Tile, inscribed LEG VI V, was found in 1856 "when the present trench in front of the castle was being excavated...now in the possession of the Rev. Thomas Stephens, vicar of Horsley...".{1, 3}. A coin of Constantius II (337-361) was found on the same occasion. {1, 2}. Dated C4.

A base, 22 x 22 x 9 inches, found in 1783 used in foundations on the north side of Tynemouth Priory. .../typum cum bas(i)/et templum/fecit G(aius) Iu(lius)/Maximinus (centurio)/ leg(ionis) VI Vi(ctricis)/ex uoto "To...Gaius Julius Maximinus, centurion of the Sixth Legion Victrix, in accordance with his vow, set up this statue with its base and this temple". Probably from Wallsend Fort; now at the Society of Antiquaries, London.

Part of an altar (18 ins x 38 ins) was found, in 1783, used in foundations on the north side of Tynemouth Priory. "The top of the capital has been dressed off and the face of the base has flaked away; on left side, bucranium, axe, and knife; on base figure, probably Hercules, with two snakes; on right side patera flanked by two snakes". I(oui) O(ptime) M(aximo)/Ael(ius) Rufus/praef(ectus) coh(ortis)/IIII Lingo/ num "To Jupiter, Best and Greatest, Aelius Rufus, prefect of the Fourth Cohort of Lingonians (set this up)". As the Notitia Dignitatum recorded the Fourth Cohort of Lingonians as the garrison of Segedunum (Wallsend), it is assumed that this stone came from Wallsend. Now at the Society of Antiquaries, London.

This settlement is represented by "the incomplete outline of a small hut in the form of a shallow 'ring-groove', at most 12 inches wide and six inches deep,...cut into the rock surface. There were no post-impressions visible in the trench...the internal diameter of the hut can be estimated as having been in the order of 15 feet". The excavator considered this hut was too small to be pre-Roman Iron Age, and too close to 118 for them to be in contemporary use. Also the maximum concentration of Romano-British pottery was in this area. A thin occupation spread survived within the hut, and yielded shells, and a late C2 rim sherd.

The settlement is represented by "the earliest definable structure" found by excavation on the site, a single "large timber-built house, thirty-eight feet in internal diameter. Its solid outside wall of close set uprights had been supported in a trench, dug into the rock or sand...This wall-trench was up to eighteen inches wide and the same in depth from rock level...The doorway lay in the south where...the wall-trench terminated on the east side in a large post-hole...Intermittent and shallow post-holes, concentrically placed at a distance of two feet beyond the wall-trench, are best seen as supports for eaves-posts, giving the house an overall diameter of forty-six feet". There was no clearly defined internal occupation level associated with the house. Some Roman pottery was recovered from above the wall-trench of the house, suggesting the latter had fallen into disuse before the late C2, and native pottery (of pre-Roman or Roman Iron Age) was found widely scattered about the site.

1074-1083/5 church was served by Durham monks; c. 1089 it became a cell of St. Albans. Dissolved in 1539. Nave continued to be used as parish church until Civil War, and by 1650 it was "quite ruined". Parish burial ground from beginning of C17 to C19. Substantial remains of church except quire. Period 1, c. 1090-1110, apsidal quire with ambulatory and 3 radiating chapels, central tower, transepts each with E apsidal chapel, and 7 bay aisled nave. Period 2, end of C12, E end rebuilt to give aisleless 4 bay presbytery, aisled 5 bay quire screened from nave. Period 3, c. 1220, nave extended 2 bays to W. Period 4, from 1336, Lady Chapel added N of presbytery. Period 5, C14/15, chamber over E arm. Period 6, mid C15, Percy Chantry added E of presbytery. Of claustral buildings, C12-13 outline of E range survives; little of S and W ranges is visible. Domestic and farm buildings to W and N of church and cloister are known from C16 plan, and excavations. Dated C11th.

