Theoretical Structural Archaeology

Hadrian’s First Wall Part 3 of 3

2012-01-24T00:21:00.006Z

On Tyneside, between Hadrian’s Wall and the Ditch to the north, archaeologists have found three lines of double postholes, which, it is argued, represent an early Timber Wall, which, along with the Ditch, formed part of a temporary frontier while Hadrian’s Wall was being built. Further, it is argued that the Turf Wall represents the continuation of this structure in the western sector of the Wall. In addition, when the engineering and layout of the Vallum is examined, it appears to be an unfinished road, probably abandoned when warfare interrupted work on the Wall. These insights into the archaeology of Roman military engineering are the key to a new understanding how and why Hadrian’s Wall was built.

An updated summary of a series of articles from this site on the timber and earth structures predating Hadrian’s stone Wall.

Presented in three parts:

1. The Timber wall

2. Reverse engineering the Vallum

3. The Construction of the First Wall

3. The construction of the first Wall
The word ‘step’ is used rather than ‘phase’, because what is being described was one aspect of a more complex process.

It is clear that, in accordance with normal logistical principles, the longest, more complex tasks, in particular those requiring the most skilled labour, were prioritised. In terms of the stonework, this was the milecastles. Thus, once construction of the Wall proper begins, things get quite complicated, with separate construction gangs working simultaneously on different aspects of the project.

We also have to be aware that there are forts to build, and all manner of sundry logistical tasks, not to mention the day-to-day garrisoning and guarding of the frontier. However, it is possible to see logical steps in any major project of military engineering, and where the evidence is available, these are confirmed by the archaeology.

Establishing the linear frontier

Step 1 Plan/survey/lay out route
Step 2 Clear route and establish construction track [Military Way]
Step 3 Build temporary timber and turf walls Step 4 Dig ditch

Main construction phase [working from East to West, and not completed]

Step 5 Dig Vallum trench, dig and build spoil mounds
Step 6 Dig Broad Wall foundation
Step 7 Build Broad Wall
[Step 8 Dismantle Timber Wall]

Dislocation: Warfare disrupts the process, perhaps more than once.
Post-Dislocation

Vallum Road abandoned and in places backfilled;

Wall completed as Narrow Wall.

Construction sequence - key points

The presence of the temporary Wall explains why the majority of the spoil from the ditch was thrown north, with only a small glacis bank to the south.
The Vallum was completed [Step 5], while foundation trench for the Wall [Step 6], was not.
Digging of a road foundation suggests there was plenty of less-skilled labour available early in the project, and emphasises the importance of a proper road in the overall scheme

The Wall complex looking East at Cawfields

Strategies and tactics
... the Britons are unprotected by armour (?). There are very many cavalry. The cavalry do not use swords nor do the wretched Britons mount in order to throw javelins.'

Vindolanda Tablets [33]

It seems clear that Hadrian’s Wall was a military frontier, conceived in response to a genuine threat, and built by the Roman army with nobody's interests in mind but their own. Cavalry was probably the more immediate threat, certainly to an army planning to spread out along an 80-mile front. Whatever the differences in culture, neither side was politically or militarily naïve, and in an age of hostage-giving and punitive sanctions, which could include genocide, any extant territories near the Roman forces were probably fairly cooperative. This was the first layer of defence, a buffer state, stiffened by outlying forts with good communications to warn of any hostile forces. This gives the option of a pre-emptive strike, before the enemy can concentrate or deploy their forces.

When properly deployed, the Roman army could outfight most enemies, and as a result, it could employ aggressive military tactics, as exemplified by the design of their forts. Unlike a native hill fort or medieval castle, the Roman fort has four, or more, entrances. This allows that an attack on one gate can be counter-attacked and outflanked by the defenders using the other gates. In cavalry forts it is particularly important for the forces to have more than one option to deploy, and to not become trapped inside. Wall forts like Chesters and Birdoswald were designed so three of their four gates opened to the north of the Wall. The overall structure of the Wall seems to reflect a similar strategy, with a surprising number of milecastles and gates, some, like MC39, [right] opening onto almost sheer drops. This makes gates the obvious place to attack, break through, and deploy behind the defenders. However, if the attacker fails to breach the defences, they risk being outflanked by a counter attack and trapped against the Wall.

Conclusions: elephants in the room

After over a century of scholarship, excavations, and surveys, there still remained one central, but subtle, conundrum: if you needed a continuous fortified frontier, and given it would only be effective once it was finished, how come it took about 10 years to complete?

Since there is now little doubt that this was a war zone, breaking your army into small work details and spreading them along a 120km front could be regarded as tactically unwise, if not reckless. Undertaking such a massive construction project might imply that the frontier was peaceful and secure, which tends to undermine the perceived motivation behind building the Wall.

The construction of a temporary Wall solves this problem, securing the frontier against infiltration in the first season. The Timber wall built in the East provides a context and explanation for the Turf Wall, this being the form of the temporary rampart in the west.

Similarly, the various explanations put forward to explain the Vallum have also required a degree of special pleading; to say it is a boundary is to overlook the fact that this is not how Romans, or anyone else, ever built boundaries.[3] It is, however, how they built roads, and this seems to be the only explanation that fits the observable facts of the archaeology. This makes sense as part of the initial plan for the frontier. It makes sense, as does the abandonment of the project as the Wall was scaled back following a ‘dislocation’. This is a key to understanding; the dislocation[s] mark a distinct break in the Wall’s construction, and it is now thought that this was disrupted by serious warfare, perhaps on more than one occasion. When work resumes, the plans for the wall are scaled back. The ‘Broad’ Wall under construction is superseded by a ‘Narrow’ Wall, and there is a marked lowering of standards in the quality of the stonework.[16]

As primarily an army of heavy infantry, the Romans used earth and timber ramparts to protect themselves, particularly from cavalry. Fixed installations ensure the enemy dismounts and fights on terms and ground chosen to suit the defenders. The initial and temporary rampart represented by the Timber and Turf Walls provides a rational and secure basis for the much more complex and specialised task of building the Stone Wall. We can assume on the basis of the Turf Wall that it had some form of turrets and milecastles, and that therefore it was fully garrisoned and in every way fit for its purpose.

While the context of Caesar’s siege of Alésia was quite different, he claims that the first 18km of defences were built in 3 weeks. Thus, it might take about 20 weeks using Caesar's army to build a 117 km long rampart -- but of course it’s not that simple. However, the Roman army was good at this sort of thing, it’s what they did for a living, and creating a 117 km corridor was probably achievable within a year, especially since, with static defensive structures, it’s all or nothing. You can’t have gaps.

The rapid building of a fully functional frontier, probably within a year, was a strategic fait accompli that would have materially affected the military and political situation in the North of Britain. The arrangements and treaties that had ended the prior conflict, and prompted the building of a permanent frontier, may have been undermined by this unprecedented, and probably unexpected, move.

We cannot know if the appearance of this initial rampart was a causal factor in the warfare represented in the dislocation[s] in the construction, but its outbreak indicates that this cautionary approach was justified. Similarly, the building of additional forts along the Wall, when work resumed, also suggests that it had proved ineffective, emphasising the very real threat posed by incursion from the north. While the scaling down of the size of the Wall could be regarded as an attempt to finish it quickly, the decline in the quality of the masonry may also indicate serious casualties among the skilled legionary workforce.

Hadrian’s Wall was soon replaced by the Antonine Wall, which suggests it wasn't a great strategic success. However, the building of Hadrian’s frontier was an extraordinary achievement, not least because in its initial form it was probably built in less than a year. In addition, the growing realisation that this period was punctuated by serious warfare emphasises both the difficulty of the task, as well as why it was felt necessary in the first place.

“... under the rule of your grandfather Hadrian what a number of soldiers were killed by the Jews, what a number by the Britons”

Marcus Cornelius Fronto, letter to Marcus Aurelius, AD162

Bibliography and sources

[Hadrian’s First Wall]
[1] Bidwell, P T, 2005 'The system of obstacles on Hadrian's Wall; their extent, date and purpose', Arbeia J, 8, 53-76. http://www.arbeiasociety.org.uk/journal.htm

[2] Grey literature: Shields Road, Newcastle, Phase 2b, archaeological excavation. TWM archaeology 10/2006
[3] Caius Julius Caesar "De Bello Gallico" and Other Commentaries English translation by W. A. MacDevitt, introduction by Thomas De Quincey (1915) http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/10657

[4] Bidwell, Paul T.; Watson, Moira. 1989 'A Trial Excavation on Hadrian's Wall at Buddle Street, Wallsend'. Archaeologia Aeliana, 5th ser., 17 (1989), 21-28.

[5] T. Frain, J. McKelvey & P. Bidwell 2005 Excavations and watching brief along the berm of Hadrian’s Wall at Throckley, Newcastle upon Tyne, in 2001-2002. Arbeia J, 8 Grey literature; Throckley, Newcastle upon Tyne, archaeological excavation and watching brief. TWM Archaeology 12/2003
[6] Grey literature: Newcastle, Melbourne Street, Archaeological excavations. Archaeological services, University of Durham. http://csweb.bournemouth.ac.uk/aip/gaz2004/ene.pdf

[7] After: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SiegeAlesia.png

[8] Cip´pus n. 1. A small, low pillar,square or round, commonly having an inscription, used by the ancients for various purposes, as for indicating the distances of places, for a landmark, for sepulchral inscriptions, etc. Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, published 1913 by C. & G. Merriam Co.

[9] http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/18*.html#18 [Accessed 25/03/2011],
[10] The Military Institutions of the Romans (De Re Militari) by Flavius Vegetius Renatus, Translated from the Latin by Lieutenant John Clarke, translation published in 1767. Etext version by Mads Brevik (2001)
http://www.pvv.ntnu.no/~madsb/home/war/vegetius/
[11] After Fig 15 p73 Bidwell, P T, 2005 'The system of obstacles on Hadrian's Wall; their extent, date and purpose', Arbeia J, 8, 53-76.
[12] http://www.pitt.edu/~medart/menuglossary/INDEX.HTM
[13] James. 1989, Forester's Companion. Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0631108114

[14] Wilmott, T. 2009. Hadrian's Wall: Archaeological Research by English Heritage 1976-2000. English Heritage, Swindon. After Fig. 217 p109. http://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/archaeological.services/research_training/hadrianswall_research_framework/project_documents/TurfWall.pdf [Accessed 25/03/2011]

[15] see: Welfare, H. (2000). "Causeways, at Milecastles Across the Ditch of Hadrian’s Wall". Archaeologia Aeliana. 5 (28): 13–25. And Welfare, H. 2004. ‘Variation in the form of the ditch, and of its equivalents, on Hadrian’s Wall’. Archaeologia Aeliana, ser 5, 33, 9-24

[16] Hill, P. R. 2006. The construction of Hadrian's Wall. Tempus

[17] see: "Excavations at the Hadrian’s Wall fort of Birdoswald (Banna), Cumbria: 1996–2000," by Tony Wilmott, Hilary Cool and Jerry Evans, in Wilmott, T. [ed]. 2009. Hadrian's Wall: Archaeological Research by English Heritage 1976-2000 http://www.english-heritageshop.org.uk/mall/productpage.cfm/EnglishHeritage/_51324/288647/Hadrian's%20Wall [Accessed 29/11/10]
[18] Breeze, D.J. 2003. "Warfare in Britain and the Building of Hadrian's Wall." Archaeologia Aeliana 32, 13 –16.
[19] The basic archaeology of The Vallum and other aspects of the Wall has been recently reviewed in: Wilmott, T. [ed]. 2009. Hadrian's Wall: Archaeological Research by English Heritage 1976-2000. [Most of the general information about the Vallum used in this article is drawn from the summaries of P72–75 & 131–136 cover, along with that from individual excavation reports] at http://www.english-heritageshop.org.uk/mall/productpage.cfm/EnglishHeritage/_51324/288647/Hadrian's%20Wall [Accessed 29/11/10]

[20] This article uses illustrations based on images from Google Earth: http://www.google.com/earth/index.html [Accessed 29/11/10]
[21] Earlier work on the wall: Hodgson, E. 1897. "Notes on the Excavations on the line of the Roman Wall in Cumberland in 1894 and 1895," Trans Cumberland Westmorland Antiq Archaeol Soc, o ser, 14, 390-407. And Haverfield, F. 1897. "Report of the Cumberland Excavation Committee, 1896," TransCumberland Westmorland Antiq Archaeol Soc, o ser, 14, 413-433

