Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Newcastle (Pons Aelius) Bridge, Vallum and Fort (info needed
#61
I think somebody already said it doesnt connect. Why did you think it does connect? It looked like it doesnt. (But im not sure.)
** Vincula/Lucy **
Reply
#62
Quote:I think somebody already said it doesnt connect. Why did you think it does connect? It looked like it doesnt. (But im not sure.)

Well me and Brian came to the conclusion it did because of the direction and positioning of the wall in relation to the fort. We were mistaken it seems, but still, looking at it from Google maps or google earth you would think they connected.
Reply
#63
I would think Yuri that if anyone wants to go back to page 2 and look at our man Campbell's map of this fort, that is if they have any idea what ever about Hadrians' Wall in the City of Newcastle. They must realise that the wall has to go to the fort, that is if that drawing of it has any credibility at all. Infact I would like to know just who it was that made that drawing in the first place for half of it is speculation anyway. Indeed I would also very much like to know on what excavation evidence that anyone can say the fort lies behind the Wall to any great extent.
Brian Stobbs
Reply
#64
Quote:I would think Yuri that if anyone wants to go back to page 2 and look at our man Campbell's map of this fort, that is if they have any idea what ever about Hadrians' Wall in the City of Newcastle. They must realise that the wall has to go to the fort, that is if that drawing of it has any credibility at all. Infact I would like to know just who it was that made that drawing in the first place for half of it is speculation anyway. Indeed I would also very much like to know on what excavation evidence that anyone can say the fort lies behind the Wall to any great extent.

Well I was just about to reply to MC Bishop asking if he was sure it did not connect and if no on what grounds. Like I said, by looking at Campbell's diagram, the positioning of the fort and the outline of the wall I would personally say they do connect. Off course, we may be wrong, but I am willing to take the risk and so the reconstruction will have the fort connected to the wall.

Future historians that may have access to new evidence or know better can crucify me if they so wish :wink:
Reply
#65
A statement from 10th edition The Roman Wall J. Collingwood Bruce. (quote) "The Wall probably left the north-westangle of the Newcastle fort on the line of Westgate Street" (unquote)
Brian Stobbs
Reply
#66
Quote:A statement from 10th edition The Roman Wall J. Collingwood Bruce. (quote) "The Wall probably left the north-westangle of the Newcastle fort on the line of Westgate Street" (unquote)

''Probably''

If Mike does have convincing evidence it didn't then I will take this into consideration. The common sense approach would judge it did, so for now I will stick to that.
Reply
#67
Quote:... our man Campbell's map of this fort, ... that is if that drawing of it has any credibility at all. Infact I would like to know just who it was that made that drawing in the first place for half of it is speculation anyway.
I'm afraid I can only take credit for locating for the excavation plan, not actually drawing it! (It's signed J.N., John Nolan.)

I don't know about "half of it" being speculation! As far as I can see, the only speculation is the "supposed line of fort wall". The rest is a representation of archaeological work done on behalf of Newcastle City Council and published in Britannia 17 (1986), p. 377.

Quote:... by looking at Campbell's diagram, the positioning of the fort and the outline of the wall I would personally say they do connect.
Hadrian's Wall does not appear in the excavation plan!

As I said before (and Mike Bishop seems to have confirmed to you), it's relationship with the fort has never been established.
posted by Duncan B Campbell
https://ninth-legion.blogspot.com/
Reply
#68
I would like to know how Mr Campbell can in page one of this discussion say the fort sits quite far behind the wall, then in his latest statement go on to say that because Hadrians' Wall does not appear in the excavation plan it's relationship with the fort has never been established.
Brian Stobbs
Reply
#69
Quote:... Mr Campbell can in page one of this discussion say the fort sits quite far behind the wall, ...
Allow me to provide the correct quote! Smile

Quote:It seems to have sat quite far behind the wall, but as the ramparts haven't been located it's difficult to say how far behind the wall!
I have no local knowledge of archaeology in Newcastle (as I admitted previously), but it appears that, over the years, minor excavations (probably in advance of modern construction work) have failed to reveal Hadrian's Wall along the line that would intersect with the position of the fort.

I'd really recommend getting a hold of the dedicated volume of Archaeologia Aeliana (cited previously). Seems daft to go to all the trouble of reconstruction without checking the most up-to-date information, don't you think?
posted by Duncan B Campbell
https://ninth-legion.blogspot.com/
Reply
#70
Quote:I don't know about "half of it" being speculation! As far as I can see, the only speculation is the "supposed line of fort wall". The rest is a representation of archaeological work done on behalf of Newcastle City Council and published in Britannia 17 (1986), p. 377.

MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS:3f3vbx6r Wrote:... by looking at Campbell's diagram, the positioning of the fort and the outline of the wall I would personally say they do connect.
Hadrian's Wall does not appear in the excavation plan!

It does not, but by looking at the diagram you found and then looking at google maps, westgate road seems to inevitably bump into the fort.

