SacoHarry
Member
Joined: 9:29 PM - Aug 22, 2006

6:44 PM - Sep 08, 2011 #11

That works on so many levels!
Quote
Like
Share

Sandy
Member
Sandy
Member
Joined: 8:46 AM - Sep 11, 2006

9:32 PM - Sep 08, 2011 #12

Hi Guys

Terry and I were in big trouble for losing the big wall, not once but twice last week it was supposed to turn a corner but disappeared instead. However, we redeemed ourselves on Friday by exposing the east face of the central section, ably assisted by Bob (mattock) and Alan (spade).

The whole area of the wall has been very quite findswise, so we have no idea whether the small circular feature is contemporary with it or later. Robin came down to the site several times and was mystified. I am sure those of you that know him can imagine the the scene. Not well done, but "Whatever do you call that b****y silly little thing". He felt it ought to have been an oven but there was no sign of burning, we thought at first we had a well but it has a stone bottom, so that was out.

So - put on your thinking caps and let us have your ideas.

Sandy
Quote
Like
Share

SacoHarry
Member
Joined: 9:29 PM - Aug 22, 2006

1:40 PM - Sep 09, 2011 #13

I can totally hear Robin in my head saying that.

OK, here's my thinking cap: it's the end of the 3rd C. Life is getting a bit dicey, with Britain being a breakaway territory & all that. Maybe at first the townspeople decided to build a wall for security. They got started, planted it right on top of older features (the circle thing and the flagstoned yard)... and then something happened and they abandoned it before it was finished. After all, it was only a few years later that the whole vicus was abandoned & everyone moved inside the fort.
Quote
Like
Share

Badger
Member
Badger
Member
Joined: 1:10 PM - May 12, 2008

3:38 PM - Sep 09, 2011 #14

I dunno Harry.

The question would be if it was a military or civilian project. If the latter, the Army generally finished what they started. Even if, perhaps especially if, it was a rather silly thing to do in the first place (Antonine Wall anyone?). Besides, what would motivate the Army to do this, they had a perfectly nice fort already.

As to the civilians doing this, well, the quality of the finished stonework seems suspiciously good for late vicus work. I know Site B has been bashed about a good deal, but most of what we have been scraping around at under the watchful eye of Justin appears to be the kind of work homeowners might do on their day off....after a few pints of fermented liquids!

I suspect it will be an annex of an earlier military project. Side walls later robbed out as being in the way?

Where is that coin when you need it? Another argument against the late vicus theory, at that point cruddy pot metal radii were just about worthless and most roman sites of that era are awash in them.

T. Wolter
Quote
Like
Share

SacoHarry
Member
Joined: 9:29 PM - Aug 22, 2006

4:12 PM - Sep 09, 2011 #15

Good points both! I first thought like you did, part of an earlier project -- maybe the extension of the Antonine (late 2nd C) annex. They found a stone-fronted rampart & gate for the annex down south a bit in '09.

What made me think this wall is later is: (1) the stone looks to me like "cowboy-building" -- like the Gauls did in the 3rd C. Heavy, hardy, unpolished. And (2) that flagstone floor/yard butting up against it (or going under it??) to the west. It's hard to see that flagging being later than the chunky wall that's still there at a higher level.
Last edited by SacoHarry on 7:26 PM - Sep 09, 2011, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share