Bath-House at Antonin Wall

A Roman Bath-House at Duntocher on the Antonine Wall Author(s): Lawrence Keppie Reviewed work(s): Source: Britannia, Vol.
35 (2004), pp. 179-224 Published by: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4128626 . Accessed: 22/11/2012 10:54
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Britannia.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.64 on Thu, 22 Nov 2012 10:54:44 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Roman
Bath-house the Antonine
at
Duntocher Wall
on
By LAWRENCE KEPPIE With contributions by G.B. Bailey and P.V. Webster

INTRODUCTION
western slope of Golden Hill, Duntocher (FIGS 1-2), and its remains investigated. Sitedrawings were made and some finds sent for identification to the Society of Antiquaries of London. Though an account of the work was published by Richard Gough in his 1789 edition of Camden's Britannia,1 the excavation has been largely forgotten. The present assessment draws upon Gough's and other contemporary accounts, and upon unpublished material, especially the voluminous correspondence between Richard Gough and the Edinburgh bibliophile George Paton, now held by the National Library of Scotland, the Minute Books of the Society of Antiquaries of London, and the Gough Papers preserved in the Bodleian Library, Oxford. Also presented here will be an account of the chance rediscovery of the bath-house in 1978, and a geophysical survey undertaken, at the author's request, by the Department of Archaeology, University of Glasgow, in 2001.
THE EXCAVATIONOF 1775
As far as possible this account follows a chronological sequence in its citation of the sources, but it is helpful to begin with the 'eye-witness' report, published ten years later, by London bookseller John Knox, son of a vintner in nearby Old Kilpatrick:2 Near the western extremity of this wall, at Duntocher, a countryman, in digging a trench upon the declivity of a hill, turned up several uncommon tiles, which exciting the curiosity of the peasantry in that neighbourhood, they broke in upon an entire subterraneous building, from which they dug out a cart load of excellent tiles. Being then, 1775, upon my return from the Highlands, and hearing of the circumstance, I repairedimmediately to the place, and by threats andpromises put a stop to all furtherproceedings, in the hope that some public spiritedgentlemen would take off the surface, and explore the whole plan of the building, without demolishing it. The tiles were of 7 different sizes, the smallest being 7, and the largest 21 inches square. They were from 2 to 3 inches in thickness, of a reddish colour, and in perfect sound condition. The lesser ones composed several rows of pillars, which formed a labyrinth of passages, of about 18 inches high, and the same in width; the largest tiles being laid over these pillars, served as a roof to supportthe earth on the surface, which was two feet deep, and had been plowed through time immemorial. The building was surroundedby a subterraneouswall of hewn stone. Some professors in the university of Glasgow, and other gentlemen, having unroofed the whole, discovered the appearanceof a Roman hot-bath. The passages formed by rows of pillars were
1
2
Gough1789, 362, pls xxvi-xxvii. Knox 1785, 611-12.
? World copyright reserved. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies 2004
180
LAWRENCEKEPPIE
IgLO
50m
War memorial
(site
of
bath-house)
visible Wall base Church Quern(s) found 1836 / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \ flagpole O.S. cone
// 'Military Way' found 1891 \ \
SX
S Pottery kilns
found
197
Duntocher
House foun 197\\ '
Antonine WallandRoman FIG.1. Golden Hill, Duntocher: fort,afterRobertson, showingthe site of the bath-house andthe location of otherdiscoveries. (DrawnbyL. Keppie)
strowed with the bones and teeth of animals, and a sooty kind of earth; in the bath was placed the figure of a woman cut in stone, which, with a set of the tiles, and other curiosities found in this place, is deposited in the university. On the summit of the hill stood the Roman fort or castella, of which Mr. Gordon hath given
