The Antonine Wall, the Roman frontier in Scotland, was the most northerly frontier of the Roman Empire for a generation from AD 142. It is a World Heritage Site and Scotland’s largest ancient monument. Today, it cuts across the densely populated central belt between Forth and Clyde.
In The Antonine Wall: Papers in Honour of Professor Lawrence Keppie, nearly 40 archaeologists, historians and heritage managers present their researches on the Antonine Wall in recognition of the work of Lawrence Keppie, formerly Professor of Roman History and Archaeology at the Hunterian Museum, Glasgow University, who spent much of his academic career recording and studying the Wall. The 32 papers cover a wide variety of aspects, embracing the environmental and prehistoric background to the Wall, its structure, planning and construction, military deployment on its line, associated artefacts and inscriptions, the logistics of its supply, as well as new insights into the study of its history. Due attention is paid to the people of the Wall, not just the officers and soldiers, but their womenfolk and children.
Important aspects of the book are new developments in the recording, interpretation and presentation of the Antonine Wall to today’s visitors. Considerable use is also made of modern scientific techniques, from pollen, soil and spectrographic analysis to geophysical survey and airborne laser scanning. In short, the papers embody present-day cutting edge research on, and summarise the most up-to-date understanding of, Rome’s shortest-lived frontier.
Cover 1
Title Page 3
Copyright Page 4
Lawrence at Westerwood 5
Dedication 7
Contents Page 9
List of Figures 12
List of Tables 17
List of Contributors 18
Abbreviations 23
1. Lawrence Keppie: an appreciation 25
David J. Breeze and William S. Hanson 25
Figure 1.2. Excavations starting at Bothwellhaugh in 1975. Lawrence is standing third from the right 28
2. The Antonine Wall: the current state of knowledge 33
William S. Hanson and David J. Breeze 33
Figure 2.1. Map of the Antonine Wall as completed, based on currently availabe information 35
Figure 2.2. Defensive pits on the berm at Callendar Park 37
Figure 2.3. Section of the
Military Way bypass at
Croy Hill 37
(© W.S. Hanson) 37
Figure 2.4. Aerial photograph of the fortlet at Duntocher, after exposure of its rampart base in 1978, from the NNW. The line of the Ditch is visible as a slight hollow running diagonally across the lower half of the image. An exposed section of Wall bas 38
Figure 2.5. Plan of the fort and annexe at Bearsden (after Breeze 2016: Fig. 21.14b) 41
Figure 2.6. Plan of the fort and annexe at Rough Castle (after MacIvor et al. 1980: Fig. 1) 42
Figure 2.7. Map of the Antonine Wall as planned, based on currently available information (© D.J. Breeze). 44
Figure 2.8 Map of the Antonine Wall showing the location of Distance Stones and camps (© D.J. Breeze). 44
Figure 2.9. Aerial photograph of the NW quadrant of the construction camp at Easter Cadder in the left foreground, with the line of the Military Way (revealed primarily as line of quarry pits) and the Antonine Wall Ditch beyond it to the right, bisected b 46
Figure 2.10. Plan of the small enclosure at Buchley (after Hanson and Maxwell 1983: Fig. 2) 48
Figure 2.11. Lollius Urbicus inscription from Balmuildy (© Hunterian, University of Glasgow). 53
3. The Landscape at the time of construction
of the Antonine Wall 61
Mairi H. Davies 61
Figure 3.1. The Antonine Wall in context, highlighting coastal areas below 13 m OD. In the Forth Valley, a late period of high relative sea level of up to c. 13 m is indicated by the Blairdrummond Shoreline. However, by the time of the Antonine occupati 63
4. The impact of the Antonine Wall on Iron Age society 71
