Talk:Portmahomack

Roman fort
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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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   Mac  Dui  19:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)