Not that there's a direct connection to yesterday's article,
but on the subject of big feet... archaeologists have stumbled across some
curious discoveries in Northumberland. For a long time now they have been
digging up ancient leather shoes from the garrison towns along Hadrian's
Wall , but they have recently extracted some highly unusual ones
from a pit at the Magna fort near the modern town of Haltwhistle UK Alps ?
The Roman Empire was the first Illuminati occupation
state to reach Great Britain Guantanamo
Bay
See here for more information: https://hpanwo.blogspot.com/2025/02/boudica-portal.html.
See here for more information: https://hpanwo.blogspot.com/2025/02/boudica-portal.html.
4 comments:
This article reads like an exercise in finding the most unlikely explanations possible for five ancient pairs of oversized shoes. It's perhaps a mistake to assume the Roman military at this time consisted entirely of young, fit men. In its decline the Roman Empire may have come to depend on jaded middle-aged mercenaries (a bit like the AFU of today).
"Some of the shoes are also an odd shape, having a normal heel space but being far wider around the toes"
Conditions like gout and foot oedema were described in classical Greek and Roman literature. They can both flare up and then recede, making it impossible to wear shoes at all for a short time but generally pushing the sufferer to opt for a larger shoe size in the longer term. Five pairs may well have belonged to just one individual so afflicted if his work created an absolute necessity to wear shoes and at the same time he was trying to adjust to repeatedly swelling and shrinking toes. In any case, five pairs is hardly enough to indicate an entire clan of giants, let alone a breeding program.
I realize why you think that, MT, and I know this was not meant to be a conclusion. I do think I am right to explore the possibilities I did though, when you put this discovery into the larger context. If those five pairs of shoes belonged to one man then why were all of them found when you consider the population of the Magna township vs the number of ALL shoes found. We have to assume that the shoes found are a proportional sample of the general state of the citizens' feet. As for disease, the scientist interviewed in the source video herself claims that they can be used to make an assessment of podiatric health in 3rd century Britain. There is no proof that Magna was home to an entire unit of seven foot tall shock troops, but the information we have so far is enough to ask that question seriously, in my view.
I asked SMEGG, the Bitchute AI: "Do we have any information about the proportion of people in Roman Britain who wore shoes, wore sandals or who did not use footwear at all?" The answer:
{While we don't have direct, comprehensive statistics on footwear habits in Roman Britain, archaeological findings and written records provide some insights.
Roman Britain, spanning from 43 AD to around41 AD, was a province of the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire had a significant influence on the culture, economy, and lifestyle of its provinces, including Britain.
Excavations have uncovered various types of footwear, including:1. **Caligae** (studded boots): These were commonly worn by Roman soldiers and were found at military sites.
2. **Calcei** (leather shoes): These were more commonly worn by civilians and were found at both urban and rural sites.
3. **Sandalia** (sandals): These were also found, often at villa sites and in more affluent areas.
It's estimated that, during the Roman period, footwear was a relatively common item, especially among the urban population and those with higher social status. However, the extent of footwear usage among the general population is unclear.
Some written records and archaeological evidence suggest that:
* Roman writer **Juvenal** (c.60-127 AD) mentions that many people in Rome went barefoot or wore simple sandals.
* Excavations at **Vindolanda**, a Roman fort and settlement in northern England, uncovered a large number of footwear remains, including boots, shoes, and sandals. This suggests that footwear was a common item, at least among the military and administrative personnel stationed there.
* At **Roman villas**, such as those found in Chedworth, Gloucestershire, and Littlecote, Wiltshire, archaeologists have discovered a range of footwear, including sandals and shoes.
While we can't provide an exact proportion of people who wore shoes, sandals, or no footwear, it's likely that:
* Urban populations and those with higher social status were more likely to wear footwear, including shoes and sandals.
* Rural populations, especially those engaged in agricultural or manual labor, may have worn simpler footwear or gone barefoot.
* Soldiers and military personnel were likely to wear studded boots or other types of footwear.
Keep in mind that these are educated inferences based on available evidence, and more research is needed to refine our understanding of footwear habits in Roman Britain.}
So, if there were soldiers in this township, where are the studded boots in this "proportional sample"?
I'm not sue I'd trust that AI. It might claim to have an IQ of 6000, but I think it needs replacing with Queeg!... The Vindolanda paragraph refers to the shoes we've seen. They do find some with sole studs.
Post a Comment