Roman Fort Expert Required

[GhostOfClayton]

Does anyone know of a real expert on Roman Forts? I live almost on top of a site (Countess Close), which was always reputed to be a small Roman fort or camp. Recently, however, a couple of trenches were dug, no Roman artefacts were uncovered, and it was then assumed to have been a fortified medieval manor house. Now, I certainly don't want to cast any doubt on the skill and knowledge of the Archaeologists involved, I'm in no position to do that. However, I just get the feeling that the 'Roman Fort' theory was dismissed too quickly for my liking. It shared so many characteristics of Roman Forts that I've come across elsewhere. I'd love to have a chinwag with someone that really knows their onions, fort-wise, if only to put the subject to bed.

[caldrail]

There are characteristics you expect of roman forts, and usally you do find a certain amount of detritus in such places. I wouldn't dismiss the archaeologists too quickly. If all they found was medieval walls then thats what was there. That doesn't mean a roman fort wasn't there at some earlier date and given your location at the end of ermine street (I too live beside Ermine Street near the site of Durocornovium) the potential for a roman site has to be observed. Are there any other roman forts in the area? If so, then the likeliehood of another isn't great.

 

What are the characteristics of this 'fort' that make you think its roman?

[Northern Neil]

What are the dimensions of this site? Is there a discernible rectangular earthwork? If it is close to Ermine Street, then it could be a marching camp, in which case little material would be found by archaeologists. Please tell me where Countess Close is - a look at it via 'Google Earth' may at least give us a hint.

[GhostOfClayton]

The key question must be: If two trenches draw a blank, is that sufficient to rule out a Roman presence? If yes, then the rest of my speculations are academic.

 

You can find Countess Close located at SE 879 216. Go to "www.ordnancesurvey.gov.uk", and enter 'Alkborough' into the 'View Maps Online' field. Click on the Earthworks below the maze, and it should zoom to a 1:25 000. For a closer look, you can Print/Save/Copy, and cut and paste the image into (say) PowerPoint. You can then zoom in to an impressive level of detail.

 

My (extremely amateur) thoughts are mainly based on the location, and needless to say are all very circumstantial. We are two or three miles to the west of Winteringham (which is the actual Northern terminus of Ermine Street, and is reputed to have been an important Roman crossing point of the Humber.) I would rule out a marching camp, as Alkborough (unlike Winteringham) would be very much the 'end of the line'. I feel a camp/fort would be placed here to protect something, rather than as a refuge for Legionaries.

 

The nearest Roman fort south of the Humber that I can find evidence of (on the Internet!) is 15 miles away, just north of Humberside Airport. Is that far enough away?

 

So what was there here to protect? The local Museum Society have been very active in the Alkborough area, and (from the impressive number of finds they've unearthed,) so were the Romans. There's strong speculation about a trading post about half a mile further north, and a villa to the East. Running south from Countess Close was an old trackway which, though likely to predate Roman occupation, was almost certainly used by the Romans. Look carefully at the 50m contour just North of Countess Close. There is a small re-entrant which may or may not be naturally formed. Certainly it's dissimilar to other naturally formed features. The trackway leading from there used to lead to a small haven used by shipping until (can't remember the dates here, but after the middle ages). Was this in use by the Romans to serve the trading post? No-one knows. In 1931, a pot containing a small hoard of Roman coins was dug up just to the south at Walcot Hall. Might that be significant?

 

The shape of the earthwork on the OS 1:25 000 map is deceptive, and hidden by tree cover on Google Earth. On the ground, it's more convincing. The surviving (and I use that word in its loosest sense) earthwork is on the western edge. This seems to consist of two earth banks. The next question, therefore, is: are twin earth banks a Roman design?

 

Geophys of the field immediately south of Countess Close showed several pottery kilns, and much Roman activity. Next question then, would a small camp/fort, like Countess Close, support a Vicus? The main entrance to the camp was on the north side. If there were a Vicus would it automatically be on the side of the main entrance?

