Subscribe now for full access and no adverts
A History of Hadrian’s Wall
I was delighted to read the article ‘Before and after Hadrian’s Wall’ in CA 403 (October 2023) as we have holidayed on the Northumberland plain between Corbridge/Hexham in the south and Berwick-upon-Tweed in the north on a number of occasions.
The plain is and always was a fertile agricultural area, which logically should have remained under Roman control, but, as the article shows, once the Wall was built, settlement there dwindled, while settlement to the south of the Wall increased. The logical explanation of this is that areas north of the Wall no longer enjoyed direct Roman protection, which was considered necessary, and so much of the population shifted southwards, behind the Wall.
That supports the argument that the Wall was built to keep trouble out rather than as a ‘customs barrier’. Anybody who has visited the remains of the Wall atop the Whin Sill will know that the wall in that location cannot have acted as a customs stop owing to its height and steepness. The Whin Sill with the Wall atop it would have been a formidable barrier to any military incursion or raid, and perhaps could therefore be less heavily guarded, freeing troops for duty elsewhere along the border.
Shortly after reading the article, I watched David Olusoga on television, drawing a line on the map and announcing that the Romans built the Wall at the shortest point possible. This ignores the fact that, locationally, it was a splendidly defensible line, separating much of the lowland areas from the high moors that became a source of trouble for centuries, but sacrificing the Northumberland plain in order to do that. That was quite a sacrifice to make, but does illustrate that there must have been good reasons for doing so.
We can only conjecture, but the logical explanation for the Wall location is that what lay beyond it was not worth the time and effort to keep it pacified, and so was pretty much abandoned to local people, who either decided to stick it out with limited Roman protection or moved south of the Wall to safety and security.
Bob Britnell, Canterbury
Sycamore Gap
An aeon or so ago, the restless Earth
forced high tops and troughs
above even hardy native trees.
An almost-aeon later, stern men
built a feeble switchback wall
which could not but trace the crags.
The men left, the wall crumbled,
and one breezy autumn day
a semi-aeon later on,
an airborne seed-flotilla settled
on the slopes and in the folds.
One seed alone found shelter, soil, moisture
precise and perfect for its life –
and in a lesser fraction of an aeon
became a glorious green fan
framed in a graceful goblet of twin slopes.
New ranks of visitors
– grim only in determination for their trek –
saw the symmetry, perceived an icon,
relished nature’s accident,
and paused to smile, to rest a while.
Not all their ilk loved beauty nor felt joy
at sight of such a scion of the past.
Some needed not a sight like this,
so large, so graceful, and so gleeful.
Instead, provoked by loveliness and
goaded by its strength and permanence –
without imperial decree, with no resort to reason –
hidden in night’s blindness they destroyed the tree.
The crags stand firm, the wall still crumbles.
For a while there was a sycamore;
now there is a gap.
Martin J P Davies, Langton Green, Kent
Comparing granaries
Reading the excellent article on Welsh hill forts and the possible reason for the so-called ‘granaries’ (CA 404) brought to mind the lard stores kept in the fortified churches of Romania. I forget whether they were communal or still relied on individual ownership, but they were secure, a safeguard against frequent food shortages in bad winters, and were distributed with great care under supervision.
Charles Flower, Newbury, Berkshire
A turtley different interpretation
Image: Suffolk County Council
The charming little turtle that appeared in ‘Finds Tray’ (CA 406) surely need not necessarily be linked to the god Mercury. There is a tendency to assume that any Roman figurine is a votive offering irrespective of its subject or context. This may be the case with examples clearly representing deities, but seems more tenuous when applied to the numerous models of horses, riders, farm animals, and even on occasion turtles that turn up in both sacred and secular settings. Given that similar small metal figures were commonplace in much more recent times is it not feasible that they were simply toys? Furthermore, in cases where they do appear to be ritual depositions might this not be linked to ceremonies that marked the end of childhood? I recall depositing my own toy soldiers in a garden bonfire, a sacrifice that still haunts me when I think of what they might now be worth.
Hamish Scott, Kingsland, Herefordshire
CA ONLINE: What you shared with us this month
Durotriges Project @Durotrigesdig
At the risk of going all meta, it’s great to see the Durotriges Project getting such a good write up (AND with a reference to #HillfortsWednesday!!) in the latest @CurrentArchaeo magazine thanks to the ever wonderful @joeflatman
Adrián Maldonado@amaldon
A tweet of a tweet of a tweet! @CurrentArchaeo
Peter Reavill (officially marvellous) @PeterReavill
I’m hoping this could be a rolling issue by issue running joke
Adrián Maldonado @amaldon
It could be a regular column
Write to us at: CA Letters, Current Publishing, Office 120, 295 Chiswick High Road, London, W4 4HH, or by email to: letters@archaeology.co.uk For publication: 300 words max; letters may be edited.
You must be logged in to post a comment.