survive barbaric times and revive. Take the example of ISIS - how things can quickly slip into a savage medievalism when there is no (pathos at its maximum) - imperial spirit. Of course, I am hypertrophising here, but I think the direction of thought is clear
SpoilerI was too lazy to write much - so I used chatgpt. :
banzay, [18.12.2024 7:16]
Introductory Instructions. You are a resident of Rome during the time of Trojan.
Name five key characteristics of the Roman Empire. These characteristics should apply only to the Roman Empire and not to other empires or countries.
ChatGPT 4 | Midjourney | Claude | Suno, [18.12.2024 7:16]
As a resident of Rome during the Trojan era, I can identify five key characteristics of the Roman Empire that make it unique:
1. Citizens' rights: The Roman Empire was known for its system of law, which provided citizens with certain rights and protections. Roman law became the basis for many modern legal systems.
2. Road System: The Roman Empire had an extensive network of roads that connected different parts of the empire. These roads not only facilitated trade and troop movement, but also facilitated communication between regions.
3. Engineering prowess: The Romans were masters of engineering, which was evident in the construction of aqueducts, amphitheatres, thermae and other architectural structures. These achievements were unparalleled in other cultures of the time.
4. Cults and Religion: The Roman Empire was characterised by its religious tolerance and integration of various cults. The Romans actively borrowed deities and practices from conquered peoples, which created a unique religious mosaic.
5. Military organisation: the Roman army was a highly organised and disciplined force, which allowed the empire to successfully conquer and hold vast territories. Legion Structure
As a wealthy resident of Rome in Trojan times, I am amazed to see how many similarities there are between my era and modern Europe. Here are a few aspects that catch my eye:
1. Diversity of cultures: the Roman Empire was multi-ethnic, bringing together different peoples and cultures. Modern Europe is also a diversity of cultures, languages and traditions. In both cases, this diversity enriches the society and creates a unique atmosphere.
2 Trade and Economy: The Trojan times were a time of flourishing trade, with goods from different parts of the empire travelling freely by road and sea. Today's Europe, with its single market and free movement of goods, exhibits similar principles of economic integration and interdependence.
3 Infrastructure: The Romans were renowned for their engineering achievements: aqueducts, roads and buildings provided the basis for efficient government and trade. Modern Europe also has advanced infrastructure, including roads, bridges and transport systems that connect countries and enable mobility.
4.Civil Rights and Laws: The Roman Empire developed a legal system that protected the rights of citizens. Modern Europe continues this tradition by promoting human rights and democratic values, which provides a legal framework for citizens' lives.
5.Public Spaces: In Rome, there were squares, baths and theatres that served as places for communication and social interactions.Modern European cities also have many public spaces such as parks, squares and cultural centres where people gather to socialise and relax.
6.Education and Philosophy: In Rome, education, philosophy, and the arts were valued.
Modern Europe continues this tradition by placing great importance on education and cultural development, which contributes to the formation of social consciousness.
7. Political Structure: Although the forms of government differ, both systems tend to govern through elected bodies and representation. This provides the basis for political participation of citizens in governance.
Overall, despite temporal and cultural differences, many parallels can be seen between the Roman Empire of Trojan times and modern Europe. These commonalities emphasise the enduring values of human society and its quest for progress and harmony.
I'm not sure people's behaviour has changed since Roman times.
The fact that we live in SUCH a modern world and take it as a given does not mean that mankind could not have taken a different path - first of all, in terms of the organisation of society. We can convince ourselves that progress would have led us to such a social organisation sooner or later anyway (I mean the Western Roman way of life, which spread almost everywhere).
To think that the history of Rome is not relevant to us is naive. Given that we are still living in Roman empires today.
UPD. Roman social conditioning is strong enough to survive barbaric times and revive. Take the example of ISIS - how things can quickly slip into a savage medievalism when there is no (pathos at its maximum) - imperial spirit. Of course, I am hypertrophising here, but I think the direction of thought is clear
SpoilerI was too lazy to write much - so I used chatgpt. :
banzay, [18.12.2024 7:16]
Introductory Instructions. You are a resident of Rome during the time of Trojan.
Name five key characteristics of the Roman Empire. These characteristics should apply only to the Roman Empire and not to other empires or countries.
