Hubbry Logo
MilecastleMilecastleMain
Open search
Milecastle
Community hub
Milecastle
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Milecastle
Milecastle
Milecastle
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

The remains of Milecastle 39 (Castle Nick), near Steel Rigg on Hadrian's Wall
Part of a series on the
Military of ancient Rome
Structural history
Army
Navy
Campaign history
Technological history
Military engineering
Political history
 
Strategy and tactics
Frontiers and fortifications
Ancient Rome portal

A milecastle was a small fort (fortlet), a rectangular fortification built during the period of the Roman Empire. They were placed at intervals of approximately one Roman mile along several major frontiers, for example Hadrian's Wall in Great Britain (Britannia in the Roman period), hence the name.

Along Hadrian's Wall, milecastles were initially constructed of stone in the eastern two thirds, and stacked turf with a wooden palisade in the western third, though the turf milecastles were later rebuilt in stone. Size varied, but in general they were about 15m by 18m (50 feet by 65 feet) internally, with stone walls as much as 3m (10 feet) thick and probably 5m to 6m (17 to 20 feet) high, to match the height of the adjacent wall. There were 80 milecastles and 158 turrets.

On Hadrian's Wall, a milecastle (there are a few exceptions) guarded a gateway through the Wall with a corresponding causeway across the Wall ditch to the north, and had a garrison of perhaps 20–30 auxiliary soldiers housed in two barrack blocks. On either side of the milecastle was a stone tower (turret), located about one-third of a Roman mile (500 m or 540 yards) away. It is assumed that the garrison also supplied soldiers to man the turrets. The milecastle's garrison controlled the passage of people, goods and livestock across the frontier, and it is likely that the milecastle acted as a customs post to levy taxation on that traffic.

A system of milecastles (known as milefortlets) and intervening stone watchtowers extended from the western end of Hadrian's Wall, along the Cumbrian coast as far as Tower 25B at Flimby,[1] but they were linked by a wooden palisade and not a wall fronted by a deep ditch, and they had no gateway through the palisade.[2]

Terminology and numbering

[edit]

The term milecastle was formalised by Robert Smith in 1708, but was in informal use by locals before that date.[3] It generally refers to the installations attached to the curtain wall, with the term 'Milefortlet' being widely used to refer to similar installations that continued along the Cumbrian coast and were contemporary with the Milecastles. Turrets standing between milefortlets are referred to as towers.[4]

Milecastles are numbered from 1 (the easternmost Milecastle) to 80 in the West. This system was introduced by J. Collingwood Bruce at the end of the 19th century, and became a standard around 1930, though Peter Hill has suggested that there may have additionally been a Milecastle 0.[5] Milefortlets are numbered from 1 (West of Bowness on Solway) possibly as far as 26 (at Flimby). The widely used shorthand is, for example, 'MC1', 'MC2', etc. for Milecastles and 'MF1', 'MF2', etc. for Milefortlets. Intervening Turrets and Towers are referred to with an alphabetic suffix, so the turrets to the West of MC20 would be Turrets 20a and 20b, or 'T20a' and 'T20b'. Despite evidence of the curtain wall continuing for around a quarter of a mile west of Bowness-on-Solway, the Turrets between MC80 and MF1 are known as Towers 0a and 0b.[4]

Where the Turf Wall and Stone Walls diverge from one another (just to the west of Birdoswald), Milecastles and Turrets unique to the Turf Wall are given a 'TW' suffix, for example 'MC50 TW'.[4]

Milecastle plans

[edit]

Gateways

[edit]

The milecastles of Hadrian's Wall are recognised as having three principal types of gateway:[6]

  1. Type I have piers protruding symmetrically on the inside and outside of the gateway, with responds on both the inside and outside. The piers and passage-walls tend to be in large masonry, and the structure is broader (E to W) than it is deep (N to S, i.e. between the gateways). Examples are MC 38 (Hotbank) and MC 42 (Cawfields). Generally thought to have been built by Legio II Augusta.[7]
  2. Type II have piers protruding on the inside of the gateway, with responds on outside. The piers and passage-walls tend to be in smaller masonry than Type I. Only found on Narrow Wall milecastles; when similar gateways are found on Broad Wall milecastles, it is sometimes referred to as Type IV. An example is MC 9 (Chapel House). Generally thought to have been built by Legio XX Valeria Victrix.[7]
  3. Type III have piers protruding on the inside of the gateway, with responds on both the inside and outside. The piers tend to be in large masonry and the passage-walls in smaller material. Examples are MC 47 (Chapel House, E of Gilsland) and MC 48 (Poltross Burn). Generally thought to have been built by Legio VI Victrix.[7]

Axes

[edit]

Two types of milecastle are discernible in plan. These are known as 'Long Axis' and 'Short Axis', with the referred axis being that between the northern and southern gateways. The only (known) exception is Milecastle 79, which was a Turf Wall milecastle subsequently rebuilt with stone.

