Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Site Wrestle 5: Return to Brancaster (Patreon)

Published:
2021-02-12 13:35:27
Edited:
2021-02-12 13:36:14
Imported:
2026-06
Tags:

Videos

Content

The debate takes a slightly different turn at this point, as John Gater considers some unfinished business that he would like to attend to. Many of you have asked about the possibility of returning to a previous site with the latest technology. In this instalment, John makes the case to do exactly that.

As we'll see, John believes Brancaster to be the ideal candidate to showcase the very best that today's geophysics can offer. It's a very worthwhile scientific question in its own right. In fact, he doesn't even suggest a local brew to bolster his case! But is this reason enough to warrant going back? Let us know what you think!

No scores out of ten on this occasion, although it gives the team some valuable food for thought about taking a long view on certain sites.

Files

PTN-site wrestle1-Brancaster.m4v

Comments

Punished Brains

I think it indeed needs more research, but it's also definitely a very nice target to showcase technologie advancements. That doesn't have to be an entire episode maybe, but super interesting to see apart from the archeology.

Carole Cox

I love all the different views. Perhaps an examination of a less predictable part of the larger peripheral site might have value. It is my understanding that here in the US, there are large restrictions on what can be physically dug. Learning more about non- invasive techniques might offer global archeology more power. Go John!

John Matthew IV

Use the new geofizz at the Roman villa we discussed the other day. Going back to this site does not excite me.

Robert Baker

I think it makes sense to go back

Ray Roberts

Very interesting tidbit at the end there when the term Saxon shore fort was dropped... and depending on what other experts can reveal that might be really interesting... a Roman fort that transitioned to some type of Anglo Saxon stronghold?

Rachel Capper

I agree with John, you need to go back there

the polish dude

I agree with John also to go back for another look with new eyes. Farmer Rich.

William F. Campbell

With all respect to British policies and procedures that I know nothing about, I suggest there is a valid question present. For management of a scheduled area and evaluation of candidates for scheduling, the economy and efficiency of all available tools and techniques is vital. The budgeting of funds and personnel time for governmental/public projects always involve conflicts between available resources and the quantity of work that can be accomplished. A demonstration project that can help evaluate both archeological and budgetary outcomes is well worth putting in the work plan. Where it should rank in that work plan is up to the team. However, I suggest it does have a valid goal for both field operations and management decision making.

Robert Wise

Whether it’s at Brancaster, or a different site, I would love to see what geophys is capable of nowadays … and especially when applied to a site with soils ideal for that kind of tool! And to maximize efficiency in several ways … perhaps geophys could be sent in ahead of the team, allowing them to map before the three days begin?

Nick Smith

This conversation crystallises something I have been thinking about ever since the new Time Team initiative was launched. Clearly we are all motivated fans or would not be here. I have no idea how typical I am, but for me Time Team was a unique programme in igniting an interest in both history and the techniques of archeology in a really engaging way. I watched virtually every episode avidly.

Colin Macaulay

'Saxon shore' refers to Roman fortifications though, built to defend against A_S incomers.

Nick Smith

Sorry folks, finger trouble ! Continued.../ With Time Team I was always left wanting more. I would happily have watched much longer versions of the programmes, enjoying more explanations from the experts and seeing longer features on the progress of the digs. In fact I have always thought what a wealth of material must have been captured during production which never made the broadcast programmes. Would this new Time Team initiative offer any possibilities in this area, not necessarily being bound by the strictures of a TV format/formula (no mock jeopardy needed) Using Brancaster as an example, personally I have always been fascinated by geophysics, so I would find it really compelling to get access to more detail of what John's team would undertake here in terms of planning, executing, processing and interpreting the results. For me, it would not have to be a slick, produced programme, I would be happy with a slightly more "textbook or "academic" feel. For other folk it might be other sub-disciplines that would be of special interest. Having said all this, of course I understand that resources are always limited, and I have no knowledge of the realities of the costs of making more content available.

Sarah Holloway

I think it would be very interesting to go back and do some more work on this site . I have often felt that the three days were not enough on some of the sites and I think it would be well worth taking a second look .

Carol Overrill

I've just rewatched the episode and can very much see the argument for going back. I can understand John's enthusiasm, but also, the question on which a re-visit could be based is the transition between the iron age and roman and development of the fort, settlement and local economy. I would love to see this investigated further.