[22] Inscription RIB1550 refers to Governor S. Julius Severus http://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/archaeological.services/research_training/hadrianswall_research_framework/project_documents/Carrawburghrev.pdf [Accessed 29/11/10] http://www.roman-britain.org/places/brocolitia.htm [Accessed 29/11/10]
[23] Tony Wilmott, Hilary Cool, and Jerry Evans. "Excavations at the Hadrian’s Wall fort of Birdoswald (Banna), Cumbria: 1996–2000," in Wilmott, T. [ed]. 2009. Hadrian's Wall: Archaeological Research by English Heritage 1976-2000. After Fig.346, p. 252

[24] White Moss and Limestone Corner after: 1897. Trans Cumberland Westmorland Antiq Archaeol Soc, o ser, 14, Plate I. Others: Wilmott, T. 2009. Hadrian's Wall: Archaeological Research by English Heritage 1976-2000. English Heritage, Swindon. Crosby-on-Eden; fig.233 p126. Appletree: after Fig. 217, p109. Birdoswald: after Fig 350, p 257 [scale is 5m, not 10m]. Black Carts: after fig. 202
[25] Wilmott, T. 2007. The Vallum. http://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/archaeological.services/research_training/hadrianswall_research_framework/project_documents/Vallum.pdf [Accessed 29/11/10]
[26] Frere, S. 1974. Britania. Cardinal Books. P 156–7

[27] Mattingly, D. 2006. An Imperial Possession; Britain in the Roman Empire 54BC--AD409. Penguin: Allen Lane. P 158
[28] This would appear to derive from confusion over the word pavimentum, a term used to describe a concrete floor, such as the base of as mosaic. [Viruvius. De Architectura, lib. VII cap. I.] In early scholarship, e.g.: Roman Roads in Britain by Thomas Codrington. 1903. Published by the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, London. http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/Periods/Roman/Topics/Engineering/roads/Britain/_Texts/CODROM/1*.html [Accessed 29/11/10]
[29] Publius Papinius Statius, c. AD 95. Extract from Via Domitiana Silvae 4.3

[30] After: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4d/Via_Munita.png Roman Road; Via Munita [from Smith, W. 1875. A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities. John Murray, London. [Accessed 29/11/10]

[31] Wood, E. S. 1967 Collins Field Guide to Archaeology in Britain. After fig. 7, p132
[32] A full list can be found at http://www.romanbritain.org/epigraphy/rib_hadrianswall.htm [Accessed 29/11/10] See also: http://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/archaeological.services/research_training/hadrianswall_research_framework/project_documents/BuildingRecords.pdfWhich states; “8. Vallum stones. In 1936 five stones were found by the north and south mounds of the Vallum at Denton and a sixth stone was found to the west in 1953. One stone gave the name of an auxiliary unit, cohors I Dacorum, and the other five all seem to have named centurions. The stones, clearly building records for the Vallum, are thin, square slabs, and seven further examples, two with the names of different auxiliary units, have been recognised elsewhere on the Wall.” [Accessed 29/11/10]
[33] http://vindolanda.csad.ox.ac.uk/exhibition/army-2.shtml [Accessed 25/03/2011] Birley, R. 2009 Vindolanda: A Roman Frontier Fort on Hadrian’s Wall. Amberley http://www.amberleybooks.com/shop/article_9781848682108/Vindolanda%3A-A-Roman-Frontier-Fort-on-Hadrian’s-Wall Robin-Birley.html?shop_param= [Accessed 25/03/2011]

Hadrian’s First Wall [Part 2 of 3]

2012-01-24T00:21:00.001Z

On Tyneside, between Hadrian’s Wall and the Ditch to the north, archaeologists have found three lines of double postholes, which it is argued, represent an early Timber Wall, which, along with the Ditch, formed part of a temporary frontier while Hadrian’s Wall was being built. Further, it is argued that the Turf Wall represents the continuation of this structure in the western sector of the Wall. In addition, when the engineering and layout of the Vallum is examined, it appears to be an unfinished road, probably abandoned when warfare interrupted work on the Wall. These insights into the archaeology of Roman military engineering are the key to a new understanding how and why Hadrian’s Wall was built.

An updated summery of a series of articles from this site on the timber and earth structures predating Hadrian’s stone Wall.

Presented in three parts:

1. The Timber wall

2. Reverse engineering the Vallum

3. The Construction of the First Wall

2. Reverse engineering the Vallum

The Vallum is a unique linear earthwork to the south of Hadrian’s Wall. When it was constructed, it ran in an unbroken line, following close to the course of the Wall, from Newcastle to Bowness-on-Solway, a distance of about 112km.

Schematic section of the main features of the Vallum and Wall

It comprises a flat-bottom ditch, roughly 6m wide and up to 3m deep, flanked by parallel mounds, set back about 9m from its edge. These north and south mounds were built of spoil from the ditch and were usually revetted with turf, and occasionally stones. There is often another small mound, known as the ‘marginal mound’, along the southern edge of the ditch.[19]

The Vallum Crossing at Condercum Fort, in Benwell, Newcastle, [20]

Where possible, the Vallum lies close to the rear of the Wall. However, unlike some sections of the Wall, it is laid out in very long straight sections, avoiding steep gradients, with a few very deliberate corners. In the famous central section where the Wall runs along the crags of the Whin Sill, the Vallum stays in the Valley. Where it crosses very soft ground, as at White Moss in Cumbria, the ditch is not dug in, but created between mounds of material,[21] The ditch is uninterrupted except for causeways that have been found opposite the gates of the main Wall forts, and perhaps some milecastles.

Dating The Vallum

Work on Hadrian’s Wall probably began in AD 122, and the Vallum carefully skirts a series of forts, like Benwell and Birdoswald, which were added early in the construction process, indicating it was built at the same time or shortly after them.

The Vallum overlain by Fort at Carrawburgh

The defences at Birdoswald soon encroached on the Vallum, [22]. One of the later additions, the fort at Carrawbrough [Brocolitia], probably dating to AD 132-3, was built over the top of the Vallum.[22] This is consistent with a general pattern of backfilling and slighting of the ditch evident from this sort of period onwards. In places, the mounds are breached and the ditch backfilled at regular intervals of about 41m. [15]

The Vallum followed the Turf west of Birdoswald Fort closely. When this Wall was replaced in stone on a new course further north, probably late in Hadrian’s reign, there was no attempt to move the Vallum.

Plan of the Vallum overlain by the ditches of Birdoswald Fort [23]

Thus, the Vallum was maintained only for a short period, probably less than 10 years, after which it was no longer considered important, or worth preserving, in its original continuous form. Hadrian died in AD 138 and his successor, Antoninus Pius, had a new strategy. He moved the frontier north, and starting in A142, built the Antonine Wall across the Forth-Clyde isthmus.

Profiles and archaeological sections of the Vallum [24]

What was the Vallum for?
The Vallum is unique, which is always a problem to archaeology, where insights so often come from comparing things. While most commentators have draw attention to the road-like nature of its layout, and noted its possible function in communications, they have sought its true function elsewhere. Little has changed in our understanding of this earthwork, as Tony Wilmott, a leading English Heritage archaeologist and Wall specialist, made clear recently:

“The straight lengths in which the Vallum is laid out are consistent with distances of the uninterrupted view of a surveyor. Changes in direction tend to occur where a new viewpoint is required to obtain another long straight view. This is the system used to lay out roads. It has been argued that as the Vallum was surveyed as a road would be, it must have functioned as a road. This does not follow, and if we accept that a road would require metalling, and metalling on the berms is sporadic, and sometimes doubtful, we have to discount all of the suggested variations of a function related to lateral communication.Richmond’s (1930) statement of the function of the Vallum remains valid:

‘the Vallum takes its place as a prohibited zone delimiting the south side of the military area, an unmistakable belt in which an obstacle is provided by the great ditch. Neither commerce nor interference with the soldiery could take place across it unchecked.’ ”

Tony Wilmott 2007 [25]

“ It was not a strictly military defensive system, for the ditch is not of military shape, nor are the symmetrical banks defensive; furthermore, the Vallum takes no account of commanding ground. Rather it is a barrier and line of demarcation defining the rear of the Wall-zone, and preventing entry except at fixed points.”

Sheppard Frere, 1974 [26]

“The Vallum allowed army units to segregate themselves from civilians and to use the zone between the two barriers for grazing military pack animals and cavalry horses.”

David Mattingly 2006 [27]

The Vallum at Down Hill on Google Earth

While this is all perfectly reasonable, it could be argued that these functions were a consequence of the Vallum’s construction, and not necessarily its intended purpose. Besides, all of this could have been achieved with significantly less effort. This is what introduces a note of an ambiguity; the Vallum is an odd and, above all, inefficient engineering solution. I have an expectation that Roman military engineering would be efficient, and built to last, like their roads. Whatever potential benefits an almost-continuous earthwork may have initially provided, its short life and systematic backfilling suggest these were rapidly outweighed by the disadvantages. However, there is a simple, and less ambiguous explanation for the creation of the Vallum: It is a construction trench for a road that was never completed.

The Vallum as an unfinished road

Quite simply, if a flat bottomed trench, set out like a road, is backfilled with appropriate material and capped with stone, you would create a carriage way. The space between this and the mounds on either side would be the lanes used by riders and pedestrians. It is entirely rational and appropriate that Hadrian would have specified a high quality road running along his new frontier, linking the main military establishments.

The Vallum West of Carrawbrough

Viewing the Vallum as an abandoned road project fits with a variety of observations have led to the suggestion that there was war in Britain during the 120s [18], this dislocation disrupted work on the Wall, resulting in downscaling of the project.

The Wall was slightly further north than the previous local frontier, a line of forts linked by a road known as the Stanegate. This had probably served as the northern limit of Roman territory before Agricola’s campaigns in Scotland. While the Stanegate was no doubt still used, and some of its forts, like Corbridge, were still important, the military geography had changed.

[left] Stanegate South East of Carvoran, south of Dintly wood

The road that was eventually built behind the Wall, called the 'Military Way', is not very substantial, and has been associated with the later reoccupation of the Wall. The Military Way runs between the Wall and the Vallum and, interestingly, in places, along the top of the Vallum’s north mound. Traces of metaled surfaces have been noted on the north berm and south berm of the ditch.

The practice of Roman road building

We have no technical sources for Roman road construction, despite a much-repeated idea that Vitruvius describes the process. [28] Our only literary source is a poem by Statius praising the Via Domitiana, built by Domitian in AD 95:

The first task here is to trace furrows, ripping up the maze of paths, and then excavate a deep trench in the ground.
The second comprises refilling the trench with other material to make a foundation for the road build-up.
The ground must not give way nor must bedrock or base be at all unreliable when the paving stones are trodden.
Next the road metalling is held in place on both sides by kerbing and numerous wedges.

Publius Papinius Statius c. AD 95 [29]

This poem was written to flatter the Emperor Domitian, which makes another important point: The quality of a road or other civil engineering project was a reflection of the person who initiated and sponsored it. A Roman politician’s prestige and standing was, in part, a reflection of the nature and quality of the engineering of the ‘good works’ that bore his name.

It was standard practice to place inscriptions on Roman buildings and other works indicating who had built them. This was particularly true of the army, and from their inscriptions, it is evident that the masonry aspects of the Wall system were primarily built by troops from three legions [legio II Augusta, legio XX Valeria Victrix and legio VI Victrix]. [16]

A total of ten fragments of inscribed stones have been found in the vicinity of the Vallum, and this has led to the suggestion that they relate to the construction of the Vallum. One group from near Denton mentions an auxiliary unit.[32] Unlike the Wall, where such inscriptions are more common, the Vallum, primarily a trench with spoil heaps, offers little opportunity for the placement of permanent inscriptions. Certainly, if the Vallum is an unfinished road, then the credit would have lain in finishing and surfacing it.

The basic form of a Roman road comprised a central carriageway with a hard surface, primarily for wheeled traffic, flanked by wide lanes of softer ground for horses and pedestrians. Ideally, the central carriageway would have a road surface of interlocking stone blocks set in mortar, with a convex profile to encourage drainage. This would normally be built on a roadbed made up from successive layers of graded material.

A simplified section of a main urban street from Pompeii Via munita [30]

The roadbed was built up as a mound or agger, or set in a foundation trench or fossa, depending on ground conditions. Foundation trenches have flat bottoms to ensure even distribution of the load. They were usually dug with steep or vertical sides because long-term stability is not an issue in a trench dug to be rapidly backfilled. The Vallum’s form is consistent with its being a construction trench. Considerable effort has been taken to move the spoil away from the trench, placing the heaps to ensure wide margins on either side. The spoil heaps are neat and carefully constructed to stop their spreading onto these areas next to the trench.