  • Typical Long Axis Milecastle Plan
    Typical Long Axis Milecastle Plan
  • Typical Short Axis Milecastle Plan
    Typical Short Axis Milecastle Plan
  • Typical Turf Wall Milecastle Plan
    Typical Turf Wall Milecastle Plan
  • Gateway Type I – Short-axis milecastles built by legio II Augusta[7]
  • Gateway Types II and IV – long-axis milecastles built by legio XX Valeria Victrix[7]
  • Gateway Type III – Long-axis milecastles built by legio VI Victrix[7]

List of milecastles

[edit]
Number Name
0 (unnamed, existence uncertain)
1 Stott's Pow[8]
2 Walker[9]
3 Ouseburn[10]
4 Westgate Road[11]
5 Quarry House[12]
6 Benwell Grove[13]
7 Benwell Bank[14]
8 West Denton[15]
9 Chapel House[16]
10 Walbottle Dene[17]
11 Throckley Bank Top[18]
12 Heddon[19]
13 Rudchester Burn[20]
14 March Burn[21]
15 Whitchester[22]
16 Harlow Hill[23]
17 Welton[24]
18 East Wallhouses[25]
19 Matfen Piers[26]
20 Halton Shields[27]
21 Down Hill[28]
22 Portgate[29]
23 Stanley[30]
24 Wall Fell[31]
25 Codlawhill[32]
26 Planetrees[33]
27 Low Brunton[34]
28 Walwick[35]
29 Tower Tye[36]
30 Limestone Corner[37]
31 Carrowburgh[38]
32 Carraw[39]
33 Shield-on-the-Wall[40]
34 Grindon[41]
35 Sewingshields[42]
36 King's Hill[43]
37 Housesteads[44]
38 Hotbank[45]
39 Castle Nick[46]
40 Winshields[47]
41 Melkridge[48]
42 Cawfields[49]
43 (Unnamed?)[50]
44 Allolee[51]
45 Walltown[52]
46 Carvoran[53]
47 Chapel House[54]
48 Poltross Burn[55]
49 Harrow's Scar[56]
50 Turf Wall[57]
51 Wall Bowers[58]
52 Bankshead[59]
53 Banks Burn[60]
54 Randylands[61]
55 Low Wall[62]
56 Walton[63]
57 Cambeckhill[64]
58 Newtown[65]
59 Old Wall[66]
60 High Strand[67]
61 Wallhead[68]
62 Walby East[69]
63 Walby West[70]
64 Drawdykes[71]
65 Tarraby[72]
66 Stanwix Bank[73]
67 Stainton[74]
68 Boomby Gill[75]
69 Sourmilk Bridge[76]
70 Braelees[77]
71 Wormanby[78]
72 Fauld Farm[79]
73 Dykesfield[80]
74 Burgh Marsh[81]
75 Easton[82]
76 Drumburgh[83]
77 Raven Bank[84]
78 Kirkland[85]
79 Solway House[86]
80 (Unnamed)[87]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Milecastle

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A milecastle is a small rectangular fortlet built by the along in during the AD, spaced approximately one Roman mile (about 1.48 km) apart to function as a gateway for regulating access through the frontier barrier and monitoring movement into and out of the of . These structures were integral to the defensive system ordered by Emperor in AD 122, forming part of a continuous 73-mile (80 Roman miles) wall that stretched from the in the west to the River Tyne in the east, designed to demarcate and protect the empire's northwestern boundary against northern tribes. Typically measuring around 15–23 meters in length and width internally, milecastles housed a small of about eight soldiers in barrack blocks, equipped with features such as hearths, ovens, and timber towers over the gates for observation and defense. In the eastern and central sections of , they were constructed primarily of stone with gateways aligned to a across the accompanying , while the western turf wall portions, including sites like Harrows Scar Milecastle, initially used turf and timber before being rebuilt in stone by around AD 138. With roughly 80 milecastles in total—one per Roman mile in the original plan—they worked in tandem with larger forts and intermediary turrets to provide comprehensive , though some featured double-sized buildings suggesting occasional larger garrisons of up to 32 men. The milecastles remained in use through the Roman occupation of Britain, likely until the late AD, when the wall's military role diminished amid the empire's decline, leaving behind archaeological remnants that today offer insights into Roman frontier and daily frontier life. Variations in design, such as the inclusion of staircases to wall-walk levels in certain examples, highlight adaptations to and strategic needs, underscoring their role not only in defense but also in administrative control of and migration across the .