WALL ONTHEANTONINE ATDUNTOCHER A ROMAN BATH-HOUSE
181
6060 65 70
bath-house
80
fort
lip
N,
200 m
2. FIG.
Contour plan. (Drawn by L. Keppie, based on OS data C Crown Copyright OrdnanceSurvey. All rights reserved)
a drawing.3The foundation was lately erased by a clerk, or overseer of an iron manufactory in that neighbourhood,who was, however, disappointed in his expectation of finding treasure.The same Goth expressed a strong desire to erase a fine remain of the Roman wall, which is carried along the base of the hill, but he hath not succeeded in his wishes, and it rests with the family of Blantyre,to prevent such practices in future, upon grounds of which they are the superiors. 'The houses in the village', says Mr. Pennant,4'appearto have been formed out of the ruins of these erections,5 for many of the stones are smoothed on the side, and on one is the word Nero very legible.' Which stone, with another, on which the word Lucius; also some of the Roman tiles, etc. hath found the way to Richmond.6 The account is invaluable, and specific, and it can easily be seen that the local people, and later the professors, had broken in upon the basement of a hypocausted room, in which the flooring was supported by tile stacks. The 'sooty kind of earth' is presumably the burnt material often found clogging such systems, and the 'bones and teeth of animals' recall similar assemblages found, for example, in the hypocausts of the bath-houses at Bothwellhaugh and Inveresk, indicative perhaps of
of the fort,see Sibbald1707,29; Gordon1726, 51; Horsley1732, 154 3 Gordon 1726,pl. xvi. Forearlydescriptions withfig.;Maitland 1774, 140;Roy 1793, 158,pl. xxxv;Bruce1893,38ff.; and 1771,fol. 22; Pennant 1757, 182;Anderson Macdonald morerecently 1957;Swan 1999,431ff. 1911, 155ff.;1934,328-32; Robertson 4 Pennant 1774,vol. 1, 140. 5 Thewords'of these erections' areaddedby Knox. 6 Knoxlived at Richmond, Surrey(1785, vi), wherehe is recordedin 1780 as owninga house in 'The Vineyard'; stonesandthe tiles himself(cf. below,p. 210). the inscribed he removed presumably
182
LAWRENCEKEPPIE
some later, alternativeuse of the structures(below, p. 211). The 'figure of a woman cut in stone' is easily equated with the statuetteof a nymph with a central perforation,evidently a gurget, preserved in the HunterianMuseum (FIG.3);7 but the other items carried off to Glasgow have disappeared. We may now turn to the unpublished correspondence between George Paton and Richard Gough, and the resulting reports made by Gough to the Society of Antiquaries of London. George Paton
FIG.
3.
Gurget in the form of a female figure, found 1775 in or near the Hot Bath. (Hunterian Museum, University of Glasgow)
Below, p. 209. For the identification see Macdonald 1911, 158; 1934, 330 with note 2.
A ROMAN BATH-HOUSEAT DUNTOCHERON THE ANTONINE WALL
183
FIG. 4. 'Mr George Patonof the Custom-house',sketch by John Brown, 1779-80. (Reproducedby permission of the Trusteesof the National Museumsof Scotland)
FIG. 5. RichardGough: sketch by unknownhandmade at the sale of the Duchess of Portland'scollection, April 1786. (Reproduced by permission of The Bodleian Library, University of Oxford (Janitor'sList 477))
(1721-1807) was a familiar figure in Edinburgh society of the later eighteenth century, and spent most of his long working life as a clerk in the Customs House in nearby Leith (FIG.4).8 His chief interests were literary,and he was a compulsive buyer of rare books, though his means were always modest and his finances often in a poor state.9 He was also a founder member of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, and made several donations to its collections in 1782-86.10 Richard Gough (1735-1809) was Director of the Society of Antiquaries of London (1771-97), editor of two successive, much enlarged editions of Camden's Britannia (published 1789 and 1806), and authorof many other works (FIG.5).11In the 1770s he was collecting information for inclusion in what was to be the 1789 edition of the Britannia. The two men had met in Edinburghin 1771 when Gough was touring Scotland; thereafterthey kept up a sometimes almost daily correspondence, down to 1804,
8 For a full and balanced account of Paton's life, career, interests, and character, see Doig 1956; for a likeness see also Kay 1837, vol. 1, no. xcix, pp. 244-7 with pl.; cf. Henderson 1895, 34f.; Doig 1957. Paton finally retired from his post in 1801, at the age of 80. 9 Doig 1956. The traveller Thomas Pennant gave generous acknowledgement to Paton for his help in Scottish matters (1774, vol. 1, p. iv). In 1798 Pennant left him ?5 in his will to relieve his poverty (Doig 1956, 411). 10 Smellie 1782, 3; Doig 1956, 103. 11 On Gough see Cooper 1890; Brabrook 1910, 69-70 with fig.; Evans 1956, 134ff.; Badham 1987.
