Help with a fort question

[Johnny Crawford]

Hear all,
First post and hoping you can help.
I am looking for explanations for a deliberately engineered break in a first century (probably auxiliary) fort (no names or photos possible at the moment I'm afraid). The break is evidenced by a 'back step' in the stone toe of the rampart, between which is a gap of 6 to 7 meters. The stone toe is absent but a clay band and probable berm forms a shallow concave shape between the gap, the 'cave' part projecting perhaps a meter and a half into the rampart. It does not appear to be a gateway as there is no evidence for a road surface (in fact an actual gateway has been projected some 20m west of the break) and there is nothing to suggest that the rampart did not cover the gap when complete. Original theory was that it was a breach in the rampart to aid demolition but that was before it was found to be deliberately laid. There is lots of head scratching as to the purpose of the break. Theories range from a possible temporary gateway that was used to a cock up in the laying out of the fort. Is anyone aware of another fort which exhibits a deliberate gap of this nature or does anyone have any ideas about the function it could have (I have even considered the possibility of a 'ballista nest' :roll: )
Cheers,
Johnny

[Vindex]

Erm...a sketch might help to understand your description properly.

From the reference to the berm do I take it that this is a breach outside the wall/rampart, or inside and your berm refers to a mound behind the fort rampart?

Is there any sign of burnt material or collapsed masonry?

Any sign of wheel ruts?

Are there any aerial phtographs of the site which could give the line of a pathway? (doesn't have to be metalled, although a bit odd for a 1st century fort if it isn't).

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

Any indication it could be some kind of hollowed out, roofed space inside the rampart which was used for....... who knows ?

Mithraeum is not valid for that period i think...

M.VIB.M.

[Epictetus]

Could it have been another gateway? I was under the impression that sometimes gates were not spaced evenly.

[D B Campbell]

I'm not sure whether I've followed your description correctly, but a break in a rampart foundation could be a culvert.

[Arahne]

You should definitely draw a scatch. Do You have via sagularis, channels, fossa parallely running in this part of the wall. What building materials were used for the wall?

[Johnny Crawford]

Dear all,
Another case of an image being better than a thousand words I think!


Thank you for the replies, all valid points and hopefully you get the drift from my rather busy sketch! The sketch is not to scale but essentially the angular blocks represent flat, irregular flag type stone with a few rounded ones, generally laid in a single course but they appear to have several courses (I wont know how many until tomorrow) to reinforce the point where the toe changes angle into the fort. I have used a heavier line to represent the areas where there appear to be several courses but only a small amount has so far been exposed so they may be more or less extensive. The stone does not form a wall but is rather a stone 'toe', overlain by clay, and never much more than a meter or so wide, that appears to have anchored the front edge of the rampart. There is a meter wide berm composed of stony clay in front of the 'toe' and there is no reason as yet to suppose the fort ditch does not dip down in front of the berm (it does in front of the stonework at western part of the gap).

There is an approximately 6 meter gap in the 'toe', and it is plain the stone was laid deliberately to form such a gap. The line of the berm, together with a spread of clay arcs backwards into the fort approximately 3 meters, forming a gentle concave. There is no obvious purpose for the gap. There are no cobbles entering or exiting the gap, and the clay arc backs directly onto the turf and earth core of the rampart, suggesting that the rampart was actually present between the gap. The via sagularis is present but not in this part of the site (its line is outside the excavated area). There is evidence for at least one oven to the south east of the gap which would impede a road should there ever have been one in and out of the fort at this point (though they need not be contemporary). Neither is there a suggestion it could be the result of a culvert.

To the east of the gap, two very large, round post holes have been found, built into the 'toe' that are probably supports for an interval tower. Unusually there appear to be the remains of two similarly sized post holes in front of the rampart (yes, they are in the fort ditch!) making a total of 4 for the tower. The excavated remains of a road and geophysics permit the projection of an actual gateway some 20m west of the gap.


Apologies for the mini report but answers on a postcard please. As hinted at in my previous post it could be a gateway that was built off spec and which was subsequently abandoned but I don't know why they didn't bother to place more 'toe' as foundation.

Hope the sketch illuminates the text somewhat!

Best wishes,
Johnny.