Historical Context

Role in Roman Frontier Defense

Milecastles were small fortlets constructed at intervals of one Roman mile along Hadrian's Wall, designed to support patrolling and monitoring of the frontier. The Roman mile measured 1,000 paces, equivalent to approximately 1,480 meters. These structures enabled systematic oversight of the landscape, with their gateways providing controlled access points through the wall. Their primary functions included regulating civilian and trade movement across the border, likely involving inspections and possibly the collection of customs duties, as the gateways served as key processing points for entrants to the province. Milecastles also acted as operational bases for small garrisons, typically comprising about 8 auxiliary soldiers drawn from nearby forts, who manned the associated turrets and conducted routine patrols to deter incursions and maintain security. These garrisons focused on observation and rapid response rather than large-scale combat. Milecastles formed an integral part of the broader defensive system, closely linked to the curtain wall, which they projected from or bonded into, the vallum—a massive rear ditch for additional barrier control—and the turrets, which served as intermediate watchposts positioned roughly halfway between milecastles for enhanced and signaling. This network allowed for coordinated operations across the approximately 80-mile . Archaeological , including inscriptions such as RIB 1421 from Milecastle 19 attesting to auxiliary cohorts and dedication slabs from the 2nd century (e.g., RIB 1852 at Milecastle 47), alongside artifacts like pottery indicating prolonged occupation, supports their role as checkpoints regulating cross-border traffic through the 2nd to 4th centuries AD.

Construction Timeline and Phases

The construction of the milecastles commenced in AD 122 under the orders of Emperor Hadrian during his visit to Britain, as part of a broader effort to establish a fortified across following Roman advances and subsequent consolidations in the region. This initiative involved planning for 80 milecastles spaced at one-Roman-mile intervals along the 73-mile (80 Roman miles) length of , accompanied by 158 turrets positioned at intermediate points between them, to facilitate surveillance and control. The work was carried out primarily by three Roman legions—the , , and Legio XX Valeria Victrix—totaling around 15,000 men, who surveyed the route from east to west and built in coordinated sections. The building progressed in distinct phases, reflecting adaptations to terrain, resource availability, and evolving strategic needs. The eastern two-thirds of the system, extending from to roughly Milecastle 50 near the River Irthing, was erected first in stone, utilizing local and for durable structures integrated with the curtain wall. In contrast, the western third, from Milecastle 50 to , was initially constructed more hastily in turf and timber due to the scarcity of suitable stone and the marshy landscape, forming a broader rampart approximately 20 Roman feet wide. This turf phase was later rebuilt in stone, with evidence from centurial inscriptions and structural alignments indicating completion by the late 120s AD, likely around AD 128, before the end of Hadrian's reign in 138. Stratigraphic analysis from excavations at sites like Harrows Scar Milecastle confirms the sequence, showing the stone rebuild overlaying turf foundations without significant interruption. The overall timeline for the milecastles and associated wall elements spanned an estimated six years, from AD 122 to around AD 128, enabling rapid deployment of the frontier defenses amid ongoing threats from northern tribes. Dendrochronological dating of timbers from nearby fort constructions, such as at , corroborates this pace, revealing felling dates in the mid-120s AD that align with the stone rebuild phase. To extend protection beyond the wall's western terminus, the Romans established a parallel system of 26 milefortlets (numbered 0 to 25) along the Cumbrian coast from toward , constructed contemporaneously in turf and timber linked by a wooden . Subsequent phases involved modifications, including the addition of larger forts and the Vallum earthwork by the early 130s AD, after which the milecastles saw periodic repairs through the 2nd and 3rd centuries. The system was temporarily abandoned in AD 138 under Emperor in favor of the further north but was reoccupied by AD 164 following the latter's failure. Final significant disruption occurred during the Barbarian Conspiracy of AD 367, when coordinated raids by , Scots, , and overwhelmed garrisons, leading to widespread damage and partial slighting of structures. While the milecastles were largely decommissioned by the early with the Roman withdrawal from Britain around AD 410, archaeological evidence indicates sporadic reuse of some sites for medieval settlements and .

