PEDDARS WAY (3)

Given the evidence, which suggests a military influence on the construction of the Peddars Way, it might be as well to consider when the Roman army was actually in the region, a task which is possible to a certain degree. For example, we can assume that elements of the 9th Hispana Legion at least visited the locality during the years of the Claudian advance (AD43 to 46, perhaps), and that they were in Norfolk and the fens during and after the first Iceni revolt of AD47, and here in reasonable strength following the defeat of Boudica in AD60/61. 
There are at least two further strands of thought, one being that we do not know, and cannot know, of visits by small groups of soldiers, engineers, bigwigs or surveyors betweentimes; and the idea that the actual aftermath of the Boudican revolt, in terms of retribution (no burnt layers have been found in Norfolk), may not have been as brutal and widespread as originally believed. In consequence, and in general, one might say that the Roman military would surely have been in Norfolk in various guises and at various times from AD43 through to, say, AD63 and possibly later. This opens the prospect of a Peddars Way construction programme at some point during a 20-year 'window.'
The two best dates for the army being present in significant strength would be in AD47 and in AD61/62, following the first and second Iceni revolts, but nothing is clear because the actual reasons for building the road are still not entirely clear.
The nature of the post-revolt dates suggests the Way's early usage may well have been as an aid to mopping-up, patrol duties, as a visual deterrent against further trouble, and even as a route to a Wash ferry terminal. It needs to be remembered, however, that the Iceni federation of tribal groupings seems to have been deeply divided and fractious. Also, Boudica did not lead a nationwide uprising. Indeed, it is possible that more people were against her than for her.
What cannot be calculated is the possibility that the road was actually built by locally-recruited work gangs perhaps overseen by military surveyors. But even if it did come into being in this manner, the dating of its construction still fits happily into the same framework of dates. Of course, what happened to it after the 'patrol' and 'ferry' phase, when the region was more or less peaceable, is unclear.
Many who have walked the Way agree that the route offers a much more satisfying journey if its ending is the beach at Holme. In other words, it is better to walk towards the sea rather than away from it. At the same time, some may also agree with me that the Way gives off a very strong feeling that its real purpose was not to expedite travel to the sea, but away from it. To my mind, the Way feels like a route designed to move people and goods inland, away from the coast.
After all, the Roman site that used to be known as Thornham signal station is more likely to have been associated with the later Brancaster fort, not the Way. And as far as is known there were no Legions desperate to be shipped from Holme across the Wash to Lincolnshire. If there were, and if they were stationed at Colchester, it might have been much quicker to have ordered a march to Castle Acre and a turn west on to the Fen Causeway - probably built just after the Boudican revolt - thus circumnavigating the fens without recourse to boats and suitable winds and tides.
On the other hand, if there was a Roman wharf off the present Holme beach, and if the Wash and the north-west Norfolk coast was used by Roman transports as an anchorage or landing point, for reinforcements and supplies to be brought in, then the Way may also have had a role as an inland supply route.
It is my contention that the Peddars Way - cambered and well drained - was built in a hurry somewhere around AD47-63 as a military road running through some troublesome Iceni tribal areas, and that in later years, when the Wash was a busy anchorage, it was used as an inland supply route. However, your guess is as good as mine.