Salvete!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What future for a sleeping giant?
The Roman town of Venta Icenorum lies slumbering beneath the Norfolk countryside. Now the county faces a conundrum – should it awaken this "Crown jewel" of our heritage and turn it into a modern visitor attraction or let the past sleep in peace?
Once it was the most important Roman town in our part of East Anglia. Today it is hidden beneath the grass of the Tas Valley.
But as to tomorrow? The future of Venta Icenorum, the Roman town at Caistor St Edmund is still to be decided upon.
Should it be developed as a major attraction to allow potentially tens of thousands of visitors every year to discover more of what life was life in Roman Britain?
Should it be left as it is, protected from possible damage and part of a beautiful rural setting?
Or does the way forward lie perhaps in a middle way, a small-scale venture, more information for the public and some excavation?
It is a decision which lies in the hands of the Venta Joint Advisory Board (JAB), a group that brings together those championing the site's historical value, local residents, councillors and representatives of the many other interested parties.
But even within the group there are differing views on the road ahead for the site. While some might consider the Caistor site to be South Norfolk's Sutton Hoo, a fantastic historic find that warrants a higher public profile, others feel it is best left as it is, simply with its interpretation boards that tell the story of the "market place of the Iceni".
And this has been reflected too in the results of a recent major public consultation on the site's future.
The feelings of the hundreds of people from throughout Norfolk and as far afield as Australia who responded to the consultation varied from those who felt it was an undervalued resource to the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" school of thought.
Comments for development included "It's about time something was done to stop this site going to waste", "Conservation and education facilities are overdue" and "Presently it feels overlooked and does not reflect its importance".
Against development though, people said "One person's improvement is another person's vandalism", "Any improvements would spoil the site" and "Don't ruin a perfectly lovely site . . . stop concreting over England".
The public was invited to vote on four schemes that had been put forward by specialist consultants Strategic Leisure.
Option One would see Caistor Roman Town remain much the same as it currently is.
Option Two included a small information building and toilets near the existing car park, as well as disabled access and enhanced interpretation panels. There was also the possibility of excavating parts of the site.
Option Three was more extensive, including the possibility of a new access road to a different car park site and possible guided tours round the area.
Option Four is the major scheme which encompasses the others plus a new visitors' centre containing exhibitions, possibly a museum, education room, restaurant and toilets on a hill overlooking the valley.
The result of the vote was also quite definitely split –Option Four gained 162 votes, just beating Option Two which got 160 votes. The other two options were also well supported.
As public consultation report noted: "The main conclusion to be drawn from the results of this consultation is that the people of South Norfolk and beyond care about Venta and although their visions for the future of the site may differ wildly, this can only be viewed as a positive outcome of the consultation."
The mixed result of the vote was somewhat unexpected for Mike Bentley, countryside and heritage manager of South Norfolk Council, who is on the JAB.
"I think everyone was surprised that it was so level between a major and a minor scheme," he said. "I think there was clearly the feeling that everybody has an opinion about what should and should not be done about Caistor. But to come out with the results that the consultation did was a surprise to us all."
It also came as something of a frustration to certain members, such as Norfolk Archaeological Trust's Peter Wade Martins.
The trust was bequeathed the core of the site in 1984 by landowner Edith Hawkins. In the years that followed, the trust negotiated with other owners of neighbouring land, so that in 1992 it was able to purchase the rest of the present site.
This was immediately grassed over to protect it from damage caused, for instance, by ploughing, and it was officially opened to the public the following year.
Around that time, the trust was delighted to find a nearby barn that would make an ideal visitors centre. An architects' competition was held to find the most suitable design, and everything was ready to roll when the barn was unexpectedly sold to another buyer.
A year later a scheme was floated to build a visitors centre near the present car park, but this met opposition for its possible effect on the landscape, and the scheme was dropped.
In its place, the trust came up with the Caistor Project, a new plan that included a small interpretation building and toilets near the present car park, a thorough investigation of the site and important conservation of the walls.
Also included in the project was re-excavation of the sites that were looked at during the 1930s and covered over again. These include the Forum and the South Gate.
Dr Wade Martins explained: "There are those who feel we have done enough by making it accessible to the public, interpreting it well and saving it from further damage. But there has been quite a lot of pressure from councillors in South Norfolk to do something more - but no-one knows quite what that something more should be."
By now the JAB was in place, consisting of representatives from South Norfolk Council, the Norfolk Archaeological Trust, Norfolk County Council, Caistor Parish Council, Caistor parochial church council, Norfolk Museums and Archaeological Service and Norwich Fringe Project, with a role to oversee management and development of the site.
It was decided that before any progress was made a new review of possibilities for the site should be made.
The Strategic Leisure report was the result and the public consultation has been carried out on its suggested options.
However, despite the public coming down slightly in favour of the major scheme, JAB believes the best option would be Option Two with some added aspects of Option Four.
Various costings, expert opinions and other information are now being put together on the possibilities up for discussion.
Mike Bentley explained why such care and time was being taken: "The board has trod very carefully over the past 10 years and now things are gaining a momentum. Everyone on the board is more than aware that the decision has to be right.
"Both locally and nationally it is incredibly important because it is one of only three Roman regional capitals that have been totally undeveloped (the other two being Wroxeter, and Silchester).
"We aim to make a very good qualified decision that most people should be pleased with, but possibly we will not get everyone satisfied. We intend to make more people pleased than upset!"