Architectural Design

Basic Layout and Dimensions

Milecastles were typically constructed as small rectangular enclosures, measuring approximately 15-18 meters north-south by 17-23 meters east-west internally. These dimensions provided a compact fortified space aligned perpendicular to , with the wall itself passing directly through the northern and southern gateways to facilitate controlled access across the frontier. The enclosing walls were built of stone, approximately 3 meters thick, and stood 5-6 meters high, often topped with a crenellated parapet for defensive purposes. Surrounding the milecastles was a defensive ditch, shared with the broader Wall complex, approximately 8 m wide and 3 m deep to enhance protection against approach. The northern and southern gateways were simple portals aligned with the Wall's course, allowing passage while maintaining security, with stone causeways providing access across the ditch. Internally, milecastles accommodated barracks for 8 to 32 soldiers, typically organized into contubernia of eight men each (1-4 units), along with space for weapons storage and basic facilities such as hearths or cooking areas. Possible additional structures included granaries for provisions and a command post for oversight, ensuring logistical self-sufficiency for the small garrison tasked with frontier surveillance.

Gateway Types

Milecastles along featured three principal types of gateways, classified based on architectural variations in their portals and associated masonry styles, which archaeological evidence links to the practices of specific Roman legions during the wall's initial stone-building phase in the AD 120s. These gateways were integral to controlling access across the , reflecting standardized yet regionally distinct approaches by the legions involved. Type I gateways consist of a single rectangular portal framed by massive, well-dressed stone piers that project symmetrically inward from the wall face, with the passageway slightly wider than the wall's thickness and arched at both ends; this design is associated with the and appears in short-axis milecastles. Examples include milecastles 37, 38, and 42, where epigraphic evidence from centurial stones confirms the legion's involvement. Type II gateways feature a narrower passageway lengthened by a single buttress-like projection on the inner side, using more ordinary masonry and typically arched only at the outer end; these are tied to the and occur in long-axis milecastles. Representative sites are milecastles 39 and 40 in the central sector, where the legion's building stamps have been identified. Type III gateways combine elements of Types I and II, with a lengthened passageway featuring two inward buttresses, massive outer piers, and arches at both ends, constructed in a mix of high-quality and standard masonry; they are attributed to the and found in long-axis milecastles. Key examples occur at milecastles 47, 48, and 50, supported by dedicatory inscriptions linking the legion to these structures. Functionally, these gateways were secured by heavy timber doors, often double-leaved, and aligned with stone causeways across the defensive ditch. Archaeological finds of coins and other trade-related artifacts at milecastle sites suggest the gateways served as customs posts for monitoring and possibly levying tolls on goods and travelers entering Roman Britannia. The distribution of gateway types aligns with the operational zones of the legions: Type I predominates in eastern sections east of the River North Tyne, Type II in central-eastern areas, and Type III in western stretches beyond milecastle 17, illustrating how each legion imposed its preferred building conventions during the coordinated stone construction effort. This legion-specific variation underscores the rapid, segmented nature of the wall's erection, with minimal standardization across teams.

Internal Axes and Features

Milecastles along exhibit two primary internal orientations: long-axis and short-axis plans, which determine the alignment of the internal roadway relative to the wall itself. Long-axis plans, classified as Types II, III, and IV, feature an east-west roadway running parallel to the wall, with barrack blocks and ancillary rooms arranged along the north and south sides. These configurations are more prevalent in stone-built milecastles, allowing for elongated internal spaces that accommodated structured accommodations and facilitated lateral movement within the structure. In contrast, short-axis plans, designated as Type I, orient the roadway north-south, perpendicular to the wall, creating a more compact layout where rooms flank the central gateway passageway. This design is characteristic of early constructions or those built with turf, emphasizing vertical access through the wall and efficient use of limited space for immediate defensive oversight. Internally, milecastles typically contained two to four barrack blocks, often constructed in stone with evidence of timber upper stories for additional sleeping quarters, as seen in excavations at sites like Milecastle 9 and Milecastle 37. Additional features included possible stables or magazines for equipment storage, stone hearths or ovens positioned against walls for cooking and heating, and perimeter drainage systems of ditches or channels to manage water runoff. These elements supported a small garrison, estimated at 8 to 32 soldiers, with layouts varying by type—such as paired stone barracks in long-axis examples like Milecastle 48. The choice of axis influenced , with long-axis plans optimizing space for prolonged patrols along the wall's length and short-axis designs enhancing quick access for north-south traversals. Variations in these plans reflect the building practices of specific legions, such as the for long-axis types and for short-axis ones, adapting to terrain and construction phases.