 

Combined with the presence of the Trent/Ouse/Humber confluence, I can't help thinking that there must've been a fort around here somewhere. And if you were going to put a fort round here, strategically, that's where you'd put it. Then again, that's also where you'd put a fortified medieval manor house. But you'd especially put your manor house there if there were existing earthworks to make use of. I could go on at length in this vein, and sadly get nowhere. As [our] AugustusCeasar pointed out, however (thanks, AC), you only have to look to Birdoswald to find a precedent.

 

Water would be readily available in the form of either Kell Well (a spring about a kilometer south, but at about the same height, anbd also Low Wells, (closer, but at least 10-15m below.) How would the Roman's have moved the water? Would an aquaduct be a tad over the top here?

 

Views welcomed.

[Pertinax]

The site experts (AC of course as well ) have already turned up on the thread.

A further question might be , how does this site look in terms of likely marching distances from other attested sites? The 15 miles you mention does at least make one stop and think .Do they have to be protecting anything, might they not be part of a distance determined pattern of outposts? Rather than protect does this site dominate or give quick access to any Brythonic feature? Could the late era sea defences have benefitted from the positioning of this site (levels are a big problem of course, look at the changes in York in Roman times alone), could levels have changed so much that any site has been washed away?

More questions than answers im afraid.

[caldrail]

Roman forts served various purposes. Primarily they were safe havens for troops, and bases for patrols in the area, thus they had an internal security function. Forts would have artisans on hand so maintenance and repair are there too. In wilder areas, a fort is an outpost, the first stage in subjugating or colonising a barbarian land. Taxation is also centered on such places. In fact, the way to regard a fort is to see it as something similar to those civilisation games on computers - the fort is the first 'city' plonked on the map in that area, and the romanisation of existing barbarian settlements also hinges on the presence of roman troops.

[Augustus Caesar]

There is agreement with what Caldrail says here about Romans building forts or fortlets even for the purposes he mentions although I do feel there would be more reasons than what would be considered the norm. Ghost posted this original question in my own forum but as numbers lack there we agreed a post here may be of more help. My reply to his original question (as Ghost is Centurion on that forum) was as follows...

 

I have done a small search and found this little snippet which no doubt you may have spotted on the North Lincs Council website...

 

"Countess Close and Julian

[caldrail]

Roman occupation is very widespread, but that doesn't mean it was actually roman, often its romano-british. Is there a difference? Sometimes, yes. Many important brits of the time who saw which way things were going and went along with it (dare I say it, collaborated?) were rewarded with important positions in the roman hierarchy.

 

For instance, among the remains in my area is a farmstead at Okus (now a housing development). Romans? No, not likely. It wasn't far from a major roman road and we do find these places strung along the routes accessed by side tracks. Okus was no exception there, although I haven't any idea where this track was, probably across Swindon Hill given the river valley to the west. No, these were poorer folk and probably native brits, as were many of the potters who lived and worked north of the site. The other extreme are the two villas on the main roman route (now the A346 at Chiseldon/Badbury) which may well have been the possessions of important roman officers. Elsewhere, I see a roman well at Swindon Polo Ground, although there's no obvious sign that anyone lived there at the time. Also there is the vicus for the staging post at Durocornovium, whose cemetary is partly underneath Covingham. Recent discovery of well to do houses at Groundwell show that there were a number of wealthy families owning country estates within easy reach of a roman road, whilst the less romanised brits who may well have sought to earn a living from the romans must have lived and worked within easy reach of these settlements and country estates. Places like Liddington Hill or Barbury Castle, iron age hillforts, don't seem to have piqued the roman interest at all and I wonder if these were largely abandoned because of roman economics.

 

I have no doubt the same principles might apply to the original posters area.

[GhostOfClayton]

Thanks for all your input. I have more questions. As far as distances to other forts are concerned, I

[GhostOfClayton]

Sorry . . forgot to ask. Caldrail, have you a map reference for Okus?

