Talk:Portmahomack

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Fisheries and Fishing Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fisheries, aquaculture and fishing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fisheries and FishingWikipedia:WikiProject Fisheries and FishingTemplate:WikiProject Fisheries and FishingFishing articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Scotland Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I find the description a bit misleading. Looking at the sources provided, there seems to be only a speculation from 1949 that it might be Roman fort. The archeological examination from 1994/1995 doesn't even mention the word "Roman" and seems to consider it a Pictish site instead. Also note the given radiocarbon dating seem to exclude a Roman construction as afaik the Romans did not venture that far north after Agricola's campaign (80-84).--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Ben MacDui's edit has resolved the issue more or less. Though if the Roman fort idea is only based on a flimsy speculation from 1949, then one might consider to scrap it completely.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fort -according to official RCAHMS- has been probably defaced in 1872 (http://canmore.rcahms.gov.uk/en/site/15629/details/port+a+chaistell/ ). Please, do not remove the official data/reference of RCAHMS from the article, since there is NO proof that the fort did not existed.....BD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.158.111 (talk) 15:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As it would be more-or-less impossible to prove the fort never existed this is not a compelling argument but I have left the text in an amended form that more clearly indicates the highly speculative nature of the evidence. Ben MacDui 19:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]