Pons Aelius Wikipedia Article

[MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS]

Well,

I finally got round to posting here (actually also uploading the pictures) to my wikipedia article on the roman fort of Pons Aelius, modern day Newcastle, in the northeast of England.

I see Steve has already beaten me to the animation here, in which he made a fantastic job. Without further ado:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pons_Aelius

There is still 1-3 images I will upload at a later time (I am very very busy at the moment). Please note that any discrepancies are due to research errors on my part, and have nothing to do with Steve Haasis, the very talented artist I comissioned to do this for me.

In case you didn't know, you can see more of his art here: www.ancientvine.com

There is also a long long debate thread regarding the particular circumstances regarding this fort, which can be found here:

<!-- l <a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=21936&start=120">viewtopic.php?f=17&t=21936&start=120<!-- l

Examples include the forts small size, why its not connected to the wall, strange positioning of granaries, etc.

Brian Stobbs, im with you and Steve when I say I do think the fort was actually connected to the wall. However, I chose to go against my suspicions based on lack of archaeological evidence. I do hope in the near future excavations can prove us right!

So, I hope you all enjoyed the article, and the images provided by Steve. My next project will probably involve the nearby fort of Longovicium, with a vicus, mansione, altar and a large network of aqueducts and a very very unique dam, possibly the only one of its type in Roman Britain.

Best,
Yuri

[PhilusEstilius]

Yuri. I have been looking at your article and not wanting to be rude at all, we have to consider just how can the road leaving the fort to the North go thro' the Wall for there were no gates going thro' a turret.

Then when we check out your view topic link and comments made by Mike Bishop regarding Collingwood Bruce, here is a small piece from Collingwood Bruce reference the wall. (It passes under the south end of St Dominic's Church and thence almost in a straight line to the Sallyport Gate; after which it begins to turn northward in a gentle curve passing through the northern end of All Saints' Church to the presumed site of milecastle 4{Pilgrim Street). on the Tyne bridge approach, where Roman pottery have been found. When last found , just west of this point, it was aiming as if to pass a little north of St Nichols's Cathedral but tradition suggests that it turned southwards, presumably to join the north east angle of the fort near the Blackgate.)
The wall has never been found in this area so how can anyone say it stands 100 yds north of the fort ?

[MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS]

Hi Brian,

If you click on the images themselves, you will see there is a description beneath them that states the location of the wall is unknown. The fact it is 100 yards ahead is conjectural, because in that discussion I had both people telling me it was connected, and that it was maybe 50 meters or so ahead of the wall. I decided to go for the middle ground.

I also read, I cannot remember where, I think maybe Bishop told me, that there would likely be a Gatehouse at that point in the wall, straight ahead from the bridge, and to the east of the fort. I know the image doesn't show it very well, but that is supposed to be a gatehouse. When asked what should it look like, he said it would not exactly be like a milecastle, but more like one or two towers with a gate in the middle. The reason it is as it is is because we had to restart the work from scratch at one point and we had to devote more time to other priorities. The fact its there at all is quite considerable.

[PhilusEstilius]

Yuri. With no disrespect to anyone I have for many years now considered that when it comes to archaeology, I tend to take possibly probably and safe to assume with a big pinch of salt.

[Gluteus Maximus]

MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS\\n[quote]
I also read, I cannot remember where, I think maybe Bishop told me, that there would likely be a Gatehouse at that point in the wall, straight ahead from the bridge, and to the east of the fort. I know the image doesn't show it very well, but that is supposed to be a gatehouse. quote]

Such gatehouses are not unknown - take for example the Knag Burn gatehouse just to the east of Housesteads.

When one is in the business of doing reconstruction models, wether computer generated or sculpted, words like 'possibly, probably, likely and safe to assume' must by neccessity come into play. The reason for this is not hard to imagine - picture a computer reconstruction model, almost movie quality, complete with marching Roman auxillia, wild animals and even weather. The effect would be spoiled somewhat if a wall abruptly ended and the paranthetic 'wall course - uncertain' was written in red across the screen! So, us reconstructors must listen to the assumptions and suggestions of archaeologists and take our pick from the conjecture, otherwise we would not build anything at all! That some may disagree with our analysis or conjecture is part of the deal.

[Decimus_Vitus]

When one is in the business of doing reconstruction models, wether computer generated or sculpted, words like 'possibly, probably, likely and safe to assume' must by neccessity come into play. The reason for this is not hard to imagine - picture a computer reconstruction model, almost movie quality, complete with marching Roman auxillia, wild animals and even weather. The effect would be spoiled somewhat if a wall abruptly ended and the paranthetic 'wall course - uncertain' was written in red across the screen! So, us reconstructors must listen to the assumptions and suggestions of archaeologists and take our pick from the conjecture, otherwise we would not build anything at all! That some may disagree with our analysis or conjecture is part of the deal.

AMEN ! :lol:

[PhilusEstilius]

I must say that from the way that you have put that Neil and also to you Steve I have to agree with you both, that was a very good effort that everyone put in Steve and I realy enjoyed it good work mate.

[MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS]

I must say that from the way that you have put that Neil and also to you Steve I have to agree with you both, that was a very good effort that everyone put in Steve and I realy enjoyed it good work mate.