184
LAWRENCEKEPPIE
on historical, bibliographical, antiquarianand other matters.12Six volumes of this correspondence are preserved in the National Library,Edinburgh(NLS Adv.Mss.29.5.6, 7). The letters are originals on both sides of the correspondence, and were acquired by the Advocates Library, Edinburgh, in 1827. Their correspondence about the bath-house opened on 1 August 1775, when Gough wrote to Paton asking for details about discoveries at Duntocher, of which he had read a 'confused' account in 'the newspapers of last month', and asked 'whether any coins or inscriptions came to light' (Adv.Mss.29.5.6 (i), fol. 87). On 7 August Paton replied saying he too had seen a newspaper account (Adv.Mss.29.5.7 (ii), fol. 39),13 and promised to write to 'a Friend or two in Greenock', to get a properdescription and sketches. The following day he was able to report(from someone he had met in Edinburgh)that 'the Proprietorof the ground where the western Discoveries were made belongs to a Gentleman who was long ago solicited to open a Search, but did resist the project till some of the Glasgow University, eager to know what was hid there, pusht the breaking Ground'(Adv.Mss.29.5.7 (ii), fol. 40).14 On 2 September he advised Gough that a friend would contact 'the Clergyman of the Place, the only proper Person to make Returns thereto [i.e. supply the necessary information]' (Adv.Mss.29.5.7 (ii), fol. 42).15 On 21 September Paton was still awaiting information, but hoped to get details, presumably about the dimensions and location of the building, 'as soon as the Fields are cleared of the Cropt'(Adv.Mss.29.5.7 (ii), fols 48-49). Again on 25 November he apologised for lack of furtherinformation;since, rathersurprisinglyperhaps, 'the Fields at Kirkpatrick... not being clear of the grain', there was nothing to be communicated. He hoped to get details during the winter (Adv.Mss.29.5.7 (ii), fol. 66). 'In the mean time am assured that Mr. Knox Bookseller London, was on the spot, carried away with him some of the Bricks, etc;' he suggested Gough call upon Knox at his bookshop in The Strand,London, with a view to inspecting them. On 9 March 1776 Paton was able to tell Gough that he was sending three sketches (below, p. 200), together with 'some short hints made by my friend Mr. Charles Freebairn, who assisted at the Excavation and witnessed the examination of the place by the Boy' (Adv.Mss.29.5.7 (ii), fol. 96);16 'There is annexed a View of a Roman Bridge over the Burn not far distant from the Camp and late Discoveries. It is founded on Rock, the declivity whereof below favours the currency of the Waterwhen much swelled by Rains. 'Here we meet another of the protagonists, Charles Freebairn, who will emerge as Knox's desired 'public spirited gentleman'. Freebairnwas an Edinburgh-based architect'7and later a lead-mine owner on the island of Islay, who entertainedthe traveller Thomas Pennant in his house at Freeportnear Port Arisaig on Islay in 1772.18 It is unclear how Freebairn heard of the work in progress; it may have been through Paton, since Freebairnwas often resident in
12 Gough (1780, vol. 2, 554) commends 'the indefatigable attention of his very ingenious and communicative friend'. Cf. Gough 1789, vol. 1, preface, vii; 1806, vol. 1, preface, ix; Doig 1956, 302ff. 13 Perhaps in The Edinburgh Advertiser, 7 July 1775, p. 13: 'On Monday last, some workmen at Duntocher, near Kilpatrick, discovered a curious piece of Roman workmanship, supposed to be a part of Severus's wall, commonly called Graham's dyke. It is considerably below the surface of the ground, and inclosed with a stone wall: the roof is composed of lime and small stones about 6 inches thick, and is supported by pillars of brick, of seven to twenty one inches square, most of which are entire; in the ruins, vaults, and small boxes, which are made of brick, there were found a quantity of large teeth and bones; the teeth look fresh, which, with part of the foresaid bricks, are deposited at Mr. Sellars's vintner at Dalnotter, near to which place this curiosity has been discovered.' 