Phil H

Nick I agree with your concept of 'extending' an episode with additional information. I believe that is what they are attempting to do with this Patreon, releasing short videos of conversations with cast about a site, typically in sync with the release of a Time Team Classics episode on that youtube channel. I like some other fans, I believe, would like to also see extended information on past sites. I'd like to see it in two ways: one would be Site Revisits a more "polished" series where a host/team member (and small camera crew) go to the site showing us it's current condition meaning if studies continued there or not. Meeting with people that were in the episodes (land owners, dig volunteers etc.) where possible. Some sites could be combined into one episode as there must be less info available. Two an unpolished Finds Revisit, something that simply shares additional finds and information from specific sites, some just things that did not make the original episode cut and things that were found or information learned from the site in the years post time team visit.

Wiwikiwi

Would it be possible to not do your typical TT format, but have John go back there and showcase all his new tech? I think there is enough interest in that. I would watch. I suppose what I'm asking is, how tied are we to the 3-day format? Online content not only offers different templates, but maybe even asks for different formats. I would love to be shown a more typical archaeological proces, or a series of shorter videos following a complete "traditional" proces. It seems to me the oppertunities open up. You can do just a survey, or, just the processing of the finds, or...

Thorsten Brand

If this or any other Roman site will be featured, I would love to see Guy de la Bédoyère again. I found his colourful explanations about Roman culture and artifacts really brought them to life, and he seemed so nice (like the rest of the team!).

Ray Roberts

Good grief... where was my mind? (it was early morning here)... you're obviously correct and I knew that if I had engaged my brain.

Paul Middleton

I am in agreement with going back to previous sites expecially when we can see the real time advancements in new technology but I would say time team isn't time team without a trowel in the dirt.

Thorsten Brand

Thanks for the hint! I haven't seen that yet, it will give me an enjoyable YouTube evening today!

Phelim McIntyre

Unlike others, the idea of a return to a site or an "extended" TT fills me with dread. Having been on digs where there are return visits I know how easy it is to loose any form of research question, a return to Brancaster would - unless there is a clear question - would fall into this marsh. The point of TT was a time restricted evaluation of a site, it was not their role to go further. This was what made TT exciting. Yes, we could have follow ups about sites where there is further work done by archaeologists, such as local groups, but keep TT as it should be. As to what happens to finds - ALL the sites have reports written up, mainly by Wessex Archaeology. You can read these reports to find out the "after TT has left".

Gwenllyan verch Morgan

Returning to a former site, especially one that proved to be fruitful, is always a plus. But then, I'd watch TT dig just about anything.

Terri

Perfect - Just what I was hoping to see too. Would really like to visit land owners, dig volunteers, local museum curators who inherit finds, perhaps discover who will be taking over the site once Time Team moves on, see added finds etc. Knowing the polished show parameters don't allow for all of this, an"added value" on line programme would be great.

Mark Cooke

Vg at top said it for me forgot to comment

Allen Micheal Hope

If we are allowing revisiting sites into the conversation I'd like to nominate the temples at Frairs Wash. If ever there was an eposide which left me feeling the job was only half done this was it!

Jon Colcord

I remember a Time Team once where the site was a scheduled site, but it was scheduled without any proof to what it actually was, and was scheduled a very long time ago. I would prefer visits to scheduled sites to be more like that, and you can imagine the opportunity for geophysics in a situation like that.

Carole Cox

I was left wondering if there were more temples or a surrounding community.

Allen Micheal Hope

Yes, exactly. It would seem likely to be that there would be some sort community that was actually operating the temples, that wouldbe a good question!

Ian

Yeah, that was odd, plus everyone appeared to be rushed a bit more than the other ones.

Hypatia1

I rewatched the episode after seeing the commentary, and forgive me if an earlier post addressed this, but the crop marks also showed a complete town. Would that not be the new question as to what the relationship was? Did the town exist before the fort or did the fort choose an opportune trading location based on earlier settlement. And John could do a complete GPR survey over the fort. My background is in geophys so the ones with detailed surveys are some of my favourites and I definitely think there is a lot not covered given the extent of the crop marks.

heith Doty

I have said this very thing . It would be very nice to finish up a few sites that thing got found to late in the show . I have sajested a few in past comments. 👍🏼👍🏼

Alex Gregory

This is another 10 from me. I’d love to see more episodes on returning to a site that has unanswered questions. There were so many Time Team’s that found something amazing on the last day and you were always left wondering what if. Definitely get more “the return to...” on the list.