A Roman road with agger [31]

In short, it is not the mounds themselves, but the areas between them and the trench, which are important. Similarly, the trench itself is a void that only becomes functionally significant when, and if, it is backfilled.

Digging the Vallum

I do not intend to look at the logistics in detail, and they can only be seen in the wider context of building the frontier; this has been well covered by Peter Hill.[16] Using the classical model for the Vallum, [left] laid out in Roman feet, he suggests 1,465,313 m³ of material were excavated and moved to the North and South mounds. He points also out that more labour was required to move the spoil than was expended in digging the trench.

However, if the trench was going to ever to become a road, a similar volume of material was going to have to found for the backfill. Simplifying the maths, one and a half million m³ of backfill would weigh at least three million tonnes, probably more -- a perfectly good reason why the scheme was never completed. To help visualise these figures; the large 8-wheeled lorries used to move this sort of material on our roads take about 20 tonnes; to finish the job you would require 150,000 lorry loads of hardcore, sand, gravel, lime and surfacing stones. In the absence of lorries, the Romans had the Army. However, digging a foundation trench, and even backfilling it with hardcore, requires considerably less skill and specialised resources than the construction of walls using lime mortar and dressed masonry.

The Wall complex at Bogle Hole

So in terms of the wider picture, the Vallum may have not have used legionary manpower, although this might be required for surfacing and finishing a road. If that was the case, its construction, thus far, may have involved auxiliary troops. In addition, we cannot preclude the use of prisoners of war, convicts, levies, and slaves for some of these basic tasks, freeing the legionaries for more specialised construction tasks.

The ditch would be dug using mattocks, which were standard issue to the Roman army, but there are three basic possibilities for removing the spoil:

Men with baskets;
Animals, probably asses/donkeys with baskets [panniers];
Carts or wagons, probably pulled by asses or oxen.

Although the latter is probably the most efficient, the actual method could be a combination of all three. While ard marks from ploughing, hoof prints, and even cart marks [16] have all been been found under and around the Vallum mounds on occasions, I am not aware of any archaeological work directed at this question.
Since the ground along the steep sides of the trench is potentially unstable, the spoil can only be extracted from either in front, or behind, the excavation, and thus, two possible methods of construction suggest themselves:

Two models for spoil extraction from the Vallum

Forward extraction: The trench is excavated with the spoil being lifted forward and upward to the carts or baskets, and from there to the spoil heaps being constructed in parallel with the trench. The disadvantage of this method is that all the spoil has to be lifted from the excavation to the bed of the cart, or into baskets, a task that becomes more difficult as the excavation gets deeper.
Reverse extraction: In this method, the spoil is loaded downwards into carts or baskets using the trench to take the spoil out backwards. If the trench face is reduced in spots, all but the lowest can be easily loaded into a cart or baskets, and potentially, the draught animals do the hard work of lifting the material by means of a ramp at the start of a section of the works. In addition, by dumping the material ahead of the trench, it is possible that as the excavation goes forward, the spoil heap moves backward, and so the distance between the two and the time taken to move the spoil remains fairly constant.
The first method relies on human power to lift the spoil from the trench, whereas the second uses draught power for part of this the task, but would move the spoil a greater distance and requires the transport to able to turn in the trench.
The Marginal Mound
The intermittent presence of this feature to the south of the Vallum ditch has probably prompted more debate than anything else. It was once the basis of the belief that the Vallum had been recut. A connection has also been suggested between the backfilling of the Vallum to create causeways, and the presence of the marginal mound.

In a road-building exercise, the trench would have had to be used to transport the layers of backfill to form the roadbed, since it is impractical to tip from the sides. Assuming that the spoil heaps are built from their ends, once completed, there would be nowhere to put additional spoil that might be created from a final cleaning of the of the trench, or from removing access ramps. This may account for the presence of the marginal mound; there was nowhere else to put excess spoil.

However, why this seems only to occur along the southern lip of the trench has also to be accounted for. The south side is often the down-slope side, but probably not consistently enough for that to be of significance. More reasonably, its presence may indicate that the north side, next to the Wall, was already being used for communication. This is also suggested by metalled surfaces that have been observed in places on this side, and by the later use of the North Mound as an agger for the Military Way.

If marginal mounds relate to the removal of ramps from the construction trench, then these may have been regularly spaced. Could the observation that, in places, the trench is backfilled at regular intervals of 45 yards /41m [140 pes ?] be related to this?

In other words, do the places where the ditch was backfilled to create crossings reflect the lengths in which the trench had been dug and the mounds constructed, and perhaps the positioning of temporary ramps used to extract spoil during construction?

This could explain any relationship observed between the marginal mound and the crossings. If the material comes from removing temporary works, and especially if it derives from a final cleaning of the trench, then work on the construction of the roadbed was expected to begin imminently.

Rethinking the Vallum

"When I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck."

James Whitcomb Riley (1849–1916)

If the Romans had required a road along the frontier, digging a continuous flat-bottomed foundation trench, dumping the spoil far enough away to allow for two wide lanes on either side of the main carriageway, would be a good start, especially if their was plenty of unskilled labour. Using the same quarries as the Wall, it would then be backfill with layers of carefully graded and packed material, and capped with a mortared stone surface of interlocking stones set in mortar on a bed of concrete.

The Vallum is laid out exactly like a road; it relentlessly maintains its course, and importantly, its levels. It punches through the hard rock of the dolerite Whin Sill at Limestone Corner and Black Carts, at a point where the Ditch in front of the Wall gives up. The base of the trench tends to be as wide as possible, which is why the sides are almost vertical when cut through solid rock, an unsustainable angle in softer material. A key observation is that the form of the ‘trench’ is maintained by building up the edges rather than digging when it crossed soft ground at White Moss, Cumbria. This form of this earthwork, in the context of Roman engineering, can only be justified as the foundation for a roadbed. [left]

Starting from the bridgehead at Newcastle [Pons Aelius], not Wallsend, for a lot of its course the Vallum runs quite close to the Wall, with little room for any kind of 'zone'. If a boundary is required, dig a ditch; it’s cheaper, more efficient and stable. This ‘function’ could equally well simply derive from the consequences of having a continuous trench with very few crossing places running for 112km across the country. The continuous nature of the Vallum does not last very long, probably less than a decade, after which the disadvantages of this arrangement clearly outweighed any perceived utility. ‘Restricting access’ to the wall zone may have soon amounted to ‘hampering mobility’ for the Roman military.

While the digging the trench [Fossa] would represent a massive investment of manpower, moving the spoil 30’, or more, to the mounds, expended more resources than digging the trench. Clearly, the spoil has to go somewhere, but this is a wasteful inefficient solution if the objective is to create some form of boundary. Put simply, if one ditch and a mound would do the job, why build two mounds so far from the cut?

The Vallum cannot be understood in terms of other frontiers, or even other engineering projects, because it is unique, however, as a cut for a roadbed, it becomes explicable and comparable with other aspects of the Roman road network. It becomes part of the pattern, and has lost its ambiguity. Furthermore, it becomes another unfinished aspect of the Wall, or rather, would add weight to the argument that the project was downgraded, and finished in a hurry.

That the Vallum was a construction trench for a road that was never finished is the only explanation that fits all the observable facts of the archaeology, explaining why a steep sided flat bottom trench was dug through soft ground, and why the spoil was carefully placed such a distance from the cut. In addition, the following aspects of its course confirm this conclusion:

Laid out in straight lengths;
Gentle corners;
Avoids steep or uneven gradients;
Avoids soft ground;
Where it had to cross soft ground, the central trench is formed between earth banks;
Follows close behind the wall and forts;
Starts from a bridgehead at Newcastle;
It has been suggested there were originally gaps in the northern spoil mound corresponding to milecastles.

That it was to remain unfinished, an abandoned project, and a lost aspiration, within a few years, also tells something else very interesting about the building of the frontier. The decision to place an additional fort at Carrawbrough, over the backfilled Vallum, shows that the vision, and priorities, had changed.

The Vallum and Wall North of Haltwistle Golf club

Its abandonment may have saved up to c.40% in bulk materials, logistics, and labour. More importantly, the scaling back and change of emphasis evident in other aspects of the wall following the dislocation provides both an ideal context and an appropriate time frame. Regarding the Vallum as a road in-the-making fits into a wider picture that is beginning to emerge, suggesting that the period of the Wall’s construction was marked by political instability and warfare.

Part 3; The construction of Hadrian's First Wall here

Hadrian’s First Wall [Part 1 of 3]

2012-01-24T00:21:00.000Z

On Tyneside, between Hadrian’s Wall and the Ditch to the north, archaeologists have found three lines of double postholes, which it is argued, represent an early Timber Wall, which, along with the Ditch, formed part of a temporary frontier while the Roman Wall was being built. Further, it is argued that the Turf Wall represents the continuation of this structure in the western sector of the Wall. In addition, when the engineering and layout of the Vallum is examined, it appears to be an unfinished road, probably abandoned when warfare interrupted work on the Wall. These insights into the archaeology of Roman military engineering are the key to a new understanding how and why Hadrian’s Wall was built.

An updated summery of a series of articles from this site on the timber and earth structures predating Hadrian’s stone Wall.

Presented in three parts:

1. The Timber wall

2. Reverse engineering the Vallum

3. The Construction of the First Wall

1. The Timber Wall

The evidence for the double postholes, often referred to as ‘cippi pits’, had been picked up in several excavations, and was compiled by Paul Bidwell of Tyne and Wear Museums Archaeology, who were responsible for several of the excavations, [1]. His paper sought to set the evidence in the wider context of other Roman frontiers, and drew on Julius Caesar’s Account of the Gallic war, [De Bello Gallico],[3], particularly the siege of Alésia, in reaching his conclusion that these postholes represented ‘obstacles’ on the berm, probably sharpened wooden entanglements, similar to the ‘cippi’ referred to by Caesar. We shall return to these arguments, and Caesar, later, but it is clear that I consider term 'obstacles’ to be somewhat underselling this remarkable structure, which I understand as a rampart.

[left] The Wall, ditch, and 'cippi' pit at Shields Road excavation, Byker, Newcastle [2]

The Evidence

The archaeological plan of Buddle Street, Wallsend

The evidence was admirably described by Paul Bidwell, so it will not be covered in great detail, but it comes principally from excavations at Buddle St, Wallsend, [4] Shields Road Byker, [2], Throckley, [5], and also from Melbourne St, Newcastle, [6].

The double post pits occur in 3 rows, the inner and outer rows are aligned parallel to the wall (E-W), and the central row perpendicular to it (N-S).

The pits have been robbed, and appear enlarged by this process, particularly at Buddle St; at Shields Road they were more rectangular and better defined. In most cases the traces of a pair of post pipes are evident at either end of the pit, representing posts of 0.2 – 0.3m in diameter. [below]

A watching brief on a trench being dug by Northumbrian Water in Throckley yielded further important evidence. The trench ran for 2.2 km along the berm, parallel to wall, giving a long, but very narrow, glimpse of the post pits, and proving they extend as far as Throckley. In addition, it also produced a most important piece of evidence; as the pits approached the position of Turret 11b on the wall, they changed direction towards it. What is significant here, is that the ditch does the same thing, curving to towards the turret. This suggests that the post pits, ditch, and turrets are part of the same system, at least at this point. It has puzzled archaeologist why the ditch curved in towards the turrets creating a narrowing of the berm, a phenomenon observed in several places, [1], but this is explained if the rampart represented by the post pits ran between, but in front of, the turrets, along with the ditch, as a temporary expedient, while the stretches of stone walling linking the turrets on a more direct line were under construction.

The deviation of the Postpits and Ditch toward the turret 11b at Throckley.

As a structural archaeologist working with postholes, (my) best practice is consider each site on its own merits, and the theoretical models are based on the sites at Buddle Street and Shields Road, where there is clearly defined block of pits. Luckily, we do some Roman literature discussing timber and earth ramparts.

Historical sources: Engineering the battlefield

Julius Caesar's Account of the Gallic War tells the story of Caesar’s campaigns to subjugate Gaul between 58 – 51 bce, a quite extraordinary account of total war Roman style. One of the big set pieces at the climax of the war, and the book, is the siege of Alésia, a hillfort in France, where the Gaulish leader Vercongeterix, was blockaded with most of his army.

The Romans built a series of encircling siege works around the hillfort, including diverting rivers, and then, in order to protect himself from any relieving forces and the Gaulish cavalry which had escaped, they built a second set of defences to protect their siege works against attack from outside, [below [7]].