14 We are never expressly told by Paton who owned the land on which the bath-house was discovered. However, we do know that c. 1770 'Mr Cunningham' owned Duntocher Mill (for its tenant, see below, p. 193), and 'Mr Spreull' owned Easter Milton farm, of which Golden Hill certainly was a part (Timperley 1976, 118). 15 The Rev. John Davidson ministered at Old Kilpatrick from 1745 until his death in 1793 (Scott 1920, 354); he was the author of the entry for this parish in The Statistical Account of Scotland (Davidson 1793). 16 For the 'Boy', see below, pp. 186, 191. 17 Colvin 1995, 381. 158 Pennant 1774, 14, 218; Callender and Macaulay 1984, 6; Jupp 1994, 148, 161; Storrie 1997, 205. For Charles Freebairn's lineage, see also Adv.Mss.29.5.6 (i), fol. 212; 29.5.7 (iii), fol. 72.
ONTHEANTONINE WALL ATDUNTOCHER A ROMAN BATH-HOUSE
185
Edinburgh, where his uncle had been a prominent bookseller of whom Paton (whose father too had been a bookseller there) had surely known,19 or through a friend at Glasgow University, or while staying in the Duntocher area as apparently he did frequently (Adv.Mss.29.5.7 (ii), fol. 216). Freebairn's 'short hints', dated February 1776 and sent on by Paton to Gough, are preserved among the Gough Papers at the Bodleian Library, Oxford (Gough Maps 38, fols 18-19). As a primary source they are worth reporting in full, inasmuch as they form, in part, the report subsequently made by Gough to the Society of Antiquaries on 14 March 1776 (below, p. 186), and, in part, the basis of Gough's later account of the bath-house in his 1789 edition of Camden's Britannia (below, p. 189); readers will be able to compare the wording and phraseology. They can also be linked to the sketches (FIGS14-15) sent south to Gough by Paton (below, p. 200). Explanation of the Roman Buildings etc near Kirkpatrick [these words scored through by Gough] A is an Eye Sketch of the Groundwhere the Fort of Duntocher, next Station on the Roman Wall (commonly called Graham'sDyke) to Old Kirkpatrickand about two miles distant. 1. is the Roman Wall 2. the Fort 3. the Roman military way, which is regularly paved with Stones 4. the Roman bridge 5. the present road from Glasgow to Dunbarton 6. the Burn of Dalnotter 7. the late Discoveries B. A profile of the Groundon which is the Wall, Fort etc. No. 1 shows the Excavation where the Remains of the Building have been, which must have been their Granaries and not Baths as believed by the Commentators on Roman Antiquities. These also might have served for Sudatories, but the principal Use has been for Granaries to which purpose they are admirably adapted [note by Gough: 2. Ye wall. 3. Ye Rom. road. 4 ye bridge. 5 ye burn] The Area [of Building (words inserted by Gough)] C is exactly 21 feet square, the floor whereof is supportedby 144 SquarePillars of Brick; the 9 undermostof which [the word 'bricks' was here substitutedby Gough for 'of which'] are 8 Inches square and the uppermost21 inches, the next 3 are gradually less as appears in this Sketch [see FIGS15C, 16]:20they are very little more than 2 inches thick of the finest Mould & colour, their arraces21and corners as sharp as the day they came from the Kiln, of a beautifull pale red, smooth surface and it does not appear that they have been bedded with Lime nor was it necessary they should as they would not be so easily heated if they had. Upon the uppermost Brick is laid a Stratumof Lime 5 inches thick mixed with white Quarts about the size of Horse beans of an even and smooth Surface. 