07-03-2008, 11:46 AM
Quote:At its closest, as Collingwood Bruce suggests above, Hadrian's Wall probably followed the line of Collingwood Street and passed close to St Nic's. A good 100m to the north of the north wall of the fort identified by its excavators (I suspect at least some modern scholars would place it slightly further south than that, but only by the width of a cathedral, still leaving 50m of clear air between HW and the north wall of fort). I see no reason to doubt the excavators' delineation of the fort, and plenty to carp at with Horsley's and Collingwood Bruce's conjectures, but they are not to blame over this as they simply did not have the evidence to work with, as somebody had been inconsiderate enough to plonk a medieval town on top of the fort; now, however, we have the north wall of the fort.
Which ever way you cut it, application of a glinting, keen-edged Occam's Razor suggests the fort was not attached to the Wall.
Mike Bishop
Thanks Mike. The reconstruction is particularly helpful for me and Steve. One thing though, is that fort reconstruction not far too large? John Nolan's sketch suggests its much smaller, and even I think it is smaller than that. We have discussed the possibility the fort was of smaller size than an ordinary mixed infantry/cavalry fort as the nearby milecastles, turrets and possible fort at gateshead may have provided additional barracks spaces.
So on these grounds, has Bruce not exaggerated maybe?
ALso, I was unaware of other theories that the wall was way north of the fort. That being the case, as I have mentioned above, I have no trouble believing it may have been free standing.
