In 1840 John Hodgson published his account of the uncovering of "a very curious cauldron for heating water in... On the outside it was square, and consisted from the foundation to the top of a broad wall, of common ashlar work. Within it was oval", measured 5 ft x 6 ft, and 3 ft deep, and was lined with smooth hard cement, 1 in thick and mixed with brick. Close to the cauldron was a flue. It is possible to read his account to mean that he saw this feature in 1814, during the forming of the gears of Fawdon Staith, a little above the high water mark, and that it was the last fragment of a building most of which had already been removed. It seems unlikely, on grounds of date, appearance and improbable survival, after his observation, that this was the same structure described from second hand information by MacLauchlan, and sited near the Ship Inn at the above grid ref. In 2014 the bathhouse was found again through Wallquest, a Heritage Lottery Fund community archaeology project by Tyne and Wear Archives and Museums. The bathhouse was found 130m south of the fort on the site of The Ship Inn, which was demolished in 2011. Evaluation on the site found Roman building materials, cement and opus signinum (tiles broken up into small pieces, mixed with mortar then beaten down with a rammer), typical of bath buildings. Open excavation found that the wall foundations and structures survived. All the typical rooms were present - the frigidarium (cold room), tepidarium (warm room) and caldarium (hot room). There were two plunge baths and one semi circular bath, which was a later addition. One of the rectangular plunge baths still had its pink waterproof lining and steps down into it. The hot room had pilae to support the raised floor. There were three semi-circular apses, which typically contained a fountain or bath. The western apse featured a stoke hole. The Wallsend bathhouse does not resemble others on Hadrian's Wall (such as Benwell, Bewcastle, Chesters, Carrawburgh and Netherby), which have one narrow and a number of square rooms. In fact the Wallsend example is not paralleled anywhere. It has buttresses on the exterior wall. The projecting apses do not feature in Hadrianic plans. Earlier walls continue to the south. The apses were built on a concrete surface - the basement of a heated room. The bathhouse was once bigger but the Hadrianic plan was reduced in size. An earlier wall was found under the later pilae of the heated room. The reason for the reduction in size was landslip. The land falls steeply into a stream which fed into the River Tyne. The whole building is skewed. There is a huge crack in the cold room wall. The building slipped down the slope and so was rebuilt. In 1998 a reused inscription was found in a building built over the western fort wall. It dates to the late 2nd or early 3rd century. 'BALI[NEUM] ASOL[UM]' (rebuilt from the ground up). It may have have been rebuilt smaller because the military unit based at the fort was smaller by the 3rd century. There have been next to no modern archaeological excavations of baths on Hadrian's Wall. Great Chesters was excavated in the 1890s. There was small scale work at Bewcastle by John Gillam in the 1950s. Small scale unpublished work at Chesters. There was a similar reduction in size at Carrawburgh, which has two apses added and one room becomes a yard. Were extra mural baths given up before Hadrian's Wall was abandoned? Possibly when the vicus was abandoned? Was the bathhouse at Wallsend demolished by the Romans or was it intact until 1814. Nick Hodgson says probably the latter. The demolition fill was mostly cement and flag stones from the floor above. There were no finds to date the smashing in of the walls. At Binchester the baths went out of use before the end of the Roman period and were used for rubbish dumping. Baths closer to the forts, like Chesters, invited re-use. At Chesters and Binchester there were late Roman baths inside the fort walls. Finds from the excavation include pottery up to the 4th century, quite a few coins, brooches and other metal objects. The small hot bath described and measured by John Hodgson was not visible in the 2014 excavation. This must lie beyond its extent. The remains at Wallsend are to be permanently displayed and interpreted (planning application submitted December 2015).

In 1769 Wallis wrote, "I have frequently after high tides observed large, well-wrought, ashler (sic) stones lying on the shore of the river at the foot of this field, (on which the station stood) - the scattered ruins probably of a key". Hodgson may have been referring to something similar when he wrote, "When the workmen, in 1814, were forming the gears of Fawden staith, they met with much Roman masonry, and coins, a little above high-water mark:..." - perhaps a quay or, as is now more generally accepted, a bathhouse. The evidence for this will not have survived the later alterations to the river bank for staiths and shipyards.