2. One of these Areas that has been but thinly covered with Earth has been broken down long ago, and the Earthspreadover it and ploughed for time immemorial, but in trenchingthe Ground Summer 1775 for Potatoes22 some of the Stones and Bricks were discovered, when some Workmanwere employed to remove the Earth and found one of these Areas broken down, the Bricks lying amongst the Rubish, several hundredsof which were collected. In furtherremoving away the Earth etc, one side of another Square was discovered in the Wall of which were two 19 See ScottishBookTrades of Scotland), s.v. hostedby NationalLibrary Index(on-lineresource
20
At this point, in the resulting Minutes of the Society of Antiquaries of London (below, p. 186), a sketch is offered at
as Gough1789,pl. xxvi.C;reproduced the foot of the page, laterprinted by Stuart1845,pl. viii.3. 21 Presumably he intendsherethe pluralof 'arris',the sharpcornerbetweentwo surfaces. 22 Paton's lettersreferto a 'crop'and'grain'(above,p. 184).
186
LAWRENCE KEPPIE 23 Incheshigh by 15 wide, into which a Boy with a Candlewas sent, who saw an Apertures in the sameway & by theAssistanceof the Lightcouldbe seen Areasimilarto this, supported the samePillars;he said therewas just such otheropeningsas those he creptinto in the Wall the Entry, as also in theWallon his right,whichis thatnearthe Hill, but beforehim,or opposite further thanthe firstArea. he wouldnot venture be till a further Excavation It is certaintherearemoreof them,whichcannotbe discovered made. to have belongedto Swine or WildBoars SomeAnimalsBones were foundtheresupposed TheTuskswerevery large.23 thathadtakenabodethereafterthe Romans. to haveonce Thereare some hewnStoneswith doubleGroovesin themwhicharesupposed andwereshutup by largeTyles andanother, the sidesof the Doorsbetwixtone Granary formed the Corn. thatrunin thesegroovesto separate No judgementcan be formedof the thicknessof the Wallthat incloses these Areasonly it to have been builtof free StoneandLime,manyhewn Stoneshave beentakenout of appears down. theAreathatis broken to know how these Areas were rooffedand (these wordsall [It would be very acceptable which is proposed deleted by Gough)]the place certainlydeservesa furtherExamination, can be obtainedto defraythe necessaryChargeand this Summerif a sufficientSubscription Expence. Febry1776
There are many valuable details in this account. In particular,dimensions are given for one of the rooms, mention is made of the opus signinum flooring, and reference to grooved stones which should presumably be identified as voussoirs from the arched roofing of the bath-house. The 'Boy' (below, p. 191) who descended into the hypocaust basement can be identified as John Bulloch, son of the The workmen were presumably hired by Freebairn. then miller at Duntocher.24 On 14 March 1776 Gough reported, rather inexactly, at a meeting of the Society of Antiquaries in London (Minute Book XIV, p. 355), the discovery of some Roman remains 'in the last Summer, near Kirkpatrick,in forming the junction between the Forth and the Clyde', a discovery which he says 'formed no impropersupplement' to his own paper on the four Roman altars 'found in the same pursuit'.25He refers here to antiquities discovered during the construction of the Forth and Clyde Canal in 1771.26 Gough correctly interpretsthe remains as of a bath-house ratherthan granaries. He does not mention Freebairnor Paton by name. A second phase of excavation seems to have been in progress by August 1777 (Adv.Mss.29.5.7 (ii), fols 169f., 174). On 6 June 1778 Paton wrote to Gough, enclosing