Chew Green V |
| Hob Uid: 913743 | |
Location :
Northumberland
Alwinton
|
| Grid Ref : NT7880008430 |
| Summary : Earthwork remains of a Roman fortlet and two, probably earlier, annexes. The fortlet (V) was square on plan and was defended by a principal rampart, outside which lay a broad berm. Two less prominent banks divide the three ditches, providing considerable defence in depth. There was a single gate on the NE. The fortlet is overlain by later enclosures, especially on the SE. The relationship of the fortlet (V) to the two 'annexes' on the SE is also quite unclear. However, these share a common alignment of their NE sides and it seems probable that they precede the fortlet, especially since the interior of the NW 'annexe' is disproportionally small in relation to its defences and appears to have been overlain by the fortlet. It seems unlikely that there could have been an entrance into this more northerly 'annexe', close to its N angle, as Richmond claimed, but the whole area is now so obscured by later activity that certainly is impossible. The sequence of construction is not clarified by the earthworks which, at the junctions between the two 'annexes', seem to offer conflicting information. The very steep slopes within the interior of the more southerly 'annexe' makes its use as a 'waggon-park' seem most implausible. For any such function the use of the level ground immediately to the NW would have been infinitely preferable. |
More information : This site has been re-assessed in connection with RCHME's survey and publication of Roman camps in England. The following descriptive account is taken from the published text. All elements of Chew Green complex now assigned unique identifiers under parent record NT 70 NE 3.
The fortlet (V) was square on plan and was defended by a principal rampart, outside which lay a broad berm. Two less prominent banks divide the three ditches, providing considerable defence in depth. There was a single gate on the NE. The fortlet is overlain by later enclosures, especially on the SE.
The relationship of the fortlet (V) to the two 'annexes' on the SE is also quite unclear. However, these share a common alignment of their NE sides and it seems probable that they precede the fortlet, especially since the interior of the NW 'annexe' is disproportionally small in relation to its defences and appears to have been overlain by the fortlet. It seems unlikely that there could have been an entrance into this more northerly 'annexe', close to its N angle, as Richmond claimed, but the whole area is now so obscured by later activity that certainly is impossible. The sequence of construction is not clarified by the earthworks which, at the junctions between the two 'annexes', seem to offer conflicting information. The very steep slopes within the interior of the more southerly 'annexe' makes its use as a 'waggon-park' (Richmond and Keeney 1937, 144 (1a)) seem most implausible. For any such function the use of the level ground immediately to the NW would have been infinitely preferable. Full information is included in the NMR Archive. (1)
Additional references. (2-3) |