ChatGPT 4 | Midjourney | Claude | Suno, [18.12.2024 7:16]
As a resident of Rome during the Trojan era, I can identify five key characteristics of the Roman Empire that make it unique:
1. Citizens' rights: The Roman Empire was known for its system of law, which provided citizens with certain rights and protections. Roman law became the basis for many modern legal systems.
2. Road System: The Roman Empire had an extensive network of roads that connected different parts of the empire. These roads not only facilitated trade and troop movement, but also facilitated communication between regions.
3. Engineering prowess: The Romans were masters of engineering, which was evident in the construction of aqueducts, amphitheatres, thermae and other architectural structures. These achievements were unparalleled in other cultures of the time.
4. Cults and Religion: The Roman Empire was characterised by its religious tolerance and integration of various cults. The Romans actively borrowed deities and practices from conquered peoples, which created a unique religious mosaic.
5. Military organisation: the Roman army was a highly organised and disciplined force, which allowed the empire to successfully conquer and hold vast territories. Legion Structure
As a wealthy resident of Rome in Trojan times, I am amazed to see how many similarities there are between my era and modern Europe. Here are a few aspects that catch my eye:
1. Diversity of cultures: the Roman Empire was multi-ethnic, bringing together different peoples and cultures. Modern Europe is also a diversity of cultures, languages and traditions. In both cases, this diversity enriches the society and creates a unique atmosphere.
2 Trade and Economy: The Trojan times were a time of flourishing trade, with goods from different parts of the empire travelling freely by road and sea. Today's Europe, with its single market and free movement of goods, exhibits similar principles of economic integration and interdependence.
3 Infrastructure: The Romans were renowned for their engineering achievements: aqueducts, roads and buildings provided the basis for efficient government and trade. Modern Europe also has advanced infrastructure, including roads, bridges and transport systems that connect countries and enable mobility.
4.Civil Rights and Laws: The Roman Empire developed a legal system that protected the rights of citizens. Modern Europe continues this tradition by promoting human rights and democratic values, which provides a legal framework for citizens' lives.
5.Public Spaces: In Rome, there were squares, baths and theatres that served as places for communication and social interactions.Modern European cities also have many public spaces such as parks, squares and cultural centres where people gather to socialise and relax.
6.Education and Philosophy: In Rome, education, philosophy, and the arts were valued.
Modern Europe continues this tradition by placing great importance on education and cultural development, which contributes to the formation of social consciousness.
7. Political Structure: Although the forms of government differ, both systems tend to govern through elected bodies and representation. This provides the basis for political participation of citizens in governance.
Overall, despite temporal and cultural differences, many parallels can be seen between the Roman Empire of Trojan times and modern Europe. These commonalities emphasise the enduring values of human society and its quest for progress and harmony.
If you're going to argue that Rome is relevant today specifically because we use the Latin alphabet, that also means that about twelve other steps in a long transmission chain from the late Bronze Age/early Iron Age Levant to me writing this post are at least as relevant, and mostly they're far less studied and understood in the modern west.
Broadly we are talking about the alphabet first being developed by the Phoenicians in the aftermath of the Bronze Age collapse, and spreading through their trade and other contacts to the ancient Greeks and their Italian colonies (this alphabet also forming the ultimate basis of most other alphabets), then the Etruscans then to the Latins who formed the Roman empire. But just talking about the territorial extent of the western roman empire doesn't actually get us the Latin script being used for English in England, that's a post-Western Empire story about the development of the Church.
For that strand of the story, we're starting from pretty much those same Iron Age Canaanites and heading to the development of Judaism from the Yahweh cult, to the emergence of Christians as an offshoot Jewish sect, to the adoption of said religion as the state religion in Rome, then the emergence of the Church as a key institution after the end of central political power in the Western Empire and its remaining separated from, and aloof from, the church in Constantinople with its shift to Greek predominance. Then eventually we get to the 7th century and Latin Church missionaries reaching England and bringing with them the Latin script that would come to replace the Germanic runic writing previously used by the Anglo Saxons.
Like, yep, the Western Roman Empire was a link in that chain but it's just one element, and honestly far from the most interesting!
I think she was of the mind that migration itself didn't bring down the Roman state, failure to respond to societal challenges and issues it posed or excacerbated effectively accelerated its collapse, but it's been years. Recall imperfect.
This sounds like the current news. You'd think our modern politicians might have learned a thing or two from history classes.