Construction Variations

Stone versus Turf Structures

The construction of milecastles along varied significantly based on regional materials and strategic priorities, with stone structures predominant in the eastern sections and initial western builds, contrasted by turf constructions in the early western phases. Stone milecastles, employed from the eastern end near through to approximately Milecastle 48 and later rebuilt in the west, utilized locally quarried materials such as sandstone in the central and western areas, and tougher whinstone (a form of or dolerite) for foundations in the eastern Whin Sill region, bonded with for enhanced durability. These structures featured robust walls up to 3 meters thick, often with evidence of advanced engineering like barrel-vaulted gateways, as seen in the surviving arch at Milecastle 37 near Housesteads, allowing for secure passage and defensive oversight. Their permanence made them suitable for long-term frontier control, resisting weathering better than alternative materials. In contrast, turf milecastles characterized the initial construction in the western section from Milecastle 49 (Harrows Scar) to the terminus at , spanning approximately the final 30 miles (48 km) of , where stone was scarce and the terrain consisted of softer, peat-rich Cumbrian hills. These were erected rapidly using stacked sods of turf—cut from nearby soil—laid on timber frames for stability, supplemented by wooden palisades for perimeter defense, resulting in broader walls around 6 meters wide and internal areas measuring approximately 14.5 by 15 meters. This method prioritized speed of assembly, potentially completing sections in weeks rather than months, but offered less longevity due to and organic decay. The shift from turf to stone in the west exemplifies adaptive Roman , driven by material availability—abundant timber and turf in the forested, low-stone west versus quarriable rock in the east—and the need for expedited building amid potential military pressures during Hadrian's reign. Excavations at Harrows Scar Milecastle (MC49) reveal clear transition evidence, where turf foundations persist beneath overlying stone walls rebuilt before AD 138, expanding the internal space to about 23 by 20 meters and realigning with nearby forts like Birdoswald for integrated defense. This overbuilding preserved foundational turf layers while enhancing structural integrity against the rugged Irthing Valley terrain, underscoring the Romans' pragmatic response to logistical challenges without compromising frontier efficacy.

Regional Adaptations Along the Wall

In the eastern sector of Hadrian's Wall, from Wallsend (Segedunum) to the central uplands, the relatively flat terrain facilitated uniform construction of stone milecastles with consistent dimensions and deeper defensive ditches to enhance security against potential incursions from the north. This uniformity was supported by the proximity to major forts like Segedunum, allowing for integrated supply lines and rapid reinforcement, as the milecastles served as checkpoints along a more accessible landscape. Moving centrally, across the rugged Whin Sill dolerite outcrop, milecastles were adapted to elevated and hilly positions to maximize visibility over the surrounding valleys and integrate with natural crags for defensive advantages. These adaptations often involved positioning structures on steep slopes or cliff edges, such as at Cawfields, where the terrain provided inherent barriers and oversight of key gaps like Hole Gap. In the western sector, from the River Irthing to Bowness-on-Solway, softer soils and coastal exposure necessitated initial construction in turf and timber for milecastles, later transitioning to stone in many cases, while smaller coastal variants known as milefortlets extended the system southward along the Cumbrian shore. Approximately 26 milefortlets, analogous to milecastles but scaled for maritime defense, were built in this area, with sites like facing tidal influences from the Solway Firth that influenced their placement and design for flood resilience. Strategic modifications along the Wall included omissions or alterations to milecastles in challenging terrain, such as Milecastle 37 near Hotbank Crags, where craggy outcrops led to adjusted placements or skips to maintain overall alignment. Additionally, evidence from excavations indicates that milecastles and associated turrets formed part of a signaling network, with elevated positions enabling visual communication via beacons or flags across sectors.