Lesley Macinnes 71
5. Pre-Antonine coins from the Antonine Wall 85
Richard J. Brickstock 85
Figure 5.1. Coins from the Antonine Wall, with suggested dates of deposition based upon an assessment of circulation wear. 85
Figure 5.2. Examples of coins from the Antonine Wall: a. a very worn denarius of Vespasian from Carriden (AD 71; Brickstock forthcoming, coin no. 27); b. a worn denarius of Hadrian from Mumrills (AD 118; Brickstock forthcoming, coin no. 5);
c. a virtuall 86
Figure 5.3. A virtually unworn dupondius of Domitian as COS XII, AD 86 from Camelon (a. obverse; b. reverse) 86
Table 5.1. Numismatic criteria for recognising early Flavian sites 88
Figure 5.4. Bar graph of coins from Camelon 1975-81, with suggested dates of deposition based upon an assessment of circulation wear. 89
Figure 5.5. Bar graph of coins from Newstead, with suggested dates of deposition based upon an assessment of circulation wear. 90
6. Planning the Antonine Wall:
an archaeometric reassessment of installation spacing 91
Nick Hannon, Lyn Wilson, Darrell J. Rohl 91
Figure 6.1. Fortlet sequence showing distances between fortlet centres shown as miles derived from both the pes Drusianus and pes Monetalis measurement standards 92
Figure 6.2. (a) Plan of Croy Hill showing the fortlets deviation from a whole Roman mile,
(b) the change in the Wall’s course at Seabegs Wood 94
Table 6.1. Proposed fortlet locations based upon the pes Monetalis model (names in capitals denote known fortlets) 96
Figure 6.3. Proposed fortlet positions that correspond with changes in direction of the Wall’s Rampart 98
Figure 6.4. Spacing between forts considered primary shown as miles derived from both the pes Drusianus
and pes Monetalis measurement standards 99
Figure 6.5. Spacing between all forts shown as miles derived from both the pes Drusianus
and pes Monetalis measurement standards 100
Figure 6.7. Spacing between the Wilderness Plantation minor enclosures shown as miles derived
from both the pes Drusianus and pes Monetalis measurement standards 105
Figure 6.8. Spacing between the expansions shown as miles derived from both the pes Drusianus
and pes Monetalis measurement standards 106
7. The curious incident of the structure at Bar Hill
and its implications 110
Rebecca H. Jones 110
Figure 7.1 Outline drawings of the two structures under Bar Hill and Croy Hill 110
Figure 7.2 Outline drawings of all the temporary camps known along the Wall. 112
Figure 7.3 Map of the Wall showing the locations of the camps. 113
Figure 7.4 Viewshed analysis showing areas visible from the Bar Hill structure. 114
Figure 7.5 Viewshed analysis showing areas visible from Castlehill. 116
8. Monuments on the margins of Empire:
the Antonine Wall sculptures 120
Louisa Campbell 120
Figure 8.1. Traces of pigment on the Parthenon Marbles, British Museum (© Louisa Campbell). 121
Figure 8.2. Polychromy on marble relief from Nicomedia (reproduced by kind consent of the author: Sare Ağtürk 2015). 122
Figure 8.3. Distance Stone from Summerston Farm (RIB I 2193; CSIR 137) (© Hunterian, University of Glasgow). 123
Figure 8.4. Colour palette for Antonine Wall sculptures 126
Figure 8.5. Colour palette for Hadrian’s Wall sculptures. 126
Figure 8.6. Altars to Mithras from Carrawburgh, Great North Museum: Hancock. a. RIB I 1544 b. RIB I 1546 (© Louisa Campbell). 127
Figure 8.7. Digital reconstruction of the Bridgeness Distance Stone (RIB I 2139; CSIR 68) by Lars Hummelshoj. 129
9. Building an image:
soldiers’ labour and the Antonine Wall Distance Slabs 134
Iain M. Ferris 134
Figure 9.1. Antonine Wall legionary distance slab of the VIth Legion from Braidfield, Duntocher 135
(© Hunterian, University of Glasgow). 135
Figure 9.2. Antonine Wall legionary distance slab of the XXth Legion from Old Kilpatrick