Oops. Most places don't teach Roman history until college/university, and even then it's to a relatively few people. So of course we have politicians who seem shocked - SHOCKED - that this sort of thing is happening. It happened before, not only in the case of Rome, but in other situations in the past.
Of course, if you read the comment section, multiple people were claiming Rome's failure to assimilate large incoming populations led to its fall. In the mind of these posters, Europe was in comparable territory with what they thought was a failure to assimilate Muslim immigrants, whom they feared would usurp the state if sufficiently powerful or populous enough to do so, advocating an immigration pause.
Again, this is not very different from what I see in the comment sections for the right-wing politicians in my country, particularly in my province.
Some years ago, our main news network, the CBC, instituted a "real names" policy for their comment section - no more fake usernames. I thought it over and realized that I have some political views that aren't popular in this part of the country, and didn't need the aggravation that could come if someone took exception to them. So I picked the name of a character from one of the science fiction books I'd read, that plausibly could be a real name, and registered that (our former accounts are inaccessible now; pity, as I had some 20k comments even then).
Well, turns out that some people think my current username there sounds Indian. So every so often, back when commenting was still allowed, some jerk would tell me to "go back to your country." I informed them that as someone who was born, raised, and still lives in Alberta, I am already in my country and have no plans to leave.
Kinda like the NDP leader, who got told to go back where he came from. He was in Vancouver, BC at the time, and he mused to the journalists, "They want me to go back to Ontario?" People can't look past his Sikh turban, and just assume he was born in India.
You have a strange view of history. If "nothing ever happens" we'd still be in the Bronze Age, with very few literate people around to record and read what happens.
It's not that "nothing ever happens", but rather that people don't seem to learn from what happened before. Current events in Canada are relevant here. It wouldn't surprise me if our Prime Minister resigns in the next few hours, since Canada's parliament has basically imploded and Trudeau is in a massive case of denial about it. He needs to leave NOW, or we're going to have the federal election of 1993 all over again, just from the opposite side (when the Conservative PM waited too late to resign and his successor barely had time to get elected in a leadership convention, never mind having time to run the proper election that she had to call; she lost her seat, and so did nearly everyone else in the caucus - they went from a majority down to TWO people).
I remember the events of 1993 quite well, since that was the first time I worked for Elections Canada as a Deputy Returning Officer at the federal level. Things were a disorganized mess, but when the dust cleared, it was out with the PCs and in with the Liberals. I foresee a similar situation will happen in January, or February at the latest; our next federal election doesn't have to be called until September, but it would surprise me if it's not called before the New Year, or at least the first week of January.
Looks like Justin forgot what happened in 1993, and he really doesn't have any excuse to forget that, given that he was likely in university at the time and would have been well aware of the political situation.
Of course to the younger generation of voters, 1993 was pre-social media, nearly pre-internet, so it might as well be the Dark Ages for them, something from the remote past.
That perception that modern history began with the internet is at least a part of what's going on now, not only here but elsewhere - pre-internet times are seen as hopelessly old-fashioned and not worth remembering.
I'm not sure people's behaviour has changed since Roman times.
The fact that we live in SUCH a modern world and take it as a given does not mean that mankind could not have taken a different path - first of all, in terms of the organisation of society. We can convince ourselves that progress would have led us to such a social organisation sooner or later anyway (I mean the Western Roman way of life, which spread almost everywhere).
To think that the history of Rome is not relevant to us is naive. Given that we are still living in Roman empires today.
I'm reminded of Robert Silverberg's book called Roma Eterna, which is an exploration of the idea of how history would have unfolded if Rome never fell. It's been quite awhile since I read it, but one part sticks out. The Romans were quite cocky and confident that they were just going to go over to the New World and take it over, expand the Empire, get rich... and it was a hell of a shock when they got there and discovered that not only had the Vikings beaten them by a number of years, but had also forged an alliance with the Aztecs.
UPD. Roman social conditioning is strong enough to survive barbaric times and revive. Take the example of ISIS - how things can quickly slip into a savage medievalism when there is no (pathos at its maximum) - imperial spirit. Of course, I am hypertrophising here, but I think the direction of thought is clear
SpoilerI was too lazy to write much - so I used chatgpt. :
banzay, [18.12.2024 7:16]
Introductory Instructions. You are a resident of Rome during the time of Trojan.
Name five key characteristics of the Roman Empire. These characteristics should apply only to the Roman Empire and not to other empires or countries.
