Posts: 486
Threads: 39
Joined: Aug 2007
Reputation:
0
Hi,
As part of my recent writting of wikipedia articles on Roman forts in the North East of England, I have comissioned the work of our friend Steve Haasis (Decimus Vitus) in creating 3D reconstruction images for this particular article.
Examples of his work can be found here:
http://ancientvine.com/gallery.html
Having seen his work on Ancient Vine, I was impressed by his skill and the livelyness of his pictures. We are thus both working together (although all the drawings are exclusively his work) on reconstructing the Fort, Vallum and bridge over the river tyne at Newcastle as it may have looked in roman times.
Having said that, it would be greatly appreciated if anybody that has any knowledge of the area, articles, sketches, drawings, anything relevant, could please inform us so our reconstructions may be as accurate as possible. Any information will do, so please don't be shy 
Best Regards,
Yuri
Posts: 2,913
Threads: 21
Joined: Jan 2008
Reputation:
1
What I might suggest about the bridge Yuri, is that it may have had a wood upper structure on stone piers. Infact similar to the one at the fort of Cilurnum or modern day Chesters in the Hadrianic period of course. I think with regard to the fort it would be well to read the account in THE ROMAN WALL by J Collingwood Bruce, for here there is a good desciption of the ground layout from the 1929 excavations.
Brian Stobbs
Posts: 1,308
Threads: 193
Joined: Apr 2006
Reputation:
4
I can help out a bit with the bridge, as I am happen to work currently on Roman bridges at WP. My sources, though, are silent on that particular structure.
Stefan (Literary references to the discussed topics are always appreciated.)
Posts: 2,913
Threads: 21
Joined: Jan 2008
Reputation:
1
The Pons Aelius was used all the way up untill Norman times, then a new bridge was built around 1248 and lasted up until the great flood of 1771. Then when the 1775 bridge was replaced by the swing bridge in 1875 it was found that the Hadrianic one had been built on stone piers which were on rafts of iron shod oak piles. The two altars to Oceanus and Neptuno were dredged from the river at about where the centre of the bridge would have been..... I would point out that this info comes from the J Collingworth Bruce book THE ROMAN WALL.
Brian Stobbs
Posts: 3,616
Threads: 130
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation:
52
Quote:... it was found that the Hadrianic one had been built on stone piers which were on rafts of iron shod oak piles. The two altars to Oceanus and Neptuno were dredged from the river at about where the centre of the bridge would have been.....
That's odd. In the newest edition of Collingwood Bruce's Handbook to the Roman Wall (ed. David Breeze, 2006), he says that "the location of the bridge is now not known. It has been suggested that three inscriptions found in the river by the nineteenth century Swing Bridge came from a shrine on the Roman bridge, though this cannot be proved" (p. 144).
btw It seems to be fairly certain that the fort at Newcastle upon Tyne was not Hadrianic but much later (Breeze, p. 145).
imho This area would seem to be unduly problematic for a reconstruction. Wouldn't you be better choosing a fort where the evidence is rather better? (Chesters springs to mind as an excellent example with all the elements you need -- fort, bridge, wall, vallum).
Posts: 2,913
Threads: 21
Joined: Jan 2008
Reputation:
1
It appears to be so strange that the new edition I would'nt know the number of, gives the information that it is not known where the bridge is. There are clearly two altars which were found and are in the Antiquities Museum, this is the info from my 10th edition which also goes on to say that when the swing bridge was built it was found that the Roman one had piers with cut waters up and down stream. I would like very much to know just where Breeze got his information from, if people were aware of bridge piers in 1872-5 and clearly state they had double cut waters how can this now not be so. I would also like to know how our man Breeze is fairly certain that the fort is not Hadrianic but much later.
Brian Stobbs
Posts: 2,913
Threads: 21
Joined: Jan 2008
Reputation:
1
I would ask Yuri if he would wish indeed to take the easy way out because there may be problems, if so I shall introduce him to the paper I have written on Chesters fort also to explain to him how Chesters has three bath houses and an external grannery on the river bank.
Brian Stobbs
Posts: 3,616
Threads: 130
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation:
52
Quote:I would like very much to know just where Breeze got his information from, if people were aware of bridge piers in 1872-5 and clearly state they had double cut waters how can this now not be so. I would also like to know how our man Breeze is fairly certain that the fort is not Hadrianic but much later.