There is quite a detailed account of the building of these works, which is worth reproducing in full:
LXXII. Caesar, on learning these proceedings from the deserters and captives, adopted the following system of fortification; he dug a trench twenty feet deep, with perpendicular sides, in such a manner that the base of this trench should extend so far as the edges were apart at the top. He raised all his other works at a distance of four hundred feet from that ditch; [he did] that with this intention, lest (since he necessarily embraced so extensive an area, and the whole works could not be easily surrounded by a line of soldiers) a large number of the enemy should suddenly, or by night, sally against the fortifications; or lest they should by day cast weapons against our men while occupied with the works. Having left this interval, he drew two trenches fifteen feet broad, and of the same depth; the innermost of them, being in low and level ground, he filled with water conveyed from the river. Behind these he raised a rampart and wall twelve feet high: to this he added a parapet and battlements, with large stakes cut like stags' horns, projecting from the junction of the parapet and battlements, to prevent the enemy from scaling it, and surrounded the entire work with turrets, which were eighty feet distant from one another.

LXXIII.--It was necessary, at one and the same time, to procure timber [for the rampart], lay in supplies of corn, and raise also extensive fortifications, and the available troops were in consequence of this reduced in number, since they used to advance to some distance from the camp, and sometimes the Gauls endeavoured to attack our works, and to make a sally from the town by several gates and in great force. On which Caesar thought that further additions should be made to these works, in order that the fortifications might be defensible by a small number of soldiers.
Having, therefore, cut down the trunks of trees or very thick branches, and having stripped their tops of the bark, and sharpened them into a point, he drew a continued trench everywhere five feet deep.
These stakes being sunk into this trench, and fastened firmly at the bottom, to prevent the possibility of their being torn up, had their branches only projecting from the ground. There were five rows in connection with, and intersecting each other; and whoever entered within them were likely to impale themselves on very sharp stakes. The soldiers called these cippi.
Before these, which were arranged in oblique rows in the form of a quincunx, pits three feet deep were dug, which gradually diminished in depth to the bottom. In these pits tapering stakes, of the thickness of a man's thigh, sharpened at the top and hardened in the fire, were sunk in such a manner as to project from the ground not more than four inches; at the same time for the purpose of giving them strength and stability, they were each filled with trampled clay to the height of one foot from the bottom: the rest of the pit was covered over with osiers and twigs, to conceal the deceit.
Eight rows of this kind were dug, and were three feet distant from each other They called this a lily from its resemblance to that flower.
Stakes a foot long, with iron hooks attached to them, were entirely sunk in the ground before these, and were planted in every place at small intervals; these they called spurs.

De Bello Gallico LXXII – LXXIII

The term ‘cippi’ seems to apply to a trench filled with branches, and trunks with branches still attached, and then backfilled; presumably, this was wood remaining after the straight lengths of trunk had been used in the main defences. It is placed at a distance from the rampart so that the archers would be able to engage the enemy as they dealt with the entanglement, in addition, once this had been breached, the defenders could concentrate their fire on the breach.

It appears to me, that the term ‘cippi’ in this context is a bit of soldierly gallows humour Caesar is sharing with his readers. A cippi is a marker, a post, often marking a grave, [8], "so that the men call them cippi" – effectively ‘gravestones’, and can be seen in the same light as the expressions ‘lilies’ to describe the tapering pits, shaped like the flower of a lily, with a sharpened stake at the bottom, and the use of ‘spurs’ for the iron hooks designed to catch peoples feet. As Paul Bidwell noted the expressions only appear in this context and nowhere else.

There is another interesting passage about fort building from earlier in the campaign;IX … … … … He ordered his camp to be fortified with a rampart twelve feet high, with breast-works built on it proportioned to its height; and two trenches, each fifteen feet broad, with perpendicular sides to be sunk: likewise several turrets, three stories high, to be raised, with a communication to each other by galleries laid across and covered over; which should be guarded in front by small parapets of osiers; that the enemy might be repulsed by two rows of soldiers.
The one of whom, being more secure from danger by their height, might throw their darts with more daring and to a greater distance; the other, which was nearer the enemy, being stationed on the rampart, would be protected by their galleries from darts falling on their heads. At the entrance he erected gates and turrets of a considerable height.

De Bello Gallico IX [3]

This passage emphasises the importance of height, and the advantages of having more than one fighting platform, to concentrate firepower at the point of attack, as well as demonstrating the practice of protecting defenders from aerial bombardment. These structures were probably defensible from both sides.

There is an interesting reference to military engineering in Polybius’s description of the Roman general Flamininus's campaign in Thessaly and the Battle of Cynoscephalae in 197 BC.

The context is slightly different: it compares the approach of the Greek and Roman armies to building temporary ramparts for camps. The translation is a bit cumbersome, but quite insightful about Roman thinking on timber ramparts several centuries earlier.

Also the stakes are quite different. For the Greeks consider that stake the best which has the most and the stoutest offshoots all round the main stem, while the stakes of the Romans have but two or three, or at the most four strange lateral prongs, and these all on one side and not alternating. The result of this is that they are quite easy to carry — for one man can carry three or four, making a bundle of them, and when put to use they are much more secure.
For the Greek stakes, when planted round the camp, are in the first place easily pulled up; since when the portion of a stake that holds fast closely pressed by the earth is only one, and the offshoots from it are many and large, and when two or three men catch hold of the same stake by its lateral branches, it is easily pulled up.
Upon this an entrance is at once created owing to its size, and the ones next to it are loosened, because in such a palisade the stakes are intertwined and criss-crossed in few places.
With the Romans it is the reverse; for in planting them they so intertwine them that it is not easy to see to which of the branches, the lower ends of which are driven into the ground, the lateral prongs belong, nor to which prongs the branches belong. So, as these prongs are close together and adhere to each other, and as their points are carefully sharpened, it is not easy to pass one's hand through and grasp the stake, nor if one does get hold of it, is it easy to pull it up, as in the first place the power of resistance derived from the earth by all the portions open to attack is almost absolute, and next because a man who pulls at one prong is obliged to lift up numerous other stakes which give simultaneously under the strain owing to the way they are intertwined, and it is not at all probable that two or three men will get hold of the same stake.
But if by main force a man succeeds in pulling up one or two, the gap is scarcely observable. Therefore, as the advantages of this kind of palisade are very great, the stakes being easy to find and easy to carry and the whole being more secure and more durable when constructed, it is evident that if any Roman military contrivance is worthy of our imitation and adoption this one certainly is, in my own humble opinion at least.

Polybius Histories 18 [9]

In short, the Greeks preferred stakes with lots of branches all round, but they had long pikes, so could not carry them anyway, while the Romans, with a javelin, could carry several standardised stakes, with only a few short branches, that interlocked together so that they were difficult to pull apart.

This is the same basic principle evident in the Timber Wall, emphasising that even the trimmed branch stubs contributed to the interlocking nature of the rampart. Visually, it was probably not very pretty, but it was a very efficient form of rampart, being difficult to break through or pull apart - this being the object of the exercise.

Another important source of information on Roman military engineering is Trajan’s column in Rome, which depicts his two victorious campaigns against Dacians, (101/2 &105/6 ce), [above]. One scene shows a ballista set on a structure made from layers of logs laid at right angles to each other, while another shows legionaries cutting and extracting timber baulks.

We have another general source that discusses the organisation of the Roman army and its approach to warfare; Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus, often known as Vegetius, wrote ‘The Military Institutions of the Romans’ [Epitoma rei militaris], [10], probably early in the fifth century. While little is known of Vegetius, or the veracity of his sources, it does provide a glimpse of the Roman army’s general philosophy and practice, albeit written quite late in the period.

He discusses the importance of earth and timber ramparts in the construction of camps with reference to the training of recruits.

Entrenched Camps
Recruits are to be instructed in the manner of entrenching camps, there being no part of discipline so necessary and useful as this. For in a camp, well chosen and entrenched, the troops both day and night lie secure within their works, even though in view of the enemy. It seems to resemble a fortified city which they can build for their safety wherever they please. But this valuable art is now entirely lost, for it is long since any of our camps have been fortified either with trenches or palisades. By this neglect our forces have been often surprised by day and night by the enemy's cavalry and suffered very severe losses. The importance of this custom appears not only from the danger to which troops are perpetually exposed who encamp without such precautions, but from the distressful situation of an army that, after receiving a check in the field, finds itself without retreat and consequently at the mercy of the enemy. A camp, especially in the neighbourhood of an enemy, must be chosen with great care. Its situation should be strong by nature, and there should be plenty of wood, forage and water. If the army is to continue in it any considerable time, attention must be had to the security of the place. ……………………………………… ………………………………………There are two methods of entrenching a camp. When the danger is not imminent, they carry a slight ditch round the whole circuit, only nine feet broad and seven deep. With the turf taken from this they make a kind of wall or breastwork three feet high on the inner side of the ditch. But where there is reason to be apprehensive of attempts of the enemy, the camp must be surrounded with a regular ditch twelve feet broad and nine feet deep perpendicular from the surface of the ground. A parapet is then raised on the side next the camp, of the height of four feet, with hurdles and fascines properly covered and secured by the earth taken out of the ditch. From these dimensions the interior height of the entrenchment will be found to be thirteen feet, and the breadth of the ditch twelve. On the top of the whole are planted strong palisades which the soldiers carry constantly with them for this purpose. A sufficient number of spades, pickaxes, wicker baskets and tools of all kinds are to be provided for these works.

There is no difficulty in carrying on the fortifications of a camp when no enemy is in sight. But if the enemy is near, all the cavalry and half the infantry are to be drawn up in order of battle to cover the rest of the troops at work on the entrenchments and be ready to receive the enemy if they offer to attack. The centuries are employed by turns on the work and are regularly called to the relief by a crier till the whole is completed. It is then inspected and measured by the centurions, who punish such as have been indolent or negligent. This is a very important point in the discipline of young soldiers, who when properly trained to it will be able in an emergency to fortify their camp with skill and expedition.

Epitoma rei militaris 1.20 [10]

Clearly, earth and timber fortification are fundamental to Roman field tactics, and engineering is as important as fighting to the training of a legionary. One important point he makes, is that priority should be given to building the fortifications, and that, if the enemy is close by, half the troops and all the cavalry should remain at battle stations to cover the engineering works. In a sense, this has implications for the building of the wall, since in hostile circumstances, and without a completed defensible line or perimeter, large numbers of troops would be required to guard the workforce.

In book two of Epitoma rei militaris, Vegetius discusses the different ranks and responsibilities of officers in the legions. Two ranks in particular illustrate the importance of engineering to the army.

The Praefect of the camp
"The Praefect of the camp, though inferior in rank..., had a post of no small importance. The position of the camp, the direction of the entrenchments, the inspection of the tents or huts of the soldiers and the baggage were comprehended in his province. His authority extended over the sick, and the physicians who had the care of them; and he regulated the expenses relative thereto. He had the charge of providing carriages, bathorses and the proper tools for sawing and cutting wood, digging trenches, raising parapets, sinking wells and bringing water into the camp. He likewise had the care of furnishing the troops with wood and straw, as well as the rams, onagri, balistae and all the other engines of war under his direction. This post was always conferred on an officer of great skill, experience and long service, and who consequently was capable of instructing others in those branches of the profession in which he had distinguished himself."

Epitoma rei militaris 2.5 [10]

The Praefect of the workmen
The legion had a train of joiners, masons, carpenters, smiths, painters, and workmen of every kind for the construction of barracks in the winter-camps and for making or repairing the wooden towers, arms, carriages and the various sorts of machines and engines for the attack or defence of places. They had also travelling workshops in which they made shields, cuirasses, helmets, bows, arrows, javelins and offensive and defensive arms of all kinds. The ancients made it their chief care to have every thing for the service of the army within the camp. They even had a body of miners who, by working under ground and piercing the foundations of walls, according to the practice of the Beffi, penetrated into the body of a place. All these were under the direction of the officer called the prefect of the workmen.

Epitoma rei militaris 2.6 [10]

These extracts give an insight into engineering and logistics in the Roman army and the range of skills that underpinned it, which more often involved the use of timber rather than stone.

Marcus Vitruvius Pollio, better known as Vitruvius, served as a soldier with Julius Caesar, probably in the artillery, and he wrote the De Architectura [x], the only significant surviving book about Roman architecture. While this book provides no particular insights into rampart building, it covers most things from building a temple to making a ballista, demonstrating the wide range of skills and knowledge expected of an engineer or architect in the Roman world.

Application of these skills was one of the Roman armies’ principle advantages in the field. The speed of construction and effectiveness of their siege works and forts, even the range of their artillery, upset many of their enemies’ most basic strategic assumptions. They out-engineered their opponents.

