06-25-2008, 09:17 PM
Quote:I do not know how it would be with Pons Aelius. The sketches seem to show it did not connect, but as you have said yourself Brian, this makes little sense and although the fort was built after the wall I see no reason why not simply join it to the wall like every other fort along its length.You may be in danger of circular reasoning here, Yuri.
It is generally accepted, for various reasons, that the Newcastle fort was a later addition to Hadrian's Wall. One of these reasons (as far as I understand it) is the fact that it was not bonded into the curtain of Hadrian's Wall. Other (more important) reasons include the peculiar spacing (i.e. there shouldn't be a fort here) and the complete absence of Hadrianic material from the site.
(I am not a regular reader of Archaeologia Aeliana, so I may have missed other pertinent arguments.)
Of course, when the Romans returned to Hadrian's Wall after AD 160, having mothballed the entire system for a generation, they brought with them twenty years' experience of having designed, built and maintained the Antonine Wall. This is important because (1) none of the forts straddle/protrude beyond the Antonine Wall, (2) several are free-standing behind the line of the Antonine Wall, and (3) most are smaller than the standard Hadrianic forts.
It would be entirely logical for the Romans, upon recommissioning Hadrian's Wall, to incorporate some or all of the lessons learned on the northern frontier. In particular, the Newcastle fort (1) does not straddle Hadrian's Wall, (2) seems to be free-standing, and (3) seems to be smaller than its neighbours.
Far from "making little sense", I think this design makes perfect sense.
