06-27-2008, 05:15 PM
Quote:I can not accept this idea that the fort at the Pons Aelius was built at a later date, I don't know who came up with this kind of thinking for we are clearly informed that the bridge was built by Hadrian and there would have been a fort to support it's defence.
I'm not sure that we're "clearly informed", Brian. Unless you know of other evidence, all we have is the bridge's name, "Aelian Bridge" (Pons Aelii, or Pons Aelius), which is probably a reference to Hadrian. But not definitely a reference to Hadrian -- Francis Haverfield, the great epigrapher and father of Romano-British archaeology, noted that "Aelius" could equally refer to Antoninus Pius or even Commodus.
So it might be safer to say that the bridge is probably of Hadrianic origin.
Quote: There are four major Roman river crossing points over the river Tyne and they all have a fort on the north bank of the river to give support.I think this is why an early fort has been postulated at Gateshead, where mid-second C material has turned up (but no structures afaik). Crucially, there is a flaw in your logic: the existence of a bridge does not prove the existence of a fort at Newcastle.
Quote:I can not accept this idea that the fort at the Pons Aelius was built at a later date, I don't know who came up with this kind of thinking ...I am currently holding Archaeologia Aeliana vol. 31 (2002), entitled "The Roman Fort at Newcastle upon Tyne" (Thanks, Ross!), so I can probably shed some light on "who came up with this kind of thinking"!
It is at least suspicious that the earliest inscription from the fort dates from AD 213. Equally, the earliest stratified coins (i.e. excluding stray finds) dates from AD 260. The coin specialist has suggested that the finds are typical of an early third century foundation (R.J. Brickstock, "The Coins", Arch. Ael. 31, 2002, pp. 175-209, at p. 181).
But, in fact, the crucial evidence is the pottery assemblage, which is overwhelmingly Antonine, as opposed to Hadrianic. The construction levels of the fort have produced 65% BB2 (black burnished ware), normally associated with Antonine occupation and not found elsewhere in northern England until the AD 150s. (Remember: Hadrian's Wall was built in the AD 120s.) In addition, the (very) small quantities of samian ware are of a later 2ndC date which "may suggest that the fort was founded late in the century, or even slightly later" (P. Bidwell et al., "The Roman Pottery", Arch. Ael. 31, 2002, pp. 139-172, at p. 167).
On balance, the evidence, such as it is, supports the view that the fort was not a primary Hadrianic construction, but was added later, perhaps much later. Anyone who wishes it otherwise would really need to come up with some good arguments!
