More information : Leach suggests that the recovery of Claudian currency and pottery indicates some Roman presence soon after the conquest, presumably in a military capacity, although no indisputably military equipment has yet been recognised. He suggests the remains of at least one fort underlying the town have been excavated recently. Two sections of its defences have been exposed, the latest and most reliable at Kingshams in 1974. Here the double ditch separated by a palisade obstacle, can be parallelled at Metchley and probably Brough-on-Humber, and seems to occur no later than the mid-Flavian period. This would accord with the material from the ditch fills, which indicate abandonment before the end of that period. No trace of the bank was seen, and in view of the limited and damaged sample excavated a more accurate construction date could not be established. At Ivel House, a turf-faced clay rampart fronted by a ditch may represent a second side to this fort's defences, although not claimed as such by its excavator Stevens Cox, and provisonally dated to c. 90 A.D. The Kingham's double ditch, contrasting with a single ditch at Ivel house, may both be components of a single fort, although 2 or more forts on virtually the same site are equally possible. Should a single fort prove correct, its size may be in the region of 14 or 15 acres (see illustration to ST 52 SW 13). Cox (authority 1a) suggested that the bank and ditch at Ivel House surrounded the settlement of wattle and daub huts of the 1st century A.D. The ditch and bank were filled and levelled respectively before 100 A.D. (1-2)
|