John HIGSON on the Web
ROMAN MANCHESTER
created 3rd August 1998
It has long been known that there was a Roman Fort in the area of Castlefield. Indeed in the 16th
century it still survived as an upstanding earthwork. During the Industrial Revolution, which saw roads, railways and canals cut through it all surface remains of the fort, except a small section of wall beneath
one of the railway arches, were lost. Therefore until recently all that was known of this monument, was the outline of its perimeter, a few chance findings in the locality during industrial development and what was recorded by antiquaries in the previous centuries.
However during the last few years the area has been excavated by archaeologists, especially by Professor G. D. B. Jones of Manchester University and since September 1980 by the Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit. As a result of these excavations our knowledge of Roman Castlefield has greatly increased and the work carried out here has been of great importance, to British Urban archaeology.
The Fort Castlefield
During the seventies of the 1st century AD the Romans expanded their territory northwards. Legionary fortresses established at both York (Ebrachium) and Chester (Deva). In 79AD troops operating under General Agricola first established a fort at Castlefield. The Fort was an important station on the route between the two major fortress; it also controlled movement from the north Cheshire plain and the route north to central Lancashire . The site chosen was fairly typical of Roman military thinking and lay on a spur over looking confluence of the Rivers Irwell and Medlock. It was protected by natural features to the south, it controlled the ford and a level fighting ground outside the Fort.
The history of the Roman Fort at Castlefield
can be divided into three major stages:-
Period 1
The first Fort was built of turf and timber and stood from 79 AD until about 110/125 AD.
Because the south side of the Fort was protected by the rivers the two defensive ditches lay
on three sides only. The rampart, inside the ditches stood to about 5 metres high. The northgate
had two 2-storey wooden towers. Although little survives of the Fort's interior we can assume
that there would have been barracks, granaries, stables and a commandant's house, indeed all
that was necessary to accommodate 500 men.
Once the Fort had been constructed, a civilian settlement or vicus was established adjacent
to the Fort, The reasons for this was that the Fort offered the native population protection
and that there was an immediate market for tradesmen and craftsmen, During the first period
of the Fort's history the vicus appears to have been small, and mainly consisted of military
compounds and there is evidence of bronze manufacturing. With the Fort fulfilling an
important role in communications the vicus appears to have sustained a population of up to
2,000 people. At the end of this first period the Fort was destroyed, not by hostile forces
but by the garrison itself!
Period 2
In about 160AD a larger Fort was built on the site of the old one. The change in size can be
accounted for by a larger garrison than before. For a time the Northgate was blocked and
closed by a ditch.
The vicus, continued to grow in size and importance. It expanded northwards and whilst still
providing services to the Fort started to a become trading centre. Metalworking, in the form
of smelting and forging iron, lead and bronze, was the predominant occupation although it is
known that at least one pottery kiln was in service.
Period 3
Around 200AD the turf and timber Fort was replaced by one of stone. It lay on the same place
as the earlier structure and had a similar plan. There was no period of abandonment between
the destruction and the rebuilding. The stone fort was occupied for about 200 years until
410AD when the Roman military occupation of Britain ceased. In this period defensive alterations were made, for instance there is evidence of 17 changes to the defensive ditches!
The vicus does not appear to have been much affected by the construction of the stone Fort. Instead a gradual change saw a decline of the industrial centre and the growth of a conventional vicus of houses and shops partly built of stone. However, once the military presence was removed the vicus rapidly declined and was abandoned.
e-mail me at
jhigson222@aol.com
This page hosted by 
Get your own Free Home Page
e