(© Hunterian, University of Glasgow). 137
Figure 9.3. The Rudge Cup, Alnwick Castle (© Tullie House Museum, Carlisle). 139
Figure 9.4. Soldiers engaged in construction work. Scenes XI and XII, Trajan’s Column, Rome (© Iain Ferris). 141
10. New perspectives on the structure of the Antonine Wall 145
Tanja Romankiewicz, Karen Milek, Chris Beckett,
Ben Russell and J. Riley Snyder 145
Figure 10.1. Section through Antonine Wall at Croy No. 11, central part, sector 5/6. Drawing shows turf layers continuing from facing (annotated “KERB”) through to core and extending beyond southern trench edge; in the north these spread out beyond stone 146
Figure 10.2. Section through Antonine Wall at Bantaskin, eastern part, sector 3. Earthen core of orangey buffy clayey soil, with original wall cheeks of grey lumpy clayish turves; later widened to north
(drawn by T. Romankiewicz after Keppie 1976: 71, Fi 146
Figure 10.3. Section through Antonine Wall at Inveravon fort, eastern part, sector 1. Earthen core with clay and turf cheek to north and clay cheek to south (drawn by T. Romankiewicz after Hicks in Dunwell and Ralston 1995: Figure 5). 147
Figure 10.4. Hillfoot cemetery, New Kilpatrick, western part, sector 9. Stone base of Antonine Wall with angular, dressed kerbstones and rubble core. Arrows mark position of stone drain, i.e. the culverts recorded at intervals
(© T. Romankiewicz). 148
Figure 10.5. Section through Antonine Wall at St Flannan’s Church, Kirkintilloch, central part, sector 7. Ground was levelled by turf layers underneath northern stone base (brown), demarcated by kerbs (yellow). Superstructure seems to consist of compresse 149
Figure 10.6. Plan and section through Antonine Wall at Callendar Park, eastern part, sector 2. Bailey’s excavation in 1989 revealed a change in construction between an earlier (to east) and later phase (to west). White areas (‘B’) within the Wall were rec 151
Figure 10.7. Section through Antonine Wall at Tentfield, central part, sector 3 (photograph and drawing). Turf core (grey-green) flanked by original turf faces to north and south (mid-green), these were contained by kerbstones (yellow). An additional turf 158
Figure 10.8. Sections and plan through Antonine Wall at Croy No. 11, central part, sector 5/6. 1890’s section by GAS above, section and plan by A. Robertson 1967 below. Whitish clay blocks of northern and southern faces emphasized. Two narrow turf cheeks 159
11. Wing-walls and waterworks.
On the planning and purpose of the Antonine Wall 166
Erik Graafstal 166
Figure 11.1. Contour maps of Bar Hill and Bearsden highlighting the extreme unevenness of the terrain inside the fort walls. Contour lines at 1 m intervals vectorised from a survey map provided by Historic Environment Scotland
and Breeze 2016: fig. 3.1.1 173
Figure 11.2. Elevation maps of selected fort sites (and occasional fortlets) from west to east, showing their spatial relation to valleys penetrating the hinterland from the north. The colour ramp varies relative to the range of altitude values in each wi 174
Figure 11.3. LiDAR image of the Seabegs Wood area showing the Military Way clearly aligned to the fortlet’s south gate. Composite DTM-1m released by the Environment Agency combined with HES shapefile of linear works. 175
Figure 11.4. LiDAR images of Rough Figure 11.4. LiDAR images of Rough Castle and surroundings showing two apparent road tracks starting at the causeway over the Ditch and leading to the northeast 178
showing road tracks leading to the northeast 178
Figure 11.5: Intervisibilities between the main installations of the Antonine Wall. The numbers give distances in kilometers as the crow flies. Threshold values (T = eye height) are added when an artificial elevation is required. For Summerston the south 178