ChatGPT 4 | Midjourney | Claude | Suno, [18.12.2024 7:16]
As a resident of Rome during the Trojan era, I can identify five key characteristics of the Roman Empire that make it unique:
1. Citizens' rights: The Roman Empire was known for its system of law, which provided citizens with certain rights and protections. Roman law became the basis for many modern legal systems.
2. Road System: The Roman Empire had an extensive network of roads that connected different parts of the empire. These roads not only facilitated trade and troop movement, but also facilitated communication between regions.
3. Engineering prowess: The Romans were masters of engineering, which was evident in the construction of aqueducts, amphitheatres, thermae and other architectural structures. These achievements were unparalleled in other cultures of the time.
4. Cults and Religion: The Roman Empire was characterised by its religious tolerance and integration of various cults. The Romans actively borrowed deities and practices from conquered peoples, which created a unique religious mosaic.
5. Military organisation: the Roman army was a highly organised and disciplined force, which allowed the empire to successfully conquer and hold vast territories. Legion Structure
As a wealthy resident of Rome in Trojan times, I am amazed to see how many similarities there are between my era and modern Europe. Here are a few aspects that catch my eye:
1. Diversity of cultures: the Roman Empire was multi-ethnic, bringing together different peoples and cultures. Modern Europe is also a diversity of cultures, languages and traditions. In both cases, this diversity enriches the society and creates a unique atmosphere.
2 Trade and Economy: The Trojan times were a time of flourishing trade, with goods from different parts of the empire travelling freely by road and sea. Today's Europe, with its single market and free movement of goods, exhibits similar principles of economic integration and interdependence.
3 Infrastructure: The Romans were renowned for their engineering achievements: aqueducts, roads and buildings provided the basis for efficient government and trade. Modern Europe also has advanced infrastructure, including roads, bridges and transport systems that connect countries and enable mobility.
4.Civil Rights and Laws: The Roman Empire developed a legal system that protected the rights of citizens. Modern Europe continues this tradition by promoting human rights and democratic values, which provides a legal framework for citizens' lives.
5.Public Spaces: In Rome, there were squares, baths and theatres that served as places for communication and social interactions.Modern European cities also have many public spaces such as parks, squares and cultural centres where people gather to socialise and relax.
6.Education and Philosophy: In Rome, education, philosophy, and the arts were valued.
Modern Europe continues this tradition by placing great importance on education and cultural development, which contributes to the formation of social consciousness.
7. Political Structure: Although the forms of government differ, both systems tend to govern through elected bodies and representation. This provides the basis for political participation of citizens in governance.
Overall, despite temporal and cultural differences, many parallels can be seen between the Roman Empire of Trojan times and modern Europe. These commonalities emphasise the enduring values of human society and its quest for progress and harmony.
Interesting. I'm semi-impressed that the chat program didn't interpret "Trojan" (you meant Trajan, I think) as the actual city of Troy and start carrying on about the Trojan War, which predates the founding of Rome.
Interesting. I'm semi-impressed that the chat program didn't interpret "Trojan" (you meant Trajan, I think) as the actual city of Troy and start carrying on about the Trojan War, which predates the founding of Rome
I used the Russian language when chatting with chatgpt and then the site-translator, so it's deepl's fault and mine, of course, for not checking before copying
UPD. It was my fault completely. I have misspelled with a-o, but chatgpt understood me correctly
*facepalm.jpg*
They came, saw, and won. But eventually they were forced to go back home, so all was well in the end
As far as immigrants go, the Romans were definitely in a class of their own.
But when we dig down under the current city to what should be the Roman period, the results are often nothing less than disappointing,
For example, fragments of a plate were found; based on the shape and stamps, it was determined that the plate was possibly made during the Flavian period (69-96 AD). A coin from the first century BC was also found, depicting a galley ship. In addition, traces of buildings from the Roman period were also found, such as houses, a silo and wells. To the north of the site, traces of a Roman road were found, which was still in use throughout the early Middle Ages.
In 1984 vonden er opgravingen plaats in de Gentse site Hogeweg, aangezien er luchtfoto’s genomen werden waarop cirkels te zien waren. De plantengroei zag er anders uit op de plaatsen waar zich vroeger greppels bevonden, want de samenstelling van deze grond was anders dan de bodem waarin geen...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.