In 1807 Dr. John Lingard wrote, "A little to the west of the Station was opened 25 years ago an arched cavity, (arch of brick), in which were found many broken urns...". This has been interpreted as a pottery kiln. Its precise location is unknown.

The vicus "extended along the north bank of the river, Horsley noting buildings on the slope between the south rampart and the Tyne, and also south-west of the fort". Birley was more specific, saying that a very extensive civil settlement had existed within the angle between the Wall and fort stretching nearly half a mile westward along the Military Way. He added that traces of 2 or 3 streets had been noted, and evidence of industrial activity, including a probable potter's kiln. It should, however, be noted that recent excavations outside the fort to the west at NZ 299 658/9 have not provided evidence of Roman occupation, either because it had been destroyed or because it had never been there. Over the years there have been from this area many random finds of coins, metalwork, querns, animal bones and Roman pottery, including a large part of a samian bowl (HER no. 811-829). Defensive ditches and a possible earth bank formed the western boundary of the vicus some 65 metres from the fort and the Branch Wall from fort to Tyne formed the eastern boundary. Excavations in advance of a new dry dock at Swan Hunter's Shipyard in 2002, revealed a sequence of banks and ditches 75 metres south of the fort, forming elements of a defensive cordon most probably defining the south side of the vicus. These lay parallel to the Roman riverbank, some 160 metres north of the modern highwater mark.

The precise location of the mill is unknown. Willington mill is mentioned in 1299, but from 1358 it is known as the mill of Willington and Wallsend, and in 1378 it is described as the windmill of Wallsend, on a repairing lease at 3 p.a. In 1381 this arrangement was changed, the tenant finding the sails and cogs, and paying 2, and the lord providing the timber and the millstones. In 1382 the tenants of both Wallsend and Willington were reminded that they must grind at this mill or pay a 0.5 mark fine, and in 1384 the miller was told to grind his neighbours' corn at convenient times or be fined. In 1464 the windmill was said to be waste. After a gap of some years a watermill is mentioned - perhaps a replacement for the windmill or in addition to it (it is not known whether Willington and Wallsend always shared a mill). The watermill was described as waste in 1536-7.

Prominent ridge and furrow occupies the western third of Heworth golf course. Its significance is not clear. It has been recorded under Follingsby for the time being since this - if it really existed - appears to have been the nearest medieval settlement. However, according to the 1st edition Ordnance Survey map, the area of the ridge and furrow was not in any township, but was instead in territory called "Hedworth Detached". It is just possible this was the result of the enclosure of common, or possibly a carve-up of Follingsby.

With Willington, Wallsend is supposed to have been part of Bishop Walcher's gift to Durham Priory in 1072: it is certainly included in Henry II's confirmation charter. There is little information about the size of the medieval settlement, though in 1539 there were 2 cottages and 7 leaseholders, interpreted in the Northumberland County History as the early representatives of the township's 7 farms which survived at least as late as 1800. The site of the village is high up on the south side of the Wallsend Burn, the buildings being arranged around a very large green, and the whole - even today - retains its sub-circular shape. By the time of the Tithe Award of 1841 there were still 3 farms on the south side of the green, and 4 "mansion houses" on both north and south sides. The buildings on the south side have been replaced in the last 50 years or so.

There is a spoil heap and at least one feature which resembles a bell pit postdating the ridge and furrow on the east side of Brierdene farm.

South of the main road through Killingworth there is a small field (NZ 2830 7075) containing ridge and furrow, with about 20 north-south ridges. The Terrier document of 1373 includes a long list of selions, with acreages and occupiers, which may relate ot the ridge & furrow.

In 1242 Killingworth, with other nearby townships, was held by Roger de Merlay III. There were 9 taxpayers in 1296, 8 in 1312. In a detailed survey of the whole township in 1373 16 tenements are listed, with the names of the owners or occupiers. Killingworth Moor was enclosed in 1793. In the mid 19th century Killingworth was still a long 2-row village strung out to the west of the junction of the road from Backworth with that to Long Benton, though one terrace had appeared which might have resulted from mining development. Two or three farms survived on the north side of the street. It is still today identifiable as an early settlement, with a number of listed buildings - 18th and 19th ventury stone-built structures - but there has been a lot of recent infilling of gaps and backlands.