a letter from Charles Freebairn (Adv.Mss.29.5.7 (ii), fol. 206), probably one written on 18 May 1778, about his 'further searches', which Gough later communicated to the Antiquaries on 17 June 1779 (below, p. 187). On 25 July 1778 Paton reported that nothing had since been heard from Freebairn, whose current whereabouts were uncertain, nor had he succeeded in getting any information from 'Mr. Anderson at Glasgow' despite several attempts (Adv.Mss.29.5.7 (ii), fol. 216). John Anderson, professor of Natural Philosophy (i.e. Physics) at Glasgow University,27 had been instrumental in securing for the University Roman material found along the Antonine Wall at Auchendavy, Castlecary, and Cadder, during the construction of the Forth and Clyde Canal in 1771-1773;28 he
23 Forthesebones, see below,p. 211; cf. Gough1789,362, Stuart,1852, 302. 24 Stuart1852,302 fn. 25 Gough1773. 26 Someconfusionhas arisen: of withthe construction was unconnected at Duntocher the discoveryof the bath-house the ForthandClydeCanalwhichpassedtwo kmsto the southof the village. 27 Butt 1996, 1-24. 28 Roy 1793,200-4; Keppie1998,25-30.
WALL ONTHEANTONINE ATDUNTOCHER BATH-HOUSE A ROMAN
187
had also given lectures on the Antonine Wall and the inscribed stones found along its length, the result of a personal inspection of its remains.29It is thus unsurprising that he is mentioned here; presumably he was among the professors from Glasgow who undertook or oversaw the excavation at Duntocher in 1775.30 On 28 December 1778 Gough commented: 'The sketch from Mr. Freebairn is the same which I had engraved for the Vth volume of Archaeologia,31 and I thought I sent it you. I kept it out of that volume in expectation of furtherdescription' (Adv.Mss.29.5.6 (i), fol. 192). Paton agreed that its publication should be deferred (Adv.Mss.29.5.7 (iii), fol. 2). On 24 January 1779 Gough asked Paton if he could borrow the pottery (not previously mentioned in any surviving correspondenceand presumably found during the 1777-78 phase of work), for it to be engraved as a companion to the sketch. A little before 13 FebruaryFreebairnhad been in town (i.e. Edinburgh),and showed Paton the pottery; the remains at Duntocher were more extensive than hitherto believed (Adv.Mss. 29.5.7 (iii), fols 4, 8). On 1 April 1779 Paton noted that he had just received 'a view of the Duntocher Sudatoryengraven at Glasgow, which Mr. Freebairnsent me last day [here FIG.13], alongst with the Box containing the fragmentsof the Roman pottery dug up there' (Adv.Mss.29.5.7 (iii), fol. 9). Paton also sent back Gough's 'plate of Duntocher Camp, Bridge etc with several corrections' (see below, p. 000). He suggested that Freebairnought to be helped financially, especially by the University of Glasgow, since there was a large collection of Roman inscribed stones there, and this work might produce another.A letter from Paton of 2 April confirmed that he had sent two plates, one already engraved at London and corrected by Freebairn(below, p. 198), the other done by an acquaintance at Glasgow who visited the site (Adv.Mss.29.5.7 (iii), fol. 11). On 7 April Gough commented that the Duntocher bath-house was the 'completest of the kind found N. of Tweed'; he looked forward to receiving the box, and showing it to the Antiquaries (Adv.Mss.29.5.6 (i), fol. 197). On 21 April Paton told Gough that the box was to go south with a young man visiting London (Adv.Mss.29.5.6 (iii), fol. 12). The next reference in the Minutes of the Society of Antiquaries dates to 17 June 1779, in which Gough communicated to it a letter from Freebairn to Paton, dated 18 May 1778, written from Freeport,Islay (Minute Book XVI, pp. 330-5): letteris to informhis Friend[i.e. Paton],that, as soon as