[caldrail]

Its the hill on the southwest side of Swindon, Wiltshire. Look for the curve in the old Wilts and Berks canal on an ordnance survey map - Okus is inside that curve.

[Augustus Caesar]

I agree to a certain extent about the Romano British side of things as Caldrail puts it... but as no dates have been given so far for the Roman finds we cannot assume that this is early Roman or whenever. Do we have dates then for the finds you mention in your 'stop press', Ghost?

[Melvadius]

The key question must be: If two trenches draw a blank, is that sufficient to rule out a Roman presence? If yes, then the rest of my speculations are academic.

 

<SNIP>

Views welcomed.

 

In any archaeological excavation the normal practice is to 'section' a number of significant features within the site. This normally entails digging a trench(s) at right angles across what could be ditches of embankments or part of parchmarks if they look like they may be forming part of a building. By cleaning the face of the excavation you can determine the profile of any ditches and by the position of wallls (either in situ, robbed out or collapsed) you can posibly work out what their original size, shape and use may have been.

 

In the case of ditches the Roman military used a number of distinctive types including the 'punic' ditch which can be used to date military sites including marching camps even where there si no datable finds such as pottery or brooches.

 

As has ben noted marching camps tend to have a distinctive shape especially in Scotland where there can be a number of distinctly Roman entrance patterns including the 'Strathcaro' pattern which are designed to funnel attackers together into restricted space in front of the gateways making it easier for the camp occupants to fight them off.

 

If an excavation has found no distinctive ditch shape and no finds then the archaeological conclusion has to be that Roman military occupation is unlikely or at best unproven.

 

As far as marching camp in the South East of England are concerned there have been very few proven even as far west as Swindon. By the 1st century AD the tribes in the South East of England were to a great extent friendly to the Romans and in most cases the Romans simply passed them by and built their first line of fortifications a bit further north and west than Swindon, with the few known forts inside that area soon abandoned as the Roman military expanded their zone of control.

 

Melvadius

Edited November 3, 2007 by Melvadius

[Augustus Caesar]

Thanks for that Melvadius... this explains a lot. I know little of the Roman occupations to the south of England apart from the obvious ones so as you say they would pass by the already pro Roman folk (and that makes sense) and build defences where necessary further north. Thus bypassing this particular area we are discussing.

 

Whether Ghost will be convinced is somewhat another matter of course. It is felt that the decision to say 'no Roman' was hasty. Still, I am sure he will come back and pass comment on this. I look forward to his thoughts.

Edited November 4, 2007 by Augustus Caesar

[Melvadius]

Thanks for that Melvadius... this explains a lot. I know little of the Roman occupations to the south of England apart from the obvious ones so as you say they would pass by the already pro Roman folk (and that makes sense) and build defences where necessary further north. Thus bypassing this particular area we are discussing.

 

Whether Ghost will be convinced is somewhat another matter of course. It is felt that the decision to say 'no Roman' was hasty. Still, I am sure he will come back and pass comment on this. I look forward to his thoughts.

 

Sorry, I read only part of the thread and picked up the second reference which was to Swindon rathet than the original to Humberide - a slight matter of 100 or so miles apart oops However from some additional reading I would be unhappy classifying Countess Close as a Roman fort if Pevenser's description of it as an earthwork is at all correct :

 

"...roughly square, broken by an entrance on the North. Other sources say it is medieval, perhaps the remains of a fort."

 

A single entant entrance would tend to be a strong initial arguement against the site being based on a Roman military fort or marching camp. Any extensive archaeological research should ideally have comprised a test excavation for any gates on the other cardinal points if not a geophysical survey of the earthworks to see if there was any evidence for more gates, which any reasonably size fort would have had. Only the smallest of Roman military installations i.e. watchtowers like those on the Gask Ridge and along the Yorkshire coast or something the size of the Hadrian's Wall milecastles would have had only one entrance.

 

Melvadius