I can probably help you with that.
He cites Archaeologia Aeliana 5th ser. 19 (1991) pp. 17-24, on the bridge. And idem 31 (2002) on the fort. Looks as if there's been some recent activity!
(As I lamented before, not being a native of these parts, I don't have easy access to this local journal.  )
And of course there's Paul Bidwell & Neil Holbrook's Hadrian's Wall Bridges (1989) -- not being a bridge specialist, I have never read that one.
Posts: 3,616
Threads: 130
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation:
52
Quote:... how Chesters has three bath houses and an external grannery on the river bank.
Sounds intriguing.
Posts: 486
Threads: 39
Joined: Aug 2007
Reputation:
0
well, before we get too excited on this topic, I would just like to reitirate this is a ''what it may have looked like'' reconstruction, and not a ''definitive virtual remodeling of what Pons Aelius was like''.
Artistic license will be took into account, and to be fair, im sure the riverbanks have changed a tad since roman times, it doesn't really matter EXACTLY where it was. All I really need to know is where the vallum was in relation to the fort, and if the fort was connected to the wall.
This is a wikipedia article first and foremost. If I decide to writte a book on it, then maybe things will change :lol:
Posts: 3,616
Threads: 130
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation:
52
Quote:All I really need to know is where the vallum was in relation to the fort, and if the fort was connected to the wall.
It seems to have sat quite far behind the wall, but as the ramparts haven't been located it's difficult to say how far behind the wall! 
Posts: 486
Threads: 39
Joined: Aug 2007
Reputation:
0
Quote:MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS:3tqgus17 Wrote:All I really need to know is where the vallum was in relation to the fort, and if the fort was connected to the wall.
It seems to have sat quite far behind the wall, but as the ramparts haven't been located it's difficult to say how far behind the wall!
The vallum or the fort? The forts general wereabouts are known, so we can make a guesstimate as to the area of the ramparts. Was the fort connected to the wall or not?
Posts: 42
Threads: 2
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation:
0
Quote:It appears to be so strange that the new edition I would'nt know the number of, gives the information that it is not known where the bridge is. There are clearly two altars which were found and are in the Antiquities Museum, this is the info from my 10th edition which also goes on to say that when the swing bridge was built it was found that the Roman one had piers with cut waters up and down stream. I would like very much to know just where Breeze got his information from, if people were aware of bridge piers in 1872-5 and clearly state they had double cut waters how can this now not be so. I would also like to know how our man Breeze is fairly certain that the fort is not Hadrianic but much later.
I agree with Philus Estilius in that Breeze seems to contradict a few things. There appears to be physical evidence of a bridge right under or near the swing bridge. Altars were found near that location in addition to two bridge piers. I read somewhere there may have been a total of ten crossing the river.
I am curious to know where the vallum was in relation to the fort and bridge. In addition, was the wall connected to the fort? Where did it end before they continued it to Wallsend? I wonder if the wall [originally] terminated in the river.
- Steve
[url:a8jteds6]http://www.ancientvine.com[/url]
Posts: 486
Threads: 39
Joined: Aug 2007
Reputation:
0
Quote:I am curious to know where the vallum was in relation to the fort and bridge. In addition, was the wall connected to the fort? Where did it end before they continued it to Wallsend? I wonder if the wall [originally] terminated in the river.
It is a possibility. Paul Bidwell's 'Roman Forts' has a reconstruction of Segedunum where the wall ends at the river with a massive statue of Hadrian, which is conjectural, but probable due to the find of a colossal stone base, assumed to be the base where the statue stood.
Posts: 3,616
Threads: 130
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation:
52
Quote:The vallum or the fort? The forts general wereabouts are known, so we can make a guesstimate as to the area of the ramparts. Was the fort connected to the wall or not?
The fort.
I'm going by information in Collingwood Bruce's Handbook to the Roman Wall (13th edn., 1978; 14th edn., 2006), and it seems that only a few internal buildings have been located.
Apparently, an inscription of AD 213 is thought to be from the original foundation, so the fort's quite late.
I take it you chaps are local, so you have the advantage. I'd recommend getting hold of the Arch. Ael. volume I referenced above -- it'll have all the answers!
|
