Tuesday, 6 December 2016

Basaltic Andesite -Worked Whinstone


 I recently excavated this piece of whinstone from the Stainsby deposits along with more animal bones , the piece has clearly been smoothed around its sides , ie you do not find rounded smooth whinstone in this type of deposit !

Sunday, 27 November 2016

Bos Longifrons Skull and Mandible

I've been very busy lately , but managed to visit the Stainsby deposits after recent flooding , I found these from what ime certain is the same Bos longifrons recently washed from the grey clay deposits, and a direct descendent to the huge Aurochs .    I have excavated many of these skulls all in excellent condition !

Tuesday, 12 April 2016

Ninth Legion's defeat in ancient Cleveland ?

                        THE NINTH LEGION 'S REAL DEFEAT !

Why would the GREAT ninth Legion march past an unconquered part of Britain less than 50 miles to the north of there base at York  ie THE BRIGANTES  ! in the never conquered Tees basin or Cleveland hills !? to fight scots behind a well defended wall ! ?  I REPEAT THIS AREA OF ENGLAND WAS NEVER OCUPIED  BY ROME !!!!!     

There can be no other explanation other than a roman defeat, that stopped them utilising the Eston hills and Tees inlet as a Roman strong hold ! There is no evidence of Rome gaining any type of a hold on the area we now know as Cleveland  , to any military strategist this would point to only one thing a fear by the Romans to attempt to attack the area !

I have found no evidence of actual Roman occupation in the ancient area of Cleveland, there have been a few isolated villas found but these were of so called Romano British origin, again no evidence of any Roman occupation, ie the skills to build these villas would be readily available at the time of the partial occupation of Britain. everything in this area regarding the Romans points towards a Roman defeat or reluctance to tackle the occupiers in direct confrontation .

                                             The boundary as I see it , i.e. the Romans appear 
                                              to have stopped here ! with this view of ancient
                                              Cleveland in front of them !   


The only reference I can find of Roman activity on the banks of the river Tees is at 

Piercebridge Roman Fort - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This  location is to the west of Cleveland , again to me this points to the Romans avoiding the area we now know as Cleveland , also there is no references I can find of Roman writings about the area .

 These three maps seem again to point to an avoidance of what would be a very important strategic location to any army

Click images to enlarge
 Note the total lack of Roman road building and activity in Ancient Cleveland ?
Middlesbrough on the map below is now the centre of the area I talk refer to.Middesbrough is the modern City now in the centre of the area I refer to.

 For those unfamiliar with Cleveland, the large conurbation of Teesside with Middlesbrough as its centre now covers a lot of the area . 

The area of what is now ancient Cleveland, is said to have been part of the Roman stated  Brigantes ruled area of northern Britain , yet I've never came across any evidence for this , the closest known  Roman reference is a Brigantes fort at  Stanwick St John close to what is now Darlington so given the total lack of Roman place names, settlements , military posts,  in what is now Cleveland, I believe they never had any influence on the occupiers of this area throughout the Roman occupation of other areas of North east England and as all historians know of the Brigantes was written by Romans , I find it hard to believe an area like Cleveland would have just been overlooked and left with no Roman reference I can find !  so this leads me to believe they did not want a record of the area or what might of occurred there ! 

A rising of the Brigantes has often been posited as the explanation for the disappearance of the Ninth Legion, stationed at York  is it just coincidence that York lays just to the south of the Cleveland hills, and Tees basin, that was never conquered or wrote about by Rome ! ?

. According to the eminent 19th-century German classicist Theodor Mommsen, "under Hadrian there was a terrible catastrophe here, apparently an attack on the fortress of Eboracum [York] and the annihilation of the legion stationed there, the very same Ninth that had fought so unluckily in the Boudican revolt."[11] He suggested that a revolt of the Brigantes soon after 108 was the most likely explanation.
  The above all supports my theory that Rome never conquered the area we now know as Cleveland , and in all probability the area was a Briton strong hold !

Tuesday, 19 January 2016

Cleveland North East England's real superficial Geology

The Geological survey still amazingly have the area I have investigated with little help for nine years recorded as the boulder clay , recorded by a man who never actually excavated a square foot of the area In question . I have recorded in this very blog that Agar was wrong, and the south west area of Cleveland has no surface deposits that relate to boulder clay or direct glacial activity.

In fact all of the excavated evidence points towards an area covered by alluvium and related gravel bed and clay and silt deposits containing well preserved fossils and sub fossils both animal and human , I have gone into some detail in previous posts trying to explain my theories regarding what could have caused the true geology of the south west area of Cleveland , as well as reporting to the relevant local professional groups .

Yet students are still told to work on incorrect information regarding the Geology of this area !