Figure 11.6. LiDAR image of the Westerwood area. The alignment of the Military Way coming from the east is continued as a dotted red line, emphasising that the road west of the fort has a different alignment (it actually meets the fort defences
c. 5 m mo 181
Figure 11.7. Ordnance Survey 25 inch map of the Cadder area, revised in 1896, with the position of the fort walls, headquarters building and north-east ditches shown in overlay. East of the dotted red line, the course of the Ditch is certain (and confirme 183
Figure 11.8. Resistivity survey of Castlehill (Jones et al. 2009: fig. 5a) with the lines of the Ditch (blue) and the Rampart and fort (brown). The inner contour of the ring of trees that crowns the hilltop (green) is clearly visible in the survey results 184
Figure 11.9. The course of the Ditch (red line) in the Auchendavy area based on the HES shapefile of the Antonine Wall, but slightly adapted to accommodate a few minor changes of direction (arrows) apparent in the magnetic survey (Jones and Leslie 2015: f 187
Figure 11.10. Intervals between the main installations of the Antonine Wall in Roman miles, measured between the north gates (or centre point, in the case of Bar Hill) as the crow flies. 188
Figure 11.11. Plans and sections of stone-lined pit beneath the north-east angle-tower of fort at Croy Hill
(after Macdonald 1932: fig. 12). 192
Figure 11.12. Hypothetical north side of the proposed abortive fort on Croy Hill, with bath and latrine (?) suite in the northwest corner (in red) (Base map courtesy of W.S. Hanson). 195
Table 11.1. Potential pointers to priority, distinguishing ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ installations on the Antonine Wall Croy Hill 1’ refers to the hypothetical abortive fort centered on the causeway. 199
Figure 11.13. ‘Sequential stratigraphy’ of logical, spatial and structural dependencies between the main elements of the Antonine Wall system. 200
Table 11.2. Legionary building inscriptions for forts and respective Rampart construction-sectors 200
Figure 11.14. Fort sizes (internal, in hectares) in relation to the wider geography of the Forth-Clyde isthmus, with the red arrows highlighting natural corridors and more easily penetrable zones. The map and table include the fort of Bishopton, which was 205
12. The importance of fieldwalking: the discovery of three fortlets on the Antonine Wall 210
James J. Walker 210
Figure 12.1. Altar dedicated by Vibia Pacata from Westerwood, as discovered in 1963. 210
Figure 12.2. Site of Seabegs fortlet (beyond the fence) from the north-east, showing the Antonine Wall ditch curving around it. 212
Figure 12.3. Site of Kinneil fortlet from the north-west in 1978 213
Figure 12.4. Site of Cleddans fortlet from the east. 215
Figure 12.5. Plan of excavations at Seabegs fortlet (after Keppie and Walker 1981, reproduced by permission of Glasgow Archaeological Society. 216
13. The Roman temporary camp and fortlet
at Summerston, Strathclyde 217
Gordon S. Maxwell and William S. Hanson 217
Figure 13.1. Aerial photograph of Summerston camp and fortlet (arrowed) from the east. The line of the Antonine Wall is visible as a broad positive cropmark in the right foreground (SC 1724870 Crown copyright © Historic Environment Scotland). 218
Figure 13.2. Location map of the line of the Wall, the construction camp and fortlet at Summerston (after Jones 2011) (reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. © Crown © 2010. Ordnance Survey Licence no. 1000020548). 219
Figure 13.3. Overall site plan, showing the location of the excavation trenches. 219