Misleadingly called King John's Palace by (1); attributed by (4) to Adam of Jesmond because he held the manor of Heaton in the mid C13 and the structure appears to date from this time. (5) goes further and says Adam built a tower in Heaton before 1267. It is not known when the building went out of use, (4) suggesting before the early C17, (1) declaring it was in ruins in 1776. Though (4) says abutting structures were demolished in c. 1840, (2), (3), and 1st ed. O.S. map show some still attached to it on both east and west. Whether it was house or tower is uncertain. Its present remains consist of a north wall and the north end of an east wall, both standing 2 storeys high. Its original length is unknown. The principal room was a hall on the first floor, originally with a 2-light north window, and with at least one lancet in the east wall. (4)'s elevation of the west wall (before it all fell down) shows a first floor door. Several restorations, c. 1840, c. 1879, by (4) in 1897, 1981, have made it fairly unintelligible. The archaeological work associated with this HLF funded park restoration project continued with a geophysical survey and evaluation at The Camera of Adam in Heaton Park carried out by Archaeological Services Durham University. The Camera of Adam (or King John’s Palace) is a 13th century fortified manor house. Only the north wall and part of the east wall now survive. A number of linear high resistance anomalies were detected by geophysics west of the monument, which may be related to stone walls of former buildings, possibly a rectangular structure with rounded corners. Fortified houses normally included the hall, kitchens, service and storage areas, stables, brew houses, granaries and barns. Their defences could comprise curtain walls with crenellated parapets, towers or a moat. Trenching was requested by English Heritage east of the monument to ascertain the extent of survival of sub-surface features and to locate the original ground level. Here a huge depth of sand had been brought into the site to build up levels to create a bowling green in the 20th century. The natural ground level was not reached by the evaluation. It is hoped that the sand can be removed to enhance the setting of the monument and to reveal more of its east wall. The brickwork remains of the post medieval byre drawn by W.H. Knowles in 1898 were recorded by the evaluation. Further evaluation in 2010 proved that the Camera was unlikely to have had a moat around it as the building was built into a slope and was assymetrical on its northern side. The whole of the wall to the south of the east window and the entire north-eastern angle of the building have been rebuilt. Dated C13th?.

Excavations of this barrow in 1877 by Dr Greenwell revealed that the primary burial was Neolithic, and consisted of several cremated disarticulated bodies burnt in situ in some form of mortuary structure. It was not possible to say how many bodies had been placed there, and no article or pottery was found associated with them. This primary deposit was situated some 5 feet south of the centre of the mound, and aligned east-west.

A small round barrow, on the highest point of Hasting Hill, at its west end. It was described by Trechmann as low, flat and slightly bowl-shaped, with the dimensions 40 feet diameter, c. 2 ft 9 in high in the middle, 3 ft at the edge. There is some inconsistency in the measurements: HBMC 12-15 m diam, 1 m high; Young 19.85 m diam, 1.95 m high. It appears to be of cairn construction, consisting of earth and stones, some large, of limestone, sandstone, whin and erratics, and to lack a surrounding bank and ditch. There is an O.S. trig pillar on top of the mound. It was excavated by Trechmann in 1911 and, in addition to separate entries SMR 112, 451-83, he found in the make-up of the mound scattered human bones of at least 10 individuals, animal bones and flint chippings.

In 1911 Trechmann excavated the Hasting Hill barrow. In the material of the mound he found, among other things, frags of 2 Neolithic pots (1). 1. 3 sherds of a shallow semi-globular bowl, 4+" diam., in dark orange fabric with vertical incised lines around exterior and shallow indentations on rim bevel. 2. Rim sherd in Peterborough Ware. T-shaped profile forming an internal bevel. Hard red fabric, much grit, decorated with deeply scored lines on rim bevel and neck, fingernail impressions on exterior of rim. Reason for the deposition of this pottery uncertain. Small bowl might have originally accompanied a burial or burial deposit scattered by the insertion of the numerous Bronze Age burials. Alternatively,...with the flints and animal bones also in the mound, it "could have been derived from an earlier occupation preserved by the erection of the barrow mound".