If you zoom in on the Map of Hadrian’s Wall on this Web site above you will note, on the far right, separated from the closely spaced locations along the Wall, another black dot titled “Roman Fort South Shields” – more commonly known as “Arbeia”. Whilst in no way suggesting that anyone should miss out the iconic central section of the Wall (situated in “wild country”) by giving this site (situated in a housing estate!!) preference, knowledge of its existence and merits might be prove to be of use to those with particular interest in “matters Romano-British” or whose travel logistics suit a visit to this most easterly element of the Hadrian’s Wall inscription.

Despite having lived within 40 miles of it for over 30 years we had never visited, but did so in March 2024 and were reasonably impressed. We had previously dismissed it as a “minor fort” which had received investment in 1986 in the form of a reconstructed Gateway looking similar (Photo), but in “pale comparison” to the massive reconstruction at Saalburg initiated by Kaiser Wilhelm II in 1897. Now, he had his own late 19th C German  nationalistic and militaristic “reasons” for his project but, more recently, such reconstructions have been regarded as controversial. Apart from occasional examples where Hadrian's Wall has been filled in/stabilized for mainly conservation purposes, I think I am correct in stating that this is the only place to have been given a “full” reconstruction for “presentation” reasons. I had always been a bit “sniffy” about this, possibly “Disneyfied”, presentation of a Roman Fort and had given it a miss. A mistake I think. 

So - why visit?

a. It is Free – unlike forts at nearby Segedunum   (£6.95) and of course, Housesteads (£8.60)
b. It is easily reachable from Central Newcastle by Metro if you are staying in the city. Indeed an interesting “day tour” could be Metro to South Shields for Arbeia, cross the Tyne on the Ferry to North Shields/Tynemouth, Metro to Segedunum at Wallsend and back to the city. (Get a Metro day ticket - it includes the ferry!), This link provides a fuller guide to all the "Wall related" sights around Newcastle - including the Hancock Museum which has a "Wall Gallery"
c. If you are by-passing Newcastle to the east using the Tyne Tunnel e.g on your way north to the Northumbrian Coast or Edinburgh it is just a few miles off the direct route with no need to go into Newcastle itself.
d. It does, IMO, provide an interesting extra piece in the overall "Hadrian's wall jigsaw". A "thorough" visit will take around 1 to 1.5 hours, most of which will be spent in the museum and reconstructed buildings.

As indicated above, the Fort is situated rather unpromisingly in a housing estate near the centre of the industrial town of South Shields. Free parking nearby is easy. It is located on the first high bluff (“The Lawe”) on the south side of the Tyne estuary and its situation above the river can be seen best from a viewpoint a few hundred metres beyond the entrance. Although Hadrian’s Wall per se ended on the North side of the Tyne some 4 miles to the West at Wallsend, Arbeia was developed by the Romans to protect the major port which had been developed to supply the Wall and was then situated just below the fort (much of the present day land you will see below is infill compared with Roman days, created from ballast from “empty” ships arriving to take coal back to London). As such it is regarded as a part of “Hadrian’s Wall” even though it isn’t actually situated along it! At the entrance you will see a sign for “Hadrian’s Cycleway” where you can go “Coast to coast the Roman way” for 174 miles to the Glannaventa Bathhouse at Ravensglass (already reviewed on this Web site)!! 

A visit starts with a small museum which sets out the history of the Fort and contains some interesting, if not “top class”, artifacts. Among the more significant are the Regina Tombstone with the only bilingual (Latin-Aramaic) inscription discovered in Britain (“To the spirits of the departed and Regina, freed woman and wife of Barates of Palmyra, a Catuvellaunian by race, thirty years old”). There are also seals of the Emperor Septimus Severus who, in AD208-10, came to Arbeia with an army of c40000 to personally manage the campaign to conquer Scotland. This was initially successful, but he died at York in 211, to be succeeded (initially jointly) by his sons Caracalla and Geta who had been campaaigning with him. They made peace with the Caledonians (Rome was never to advance beyond Hadrian's Wall again) and returned to Rome with their father's ashes - to be placed in the Castel Sant'Angelo. Many of the display cases are filled with items reflecting daily life as it was for the inhabitants. A nice “local” aspect is a fine collection of jet jewelry traded up from Whitby. There is also a 4th C Christian altar – unusual apparently for Roman Britain as the spread of Christianity within the Empire took place mainly in its South and East. There is a suggestion that the very name “Arbeia” comes from a late 3rd C garrisoning of the fort by soldiers from Mesopotamia (“Arabia”) – some of whom might well have been Christian. Generally an interesting “take out” from the visit is the extent of cultural exchange and mixing which occurred within the Roman world – reaching even these northern areas!!

Beyond the museum, the rectangular outline (c 150 x 100m) of the fort foundations are fully visible with its corner towers and the gates in each wall.  Within, the foundations of many of fort’s buildings, consisting of quarters for the soldiers and granaries for storage, packed closely together, are also clear. But as a “working fort”, there are no  particularly noteworthy remains in situ - mosaics, statues, carved friezes etc. A couple of Roman pillars have been discovered and erected and there are the usual Roman latrines! It appears that the fort was reorganized and extended from a near square  at the time of the Severus campaign to develop its role as a supply base with a reduction in soldiers’ quarters and the building of extra granaries (with design features to aid drying etc). There are also later remains of kilns for tile making. Around half is unexcavated and under grass, but all the houses which once partially covered it, have been demolished. Excavations commenced as early as the 1870s and the the preservation of the site by local initiative was one of the earliest examples of this happening in UK. 

Which takes us to the reconstructed buildings. As mentioned above, I was aware of the West Gate from 1988 but did NOT know that it had been followed in the early “2000s” by construction of a Barrack Block and (part of) a “Commanding Officer’s House”. This quote describes each - 

“West Gate: Climb the reconstructed West Gate and get a feel for how soldiers would have entered and exited the fort

Barracks Block: Explore a reconstructed barracks block to understand the living conditions of Roman soldiers stationed there

Commanding Officer's House: See what life was like for the high-ranking officer with a reconstruction of their much more luxurious home compared to the barracks”

All have been built on the original foundations but without using any original materials. It is said that appropriate building techniques were used and that the reconstructions contributed knowledge via “Experimental Archaeology”. There was opposition to the original Gate rebuild but I haven’t found evidence of there being any for the subsequent Barracks/Officer’s House – possibly surprising since they significantly post-dated the UNESCO inscription. The opening of the West gate came just after the original Hadrian’s Wall inscription in 1987 but must have been well under way at the time of the AB Evaluation - however, neither that nor the Nomination file even mention it!!! Either ICOMOS didn’t care ….or didn’t know!

This article gives a general impression of the rebuilds. This describes the Barracks and this concentrates on the Commanding Officers House. Each of us will make up their own mind about the value of and justification for the “reconstructions”. In my view they seem

a. Not to have damaged or compromised the underlying authentic remains and thus do no “physical harm”
b. To have been done with expert knowledge and care, albeit that some details might be subject to academic debate as to their authenticity
c. To add value to visitors by providing background and context to what would otherwise just be a jumble of low stones and thus contribute to a possibly undervalued purpose of presenting such remains – viz “education”.

In the case of the Commanding Officer's house I can wonder whether the reconstruction has perhaps gone overboard on the decorative plaster work and room furnishings etc for what would have primarily been a “working fort” at the edge of “Roman civilization”. But it was still worth seeing, even if I suspect that the main beneficiaries are the school parties "playing" at being Romans!