Identification and Catalog

Terminology and Numbering

The term "milecastle" was first introduced to scholarly discourse in 1708 by Robert Smith, who documented it as a pre-existing local designation among inhabitants of the region for the small fortified gateways positioned at intervals of one Roman mile (mille passus, approximately 1,480 meters) along . This reflected the structures' strategic role in marking and controlling access across the frontier, distinguishing them from larger forts. The term gained wider currency in subsequent publications, including the 1722 edition of William Camden's , edited by Edmund Gibson, which helped standardize its use in antiquarian studies. "Milecastle" specifically denotes the approximately 80 small forts integrated into the main line of , spanning from its eastern terminus at to the western end at . In distinction, the analogous defenses extending westward along the Cumbrian coast—part of the broader frontier system—are termed "milefortlets," a later designation emphasizing their freestanding nature without a continuous wall. These milefortlets, numbered from 0 (at ) to 26 (near ), are generally smaller than milecastles and occasionally feature circular or sub-circular plans, differing from the predominant rectangular layout of the wall's milecastles. The systematic numbering of milecastles follows an east-to-west progression, with Milecastle 1 (MC 1) located near and Milecastle 80 (MC 80) at , aligning with the wall's overall orientation and the Roman mile grid. This convention originated from 18th-century antiquarian surveys, particularly those conducted by John Horsley in his 1732 publication Britannia Romana, which cataloged and mapped the structures' approximate positions despite some inaccuracies in turret spacing. The modern standardized numbering was formalized in the early by in 1930, building directly on Horsley's foundational work. A hypothetical Milecastle 0 has been proposed east of MC1. Most milecastles are referred to solely by their numerical designation for precision in archaeological and historical contexts, though a subset bears descriptive names derived from adjacent geographical features or historical associations, such as Poltross Burn Milecastle (MC 48), named for the nearby stream where it was excavated in the early . Intermediate observation posts, known as turrets, are identified using the numbering of the flanking milecastles, suffixed with A (eastern) or B (western), for example, MC 48A and MC 48B adjacent to Poltross Burn Milecastle. This dual system of numbering and naming facilitates clear reference in studies while preserving local where applicable. Detailed positions and conditions are documented in standard references such as the Roman Inscriptions of Britain (RIB) and records, with recent geophysical surveys and imaging (as of 2020s) aiding location of previously untraced sites.

List of Known Milecastles

The system incorporated 80 milecastles, small fortlets spaced at intervals of one Roman mile (approximately 1,480 meters) along the length of the wall from in the east to in the west. These were supplemented by approximately 27 milefortlets extending the frontier along the Cumbrian coast southward to , forming part of the same defensive network. While the milecastles typically measured about 15-20 meters long and 10-12 meters wide, the coastal milefortlets were smaller, with diameters of 12-15 meters, and were primarily built of turf and timber rather than stone. Several (approximately 10-15) of the 80 milecastles remain unlocated or were destroyed by later development, such as quarrying or road construction; the remainder vary in preservation, with some visible as upstanding ruins, others detectable only through or limited excavation. Comprehensive catalogs are available in archaeological handbooks like those by David J. Breeze and surveys. Below is a table of selected well-preserved or notable milecastles and milefortlets, with verified details from authoritative sources (full list in and ).
NumberNameLocationApproximate Grid ReferenceConditionNotes
MC1Stott's PowNear , NZ298668RuinedExcavated 1891; turf and timber structure; near ; gateways visible in outline.
MC8Heddon-on-the-WallHeddon-on-the-WallNZ162634RuinedWell-preserved gateways; excavated 1891 and 1960s; stone-built.
MC15Castle NickGreat WhittingtonNY937713Well-preservedExcavated 1930s; Type III gateway; panoramic views.
MC20High AngertonBelsayNZ088792UnlocatedInferred position; no physical remains.
MC22PortgateNear NY977718RuinedNear road; excavated 1978; stone gateways.
MC39Castle Nick (Overton)Bardon MillNY762678Well-preservedExcavated 1883; gateways prominent; high elevation.
MC41CawfieldsHaltwhistleNY716674Well-preservedManaged site; excavated 1891; stone .
MC45WalltownGreenheadNY668666RuinedExcavated 1891; Type IV gateway; near .
MC48Poltross BurnGilslandNY634662Well-preservedExcavated 1892; oven and visible; managed by .
MC49Harrow ScarBirdoswaldNY621664Well-preservedManaged by ; excavated 1892; turf to stone rebuild; narrow gauge.
MC80(Unnamed)NY220650DestroyedDemolished for fort construction; position inferred.
MF0(Unnamed)NY220640RuinedCoastal milefortlet; turf; possible starting point.
MF1Biglands HouseNear KirkbrideNY260610RuinedExcavated; turf structure.
MF5Moss SideNear NY195630Well-preservedTurf ramparts; excavated 1930s.
MF21Swarthy HillCrosscanonbyNY088266RuinedExcavated 1990-91; internal buildings.
MF23PapcastleNear NY105594Well-preservedExcavated 1960s; 15m diameter.

