Imagine this scenario. Tomorrow, archaeologists uncover a massive stone monument. It’s clearly intentional, clearly engineered, and clearly ancient. But there are no inscriptions, no historical references, no surviving written culture attached to it. You are asked one question only: How old is it? You are allowed to use modern tools, but you must choose where you place your trust. Here are the five types of evidence available to you. You are allowed to rank them, combine them, or reject some entirely. 1. Material science Radiocarbon dating of organic inclusions, mortar analysis, tool marks, stone sourcing. - Strength: measurable, repeatable - Weakness: contamination, reuse, sampling bias 2. Archaeological context Stratigraphy, surrounding settlements, quarrying patterns, infrastructure. - Strength: situates the monument in human systems - Weakness: assumes continuity and correct interpretation 3. Geological processes Erosion, weathering, sedimentation, hydrology. - Strength: long-term natural signals - Weakness: multiple mechanisms can produce similar effects 4. Astronomical alignment Orientation to stars, solstices, celestial cycles. - Strength: intentional design can be long-lasting - Weakness: symbolism does not equal construction date 5. Cultural intuition What you believe humans of a certain period were capable of. - Strength: holistic judgement - Weakness: often wrong, often biased Now the uncomfortable part. You must discard one category entirely. You are not allowed to use it at all. Then you must answer: - Which category do you discard, and why? - Which category do you trust most, and why? - What kind of error worries you more: being thousands of years too early, or thousands of years too late? There is no “correct” answer here.But there are weak and strong justifications.

Some people feel rooted in a single landscape. Others feel at home wherever they go. And some never feel rooted at all. I am curious which type you are? Do you believe humans are meant to have one home place? Or can a person belong to many places throughout a lifetime?

One of the things that interests me most about history is how provisional it really is. Not in the sense that “anything goes,” but in the sense that what we accept as settled truth is often shaped by the evidence available at the time, the methods used to interpret it, and the assumptions we bring with us. Many of us were taught versions of history that later turned out to be incomplete, oversimplified, or quietly wrong. Sometimes new archaeology changes the picture. Sometimes it is a shift in perspective. Sometimes it is just reading one good book at the right moment. So I’m curious: - Is there a historical belief you once held that you later revised or abandoned? - Was it because of new evidence, or a new way of looking at old evidence? - Did it change how you think about a period, a place, or a people? It does not have to be ancient history. It can be modern, political, cultural, or even something very local. Short answers are fine. Long answers are welcome. This community is about thinking in public, not being “right.”

The Roman presence in Britain has long been understood as extensive, organised, and militarily efficient, yet uneven in its depth. England, particularly the south and east, has traditionally dominated the narrative, while Wales has often been framed as a more marginal, frontier zone. Recent discoveries and renewed attention on certain sites may suggest that this picture deserves re-examination. Roman Britain formally begins in AD 43 under Emperor Claudius. Over the following decades, the Roman army pushed west and north, constructing a network of forts, roads, and supply routes designed to control territory and suppress resistance. Wales was never peripheral to this process. Sites such as Segontium near modern Caernarfon, Y Gaer at Brecon, Caer Gybi on Anglesey, and Burrium near Usk demonstrate a sustained Roman military footprint across the region. What is increasingly interesting is not the existence of Roman Wales, which has never been in doubt, but its density and complexity. Two recent articles have brought this back into focus. The first concerns Welshpool (Smithfield, Powys), where local reporting suggests that evidence beneath the former livestock market site may point to a previously unrecognised Roman fort. While this remains unconfirmed and preliminary, the suggestion alone is notable. If a Roman military installation existed at Welshpool, it would indicate a more structured Roman presence in mid-Wales than has traditionally been assumed. https://www.countytimes.co.uk/news/25754050.welshpool-smithfield-truly-roman-fort/ The second article, published by the BBC, sits within a wider body of research emerging from aerial surveys and drought-year imaging across Wales. These surveys have already revealed Roman marching camps, roads, and possible civilian sites that had gone undetected for decades. Together, they suggest a far more interconnected Roman landscape than older maps implied.

Good day Mr Davies