Following a campaign of trenching in 1898, Housesteads, on Hadrian's Wall, became the type-site for Roman auxiliary forts, the classic plan being reproduced in general publications down to the 1970s. In 1974–81 the north-east corner of the fort was the scene of one of the earliest modern area-excavations on the Wall, and here the results are at last fully reported. These excavations (building on an earlier campaign in 1959–60 by J.J. Wilkes) were of pioneering importance in recovering for the first time plans of later Roman barracks, of subdivided and apparently irregular form. A 1980 paper by Charles Daniels interpreting each subdivision, or so-called ‘chalet’, as the dwelling of a single member of a drastically reduced garrison, along with his family (following his teacher Richmond's belief that the Wall forts became fortified townships in the late fourth century, but advancing this change by half a century or more), was long influential. In Alan Rushworth's report the term ‘chalet’ is retained but he is in no doubt that the buildings are formally-planned barracks for a reduced but still substantial fourth-century unit, as we have come to expect from other more recently excavated sites. The abandonment of the extramural civil settlement by the late third century, which Daniels first noted, is fully substantiated here, although R.'s report does not follow him in concluding that the civilians moved into the fort. R. sensibly sees the decline of the vicus in terms of changes in the methods of supply in the late Roman army.
This was the first modern excavation to explore rampart areas, revealing that by the third century the ramparts had been cleared away to provide space for workshops, where military equipment was not merely repaired, but manufactured. In the second and third centuries communal bread-ovens serving the adjacent barracks were also a striking feature. By the end of the third century this had all gone: the rampart was massively reinstated and the fort wall rebuilt with new towers. The defences were maintained down to the end of the Roman period and possibly into the fifth century, stone towers being replaced in timber and the collapsing fort wall encased in an earth rampart.
Limited excavation was carried out on a monumental storehouse (Building XV), shown here to be of late third- or early fourth-century date: R. follows J. Crow in associating with it a fragment of a rare Tetrarchic building inscription, and the storage of supplies obtained through the annona militaris is invoked (although it is not explained why the storehouse is without close parallel among other Wall forts).
Both the 1959–60 and 1974–81 campaigns established the outline of the more conventional earlier barracks, which R. argues were stone from the outset (but an underlying timber phase does not seem entirely excluded). R. concludes that in an earlier phase a barrack occupied the site of Building XV, but this would be wholly unparalleled: there are no Roman fort plans where barracks face onto the via Praetoria. It seems improbable that either XV or XVI (on the other side of the via Praetoria) were ever barracks.
The excavations at Housesteads began in 1974 with the ‘Wall-period’ framework of interpretation firmly in place, but ended in a climate of grave doubt about writing military and political history from archaeological evidence. R. tends to agglomerate events that are not closely dated into uniform horizons of change in the Severan and Tetrarchic periods. No doubt there were such episodes of general rebuilding by imperial policy. But perhaps the possibility could have been explored that the two ‘chalet’ barracks of the north-east area, which R. would see as Tetrarchic and all of a piece, are of different dates. It is striking that XIII and XIV have quite different plans, and although the dating evidence is considered as a whole, it is different in each case. XIV seals radiate coins, but these did not occur under XIII. Could XIII have been remodelled in the mid-third century and XIV be somewhat later?
It is a testimony to the thoroughness of the report that all the material is to hand to explore such questions and to allow readers to assess the evidence for themselves. The report could have retained that quality without being quite as large as it is: some of the structural description is at an archival level of detail without arriving at any significant conclusions, and could have been succinctly summarised without losing anything of importance. This is not to say that archaeological reports should not be printed — that is still the only reliably permanent form of publication — nor to say that the finds should not be reported in full, as they are here. But if institutions are not to be discouraged for ever from publishing large and unmarketable volumes, writers must tailor the lengths of reports to the quality of the evidence. This remote and unencumbered site has lured visitors and excavators over the centuries, but the preservation at Housesteads is not extraordinarily good. Built on igneous rock the barracks had none of the subsidence and levelling up that produces a deep stratigraphic sequence. Walls were not removed and the earliest levels not thoroughly excavated. This has hampered resolution into phases and made definite conclusions difficult to draw.
The print quality of the illustrations in the copy sent for review is appallingly bad given the price: plans blurred and some photographs practically unusable. This is not the fault of the author or those who prepared drawings to evidently high standards of archaeological draughtsmanship in a pre-autocad age but it sets a poor example to the next generation.
These criticisms should not be allowed to obscure the fact that the report is of fundamental importance. R.'s discussion is reliable, balanced and well-informed, taking full account of developments in knowledge over the generation since the digging was done and the preliminary conclusions disseminated. To this reviewer, who as a teenager first put trowel to earth at Housesteads, it is gratifying that the work should have been brought to a conclusion by one so qualified to do it, and in such a scholarly way.