Modern Study and Preservation

Key Excavations

Archaeological interest in milecastles along began in the , with John Clayton leading systematic excavations from the 1840s onward, uncovering structures at sites such as Milecastle 42 (Cawfields) between 1848 and 1851, which revealed a massive gateway and internal features. Clayton's work, conducted annually until his death in 1890, focused on stone-built examples in the central sector, providing early insights into their defensive role and construction. In the early 20th century, efforts shifted to more methodical investigations under the Ministry of Works, exemplified by the excavation of Milecastle 48 (Poltross Burn) between 1909 and 1911 by F.G. Simpson and J.P. Gibson, which exposed internal rooms including a barrack block and guard chamber, confirming occupation from the AD 120s. These digs employed trenching to delineate walls and gateways, recovering artifacts such as Hadrianic and coins that dated the structures to the initial frontier phase. Post-World War II excavations, often led by universities and from the 1960s to 1990s, built on these foundations with refined techniques. The 1933 excavation by the Committee at Milecastle 37 (near Hotbank Crags) confirmed its short-axis Type IV layout, measuring approximately 18 by 18 meters, and highlighted stone construction variations. Similarly, Milecastle 72 (near Burgh-by-Sands) underwent partial excavations in 1960, 1977, and 1989, revealing remnants of an initial turf structure overlaid by stone, with walls up to 2.2 meters thick and evidence of a small quarters. Methodologies during this period increasingly incorporated geophysical surveys, such as magnetometry, to detect buried walls and ditches without extensive digging; for instance, surveys at potential turf milecastle sites identified magnetic anomalies corresponding to foundations before targeted trenching confirmed them. The Community Archaeology Project (WallCAP, 2018-2020) further advanced non-invasive detection using to identify unexcavated milecastles. Artifact recovery, including samian ware pottery and bronze coins, consistently pointed to Hadrianic origins (AD 117–138), while structural analysis distinguished legion-specific designs, such as those built by versus . These investigations profoundly shaped interpretations of milecastles as compact fortlets housing garrisons of 8 to 32 soldiers, based on barrack-block evidence from sites like Poltross Burn and Hotbank, enabling control of gateways and patrols. However, preservation remains challenged by agricultural ploughing, which erodes turf remnants in the western sector, and natural erosion along crags, necessitating ongoing monitoring to protect unexcavated examples.

Recent Discoveries and Conservation

In 2023, excavations at Milecastle 46 (MC46) near the Roman fort of Magna (Carvoran) uncovered a stone-lined grave containing a outside the milecastle's eastern wall, alongside unexpected internal features such as a clay-lined well, large pits, and a rare dual balance scale, providing new insights into daily life and burial practices at these gateways. These findings, part of a five-year project by the Vindolanda Trust, also revealed the milecastle's massive 3.2-meter-wide foundation, highlighting construction techniques not previously documented in modern surveys. Further advancing understanding in 2025, archaeological work near Drumburgh at the western end of exposed a well-preserved section of the wall itself during a three-week volunteer-led dig, along with associated artifacts, though these did not constitute core milecastle structures; the effort aimed to confirm the wall's course and locate Milecastle 76 (MC76). Throughout the 2020s, non-invasive technologies have complemented these digs, with surveys from the Environment Agency's 2020 national data release enabling the identification of potential unexcavated milecastles and related features along the wall's 73-mile span, including previously unrecognized temporary camps near known sites. Drone surveys and geophysical mapping have similarly aided in mapping subsurface anomalies, enhancing the detection of buried milecastle foundations without disturbance. Concurrently, studies on impacts have focused on the vulnerability of turf-constructed milecastles in the western sector, where rising temperatures and changing moisture levels threaten peat bog preservation of organic remnants, as evidenced by ongoing monitoring at sites like Magna. Conservation efforts for milecastles benefit from the site's designation as part of the World Heritage-listed Frontiers of the Roman Empire () since 1987, which mandates protective measures across its extent. The Trust leads site stabilization initiatives, including stone consolidation and environmental monitoring to safeguard milecastle remains from erosion, while the Hadrian's Wall Management Plan (2024-2029) coordinates broader preservation through partnerships with and local authorities. Visitor facilities, such as the interpretive center at , promote to educate on milecastles without compromising their integrity, though challenges persist from agricultural activities and increased foot traffic that accelerate wear on exposed structures. Looking ahead, the Trust's Magna project plans continued geophysical surveys into 2026 to probe missing milecastles and integrate findings with digital reconstructions, such as 3D models of system circa 180 CE, to enhance public access and scholarly analysis.