Hypatia1

It is like Turkdean where they found so much right at the end they had to go back

David Boon

While I am interested in what geophys can do today it can’t be the only reason to choose a site. There may be other sites worth revisiting but there needs to be a clear reason for doing so.

"Blade" McMicking, D.I.

It would be a fascinating perspective, within Time Team itself, to see the value of scientific development, and what new tech levels can show us about something "we think we know". It could address, in a microcosm, the whole question of "should we excavate site-x, or leave it for future generations who have better technology?" -- just how much more is discoverable NOW? Basically it's the same group of archeological specialists, same ways of working, the only difference is the additional developments in tech & knowledge since early 2013, right? That alone could be a fascinating question to ask!

Robert Boudreau

This is one of the sites I think left as many, if not more questions, than it answered. Was the large buttressed building a granary? Was that oval a Roman gyrus as Mark Corney thought? What were those large blobs? There's also the questions on the smaller Iron-Age enclosure. Was it contemporary with Branodunum? At what point did it fall to disuse, before the Romans? During? Was it Iceni? While it would also be a great showcase for the latest geophysics, there are a lot of unanswered questions since Time Team was there that could be resolved with another look.

Mark Lund

As they suggested, approach the site with Geophys, and then decide, but rather than only show a finished product, 'episode' as would have been done previously, show the build up, pre excavation, geophys, research, on a video, if it takes that to decide wether to excavate as a complete programme.Then we can see how the process as it occurs and see any reasoning behind deciding to/not to progress with a complete episode.

Pippa Reid

I like the idea of visiting old sites with new kit. Particularly where digging is limited by scheduling etc. What do we gain by doing it? Is there some local history that we can pull into a question?

David Hazel

An interesting question would be: can the newer geophysics techniques shed further light on the previous investigation, without having to do any more digging?

Trish Swaney

If TT is to go back to a previously visited site, it should be to a site that TT was unable to achieve its goal because time ran out or the technology of the time was insufficient to accomplish the goal.

Wiwikiwi

I totally agree. One thing I always liked about the early series is that there was more time taken to show the archaeology. To explain what they found and why it was significant and how it related to other archaeology and how they got to the theories. I don't know about the other fans, but I'm here to learn. It's entertaining, sure, but for me a great deal of that entertainment comes from the educational content.

Patti McCarthy

I agree with the majority of the TT and many of the posts above. While revisiting a site that wasn't fully investigated due to the original 3 day time limit is a fantastic idea (yes, please!), this site, since it is scheduled, might better be saved for a later date AFTER geophysics has had a more recent go at it (as suggested by Tim) to help better focus and target the archeological "questions" being asked. Cool idea, though.

Timothy Short

Brancastor was a great site, however I feel money could be better spent on a new site which we know nothing about.

Steven Meeks

I would love to see the newest technology.

jilly Davies

I'm with Mick on this,I have never liked the Romans.....

Mark Lund

I'm with John...in a s much as it wold be great to see the new techniques used in a valid context. If people were interested enough is that not a valid reason? But, will TT stay in the old format completely, or 'expand' its remit? If the question was there re how do the new GPR techs. imrove what could be seen at last visit and can a programme be mad e based on just that, with a view to digging some of it if it was shown to be worth it, or perhaps more valid questions arose as a result, thereby creating a reason for a dig or another programme. I'd watch it. And there have been plenty of sites dug where I/many people i'm sure wished you had longer. Re-visiting old sites is a very good reason to answer unanswered questions.As is, potentially making some programmes longer than 3 days...I think.

Andrew Hingston

I am with Mark here. As an amateur, I find that the most interest often comes from how archaeology can address a problem using whatever techniques and resources are available. I don't care much about whether there is a pretty find at the end. Sometimes, failure can even be as interesting as success. I would love TT to be able to do Brancaster, but the preliminaries (what do we think we know, what are the uncertainties) and the review (what if anything has the work demonstrated and what remains to be answered) are at least as important. The 3-day dig would need to be shouldered by these.

Seven

I'm most excited about how the new technology available changes what can be found and understood on an archeological site, and I think showing the difference between the last time you guys were there and now is the perfect opportunity to show that to the public. While I appreciate the commitment of Time Team to approach things in a way that's genuine to the archeological field's goals and standards, I do think you have a unique opportunity with what I've seen glimpses of current scanning/3d tech (I'm sorry I don't know the proper names) to really educate, excite, and therefore motivate people to support archeology projects and protect sites exactly because you have been there before and can show the difference. Thanks