07-08-2008, 02:44 PM
Quote:MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS:bxtqx80b Wrote:Sorry for having overlooked what you wrotte Duncan.No problem, Yuri. It is a very long thread, and it's easy to get mixed up.
The main points are: (1) the fort probably lay some way behind Hadrian's Wall -- that's our best bet based on the archaeology; (2) the fort is probably considerably later than Hadrian's Wall, perhaps Severan -- again, that's our best bet based on the archaeology; and (3) the fort doesn't appear to conform to our preconceived notions of a fort layout -- the peculiar lay of the land and the probably later date together hold out the possibility that it may not even be rectangular!
That's really why I originally suggested that you choose a "simpler" fort!
Hi Duncan,
It will please you to know all of your points have been taken into account in the reconstruction. From earlier discussions, some on this thread and some on others, I have instructed Steve to make the fort square rather than the traditional rectangular, based as you said, on the terrain, on the fact this was a later fort (with the experience on the Antonine Wall to bear) and that extra barrack space may have been accomodated elsewhere.
The fort will roughly be about 50-60 meters behind the wall, I thought it was a rough middle ground to what has been proposed here.
All in all, the fort and bridge and hadrians wall are finished, just need the vicus and the stanegate, which I think could plausibly have extended beyond Corbridge.
Yuri