Figure 13.4. Trench B: south-facing section through the eastern ditch of the camp; Trench C: plan and north-facing section through the enclosure ditch on its east side. 220
Figure 13.5. Photograph of section (Trench B) through the eastern ditch of the camp from the south. 221
Figure 13.6. Trench plan (A) and west-facing section through the contiguous ditches of the camp and enclosure. 222
Figure 13.7. Photograph of section (Trench A) through the contiguous ditches of the camp and enclosure from the west. 223
223
Table 13.1. Area enclosed within Antonine Wall fortlet ditches 223
14. Thinking small: fortlet evolution on the Upper German Limes, Hadrian’s Wall, the Antonine Wall and Raetian Limes 225
Matthew Symonds 225
14. Thinking small: fortlet evolution 225
Figure 14.1. Fortlets exhibit highly variable internal areas, as illustrated by milecastle 37, in England (top left), Barburgh Mill, in Scotland (top right), Haselburg, in Germany (bottom left) and Pen Llystyn, in Wales (bottom right). 226
Figure 14.2. The Upper German and Raetian frontiers. The earliest configuration in Upper Germany is shown in black, but the line south of the River Main was adjusted during the reign of Antoninus Pius, when the ‘inner limes’ was exchanged for the ‘outer l 228
Figure 14.3. Hadrian’s Wall, as completed at the end of Hadrian’s reign in AD 138 (© D.J. Breeze). 229
Figure 14.4. A selection of fortlet plans from the UGL, Hadrian’s Wall, Antonine Wall, and Raetian Limes: (A) Forsthofweg, UGL, (B) Pohl bei Kemel, UGL, (C) Degerfeld, UGL, (D) Rötelsee, UGL, (E) milecastle 9, Hadrian’s Wall, (F) milecastle 35, Hadrian’s 230
Figure 14.5. Fortlet locations on the UGL: (A) Rheinbrohl lies in the Rhine valley; (B) Seitzenbuche controls an upland pass in the Odenwald; (C) Haselburg occupies a false crest on the skyline from the perspective of anyone approaching from beyond the pa 231
Figure 14.6. A comparison between the plots occupied by milecastle 48 (A) and milecastle 45 (B). While the early Broad Wall milecastle 48 was built on a one-in-five slope, the later – probably Narrow Wall – milecastle 45 potentially contained an artificia 233
Figure 14.7. Fortlet locations on the Antonine Wall: (A) Croy Hill fortlet (arrowed) lies directly adjacent to a fort (under the trees to the left); (B) Wilderness Plantation occupied a ridge between two forts; (C) The site of Summerston fortlet (arrowed) 236
15. The Roman fort and fortlet at Castlehill on the Antonine Wall: 242
the geophysical, LiDAR and early map evidence 242
William S. Hanson and Richard E. Jones 242
Figure 15.1. Roy’s plan of the fort at Castlehill showing a smaller enclosure in its north-west corner
(Roy 1793: pl. xxxv) 242
Figure 15.2. Extract from Ordnance Survey 2nd edition 25 inches to the mile map, Dunbartonshire sheet XXIII.11 (Reproduced with the permission of the National Library of Scotland) 243
Figure 15.3. Location plan of the resistivity surveys. The main survey to the north was undertaken in 2008; the coverage of the southern defences was obtained in 2019 244
Figure 15.4. Location plan of the 2008 magnetic survey 245
Figure 15.5. Location plan of the 2011 magnetic survey 246
Figure 15.6. Annotated composite resistivity survey (2008 and 2019) (white-black palette equivalent to 80-160 ohms) 247
Figure 15.7. Annotated magnetic survey (2008)
(black-white palette +/- 10nT) 249
Figure 15.8. Annotated magnetic survey (2011) (black-white palette +/- 10nT) 250
Figure 15.9. LiDAR-derived 1 m resolution digital terrain model
(© NERC Centre for Ecology & Hydrology; British Antarctic Survey; British Geological Survey) 253
16. ‘... one of the most remarkable traces of Roman art ... 257
in the vicinity of the Antonine Wall.’ A forgotten funerary urn of Egyptian travertine from Camelon, and related stone vessels from Castlecary 257