The Obstacle theory

Paul Bidwell’s theory that these post pits once held pointed pieces of wood, similar to those described by Caesar, is much easier to draw than to realise, and has several disadvantages as an explanation. [1]

The postholes at the Wall suggest trees were 0.20-0.40m in diameter, suggesting, if oak was used, trees were harvested at c. 50- 80 years, this being typical of the prehistoric timber. The closely spaced groups of branches envisaged in the Obstacle Theory may occur at the crown, and for a tree to be 0.20 –0.40m in diameter at the top, it would have to be quite substantial at its base. Branches and crowns are by their nature irregular, and are usually thrown away; Caesar could use them only by burying them in a ditch.

In short, the trees required would be of a very unusual form, conveniently, and somewhat uniformly branched just above the 0.20 – 0.40m diameter point of the trunk, and available in large quantities.

Another objection is practicality; once this entanglement was in place, how was it maintained? It would rapidly become overgrown with weeds, and soon start to develop the characteristics of a hedge, and would end up providing cover for attackers. Over time, as the wood dried out, it would become flammable.

My third objection is on grounds of strategy; entanglements are designed to slow down attackers, and concentrate them into a field of fire in a battlefield context. As Caesar described, obstacles can be overcome by counter measures, (except by cavalry, which is unlikely to be attacking a wall). Placing two timbers in each hole would make them easier to pull out. The most practical method of attacking a wall is with scaling ladders, which is one of the principle reasons for having a ditch, which is why the position of the Hadrian’s Wall Ditch is so odd, too far from the wall to be effective, with its normal position, apparently usurped by a wooden entanglement.

An artists impression of the 'cippi' style wooden entanglements curving towards the turret at at Throckley , [11].

The evidence, everywhere it has been found, is of standard double postholes in three even spaced lines, to create such a pattern, it requires thousands of regular posts, rather than multiple irregular shaped timbers cut from a previously unknown form of tree.

Timber Wall theoretical models

The theoretical model describes the general form of the rampart, and is based on the precise position of its posts, and on the principle that military engineering has to be credible and fit for purpose. In addition, we have some invaluable descriptions and insights from classical sources which explain the general form and thinking behind this type of military engineering.

Box ramparts were widely used, particularly in the bronze age, in essence it is a massive log built cavity wall, filled with material from a ditch which was usually dug in front.

Log built walls are fairly easy for an attacker to scale, [above A], so some form of parapet would be added to prevent this, [Above B]. The ditch is an obstacle to direct assault on the rampart face, and making it more difficult to scale with ladders, [Above c]. The spoil, in addition to filling the structure, can be built up on the berm to form a continuous slope with the ditch known as a glacis, giving the attacker no firm or level position for the attack the rampart from, [Above d].

The glacis material also strengthens and conceals the base of the rampart. Spoil may be added to the outer edge of the ditch, where it is known as a counterscarp. Keeping the attacker off balance on sloping, preferably loose, ground makes it more difficult for them to use their weapons.

Putting some form roofing over the structure protects the defender and the structure from missiles and the elements. Similar features, built on medieval fortifications, often overhanging, (although they seldom survive), are known as hoardings, or even hoards, [12], (hiding and protecting the defenders).

An important thing to understand about the three lines of double postholes on the berm is that their utility comes from the spaces between them; the interlocking layers of horizontal timbers form the rampart. Each set of posts is the foundation of a stack of wooden baulks arranged so that they cannot be readily pulled apart or pushed down.

Structurally, having two posts in each hole makes more sense if they are different heights. Each set, joined at the top, allows two levels of superstructure to be supported. The upper level could have served as both a hoarding and a second fighting platform.

The Model is based on the use of a 10’ timber baulk as a standard component, although the posts are in some cases twice this length. Clearly, a variety of different lengths could have been used, and lengths in the range 10’ –12’ can readily be accommodated in the structure, and of coarse shorter lengths can also be used. As a 10’ baulk appears to be inherent in the design, and would greatly simplify the logistics and foraging, the model is illustrated on this basis.

Despite the denuded state of the individual post pits the structure at Buddle St is laid out with a significant degree of accuracy and regularity. Each pit is centred at 4’, in Roman feet, (Pes - 0.296m), with the entire structure being 10’ wide edge to edge. While this this structure could be simply viewed as a traditional box rampart, the overall geometry is heavily triangulated, which would facilitate 60° bracing, and begins with an offset, suggesting that this was also an important aspect of the design to help avoid ‘racking’.

Polybius’s description gives rise to a different emphasis in the model, suggesting a far greater use of horizontal timbers running through the structure at 60° in the construction of rampart body. Importantly this 60 °geometry is one of the most characteristic features of these posthole alignments, and at Shields Road Byker seems more dominant that the 90° relationships.

The Timber Wall Model is formed by pairs of posts set holes, which:

Form the foundations of the wall;
Hold the horizontal components in position;
Support the fighting platforms.
Two sets of posts allows for two fighting platforms at different heights.

The body of the rampart is formed by horizontal timber baulks [valli]

Thick end at the back, thin end pointed to the front;
Made from standard lengths of timber 10 –12’;
Stubs of branches help interlock the baulk.

Baulks may be placed:

At an angle 60° to axis, [Bracing];
Running across the structure [90° to axis];
Parallel to the axis behind or in font the lines of posts.

Design Features:

Simple design;
Standard components;
Simple to fabricate;
Flexible, offering multiple configurations;
Very strong interlocked and braced structure;
Difficult to penetrate;
Individual components difficult to remove;
Can be dismantled and reused.

The possible road crossing at Buddle Street.

One of the most puzzling aspects of the Buddle St plan is that rampart starts on the east of the site, but is missing from the centre and west of the site, which is covered by a motley collection of postholes and other features. While I do not intend to pursue this idea very far, an obvious explanation occurs that explains most of the postholes to some degree.

An interpretive plan of the archaeology at Buddle St, Wallsend

There are a series of ditches and gullies, crossing the site roughly N-S, but about 85° to the line of the wall, the spacing of these gullies about 90-100’ [pes] apart with a central pair about 40’ apart, together with some areas of possible surfacing, is suggestive of a Roman road crossing the site. This being the case, then the road would have lead to the facilities on the riverbank prior to the construction of the wall, running north along the east side of Wallsend Golf Course, where its line may have been preserved in the landscape.

Sketch plan of the possible tower at Buddle Street

When the timber phase was constructed, the road was still in place, and the rampart starts from edge of the central carriageway. To the west is a series of postholes, mostly aligned on the road, but while respecting the line of back of the Timber Rampart. My initial interpretation of these features is that they represent a gateway structure constructed across the central carriageway with a tower and further barrier extending to the ditch at the west edge of the road. This ditch may have been re-cut, 4’ to the west at this stage, the ditch to the east appears to have been diverted through the timber wall, also moving it to the west by about 4’. The structures built across the road are quite complex, and very probably ad hoc, and require more detailed study in their own rite, and are on the long list for further study

If the road was still in use, and required a gateway, then the ditch must also had a gap in it at this point, and this may be reflected in the differing profile of the ditch at this point. By the time the wall was built here, the road would have been realigned on the Segudunum Fort just to the east.

The approximate position of the possible road crossing the Buddle St site

Timber logistics

The construction of a temporary wall, like any military operation, was foremost an exercise in logistic. To be feasible, the project has to have realistic logistics, but since timber was the principle material used for the construction in the Iron Age, it should have been readily available, along with the roads and tracks, necessary to exploit it.

It is possible to estimate the quantity of timber required for the model, but what this represents, in terms of the area land needed to supply it, is dependent on 3 main factors;

The size range of the trees.
The density of trees in the woodland.
The proportion of woodland in the countryside.

The growth pattern of trees, in terms of size and density of woodland, can be modelled from standard forestry tables [13]. The actual amount woodland is not easily discerned for this period; however, Northern England was historically quite well forested, when a figure of 15% coverage was a rough average for the medieval countryside. Using this figure as a minimum, the model visualises from 15-50% woodland coverage in the area around the wall, in terms of the timber required to build it.

The model examines building the rampart from 10’ baulks taken from small, medium, and large trees; - you need fewer larger trees, but they grow in less dense woodland. The model assumes the use of timber in the round, rather than squared baulks split from larger timber. Each 4’ section of the basic box rampart model requires between 300’ and 470’ of timber, depending on thickness, which corresponds to about 20 – 47 trees, depending on their height; scaling this up into metric, each 100m stretch requires between 867 - 3953 trees, very roughly 3 ha worth.

Above is a graphical representation of the timber required for the rampart, in terms of area of woodland shows is that the larger more mature trees, were the most efficient source of timber with small younger trees being the least, despite growing more densely. This is exactly the type of tree would have been grown for building in prehistory, and correspond to those represented by postholes of the north of the Wall.

The model, though crude, and quite conservative, produces a reassuring answer; even with only 15% woodland cover, sufficient timber could probably be found within 1 km of the construction site. So even if we double the amount of timbers required, and then significantly increase its scarcity, the timber wall would appear logistically feasible.

However, this assumes there was woodland available to be exploited, but an apparent change in construction technique further west may reflect of a scarcity timber resources.

The Turf Wall

The Turf Wall is the remains of a temporary Wall and Ditch found in the western sector, after the Wall crosses the River Irthing. It is generally thought that it once was 15-20’ tall, built from turfs, although the precise details of its construction have yet to be fully explained.[14] Certainly, a timber superstructure and layers of brushwood or other material to spread the load would have been advantageous. Importantly, just like the timber wall in the east, the Turf Wall was a temporary fortification, with a ditch immediately in front with its spoil mostly thrown to the north.

The Vallum and Turf Wall west of Birdoswald Fort

It is believed that this was the last section of Wall to be finished in stone. In places, such as to the west of Fort Birdoswald, the masonry Wall was built further north. As elsewhere on the Wall, the Vallum, earthwork comprising a trench and two parallel spoil mounds, runs close behind the Turf Wall

One possible explanation for the change of construction is that, unlike the eastern half, this section of wall was close to the old Stanegate frontier between Corbridge and Carlisle, and it is likely local timber resources had already been significantly denuded. Forty years of Roman military activity on this part of the frontier may have had a negative impact on local forestry. Removing tree cover has strategic advantages, and the longer-term impact on the local supply of timber may not have been seen as important.

The Turf wall survives only as a mound of earth, which appears to be built with turf stripped from the surrounding area. I would suggest that the structure might have been reinforced and stabilised with layers of brushwood or even timber.

No evidence of the nature of the upper part of the rampart has been found. The model speculates that the breastwork sat on top of the turf wall and would have been structured in a similar manner to the Timber Wall. There is still the requirement for credible fighting platforms and some form of parapet to prevent climbers. We have to assume it, like all sections of this temporary wall, was built in the expectation that it would be attacked, and it has the same basic layout with turrets and milecastles as the stone Wall that superseded it. Unlike its Timber equivalent, the Turf Wall could not be easily dismantled, so its replacement in stone was not as straightforward

The Ditch and the Temporary Wall
The postholes, which have been found as a result of area excavations and watching briefs under the urban sprawl of Tyneside are the only physical evidence for the Timber Wall. Its presence elsewhere can only be inferred from the width of ‘the berm’, the space between the Wall and Ditch. [15]

It is probably worth pointing out that the spoil from a ditch was often used to form a bank or rampart on the defenders' side. For stability, a small berm may be left, but this gap is often covered by a glacis slope. The idea behind this continuous slope is that it offers the attacker no level ground from which to fight. This is why the wide flat berm between ditch and Wall required some explanation.

The presence of the timber wall explains not only why the berm is so wide, but also why most of the ditch spoil was thrown to the north, with just a small amount to the south. Placing the spoil in a wide low bank to the north has little strategic advantage. In this context would appear that it is being ‘disposed of’ rather than being ‘used’. However, in the context of a temporary Wall, soon to be replaced with a stone one, the distribution of spoil and the width of the berm make sense. We might also expect that the long-term plan would be to widen the Ditch, once the Wall was completed.

Dislocation and The temporary Wall

There is a very important idea in the understanding of Hadrian’s Wall. It’s called “dislocation,” and refers to evidence that the construction of the wall was disrupted, perhaps more than once. It is a tacit assumption that if the army was not working on the Wall, it was fighting and engaged in warfare.

Peter Hill’s detailed analysis of the stonework noted that when the work resumes, a decline in its standard is evident, as well as the more obvious narrowing of the specification.[16] The wall was built to two different standards. Before the dislocation, completed parts of the Wall and milecastles were about 10’ wide; when work resumes the Wall is narrowed to about 8’, even where wider foundations and footings existed.