Im glad you did, many many hours and a lot of hard work was put in! I agree with you on a lot of points, and definitely with Neil about not being able to get everything right. Can you imagine how hard working it would be to create like 4 different reconstructions based on different interpretations and conjectures of what went where?

As it stands, its a great ''What may have looked like'' rather than a certain ''This is exactly how it looked'', which wasn't the aim of the project. Its aim was to give the article appeal and capture people's imagination. I think Steve did a damn good job of it.

[PhilusEstilius]

Yuri. I do understand very well and I can only say here here, and I am not at war with archaeologists but I just wish that many of them would try to understand that all of we here are indeed experimental archaeologists.

[MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS]

Yuri. I do understand very well and I can only say here here, and I am not at war with archaeologists but I just wish that many of them would try to understand that all of we here are indeed experimental archaeologists.

I totally agree with you. Experimental archaeology and any type of reconstruction involves a lot of trial and error, heck one need look only at our standard kit to see how things have changed through the ages as new discoveries are made.

By the way brian, are you very familiar with the Longovicium (Lanchester) fort? Its my next project.

[Komet]

When one is in the business of doing reconstruction models, wether computer generated or sculpted, words like 'possibly, probably, likely and safe to assume' must by neccessity come into play. The reason for this is not hard to imagine - picture a computer reconstruction model, almost movie quality, complete with marching Roman auxillia, wild animals and even weather. The effect would be spoiled somewhat if a wall abruptly ended and the paranthetic 'wall course - uncertain' was written in red across the screen! So, us reconstructors must listen to the assumptions and suggestions of archaeologists and take our pick from the conjecture, otherwise we would not build anything at all! That some may disagree with our analysis or conjecture is part of the deal.

Definitely. The best anyone can do is analyze all the evidence for reconstruction scenarios and choose the features that would have been the most likely. The beauty of computer models is that you can fairly easily employ alternate reconstructions. My current project is the reconstruction of the House of the Drinking Contest in Seleucia Pieria. An excavation plan exists from the 1930s, but the walls are practically all gone except for at most a third of a meter of rubble. Circles exist on the plan that indicate columns at 0.9 meters in diameter, and using our knowledge of classical orders, we can make plausible assumptions of the height of the columns based on the diameter on the plan. For example, Corinthian columns have a 10:1 height-diameter ratio, Ionic, 9:1. Given the size of the house, these orders of columns would have been too tall to be in proportion with the other dimensions of the house. Therefore, I went with a fairly average height Doric column at 5.5:1. That allows me to establish the height of the surrounding walls, and thus the height of the house. It's conjectural, but plausible, and would stand up against scrutiny from other architectural historians.

[PhilusEstilius]

Yuri I don't think that I can help at all on that particular project for most of my area of study has been the Wall and Northumberland. I don't wish to sound glum but to me it is a fort that has sort of been neglected somehow, we hear so much about forts in Durham and the Dere Street but little about Lanchester. I can only wish you all the best on your studies of it and of course hope to see some good work in the future about it.

[MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS]

Yuri I don't think that I can help at all on that particular project for most of my area of study has been the Wall and Northumberland. I don't wish to sound glum but to me it is a fort that has sort of been neglected somehow, we hear so much about forts in Durham and the Dere Street but little about Lanchester. I can only wish you all the best on your studies of it and of course hope to see some good work in the future about it.

Thats exactly why I decided to write these articles on Lanchester and Chester-le-Street and Newcastle and Binchester. Most people only know there was a roman fort at the location because of the name Chester, and that isn't even applicable to newcastle.

Wikipedia is a faily easy and accesible tool for the public to use, not to mention it can be used online. I also think that adding a visual element definitely makes it more appealing. My whole aim has been to bring to the public more info on these particular forts (and others in the future) as I do feel they have been neglected. We see so many reconstructions and talk of well known forts such as those at Wroxeter and Housesteads and so on, but very little on the smaller, for us, more regional ones.

The fact wikipedia is a non-profit and 'public domain' site means people can freely distribute and even use those images at will, hopefully helping to expand this knowledge to the public.

[Gluteus Maximus]

Yuri. I do understand very well and I can only say here here, and I am not at war with archaeologists but I just wish that many of them would try to understand that all of we here are indeed experimental archaeologists.

Sometimes archaeologists miss points that other experts might explain, especially when it comes to forming an hypothesis with which to build a reconstruction model. A while back I started a comparative study of 2nd century and fourth century barrack blocks. This study is still ongoing; however, as anyone familiar with Hadrian's Wall knows, some of the forts had their barracks rebuilt during the late third/early fourth century. Gone were the straight, collonaded buildings of the second century, to be replaced by an almost shambolic arrangement of chalets, built on the foundations of the original building. It has long been a puzzle as to why these bildings should have been thus altered.

A friend of mine came to visit and saw the two models of the same building, and commented on the fourth century barrack building. 'Its obvious why they rebuilt it like that' he said. I asked why. 'Well, its availability of timber, isn't it? You dont need roof joists as long or thick if you demolish the lengthways roof, and re-align it so it is a series of gables'.

He was right- the roof joists can be made much shorter, much more cheaply, and - in an area significantly deforested after 150 years of intensive Roman occupation, out of poorer quality wood.

My friend's profession? Builder!

Sorry to stray off topic a bit, but when it comes to making reconstruction models, archaeologists might not always have the most logical or simple ideas about things.