Fraser Hunter 257
Figure 16.1. The two Camelon urn fragments: a. body, angled view; b. body, plan view; c. base, angled view (© National Museums Scotland; photograph by Neil McLean). 258
Figure 16.2. The Camelon complex, with other burials marked (based on Breeze et al. 1976: fig. 1 and Jones 2011: illus 167, with additions). Light shading marks the fort area; dark shading marks the line of the cutting through the fort complex, where the 259
Figure 16.3. The two Camelon urn fragments, digitally restored to their original relationship (© National Museums Scotland; photograph by Neil McLean). 261
Figure 16.4. Drawing of the Camelon urn, with proposed restoration of its original form (by Alan Braby). 262
Figure 16.5. Distribution of ‘tureen’-type funerary urns (from Perna 2019: figs 3, 6 and 7, with additions). Small dots represent a single example; medium dots 2-4 examples; large dot is Rome and environs with 16 examples. Findspots in the north-west prov 263
Figure 16.6. Three alabaster urns as found in a columbarium on the Via Laurentina, Rome (Borda 1959b: pl XXXIV fig. 115). 264
Figure 16.7. Urn MNR 135738 from the Via Laurentina, Rome (By permission of the Ministerio per i beni e le attività culturali e per il turismo - Museo Nazionale Romano). 265
Figure 16.8. The two basalt vessel sherds from Castlecary (© National Museums Scotland; photograph by Neil McLean). 267
Figure 16.9. Reconstructed profiles of the two basalt vessel sherds (drawn by Alan Braby). 268
17. The Kirkintilloch hoard revisited 278
J.D. Bateson 278
Figure 17.1. Parcel from the Kirkintilloch hoard (actual size: 375 x 275 mm)
(Reproduced by permission of East Dunbartonshire Leisure and Culture Archives). 279
18. The external supply of pottery
and cereals to Antonine Scotland 287
Paul Bidwell 287
Figure 18.1. British potteries as far north as Hadrian’s Wall which supplied Antonine Scotland, and other places mentioned in the text (earlier military sites given up before the Antonine period are not shown). 289
Figure 18.2. The supply base combined with accommodation for cohors V Gallorum in the fort at South Shields in Period 6B, beginning in c. AD 222; the fort had an area of 2.1 ha
(© Tyne and Wear Archives and Museums). 291
Figure 18.3. Quantities of coarse wares from beyond Scotland compared with those of local or uncertain origins, excluding mortaria. Each assemblage is represented by two columns giving the percentages by weight and by EVEs. 295
Figure 18.4. Sources of stamped mortaria exported to Antonine Scotland which are identified in publications by K.F. Hartley from 1963 to the present date. For references see the bibliography complied by Dannell and Irving (2005), and for subsequent report 296
Table 18.1. Comparison of the quantities of wares from the ditch of the Antonine fort
at Camelon and from all other features in Area 2 in the excavations at Glasgow Road in 2011 (Bidwell and Croom forthcoming) 303
19. The army of the Antonine Wall: its strength and implications 310
David J. Breeze 310
Figure 19.1. The tombstone found at Croy Hill depicting three legionaries (CSIR 90)
(© National Museum of Scotland). 311
Figure 19.2. The altar dedicated by the First Cohort of Baetasians at Old Kilpatrick; they are also attested at Bar Hill (RIB III 3509)
(© Hunterian, University of Glasgow). 312
Table 19.1. A comparison of barracks between Hadrian’s Wall and the Antonine Wall. The Hadrian’s Wall cavalry barrack is Wallsend; the Antonine Wall equivalent is Bearsden 314
Table 19.2 Estimated garrison sizes for Antonine Wall forts 316
Figure 19.3. One of the altars erected by M. Cocceius Firmus, a legionary centurion, at Auchendavy where there has been no excavation within the fort