At Birdoswald Fort, a break in its construction, marked by the formation of a soil, suggests that this interruption may have lasted several years.[17] In addition, David Breeze has gathered together other archaeological and literary evidence that also indicate that there was warfare in the North during the early part of the Second Century.[18] The evidence for a temporary timber rampart, with the Ditch, constructed in the first season fits well with the other evidence for warfare in this period.

Part 2: Reverse Engineering the Vallum

The construction of Hadrian's First Wall

2011-12-21T10:13:00.007Z

It is now over two years since I published the analyses of the three lines of double postholes found on the berm north of Hadrian’s Wall.[1] I knew then that this was the foundation of a temporary timber rampart, and that these least visible of its features were the key to explaining Europe’s largest archaeological monument. However, more research has subsequently clarified the issue further, and understanding the engineering of the ‘Vallum’ behind the Wall has thrown further light on the sequence of construction.
Previous articles;
The Timber Wall
The Vallum
The Northern Frontier

So it is time to summarise these ideas, refine the models, and see how they fit into the early constructional history of Hadrian’s Wall.

The elephants in the room

After over a century of scholarship, hundreds of excavations, surveys, and the detail consideration of everything from individual inscriptions to thousands of sherds of pottery, there still remained one central, but subtle, conundrum: if you needed a continuous fortified frontier, and given it would only be effective once it was finished, how come it took about 10 years to complete?

Since there is now little doubt that this was a war zone[2], breaking your army into small work details and spreading them along a 120km front could be regarded as tactically unwise, if not downright reckless. Undertaking such a massive construction project might imply that the frontier was peaceful and secure, which tends to undermine the perceived motivation behind building the Wall.

Similarly, the various explanations put forward to explain the Vallum, the earthwork behind the Wall, have also required a degree of special pleading; to say it is a boundary, as most accounts do, is to overlook the fact that this is not how Romans, or anyone else, ever built boundaries.[3]

It is, however, how they built roads, and as part of the initial plan for the frontier, it makes sense, as does the abandonment of the project as the Wall was scaled back following a ‘dislocation’.[4]

This is a key understanding; the dislocation[s] marks a distinct break in the Wall’s construction, and it is now thought that this was disrupted by serious warfare, perhaps on more than one occasion. When work resumes, the plans for the wall are scaled back. The ‘Broad’ Wall under construction is superseded by a ‘Narrow’ Wall, and there is a marked lowering of standards in the quality of the stonework.[4]

So we will briefly look at the model of the temporary rampart phase of the Wall, and at the nature of the Vallum, before seeing how they fit into the initial construction sequence.

The Timber Wall: Features of theoretical model

The theoretical model describes the general form of the rampart, and is based on the precise position of its posts, and on the principle that military engineering has to be credible and fit for purpose. In addition, we have some invaluable descriptions from Caesar’s account of his Gallic wars, which explain the general form and thinking behind this type of military engineering.

Behind these he raised a rampart and wall twelve feet high: to this he added a parapet and battlements, with large stakes cut like stags' horns, projecting from the junction of the parapet and battlements, to prevent the enemy from scaling it….

De Bello Gallico LXXII

He ordered his camp to be fortified with a rampart twelve feet high, with breast-works built on it proportioned to its height; and two trenches, each fifteen feet broad, with perpendicular sides to be sunk: likewise several turrets, three stories high, to be raised, with a communication to each other by galleries laid across and covered over; which should be guarded in front by small parapets of osiers; that the enemy might be repulsed by two rows of soldiers.

[osiers are small branches, like willow used for wattle]

De Bello Gallico IX [5]

When I first did the analysis, while it was obvious that that the posts were laid out to accommodate 60° ‘bracing’, I had not come across this reference to how the Roman army built ramparts in Polybius’s description of the Roman general Flamininus's campaign in Thessaly and the Battle of Cynoscephalae in 197 BC.

18. Flamininus . . . . ordered all his soldiers to cut stakes for a palisade to carry with them for use when required. This appears to be impossible when the Greek usage is followed, but on the Roman system it is easy to cut them. For the Greeks have difficulty in holding only their pikes when on the march and in supporting the fatigue caused by their weight, but the Romans, hanging their long shields from their shoulders by leather straps and only holding their javelins in their hands, can manage to carry the stakes besides.
Also the stakes are quite different. For the Greeks consider that stake the best which has the most and the stoutest offshoots all round the main stem, while the stakes of the Romans have but two or three, or at the most four strange lateral prongs, and these all on one side and not alternating. The result of this is that they are quite easy to carry — for one man can carry three or four, making a bundle of them, and when put to use they are much more secure.
For the Greek stakes, when planted round the camp, are in the first place easily pulled up; since when the portion of a stake that holds fast closely pressed by the earth is only one, and the offshoots from it are many and large, and when two or three men catch hold of the same stake by its lateral branches, it is easily pulled up.
Upon this an entrance is at once created owing to its size, and the ones next to it are loosened, because in such a palisade the stakes are intertwined and criss-crossed in few places.
With the Romans it is the reverse; for in planting them they so intertwine them that it is not easy to see to which of the branches, the lower ends of which are driven into the ground, the lateral prongs belong, nor to which prongs the branches belong. So, as these prongs are close together and adhere to each other, and as their points are carefully sharpened, it is not easy to pass one's hand through and grasp the stake, nor if one does get hold of it, is it easy to pull it up, as in the first place the power of resistance derived from the earth by all the portions open to attack is almost absolute, and next because a man who pulls at one prong is obliged to lift up numerous other stakes which give simultaneously under the strain owing to the way they are intertwined, and it is not at all probable that two or three men will get hold of the same stake.
But if by main force a man succeeds in pulling up one or two, the gap is scarcely observable. Therefore, as the advantages of this kind of palisade are very great, the stakes being easy to find and easy to carry and the whole being more secure and more durable when constructed, it is evident that if any Roman military contrivance is worthy of our imitation and adoption this one certainly is, in my own humble opinion at least.

Polybius Histories 18 [6]

This explains how the body of the rampart could be assembled, and accounts for the layout of the posts, where the 60° alignments appear to take precedence over 90° arrangements that might be expected in a traditional ‘box’ rampart. Surprising as it may seem, there is no reason in theory why some small gaps or loopholes could not be left in the body of the rampart, allowing for more concentrated fire from the defenders.

Theoretical model

The Timber Wall is formed by pairs of posts set holes, which:

Form the foundations of the wall;
Hold the horizontal components in position;
Support the fighting platforms.
Two sets of posts allows for two fighting platforms at different heights.

The body of the rampart is formed by horizontal timber baulks [valli]

Thick end at the back, thin end pointed to the front;
Made from standard lengths of timber 10 –12’;
Stubs of branches help interlock the baulk.

Baulks may be placed:

At an angle [60° to axis];
Running across the structure [90° to axis];
Parallel to the axis behind or in font the lines of posts.

Design Features:

Simple design;
Standard components;
Simple to fabricate;
Flexible, offering multiple configurations;
Very strong interlocked and braced structure;
Difficult to penetrate;
Individual components difficult to remove;
Can be dismantled and reused.

The Turf Wall

The frontier in the East had been moved north into previously unoccupied territory, while in the West it lay close to the Stanegate frontier that had existed for some forty years. It is reasonable to suppose that during this period most of the readily available timber had been used in the construction of timber forts like Vindolanda. Thus it was probably a lack of suitable timber that prompted the change of design.

We have to assume it, like all sections of this temporary wall, was built in the expectation that it would be attacked, and it has the same basic layout with turrets and milecastles as the stone Wall that superseded it. Unlike its Timber equivalent, the Turf Wall could not be easily dismantled, so its replacement in stone was not as straightforward.

The Vallum

The Vallum is simply the construction trench for a road that was never finished. This is the only explanation that fits the observable facts of the archaeology. It is comprised of a vertical or steep-sided, flat-bottomed trench where spoil has been moved 9m and piled in revetted spoil heaps to allow for the construction of a central metalled carriageway, with softer lanes on either side. This is the normal pattern for a road, and the only conceivable rationale for moving the spoil from the trench such a distance, and explains why a steep-sided, flat-bottomed cutting was created in soft and unstable ground.

In addition, the following aspects of its course confirm this conclusion:

Laid out in straight lengths;
Gentle corners;
Avoids steep or uneven gradients;
Avoids soft ground;
Where it had to cross soft ground, the central trench is formed between earth banks;
Follows close behind the wall and forts;
Starts from a bridgehead at Newcastle;
It has been suggested there were originally gaps in the northern spoil mound corresponding to milecastles.

Construction sequence

I have decided to use the word ‘step’ rather than ‘phase’, because I am describing one aspect of a more complex process. It is clear that, in accordance with normal logistical principles, the longest, more complex tasks, in particular those requiring the most skilled labour, were prioritised. In terms of the stonework, this was the milecastles. Thus, once construction of the Wall proper begins, things get quite complicated, with separate construction gangs working simultaneously on different aspects of the project.

We also have to be aware that there are forts to build, and all manner of sundry logistical tasks, not to mention the day to day garrisoning and guarding of the frontier.

However, it is possible to see logical steps in any major project of military engineering, and where the evidence is available, these are confirmed by the archaeology.

Establishing the linear frontier

Step 1 Plan/survey/lay out Route

Step 2 Clear route and establish construction track [Military Way]

Step 3 Build Temporary Timber and Turf Walls

Step 4 Dig Ditch

Main construction phase [working from East to West, and not completed]

Step 5 Dig Vallum Trench dug and build spoil mounds

Step 6 Dig Broad Wall foundation

Step 7 Build Broad Wall

[Step 8 Dismantle Timber Wall]

Dislocation: Warfare disrupts the process, perhaps more than once.

Post-Dislocation

Vallum Road abandoned and in places backfilled;
Wall completed as Narrow Wall.

Construction sequence - key points

The presence of the temporary Wall explains why the majority of the spoil from the ditch was thrown north, with only a small glacis bank to the south.
The Vallum was completed [Step 5], while foundation trench for the Wall [Step 6], was not.
Digging of a road foundation suggests there was plenty of less-skilled labour available early in the project, and emphasises the importance of a proper road in the overall scheme.

Conclusions

... the Britons are unprotected by armour (?). There are very many cavalry. The cavalry do not use swords nor do the wretched Britons mount in order to throw javelins.'

Vindolanda Tablets [7]

The initial and temporary rampart represented by the Timber and Turf Walls provides a rational and secure basis for the much more complex and specialised task of building the Stone Wall. We can assume on the basis of the Turf Wall that it had some form of turrets and milecastles, and that therefore it was fully garrisoned and in every way fit for its purpose.

The rapid building of a fully functional frontier, probably within a year, was a strategic fait accompli that would have materially affected the military and political situation in the North of England. The arrangements and treaties that had ended the prior conflict, and prompted the building of a permanent frontier, may have been undermined by this unprecedented, and probably unexpected, move.

While the scaling down of the size of the Wall could be regarded as an attempt to finish it quickly, the decline in the quality of the masonry may also indicate serious casualties among the skilled legionary workforce.

Once the Vallum is accepted as an unfinished road, it not only makes perfect sense of the archaeology, it also adds considerably to our understanding of the initial plan. Not going ahead to backfill the Vallum trench with suitable bedding material and cap it with a cut stone surface saved a huge amount of labour and material resources and is another indication of just how seriously warfare had impacted the project.

“... under the rule of your grandfather Hadrian what a number of soldiers were killed by the Jews, what a number by the Britons”

Marcus Cornelius Fronto, letter to Marcus Aurelius, AD162

Sources and further reading

[1] Bidwell, P T. 2005. 'The system of obstacles on Hadrian's Wall; their extent, date and purpose'. Arbeia J, 8, 53-76.
Bidwell, Paul T. & Watson, Moira. 1989. 'A Trial Excavation on Hadrian's Wall at Buddle Street, Wallsend'.Archaeologia Aeliana, 5th ser., 17 (1989), 21-28.

Grey literature: Shields Road, Newcastle, Phase 2b, archaeological excavation. TWM archaeology 10/2006
[2] Breeze, D.J. 2003. "Warfare in Britain and the Building of Hadrian's Wall." Archaeologia Aeliana 32, 13 –16.

[3] For a recent account of the Vallum, see Wilmott, T. [ed]. 2009. Hadrian's Wall: Archaeological Research by English Heritage 1976-2000 http://www.english-heritageshop.org.uk/mall/productpage.cfm/EnglishHeritage/_51324/288647/Hadrian's%20Wall[Accessed 29/11/10]

[4] Hill, P. R. 2006. The construction of Hadrian's Wall. Tempus.

