06-30-2008, 01:07 PM
Quote:
how could the fort, physically, have been attached to Hadrian's Wall (which seems to lie some way to the north)
Hi Duncan,
According to that 1985 sketch you provided me (I again forgot who drew it), the scale seems to indicate the fort was located 5 meters behind the wall, if we interpret (as I did a few pages back) that the big black patch to the north is hadrians wall (the one he claims is the northen rampart of the fort) and the smaller black patch 5 meters down (which he doesn't label) as the northern rampart of the fort.
So according to this, I would not say 5 meters is too far behind. But again, like Brian said, untill someone discovers the wall itself, all we have is speculation, interpretation and conjecture.
In any way, would a fort so close to the wall not be connected to it in any way? I mean, 5 meters is nothing, would this not warrant a small curtain wall or bridge connecting to the wall so the troops would not have to go to the nearest milecastle or turret to man it?
Slightly back to topic though, the reconstruction is nearly complete and will be finished within the next week or two. Although my personal opinion (like Brian's) is that the fort connects to the wall (even if it was built at a later date, I see no reason why they would not have used the wall as the northen rampart - off course this is only valid if my interpretation that the fort is only 5 meters behind the wall is correct. It would not make sense to build a fort so close to the wall and not have it connect). Although that is my personal belief, the current evidence available (or lack thereof) would seem to suggest the fort was free standing.
As such, one must sometimes put personal feelings aside and accpet circumstances which are not to ones liking. I indeed hope future archaeologists prove me right, but the current reconstruction will feature a free standing fort, disconnected to Hadrian's Wall.
Again, thanks for all your imput and invaluable help.
Best Regards,
Yuri