(RIB I 2176) (© Hunterian, University of Glasgow). 317
Figure 19.4. Map of Antonine Scotland (© David J. Breeze). 319
Figure 19.5. An impression of the fortlet at Barburgh Mill by Michael J. Moore (© Michael J. Moore and David J. Breeze). 320
20. Why was the Antonine Wall made of turf rather than stone? 324
Nick Hodgson 324
21. Antoninus Pius’ Guard Prefect Marcus Gavius Maximus 337
with an Appendix on new evidence for the Fasti of Britain under Antoninus 337
Anthony R. Birley 337
22. Civil settlement and extra-mural activity
on the Antonine Wall 356
William S. Hanson 356
Figure 22.1. Plan of the fort, annexe and adjacent field system at Carriden, showing the corrected location of the altar dedicated by the vicani and the ditches of probable Roman date (after Bailey forthcoming, with corrections) 357
Figure 22.2. Plan of land divisions around the fort at Croy Hill (drawn by Lorraine McEwan; © W.S. Hanson). 361
Figure 22.3. Aerial photograph of field systems to the south-east of Inveresk partially overlying
the end of a Neolithic cursus monument (© W.S. Hanson). 362
Figure 22.4. The pottery kiln to the east of the fort at Croy Hill during excavation, showing broken masonry in its upper fill (© W.S. Hanson). 363
23. Roman women in Lowland Scotland 370
Lindsay Allason-Jones, Carol van Driel-Murray and Elizabeth M. Greene 370
Figure 23.1. Funerary monument from Shirva of a person reclining on a four-legged couch with the statue of a small animal perched on her legs (CSIR 112) (© Hunterian, University of Glasgow). 374
Figure 23.2. Cork slipper from Inveresk. 377
Table 23.1 Antonine Wall forts summary of shoe size categories 377
Figure 23.3. Main Antonine footwear styles: 1. Zwammerdam 2. Hardknott 3. Carron 4. Melrose
(drawings © Mareille Arkesteijn). 378
Figure 23.4. Graph of shoe styles correlated with size from Camelon. 379
Figure 23.5. A pair of ‘Camelon’ style ladies’ shoes from Camelon. 380
Figure 23.6. Bar Hill child’s shoe. The outer sole length is 15.5 cm; foot length c. 14 cm (drawing by Margaret Scott, from Keppie 1975: Fig. 25.49). 382
24. Where did all the veterans go?
Veterans on the Antonine Wall 390
Alexander Meyer 390
Figure 24.1. Altar from Castlecary dedicated by a veteran of legio VI Victrix (RIB I 2151, reproduced by kind permission of the Haverfield Trustees). 391
Table 24.1. Diplomas from Britain, issued between AD 138 and 189 392
Table 24.2. Legionary veterans discharged from Britain 395
Figure 24.2. Tombstone of a veteran of legio XX Valeria Victrix from Gloucester (RIB III 3074, reproduced by kind permission of the Haverfield Trustees). 396
Figure 24.3. Tombstone of a veteran of legio II Augusta from Caerleon (RIB I 361, reproduced by kind permission of the Haverfield Trustees). 397
397
Figure 24.5. Tombstone of a veteran of legio II Augusta from the settlement at Great Bulmore by Caerleon, dedicated by his wife and son (RIB I 363, reproduced by kind permission of the Haverfield Trustees). 397
Figure 24.4. Tombstone of a veteran of legio II Augusta from the settlement at Great Bulmore by Caerleon, dedicated by his wife (RIB III 3108, reproduced by kind permission of the Haverfield Trustees). 397
Figure 24.6. Tombstone of a veteran of legio XX Valeria Victrix from Chester (RIB I 495, reproduced by kind permission of the Haverfield Trustees). 397
Table 24.3. Veterans of the legions of Britain found outside Britain 398
25. ‘So the great Romans with unwearied care’:
Sir John Clerk’s museum 401
Iain Gordon Brown 401
Figure 25.1. Sheet of notes on Antonine Wall topics by Sir John Clerk, 1740, showing a Distance slab of the Sixth Legion from Kirkintilloch (Keppie 1998: 74-75), recently found, and giving calculations of cumulative wall length in paces according to dista 404