[5] [2] Caius Julius Caesar. "De Bello Gallico" and Other Commentaries.
English translation by W. A. MacDevitt, introduction by Thomas De Quincey. (1915) http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/10657 [Accessed 18/12/11]

[6] http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/18*.html#18 [Accessed 25/03/2011]

[7] http://vindolanda.csad.ox.ac.uk/exhibition/army-2.shtml [Accessed 25/03/2011]

Archaeology, wood, and dog walking

2011-11-14T04:21:00.021Z

When I need to think about what to write next, I go and see my friend Daisy, and we go for a walk in the woods. She is a very good listener, but gets impatient with my interest in the trees, as hers mainly involves games with a stick. Thinking about trees is the basis of much of my research about archaeological structures, and for Daisy, sticks are the fundamental part our shared culture. Throwing sticks, in some form or other, is an important and fundamental human skill; as a retriever, Daisy enjoys the chase and hunt for the stick. Possession of the stick is the object of the game.

Each tree we pass can be viewed as a source of material for a whole variety of cultural artefacts, but you have to concentrate on Daisy, or you will miss her hiding the stick for you to find. Our wooden heritage is usually almost invisible to the archaeologist and lost to posterity, leaving us to conceive of the past in terms of tools, rather than product or materials. When the stick becomes lost or stuck in a tree, Daisy will locate a suitable fallen branch and attempt to break off a suitable piece so we can continue the game; Daisy is a tool-making dog.

Mission statement

Above and beyond walking the dog--well, certainly, above-- I am surrounded by trees. Thus it occurred to me to document the different species of trees I found on our walk: Each has a something of interest about it, and it follows on nicely from Vitruvius’s thoughts about trees discussed in a previous post.

Lacking a pen and paper, I decided to document each species using something that describes itself as a camera, built into my phone. Unfortunately, it has the memory capacity of a mayfly, which, it rapidly informed me, was full, ensuring more messing about with a device optimised to be operated by the hands of Chinese schoolgirl. Given weak and fading light, with a stiff breeze fluttering the leaves, this was never going to make it as a National Geographic photo feature.

Also, I have not brought a field guide with me, so I am winging it on the species identification. Try to think of this as a virtual field trip in the theoretical archaeology and history of trees.

Woods: Executive summary

Woods are big fields of trees; there is a main crop, and usually also weeds of cultivation. The crop needs attention at regular intervals, even if these are measured in years or even decades. The plants are thinned, the weaker and diseased are harvested, and the uninvited guests cleared. The cycle usually ends with the entire remaining main crop's being harvested.

Most modern woods are laid out and stocked for mechanisation. However, in the past, when woodland was tended manually, more complex mixes of species and ages were usual.

It is possible to read a wood. Its current phase of production is by and large self-evident, but occasionally there are clues to older management regimes reflected in aspects of the ecosystem. Woods, like other aspects of the landscape, are created through a long interaction with man, and thus have a relationship with our wider narrative history.
This wood is in Cumbria, in the north of England. It's early November and some trees have already dropped the majority of their leaves.

The woodland is fairly mature commercial softwood, mostly Norway spruce, larch and Scots pine planted in blocks. At first glance, it's not that interesting; only the Scots pine is a native tree. But in maturing woodland there is space and light underneath the canopy, and an understory of self-seeded and deliberately planted young trees has developed.
In odd corners, there are survivors and decedents of earlier woodland regimes, and on one edge, a block of mature fir was harvested, revealing the understory of smaller trees and shrubs. [above seen in Sept]

This wood is mostly situated on a well-drained small hill, bordered by a road, a railway, and the derelict grounds of a county house. The latter is important if we are looking for a competitive species count.

To keep this narrative in some way relevant to archaeology, I will break the trees down into natives and foreigners.

The Natives

In terms of simple numbers, the most common are probably the native trees, those species that colonised the area following the ice age, and are still the most dominant among the informal population of the wood.

Alder (alnus glutinosa)

We start with a tree that I choose to identify as an alder: It is a shrubby specimen by the railway. It's usually found next to rivers or areas of poor drainage. Alder is mentioned by Vitruvius, although for use only as piles for building in waterlogged conditions. Interestingly, it was used in the making of the Roman wooden water pipes found preserved at Vindolanda.[1]

The wood is not valued for carpentry, although it was the best material for clogs, but alder has an important cultural connection: It was the preferred tree for the production of charcoal, particularly for gunpowder, which gives it a certain historical significance. In addition to its chemical uses, charcoal was an important industrial fuel until well into the Industrial Revolution, more or less essential for iron or glass working.

Charcoal-making was done in ‘clamps’, 15’ diameter mounds of earth and timber that contained and sealed in the timber that was burning under reducing conditions, a process that took about 10 days.

While archaeologists frequently identify burnt mounds, areas of burnt debris of various ages, often associated with river valleys, I am not sure if any have been associated with charcoal burning. It takes about seven tonnes of wood to make one ton of charcoal. Processes like the prehistoric smelting of copper required a disproportionate amount of timber, such that it was often easier to transport the ore to the wood.

Ash (Fraxinus excelsior)

This tree is one of the first to shed its leaves and last to deploy them in the spring, but is easily spotted because of its silver bark and black buds. It was one of the most important of the native timbers. Its timber is tough and elastic, easily worked, and splits exceptionally well. Think of it as a good material for absorbing shock. It was the ideal for handles and shafts, from hammers to lances. It was traditionally used in wheel making, and in coach building, where it would be used for the shafts of wagons. Ash was an important material when aircraft were made of wood. It tends to fall prey to woodworm, and is not often used in buildings, although Vitruvius recommends it for pegging joints. It is also good firewood that dries well, yet another important quality.

Beech (Fagus sylvatica)

Although with its silver bark and turning leaves beech draw attention to its presence, it is probably the commonest of the native trees, with mature specimens marking the boundary of the wood and saplings well- represented in the shrub layer. There is even a block of saplings under-planted at 4’ centres in an area of mature Norway Spruce in the middle of the wood.

Beech is another tough and useful hardwood. It's not durable enough to be used outside, but it was the staple of the furniture maker, particularly for chairs. It was also traditionally used for flooring, agricultural implements, carpenters' benches and some tool handles. Another historical use for beech was for the manufacture of gun-stocks (although walnut was usually the premium material for this type of work).

Beech, although very susceptible to a variety of diseases, is generally very long-lived and reaches impressive heights, is often found on boundaries, and can make a very decorative hedge.

Planting trees is an important way of marking or establishing a boundary: It is very difficult to obliterate boundaries formed by mature trees, and they can become significant features in the landscape.

Birch (Betula pendula)

This tree is traditionally one of first colonisers, a tough diminutive pioneer. Birch woods are usually self-seeded, but in the long term, they are usually out-competed for the light by taller species.

Although best known for making of brooms, of the ‘witches broom' model, it also was one of several woods used for clogs, and like ash, was used for making arrows in the medieval period.[2]

It is a utility wood in joinery and cabinetmaking, a term that covers the manufacture of things like furniture and containers, where its wood may be used for its decorative effect or to back wood of higher value. There is a whole range of techniques involving mixing woods of contrasting colours and textures, often using thin veneers, cut as the technology allowed.

Mechanised woodworking and processing has allowed the creation of wood composites from thin layers and boards made from compressed waste wood that can be engineered to specific standards of strength and stability. One of the fastest and most effective planes of the Second World War, the de Havilland Mosquito, was mostly made from birch plywood.

Blackthorn (Prunus spinosa)

This is another fairly inconspicuous hedgerow tree, known for its dark berries called sloes, which are so bitter they are seldom used for anything other than flavouring gin. It can be a seriously spiny tree, and its wood is very hard, and was traditionally used to make clubs and sticks, like the Irish shillelagh.

Box (Buxus sempervirens)

[No photo--way out of focus]

This species does not belong this far north, and occurs as a piece of outgrown topiary courtesy of the derelict estate, which was probably the main source of all the more exotic trees on the list. However, box is an historically important species of tree. Its slow growth produces a hard fine grain that was much sought after. Engravers used its end grain for printing, and it was much valued for turning and cabinet making; it was a premium material for wooden combs.

Bird Cherry (Prunus padus)

Members of this family are fairly inconspicuous trees, but important for their fruit. This reminds us of the importance of trees and sources of fruit and nuts both in the ‘wild’ and as part of the agricultural mindset. Generations of growers have chosen to plant the seeds of trees that had performed well, and as with other crops, slowly developed the qualities of the species.

In terms of timber, cherry is traditionally used in cabinetmaking, where it was valued it for its grain and colour. It thus joins the list of trees that were valued for specific applications, but generally not required in sufficient quantity to be grown on a commercial scale. Wood from other fruit trees, including apple, is often highly valued for making a variety of specialist artifacts. Cherry makes good firewood that burns with a fragrant smell.

Elder (Sambucus nigra)

This is a familiar plant, perhaps more of a shrub, that reminds us that trees were used for medicines. It is also one of those trees we could even tentatively discuss in terms of its magic and symbolism (or perhaps not).

The fruits and flowers of elder make excellent beverages, and it is one of many woodland plants that would be harvested in season to supplement the basic agricultural fare.

Elm (Ulmus sp.)

There is some debate about just how native the elm tree is, and there are several varieties and regional variations. It is perhaps best known for Dutch elm disease, which has greatly depleted numbers in the English countryside.

Elm is tough hardwearing timber, used for things like lining ships and wagon floors, as well as chair seats and coffins – it lasts well underground. Its twisted grain makes it difficult to split, so its utility has developed along with sawing technology, but this also makes it perfect for piles or stakes. In addition, since it is very long-lived when immersed in water, it is an excellent material for building bridges, jetties, and docks.

Hawthorn (Crataegas monogyna)

This thorny twisted small tree is the basis of many hedges and can be readily trained into an impenetrable barrier. It is a simple process to establish, train and maintain a hedge, and this is an important method of enclosing and protecting space. Hedges are easier to establish without a bank and ditch and thus can be difficult to detect archaeologically.

Hawthorn is not a tree beloved of the carpenter, but it is very hard and nicely figured wood and, like blackthorn, might serve as a source of sticks and clubs.

Holly (Ilex aquiflorum)

We are all familiar with Holly, and this touches on the role of trees as a symbol or embodiment of something or someone. Most trees have a folklore, associations, both Christian and Pagan, that integrate them into the wider narrative and religious culture.

Holly is hard, dense, close-grained timber, so in historical times, like box, it was used in engraving and printing. It is good wood for turnery, another important wood industry with a long historical tradition, which may have developed in the late Iron Age.

Holly was the wood chosen to make the singel [swipple], the business end of a flail, the essential tool for threshing wheat. Of all the native timbers, it burns with the hottest flame, so it might be regarded as premium firewood.

Rowan, mountain ash (Sorbus aucuparia)

This is one of our hardiest tress, growing at high elevations, in most soils, and in all aspects. However, it is not a very big tree and is unlikely to be grown commercially, except to nurse young conifers. In this context, it might also serve as fire belt. It is often planted for ornamental purposes. The timber of the mountain ash is tough and was used for cart-making and agricultural implements.

Oak (Quercus sp.)

As a founder member and dominant species of much our natural woodland community, oak was a focal part of a complex and diverse ecological community that is now only partially preserved.

The original wild wood, and the later woods and forests that developed through the agency of man's interventions, were the sources of much of what was not produced from fields and gardens. While other ecological zones were of importance, woodland was the most productive. Acorns were foraged by pigs, both domestic and wild, which leads us to the use of forests for leisure.

In an historical context, this was usually hunting and blood sports, principally the preserve of the landed classes, who usually maintained exclusive rights to or control or ownership of the resources embodied by large tracts of wooded land.

I found three types of oak on my walk: Sessile or Durmast Oak (Q. petraea) [below], the dominant species this far north; the familiar English Oak (Q. robur)[right]; and an exotic Red Oak (Q. rubra) that comes originally from North America.

The sessile oak [left] may be generally distinguished by having marked stalks on its leaves, but not on its acorns, the pattern being reversed for English oak. However, acorns are not evident on these young trees squatting under the canopy of commercial conifers.

One tree near the edge of the wood was effectively a coppiced tree, with multiple stems. Although this may indicate an earlier phase of use, it can also be the result of accidental damage. [Below]
Coppicing to produce multiple stems on a single root system, or stool, is a simple way of producing large amounts of small and medium diameter wood, where bulk crops are required.
From basketry to building, coppiced production is an essential part of a traditional woodland regime, often mixed with ‘standard’ trees and occupying the shrub layer, or ‘underwood’.