I have spoken to MC Bishop and he had this to say (I must say I did not quite fairly understand it) :

Quote:The fort is built after the curtain wall so the alignment is not
particularly significant. You need to see the chapter on the setting of
the fort in the AA volume I mentioned fully to appreciate the arguments
of its positioning, but the Lort Burn and its tributary to the west (now
under The Side) confine the fort to a promontory to the south of the
Wall itself and the likely location of the Wall ditch just south-west of
the cathedral make it virtually impossible for the fort to have joined
onto it, not least because it would have had a) a stream running through
it and b) to have joined the curtain wall at an angle (the fort is
aligned pretty much N-S, but the Wall appears to run WSW to ENE). The
biggest clue, however, is that they found the northern fort wall in 1986!
Reply
#71
I think Yuri that the info given by Bishop reference the north wall of the fort being found in 1986 needs to be read, however his compass directions of the wall running WSW to ENE appear to point to the wall leaving the fort in it's easterly direction to Wallsend (Segedunum) For the wall going west from the fort would be on the reciprocal of this heading....I do think however for Bishop to state that the Wall was built before the fort, when the wall in this area has never been found appears to be a bit presumptive.
Brian Stobbs
Reply
#72
Quote:I think Yuri that the info given by Bishop reference the north wall of the fort being found in 1986 needs to be read, however his compass directions of the wall running WSW to ENE appear to point to the wall leaving the fort in it's easterly direction to Wallsend (Segedunum) For the wall going west from the fort would be on the reciprocal of this heading....I do think however for Bishop to state that the Wall was built before the fort, when the wall in this area has never been found appears to be a bit presumptive.

Breeze and Hill (2001) have proposed that construction of the Wall began from Dere Street and progressed eastwards to Wallsend, but even so Breeze and Dobson's chronology (1978, 64-70) would put that in the AD 120s. Bidwell and Snape (2002, 253) point out that the fort's construction must have pre-dated a dedication slab to Julia Domna of AD 203 and suggest (but can't prove) a date in the 170s or 180s for its construction. No evidence has been found for a Hadrianic fort here. The curtain wall was however noted in this area in 1778 (Bidwell and Snape 2002, 261) 'below' Amen Corner (just south of the west end of the cathedral for those getting lost in the fine detail) and B&S argue that 'below' means in The Side, and thus north of the north wall of the fort (excavated in 1986, together with a wall to the north of it interpreted as an extramural building - Snape and Bidwell 2002, 99-105).

There is thus circumstantial evidence that the curtain wall did not join the fort wall and no evidence that it did: you pays your money and takes your choice. Any further observations on my part would appear to be fruitless.

As for my being 'a bit presumptive', I choose to let that comment pass.
  • Bidwell, P. and Snape, M. 2002: 'The history and setting of the Roman fort at Newcastle upon Tyne', Archaeologia Aeliana series 5, 31, 251-83
    Breeze, D.J. and Dobson, B. 1978: Hadrian's Wall, Harmondsworth (in the process of moving so can't lay my hands on a more recent edition - the chronology remains essentially the same)
    Breeze, D.J. and Hill, P.R. 2001: 'Hadrian's Wall began here', Archaeologia Aeliana series 5, 29, 1-2
    Snape, M. and Bidwell, P. 2002: 'Excavations at Castle Garth, Newcastle upon Tyne, 1976-92 and 1995-96. The excavation of the Roman fort', Archaeologia Aeliana series 5, 31, 1-249

Mike Bishop
You know my method. It is founded upon the observance of trifles

Blogging, tweeting, and mapping Hadrian\'s Wall... because it\'s there
Reply
#73
OK. My official position is that I'm now 100% lost, I am no genius at directions, I have been told the fort is located on a promontory from which it could only open one gate and appears rather isolated, not to mention this promontory and streams make it virtually impossible for the stanegate to have passed there although it would make more sense if it had. Confusedhock:

And to add injury to insult there is new evidence the fort did not connect to the wall, there is talk of some curtail wall I am hopelessly at a loss at, etc etc etc!!!! :roll:

Can anybody draw me any of this? My life would be a lot simpler Cry
Reply
#74
It would appear to me Yuri that the reference to this curtain wall is meaning Hadrians' Wall, the statement of it being noted in 1778 is coming from an 18th century antiquarian. With reference to it being seen to the south of the west end of the Cathedral below Amen Corner, however it would depend on just how Bidwell and Snape have interpreted below. For it is said that they argue that below means in the side, one would ask in the side of what (The Cathedral) for if so they appear to be changeing the position as mentioned in 1778. The north wall of the fort has been found this we know, but to understand just how much of it one would need to read Bidwell and Snape. This fort is in such a position that any excavation of it is very limited. I would think that until both the N'west and N'east corners are excavated we will never know, for this is where J. Collingwood Bruce has suggeted Hadrians' Wall connects to it.
Brian Stobbs
Reply
#75
The problem is I do not have access to many of these books, the Archae. Aelia. in particular, and the NAS is yet to get back to me.

The very nature of the fort and its current condition means the reconstruction will forfeit some accuracy by default.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Hadrian\'s Wall "vallum" D B Campbell 17 3,069 01-11-2011, 04:19 PM
Last Post: D B Campbell
  Roman coffin from Newcastle brennivs - tony drake 1 1,243 08-15-2008, 12:06 PM
Last Post: le Cavalier Invisible
  Legio XXI Rapax, info needed Sardaukar 3 2,763 08-08-2007, 11:50 AM
Last Post: D B Campbell

Forum Jump: