10-25-2010, 11:42 PM
Quote:There is an approximately 6 meter gap in the 'toe', and it is plain the stone was laid deliberately to form such a gap. The line of the berm, together with a spread of clay arcs backwards into the fort approximately 3 meters, forming a gentle concave. There is no obvious purpose for the gap. There are no cobbles entering or exiting the gap, and the clay arc backs directly onto the turf and earth core of the rampart, suggesting that the rampart was actually present between the gap. The via sagularis is present but not in this part of the site (its line is outside the excavated area). There is evidence for at least one oven to the south east of the gap which would impede a road should there ever have been one in and out of the fort at this point (though they need not be contemporary). Neither is there a suggestion it could be the result of a culvert.
To the east of the gap, two very large, round post holes have been found, built into the 'toe' that are probably supports for an interval tower. Unusually there appear to be the remains of two similarly sized post holes in front of the rampart (yes, they are in the fort ditch!) making a total of 4 for the tower. The excavated remains of a road and geophysics permit the projection of an actual gateway some 20m west of the gap.
Apologies for the mini report but answers on a postcard please. As hinted at in my previous post it could be a gateway that was built off spec and which was subsequently abandoned but I don't know why they didn't bother to place more 'toe' as foundation.
Hmmm, interesting. Any chance this could be the collapse of an interval tower due to berm subsidence (cf. Turret 54a on Hadrian's Wall) and a bodge job patching it afterwards with the posthole tower replacing it? For comparative purposes, when the north wall kept collapsing at Housesteads ever more desperate attempts were made to work around it with makeshift ramparts and - gasp! - a timber interval tower replacing a stone one in the late period. A second gate would be unlikely unless it was on the line of an internal street (surveyors are, were, and probably always will be very anal).
Mike Bishop