Generally, oak timber is exceptionally strong, tough, and durable, ideal for construction work, being used for buildings, ships, bridges, and things like mill wheels. Traditionally it was extensively used for furniture, cabinet making and carriage building, and it was the preferred material for barrel staves, treenails and gates. The timber of sessile oak is softer and more easily worked than that of the English Oak, so the latter would usually be chosen for structural work.
The suitability of oak timber for a huge range of applications, coupled with its wide availability, make it an important factor in the economic and social history of these islands.

Scots Pine (Pinus sylvestris)

This native conifer replaced oaks as the dominant forest species further north, in Scotland. It is important commercial timber, although as a native, it is disadvantaged by attentions of local insects and fungi, which is why commercial woodland so often features foreign trees, in this case spruce and larch.

Pine is one of those ubiquitous soft woods, or ‘deals’, which are utility woods of the building industry. Just as discussed by Vitruvius, their value depends on how they are grown. Modern systems that grow single-species crops very close together are designed to minimise branching and maximise height through light competition. Producing a consistent product with the minimum of wastage, which requires little attention, is ideal for mechanised production.

Softwood is light, easily worked and a comparatively strong material. Its modern importance in house building and furniture making reflects its relative abundance, since, traditionally, softwood was, in most applications, a second-class material.

The previous discussion of Vitruvius also reminded of the importance of resins and oils extracted from trees. Like charcoal, until the widespread exploitation of mineral deposits, plants and trees were the source of many ‘chemical’ preparations.

Pine burns well and easily, not a good property in a building material, but of merit in firewood, although its tendency to spit and spark is something of a drawback.

Yew (Taxus baccata)

But for its reputation for making bows, it might be easy to overlook this small native conifer. It is also notable for being very poisonous to cattle, which has been used to account for its frequent presence in church yards, although alternative accounts revolve around its symbolism and veneration. It is very slow-growing small tree seldom reaching more than 30-40’, but often achieving great age.

Yew wood provides by far the best material for making bows, and as such it has made a significant contribution to our history. However, the yew used for medieval bows may have been imported, reminding us again that some wood can be a premium product subject to trade over long distances. Bows were important in the ancient world, and weapon-making is a perfect example of a craft where the optimum materials would be sought and used.

More generally, the wood is tough and durable, makes fine furniture, and is even exceptionally long lasting when used in the round for posts. The Vikings used it for the treenails that secured the planks of their clinker built boats.

Non-Native species

After 16 species, our tour of trees has all too soon run out of natives, and we now are making the numbers from the extensive population of naturalised immigrants, many with an archaeological heritage.

Chestnut (Castanea sativa)
The wood we are visiting is perhaps unusual in having a healthy population of young chestnut saplings, not a particularly common woodland species this far north. It is thought that the Sweet Chestnut was introduced by the Romans, who produced flour from the nuts, which we traditionally eat around Christmas time. The timber was used in furniture making and house interiors. It is quite durable and has traditionally been used for posts and poles, such as hop poles (hops = beer). It splits readily, and is perhaps most familiar as ‘chestnut paling,’ a fencing formed by vertical split timbers joined by wire.

Lime (Tilia x vulgaris)

Another introduced species, lime is a good example of a tree widely planted for its ornamental value, but seldom as a commercial timber. It is also a good example of a poor firewood. Lime wood is easily worked, even-grained, and resists splitting; it was typically used for all types of carving. This extends to items like toys, artificial limbs, and founder models, the patterns used to form moulds into which molten metal would be poured.

Lime is an untainted wood, suitable to make items that came into contact with food and was used to make the frames for beehives.

Acers – Sycamore (A. Psuedoplatanus) and Norway maple (A. platanoides)

Acers are another widespread and familiar group of trees, particularly the sycamore. Like the lime, these trees are often planted for decorative effect, but they also are vigorous self-seeders and quite invasive.

Their timber has a variety of important specialised uses. Sycamore wood won’t stain or taint food, so it was used for making things like pails, milk churns, and kitchen surfaces; and for domestic utensils like spoons, bread boards, and even the rollers of a traditional mangle.

The wood is often nicely figured and is a favourite among musical instrument makers, who use it for the bodies of violins and other stringed instruments.

Larch (Larix decidua)

This conifer that loses its needles in winter has long been a staple of commercial softwood production. Similar to pine in its uses, but one of the most durable of the softwoods, it is preferred for fencing and other outdoor applications, referred to as ‘estate work’. We have previously discussed the Roman ‘discovery’ of the larch, a tree discussed at some length by Vitruvius, who made the point that it did not burn well.

So this is good point to note that utility of timber for firewood varies greatly with species. Firewood has to be cut, split, and dried, in suitable quantities and sizes to suit the nature of the fire. Thus, ease of processing, speed of drying, and availability are all concerns in the choice of firewood, as well as the burning quality of the wood itself. Drying is most important and takes many months. If you are a poor man gathering winter fuel on the Feast of Steven, you have missed the boat and are in trouble.

Norway Spruce (Picea abies)

Norway spuce is another commonly grown softwood, best known to most people as the ‘Christmas tree’: a young tree killed and brought into the house to share the festival. It is dressed in gaudy decoration, and then largely ignored, until it drops its needles in a spirited attempt to infiltrate the carpet and destroy the vacuum cleaner.

Spruce is an important softwood, which in addition to its role in construction, is used in the manufacturer of things like packing cases, musical instruments, and toys. It is commercially important as pulp wood for a making paper and card. It can be cleft into thin sections that do not warp, ideal for things like Venetian blinds and more importantly, the sounding boards for pianos and the bellies of stringed instruments like violins and cellos. Thin strips of spruce can be woven into baskets or even mats.

Decorous Exotics

As a result of centuries of interest in planting trees, not only as commercial crop, but also to improve the landscape, some rather more ornamental trees supplement my species count.

They are usually too recent introductions to be of great historical or archaeological interest. I did not photograph them, apart from the Red Oak [above], and the large conifer protruding above the canopy of a some pretty tall beeches; ~~I think this is a Douglas Fir [Pseudotsuga menziesii]~~ [right]. But it actually is a Giant Sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum).

However, I did see a laburnum (Laburnum anagyroides), which was traditionally used to make bagpipes until the introduction of more exotic imported woods.

To complete the count, I encountered a copper beech, rhododendrons, and a flowering cherry. I think a saw a native whitebeam [Sorbus aria] in a hedge. It was getting too dark to photograph it.

Hazel: one of our trees is missing

That is a species count of twenty-nine(ish), not bad for an hour's dog-walking in a commercial softwood plantation. Further and more thorough exploration of more distant comers might have turned up more species. However, one tree I failed to note is very surprising: That was hazel (Corylus avellana), probably the most important of the smaller trees grown below the canopy, usually as a coppice, in traditional woodland. Its long straight stems were used whenever rods or flexibility were required. Hazel was the natural companion tree for the oaks that formed the rigid components of a building, and it was the basis of wattle and daub walls, and provided the spars, pegs and runner that secured a thatched roof. Woven into panels, or hurdles, it was invaluable for fencing and handling stock.

Walking sticks are perhaps the oldest technology of all, and the familiar shape relies on bending woods like hazel, willow, and ash into shape using heat. Usually young flexible stems are steamed or immersed in hot sand, then bent and held to the required shape. This is how things like wooden hoops and the curving backs of traditional chairs were made.

With hazel we touch on a vast range of uses for bent young stems, like baskets, fish traps, and crates. This also includes coracles. These skin-covered boats had frames woven like a basket. However, more rigid components might be streamed into shape, or some suitably curved branch could be split down the middle.

Splitting suitable branches to produce two matching components was also an important technique in oak shipbuilding, to such an extent that, contrary to normal practice, some oaks were grown spaced far apart to encourage side-branching. Splitting suitably curving trunks was also the basis of the ‘cruck’, a form of roof truss, which can still be seen in some surviving ancient buildings.

One final observation was honeysuckle, a vigorous climber that can be seen working its way clockwise up the stems of younger trees.[right] It is the most obvious material of which to make ropes and bindings, and was found to have been used to drag the oak trunk used in the building of the Seahenge monument during the Bronze Age.[3]

Conclusions

The trees that Daisy and I passed on our walk touched on numerous aspects of transport, agriculture, building, warfare, leisure, and creative culture, and hinted at how woodland reflects and responds to changes of technology and economic circumstances. They represent a significant and strategic resource that was fundamental to the majority of material culture, as well as an important source of food, fodder, and fuel. This in turn leads us inevitably to the issues of ownership and power that drove the narrative of history.

Archaeology has a problem in understanding these issues. We often find the craftsman’s tools, but not the products, and this can distort our view, a problem exacerbated by our present-day material culture, which has distanced us from our traditional relationships and understandings of wood, timber and trees.

We easily forget that the railways of the Industrial Revolution ran on wooden sleepers, that roofs of mines were supported by wooden pit props, and that Wedgwood china was transported in hazel crates on wooden barges, along canals with brick bridges and tunnels built using timber formwork. Largely unseen in the ancient countryside, and lost to archaeology, generations of woodmen, bodgers, charcoal burners, and wrights and makers of many diverse items, were busy splitting, bending, cutting, and carving wood to fabricate much of our material culture.

One very basic, but fundamental, point about their craftsmanship in wood was the choice of the appropriate materials for the task in hand. A traditional wheel would be made with an elm hub, oak spokes and ash felloes; and then so on throughout the cart, wagon or chariot. While there is some room for compromise, if you use ash, or almost any timber other than elm for the hub, the technology simply won’t work.

The nature and properties of the available timbers will effect the underlying design and technology of most aspects of a material culture, and through this, its archaeology and history.

You need a good stick for a proper game of stick, so Daisy and I both spend time seeking out the best sticks, suitable for carrying around in your mouth, and with just the right properties for throwing a long way, enhancing the quality of the experience for both of us.

STOP PRESS

My own internal editor can’t live with the thought that some issue of fact might be wrong, and I’ve been back to take a closer look at the large conifer I had thought at a distance might be a Douglas Fir [Pseudotsuga menziesii].

I was quite wrong. It is in fact a Giant Sequoia [Sequoiadendron giganteum]. In Britain, the common name for this tree is a Wellingtonia, a name given it by John Lindley who officially named it Wellingtonia gigantea in 1853, after the Duke of Wellington, who had died the previous year. Unfortunately, he already had a tree named after him.

This is good point of return in the recent narrative about trees, which started in the previous post with the story of Julius Caesar’s discovery of the larch as told by Vitruvius, and ends with this giant of the American Pacific coast, named for a great war leader turned politician, nineteen centuries later, using, appropriately enough, the language of the Romans.

PS: This beautiful native of the western Sierra Nevada, California, gives me the perfect excuse to plug the website of a loyal reader, and whose skills lie in another important area of material culture largely invisible to archaeology.

Sources and further reading

[1] Birley, R. 2009 Vindolanda: A Roman Frontier Fort on Hadrian’s Wall. Amberley

[2] Bows and arrows: http://margo.student.utwente.nl/sagi/artikel/longbow/longbow.html [last accessed 13/11/2011]

[3] Seahenge; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seahenge [last accessed 13/11/2011]

General sources for woodland industries.

Arnold J. 1968. The Shell book of country crafts. Baker, London. Plate 14

Bramwell, M., [ed]. 1982. The international book of wood. London.

Hanson, C.,O. 1934. Forestry for Woodmen. Oxord press.

Jenkins, J G. 1978. Traditional country craftsmen. Routledge & Kegan Paul

Kay N.W. [ed]. 1946. The Practical carpenter and Joiner Illustrated. Odhams Press

Leutscher, A. 1969. Field natural history: A guide to ecology. Bell, London.

More, D., & Fitter, A. 1980. Trees. Collins Gem Guide

Press, B. 1992. The field guide to the trees of Britain and Europe. New Holland, London.

Archaeo-toons; Secrets of Stonehenge Special

2011-11-08T22:52:00.000Z

It is not that writing a book is boring, or that I am looking for displacement activities, it's just that I have pencils and paper that I have to use up before they reach their sell by date.

Stonehenge Festival

Out and About

At work with the Professionals

Note:
More archaeology cartoons here, here , and even here.
Examples of sporadic outbreaks of Humour here and there.

Archaeo-Horror

2011-11-01T00:00:00.009Z

Starting the book today - but just time for some seasonally unpleasant Humour:

There is nothing more horrific than realising you are the only sane one left; here are some special offers from my imaginary friends over at UTPress.

Seasonal Monster Book Sale - Prizes Slashed and Burned

University of Tyneside Press

Ancient Insights Series

Selected Remaindered Titles by staff from

The School of Historical And Religious Studies

University of Tyneside Press reserve the rite to change, suspend, or amend offers at any time, and may choose to pulp authors performing inefficiently.

Previous Archaeological Humour; Here and Here .