[mcbishop]

There is an approximately 6 meter gap in the 'toe', and it is plain the stone was laid deliberately to form such a gap. The line of the berm, together with a spread of clay arcs backwards into the fort approximately 3 meters, forming a gentle concave. There is no obvious purpose for the gap. There are no cobbles entering or exiting the gap, and the clay arc backs directly onto the turf and earth core of the rampart, suggesting that the rampart was actually present between the gap. The via sagularis is present but not in this part of the site (its line is outside the excavated area). There is evidence for at least one oven to the south east of the gap which would impede a road should there ever have been one in and out of the fort at this point (though they need not be contemporary). Neither is there a suggestion it could be the result of a culvert.

To the east of the gap, two very large, round post holes have been found, built into the 'toe' that are probably supports for an interval tower. Unusually there appear to be the remains of two similarly sized post holes in front of the rampart (yes, they are in the fort ditch!) making a total of 4 for the tower. The excavated remains of a road and geophysics permit the projection of an actual gateway some 20m west of the gap.

Apologies for the mini report but answers on a postcard please. As hinted at in my previous post it could be a gateway that was built off spec and which was subsequently abandoned but I don't know why they didn't bother to place more 'toe' as foundation.

Hmmm, interesting. Any chance this could be the collapse of an interval tower due to berm subsidence (cf. Turret 54a on Hadrian's Wall) and a bodge job patching it afterwards with the posthole tower replacing it? For comparative purposes, when the north wall kept collapsing at Housesteads ever more desperate attempts were made to work around it with makeshift ramparts and - gasp! - a timber interval tower replacing a stone one in the late period. A second gate would be unlikely unless it was on the line of an internal street (surveyors are, were, and probably always will be very anal).

Mike Bishop

[Q Rutilius]

If I am interpreting your sketch correctly it appears that the berm was flatter - perhaps approximating a ramp. If so, perhaps the defenders intended to use this as a kind of port and attack from it.

[Vindex]

Deliberate removal of material to take pressure off something else?

Is the cut obviously semi circular or did it start out in life as a square cut for a lighter interval tower as mentioned by Mr Bishop?

[Johnny Crawford]

Once again thanks for the replies. Mike and Vindex, there is no evidence for removal of material after construction from what can be seen so far and the arc of the clay and berm appears to have always been that shape. Given that we appear to have an interval tower already engineered into the rampart, it is completely different in form; no evidence of post-holes so far either. Q. Rutilius, the berm is not especially flatter in the arc but it is more spread, suggesting that it is disturbed. The interior of the fort is higher than the front of the berm but I couldn't say it was a ramp. Interestingly enough someone I work with who has dug a lot of medieval sites said it could be a sally port but I'm not aware of any Roman examples for comparison.

Digging today proved that the 'toe' has thicker and more courses at the terminal ends, supporting the idea that they were reinforced. There was also a nice quernstone serving as part of the lower course of the western terminal. Should find out a bit more tomorrow and I'll see if I can get some photos posted.

I'm still none the wiser as to the purpose though and still without precedent
Best wishes,
Johnny

[Vindex]

Photos would be fab...it's a good one though! I like a conundrum...

(And, just because I can't resist...it isn't a terminus omibus is it???! )

[Johnny Crawford]

Hey Ho,
I still have no idea of what it is. Here are three photos though (I have permission conditional on anonymity for the site) - apologies for the quality - working shots first thing this morning after heavy rain and it wasn't until this evening that I realised my camera lens has a smudge. The first shows the view of the toe looking to the east. The weather conditions make the arc of clay difficult to see but it is just visible through the smudge, as is the quernstone set in the courses closest to the camera. (The small pits to the right of the gap are the remains of a line of modern post-holes, nothing to do with the fort).



The second is a close up of the rather lovely quernstone itself - any spotters out there who can tell me more about the form?



The third is the gap looking west. The toe here is better preserved than the other side and the deliberate angle back is clearly visible.



I don't suppose they will make identification of the function any easier but they may be of interest to some of you. I suspect we will never know what it is about!

Best wishes,
Johnny

[Vindex]

Curiouser and curiouser.

Initial impression is that, from the third photograph, there is quite a bit of subsidence on the footings/foundations and perhaps led to the wall collapsing which is then plugged? Perhaps the clay was laid to give the new foundations a better chance of surviving.

Another thought is that the gap, whatever it was is obviously later repaired becasue of the use of quern stone (But I think you have already said that)..

Is the intrusion fully excavated? The foundations of the wall seem to be better laid and wider at the far end of the first photograph suggesting that the foundations around this "toe" are less substantial. Do they precede or are they after the "toe" intrusion?