Summary : Earthwork remains of a Roman fort. The form of earthworks, consisting of a relatively weak rampart and a broad counterscarp bank, the internal roads and the massiveness of its defences, which on the SE side still present a scarp 3.0 m high, set this site apart from Roman camps. It most closely resembles site A at Cawthorn, which is of almost exactly the same dimensions. Each seems to have been semi-permanent in character and they are better classified as forts than as camps. The excavations revealed that although the SW and NW gates had originally been defended by internal claviculae, these were evidently replaced by external traverses. This suggests that the fort was reoccupied, perhaps more than once and probably on a temporary basis, at some time during the Roman period. In this geographical position this should not be unexpected. The fort evidently postdates camp I and, judging by the awkward arrangement of its principal gate, on the NE, it seems also to be earlier than the fortlet (V). The 'ballistaria' identified by Richmond are unimpressive as earthworks and their position is militarily nonsensical; the identification must be treated as doubtful. |
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.
Fort IV. The form of earthworks, consisting of a relatively weak rampart and a broad counterscarp bank, the internal roads (NMR AP NT 7808/18/85 (1a); CUCAP BD 9-10 (1b); Richmond and Keeney 1937, 139 (1c)), and the massiveness of its defences, which on the SE side still present a scarp 3.0 m high, set this site apart from Roman camps. It most closely resembles site A at Cawthorn, which is of almost exactly the same dimensions. Each seems to have been semi-permanent in character and they are better classified as forts than as camps. The excavations revealed that although the SW and NW gates had originally been defended by internal claviculae, these were evidently replaced by external traverses (Richmond Notebook 19, Ashmolean Museum (1d)). This suggests that the fort was reoccupied, perhaps more than once and probably on a temporary basis, at some time during the Roman period. In this geographical position this should not be unexpected. The fort evidently postdates camp I and, judging by the awkward arrangement of its principal gate, on the NE, it seems also to be earlier than the fortlet (V). The 'ballistaria' identified by Richmond are unimpressive as earthworks and their position is militarily nonsensical; the identification must be treated as doubtful (cf Campbell 1984, 82 (1e)). Full information is included in the NMR Archive. (1)
Additional references. (2-3) |