References

  1. https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/places/poltross-burn-milecastle-hadrians-wall/history/
  2. https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/places/hadrians-wall/hadrians-wall-history-and-stories/history/
  3. https://hadrianswallcountry.co.uk/explore/the-history-of-the-wall/
  4. https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/places/harrows-scar-milecastle-and-wall-hadrians-wall/history/
  5. https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/faqs-hadrians-wall/
  6. http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/10083/1/10083_6877.PDF
  7. https://www.academia.edu/31111578/Who_goes_there_Inside_the_Hadrians_Wall_milecastles
  8. https://the-past.com/feature/hadrians-wall-creating-division/
  9. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/protecting-the-roman-empire/hadrians-wall/FF30D6B817124AA48B166FBA8A6E3471
  10. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/britannia/article/date-of-the-rebuilding-of-hadrians-turf-wall-in-stone/9A99903427F63DB33478E4327F07F32C
  11. https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/places/hadrians-wall/hadrians-wall-history-and-stories/history/research/
  12. https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1014916
  13. https://www.jstor.org/stable/526602
  14. https://historicengland.org.uk/research/results/reports/5081/HADRIAN%27SWALLMILECASTLE78%28KIRKLAND%29CUMBRIA_INTERIMREPORTONARCHAEOLOGICALEVALUATIONSEPTEMBER2000
  15. https://www.vindolanda.com/blog/fact-file-hadrians-wall
  16. https://www.northofthetyne.co.uk/Images/cameraHome/Milecastles-Hadrians%20Wall.pdf
  17. https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/members-area/kids/roman-england/edge-of-the-empire/
  18. https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/science-and-policy/100-great-geosites/human-habitation/hadrians-wall/
  19. https://www.u3ahadrianswall.co.uk/milecastles-turrets-and-walls/
  20. https://www.visithadrianswall.co.uk/hadrians-wall/life-on-hadrians-wall/a-wall-made-of-turf/
  21. https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/members-area/members-magazine/30-surprising-facts-about-hadrians-wall/
  22. https://archaeology.org/issues/may-june-2017/collection/england-hadrians-wall-defensive-strategy/the-wall-at-the-end-of-the-empire/
  23. https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/places/cawfields-roman-wall-hadrians-wall/history/
  24. https://www.geologynorth.uk/the-whin-sill/
  25. https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/places/sewingshields-wall-hadrians-wall/history/
  26. https://romaninscriptionsofbritain.org/sites/hadrians-wall
  27. https://www.roman-britain.co.uk/places/hadrians-wall-milecastle-1-stotts-pow/
  28. https://academic.oup.com/book/27846/chapter/198173943
  29. https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/inspire-me/blog/blog-posts/meet-man-saved-hadrians-wall/
  30. https://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/Gateway/Results_Single.aspx?uid=8a81a5d1-5f00-49ed-aeb5-0b7af6979771&resourceID=19191
  31. https://heritagerecords.nationaltrust.org.uk/HBSMR/MonRecord.aspx?uid=MNA111226
  32. https://www.roman-britain.co.uk/places/hadrians-wall-milecastle-72-faulds-farm/
  33. https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/fa8b30c12d1b4bc08bdba9e65fa04092
  34. https://hadrianswallcountry.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Vol_1_Resource_Assessment.pdf
  35. https://romanarmymuseum.com/about/magna-surprises/
  36. https://www.northumberlandgazette.co.uk/news/people/skeleton-discovered-among-other-unexpected-surprises-from-a-hadrians-wall-excavation-project-4387051
  37. https://the-past.com/feature/magnifying-milecastle-46-first-modern-excavations-of-the-hadrians-wall-site-begin/
  38. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czdrvegdd08o
  39. https://www.grampusheritage.co.uk/projects/current-and-recent-archaeological-projects-drumburgh-archaeological-survey/
  40. https://limes2024.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/130/2024/12/26-LC_Abstract-book.pdf
  41. https://phys.org/news/2022-02-climate-threatens-hadrian-wall-treasures.html
  42. https://unesco.org.uk/news/climate-change-unesco-heritage-visits-frontiers-of-the-roman-empire-hadrians-wall-world-heritage-site
  43. https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/430/
  44. https://www.vindolanda.com/consolidation-and-conservation
  45. https://hadrianswallcountry.co.uk/management-plans/
  46. https://www.vindolanda.com/world-heritage
  47. https://romanarmymuseum.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/The-Magna-Report-2024-ONLINE.pdf
  48. https://www.timemachinedesigns.co.uk/p/hadrians-wall-180/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.