Figure 25.2. Sir John Clerk’s sketch for a library and museum on the Penicuik estate, 1741, from his ‘Schem of Improvements…’, NRS, GD18/ 1483a, p. 10. By permission of Sir Robert Clerk of Penicuik, Bt. 415
26. John Anderson and the Antonine Wall 418
Geoff B. Bailey and James Mearns 418
Table 26.1. Anderson’s measurements of the Antonine Wall Ditch 420
Table 26.2. Recently published ‘average’ measurements of the Antonine Wall Ditch 420
Figure 26.1. Avondale Folly looking north-east. 437
Figure 26.3. Hart’s drawing of Inveravon Tower. 437
Figure 26.2. Hart’s drawing of the lintel at Inveravon Tower. The whereabouts of this stone is unknown. 437
27. Reconstructing Roman lives 440
Jim Devine 440
Figure 27.1. Gravestone of Verecunda (© Jim Devine) 441
Figure 27.2. Filming Verecunda against a green screen backdrop (© Jim Devine) 442
Figure 27.3. Verecunda at the well in Bar Hill fort (© Jim Devine) 443
28. The power of vivid images in Antonine Wall reconstructions: 444
re-examining the archaeological evidence 444
Christof Flügel and Jürgen Obmann 444
Figure 28.1. Saalburg 1913. Position of reconstructed earthworks A (vordere Römerschanze) and B (hintere Römerschanze) north of the Saalburg stone fort and the line of the Upper German Limes (Pfahlgraben), with indication of zones for harvesting wood (Hol 445
Figure 28.2. Saalburg 1913. Total view of the reconstructed earth works B (foreground) and A. Saalburg Archives Neg. No. FA_050.050.014. 446
Figure 28.3. Saalburg 1913. Kaiser Wilhelm and dignitaries inside earthwork A. Note the supporting posts in the middle of each merlon, supported by a horizontal beam. Saalburg Archives Neg. No. FA_050.050.010. 446
Figure 28.4. Saalburg 1913. Earthwork A. Preparing the posts and cleaning the building plot of bushes. Saalburg Archives Neg. No. SbA_SR02.002. 447
Figure 28.5. Saalburg 1913. Kaiser Wilhelm inspecting work in progress on the wattle-and-daub-construction. Saalburg Archives Neg. No. FA_050.050.009. 447
Figure 28.6. Saalburg 1913. Hammering down the posts for merlons. Saalburg archives Neg. No. FG_050.050.014. 448
Figure 28.7. Saalburg 1913. Earthwork A with merlons in wattle and daub. Note the rear posts in the middle of each merlon. Saalburg archives Neg. No. FA_050.050.021. 448
Figure 28.8. Antonine Wall, reconstructed milefortlet (drawn by Michael J. Moore). 451
Figure 28.9. Hadrian’s Wall, reconstructed milecastle (drawn by Michael J. Moore). 452
Figure 28.10. Antonine Wall, Watling Lodge fortlet, virtual reconstruction (https://vimeo.com/232311653). The vertical stakes set into the top of the turf stack make this reconstruction resemble more a fort in the American West. Courtesy of Historic Envir 453
29. The Antonine Wall:
some challenges of mapping a complex linear monument 456
Peter McKeague 456
Figure 29.1. Extract from the Macdonald folio; the course of the Antonine Wall to the west of Callendar House, Falkirk as depicted on an undated Ordnance Survey 25- inch map, annotated in red by the OS with comments supplied by Sir George Macdonald.
(Can 458
Figure 29.2. Extract from the 1954 to 1957 Ordnance Survey map folio depicting the course of the Antonine Wall to the west of Callendar House, Falkirk annotated with observations from field investigators (and Sir George Macdonald) (background mapping Ordn 460
Figure 29.3. Extract from the 1980 Ordnance Survey 1:1250 map folio (sheet NS 8979 NW) depicting the course of the Antonine Wall to the west of Callendar House, Falkirk. The annotation on the map refer to a supporting Reference/Field Report Folio (Canmor 462
Table 29.1. Transcribed extract from the 1980 Reference/Field Report Folio (NS 8979 NW accompanying Figure 29.3. (Archaeological sources referred to: Breeze 1975; DES 1980; Keppie
Read more…