Vent: People keep calling the new Roman site in York a 'fort' when it's clearly a supply depot

I've been reading articles about the dig near the old city walls for weeks now, and every news piece calls it a military fort. But the layout shows three huge granaries and zero barracks, plus the coin finds are almost all low value for paying workers. I checked the excavation report myself online last night, and the lead archaeologist actually calls it a 'logistical hub' in the notes. Why do you think reporters always jump to the more exciting story instead of getting it right? Do you have a favorite example of a site that gets mislabeled all the time?

3 comments

3 Comments

beth_reed6d ago

Wait, they found three granaries and still called it a fort? That's like calling a warehouse a fire station because they both have big doors. Reporters just want the click from 'Roman fort' over 'Roman storage shed.' My pet peeve is when any old stone foundation gets called a 'druid temple' instead of a farmer's barn.

taylorc405d agoMost Upvoted

Okay but to be fair, a Roman fort would absolutely have granaries. A lot of them. Feeding the army was the main job of most forts. So finding three granaries doesn't rule it out at all, it actually points toward it being a military site. The reporters might still be wrong, but not for that reason.

annaw736d ago

Totally agree, it's all about the dramatic headline. My local paper called a pile of old bricks a "lost medieval castle" last year. Turns out it was just a broken chimney from the 1920s.