04-15-2008, 09:37 PM
Quote:... it was found that the Hadrianic one had been built on stone piers which were on rafts of iron shod oak piles. The two altars to Oceanus and Neptuno were dredged from the river at about where the centre of the bridge would have been.....That's odd. In the newest edition of Collingwood Bruce's Handbook to the Roman Wall (ed. David Breeze, 2006), he says that "the location of the bridge is now not known. It has been suggested that three inscriptions found in the river by the nineteenth century Swing Bridge came from a shrine on the Roman bridge, though this cannot be proved" (p. 144).
btw It seems to be fairly certain that the fort at Newcastle upon Tyne was not Hadrianic but much later (Breeze, p. 145).
imho This area would seem to be unduly problematic for a reconstruction. Wouldn't you be better choosing a fort where the evidence is rather better? (Chesters springs to mind as an excellent example with all the elements you need -- fort, bridge, wall, vallum).
