The superstructure of the timber phase is little understood, and Hugh Thompson and Nigel Sunter appear to have disagreed over details of its reconstruction (Thompson 1976, 221).
Cursory examination of the consolidated masonry suggests that there has been considerable modification of the structure of the stone amphitheatre. It is not possible to deduce from Hugh Thompson's report how much of this is to do with the twentieth-century work and how much derived from later Roman remodelling. Nor is it entirely clear that all the modifications belong to a single episode of reconstruction. The dates of the timber amphitheatre and first stone amphitheatre appear to be reasonably well established; however, the question of subsequent alterations is less clear cut except for the late third century recommissioning. Further work could elucidate changes within the structure itself, potentially showing adaptations to changes in function.
The northern and eastern main entrances (i.e. the northern porta pompa and the eastern porta postica) of the stone amphitheatre are known in detail from Hugh Thompson's work. The portae posticae carried tribunalia (boxes for senior officials), and evidence for the eastern tribunal was found in steps with traces of heavy wear as well as column fragments among the tumbled superstructure masonry. As the western entrance has never been excavated, it is possible that more detailed evidence for the form of the tribunal's superstructure has survived there.
The dedication of the altar found in the small chamber to the west of the north entrance appears to be conclusive proof that this room functioned as a Nemeseum (shrine to Nemesis). However, although there are military parallels at Carnuntum and civil parallels in the Danubian provinces, these are placed outside the amphitheatre. At Caerleon, a possible Nemeseum was built into one of the side entrances in a secondary phase (Wheeler & Wheeler 1928, 119). Further parallels for the situation at Chester should be sought and consideration given to what the cult implies about the types of activities carried out in the amphitheatre.
In the centre of the arena, a group of irregular postholes set in shallow gullies suggests the presence of a timber platform. Thompson (1976, 154) suggests that it was a formal ceremonial platform for military use. Further parallels for this feature should be sought and, if the opportunity to excavate immediately to the south of the modern brick wall ever arises, more evidence for the feature should be obtained. Questions that need to be answered include the precise phasing of the structure, whether it was a permanent or merely temporary structure (indeed, if it could be erected and dismantled as required) and if there are any parallels that might provide information about its function. It is not unreasonable, for instance, to think of it as similar to a late medieval scaffold, on which a condemned prisoner might be beheaded.
Question 2: how typical is the amphitheatre of other major Roman structures in Chester?
Question 3: how typical is Chester's amphitheatre of amphitheatres in general?
Question 4: what is the evidence for modifications to the design of the stone amphitheatre?
Question 5: what evidence is there for the superstructure of the entrances?
Question 6: are there parallels for internal nemesea in other amphitheatres?
Question 7: could the 'nemeseum' have functioned as a carcer (a room for keeping wild beasts awaiting release into the arena)?
Question 8: do other amphitheatres have evidence for central platforms?
Question 9: what is the evidence for the superstructure of the platform?
Question 10: is there any evidence for the function of the platform?
On to questions dealing with the uses of the Roman amphitheatre