It is a decision-making process that the people of Caistor St Edmund itself have been watching closely.
Nigel Orme is the Caistor St Edmund Parish Council representative on the JAB. He said: "Locally there is a feeling that the local community has not been as involved as it might have been. That stems from the Strategic Leisure report which did not do a very good job in terms of consulting locally and that rubbed up a lot of people the wrong way.
"It put forward a lot of very unrealistic suggestions and to use it as a basis for moving ahead into the future is a worrying thing.
"The increase in visitor numbers is one of the big problems. It is unrealistic to imagine that the numbers of visitors that Strategic Leisure project would materialise unless you give them something to see when they get there," he continued.
"In order to give added value, funding and permission would have to be sought for some sort of archaeological dig there which would be fraught with problems.
"Of course, as a local resident, I personally feel that it would be very interesting to see a dig go on there. But I have been told that it is not going to be the most interesting of sites in terms of things that could be found there.
"The majority of buildings would have been wooden, so you would be looking at dark patches of ground where the houses had been rather than stone walls.
"A lot of local people do use the site, but not particularly for its historic value. It is quite nice to think of times gone by if, for instance, you come across an oyster shell that has been kicked up by a mole and it makes you think that it could have been part of someone's meal 2000 years ago.
"But locally, people appreciate it for the tranquillity, peace and atmosphere that it has, and that is one of the things that people fear will be affected.
"I feel we need to go through an awful lot more talking and looking at options. The site has been there 2000 years and it is not going to go anywhere."
Mike Bentley agreed that it was not a decision that could be rushed. He added: "The most important thing is not the time frame, it is that the decision is right and that we make the right choice on the development.
"If it takes longer to make the right decision it is far better than feeling the pressure of time and making a decision we live to regret."
[
source]
-
Ancient Indo-Roman site in Kerala
A historical mystery surrounding Indo-Roman trade routes may have been solved, says a report by Southampton University archaeology research fellow Roberta Tomber.
Armed with an Arts and Humanities Research Board (AHRB) grant to investigate Indo-Roman trade, and with the guidance of David Peacock who heads Archaeology at the University of Southampton, Tomber worked with local archaeologists in Kerala where she identified the first fragments of Roman wine amphorae found on the south-west coast of India.
The striking archaeological evidence suggests that the legendary seaport of Muziris, which was a bustling Indo-Roman trading center during the early historic period between the first century BC and the fifth century AD, could have been located at Pattanam, near Paravur on the south of the Periyar river delta.
"These were found in Pattanam, north of Paravoor. The whole area is strewn with pottery samples. Though many of them are of Indian origin, a few pieces of Indo-Roman era were also found. A detail exploration of the area will alone help establish this fact," said Dr K.P.Shajan, who chanced upon the evidence during a geological survey.
What led Shajan, geoarchaeologist, and his team to Pattanam was clear geological evidence which suggested that the river Periyar had shifted its course from the south to the north over the millennia. A branch of the Periyar, called the Periyar Thodu, runs close to Pattanam and satellite imagery indicates that the Periyar delta lies on the southern side and the river could have flowed close to Pattanam about 2,000 years ago. This would place the ancient site alongside the Periyar in keeping with the descriptions in literary sources.
The site covers an area of about 1.5 sq km and the deposit is about two metres thick. It has produced fragments of imported Roman amphora, mainly used for transporting wine and olive oil, Yemenese and West Asian pottery, besides Indian ware common on the East Coast of India and also found in Berenike in Egypt. Bricks, tiles, pottery shards, beads and other artefacts found at Pattanam are very similar to those found at Arikamedu and other early historic sites in India.
According to the University of Southampton report, the most striking finds from Pattanam are the rim and handle of a classic Italian wine amphora from Naples which was common between the late first century BC and 79 AD, when pottery production in the region was disrupted by the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius. Islamic glazed ware from West Asia indicate that the site remained active beyond the early historic period
Archaeologists have long believed in the existence of the ancient port of Muziris in this area, where Romans traded for pepper and other spices from India and even further East, but its location was still unknown. 'We now have for the first time archaeological evidence of where Muziris was located,' she said. 'It was a very important port for the Romans and would repay careful excavation. I hope to be involved in this work in the future.'
Tomber claims that the pottery pieces found by Shajan, a marine geologist, from Pattanam near Paravoor, are parts of Roman wine amphora, Mesopotamian torpedo jar and Yemenite storage jar. "It is the first time that we have found evidence in Malabar coast. The clay is very different from what was used in India during the same period. A lot of black minerals are present," she says.
If this claim is true, then the pieces are the first evidence of Roman pottery to be found in Kerala. It also strengthens the theory that the port of Muziris was in the belt of Kodungallur-Chettuva.
Tomber suggests there are several factors that strengthen the belief that these are remnants of first century Roman trade. "Pottery is considered a very important evidence to solve an archaeological enigma. Here we work on typology. Such examples have also been found during excavations in Egypt," says Tomber.
Tomber has extensive experience of working on Roman sites at the Red Sea ports of Quseir al-Qadim (ancient Myos Hormos) and at Berenike, both in Egypt, with Professor David Peacock. Now, with David Peacock, she has an Arts and Humanities Research Board (AHRB) grant to investigate Indo-Roman trade.
[
source]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Valete bene!