he of Mr.Freebairn's The purport from intothe RomanStations,andAntiquities, his Enquiries can leave Islay,he will reassume as far as the most minuteVestigescan lead him. To investigatewhich Duntocher Westwards, Banksof the Clyde, expressingthe Elevations,Depressions, an exact Surveyof the Northern of makingsuch and such Works,which they and Natureof the Soils, with the Practicability thatoccurin theirprogress,eitherof Forts, to the Grounds to vary,according areconstrained he says, thatthe RomanWriters or Roads,Potteries,or otherWorks.It is somewhatsingular, shouldbe so silenton the articleof Coal,as to leave us in doubtof theirknowledgeof suchan andLimestone whenat Duntocher usefulFossil;32 theymusthaveseen it bothin the Freestone He foundit, he says, amongtheAshes of the FirewhichheatedtheirSudatories [see Quarries. he goes on of Antiquities, to the pursuit of his earlyPropensity below,p. 209]. Afterspeaking to point out the Field of Battlebetween to say that he has been able, with greatprobability, the Grampian Hills;33neitherof which has yet been Galgacus& Agricola,& consequently He has even discoveredtwo RomanFortsthat had never been noticedby fully ascertained.
others.34
29 Anderson 1771; 1773.

30 32
31 This volume was published in 1779.
thereseemsto be no mentionof this eventin the recordsof the University. Regrettably businessinterestsin mining. reflectsFreebairn's This comment
33 Unfortunately he does not identify the site.
the identityof these sites. 34 Thereis no meansof establishing
188
KEPPIE LAWRENCE
The Minutes next report Freebairn's researches and observations on a recently discovered prehistoric burial,35 on vitrified forts, and on brochs. The Minutes continue: In an Extract of another Letter from Mr. Freebairn, dated 20th March 1779, mention is made of a small Box, addressed to his Friend, containing the following Articles. I. Two Fragments of different Vases, or Urns, of white Clay, with the following Inscription, in Roman Capitals, on the Rim of one of them BRVSC.F. 2. Four Fragments of Bowls, with elegant bas Relievoes of Centaurs, Dolphins, &c, of a fine red Clay delicately varnish'd [see FIG.22]. 3. The middle part of a Priapus, of unglaz'd Clay. 4. A piece of Plate Glass, which he considers as a great Curiosity, & wch may determine a long subsisting Debate amongst Antiquarians. There was another piece of the same size found in the Rubbish; together with a Lump of Lead, of abt 5 lb Weight, which appeared as cut off from a large Mass. With these was also sent an engraved View of a Sudatorium (the Place not mention'd) it is admitted not to be correct, but is such, however, to give a tolerable Idea of it [here FIG.13].36 The Floors of the two Areas, marked A & B, are supported by Brick Pillars, the third Area was on the solid Ground. The Part marked C seems to have been a wet Bath, & was separated from B by a thin Wall, lined with a Cement fit for holding Water.Near it was found the Figure of a Nymph, having her Body perforated at the Navel for the Admission of a WaterPipe. Her Neck, Bosom and Hair have some Elegance in the Design, & Justness in the Proportions, tho' but rudely executed, in Freestone. There seem to have been no Flues for the conducting of Fire. The whole Building has been arch'd with Rubble Work, strongly cement'd with good Lime and Pebbles; & a Coating of the same Materials, 3 Inches thick, on the Inside, large pieces of which still remaining adhere strongly together. The Side of the Building next the Hill was supported by the Earth; which is higher than the Wall; & the opposite Side, where this natural Support was wanting, was strengthened by Buttresses of hewn Stone, as all the Walls are said to be. It should seem, he thinks, as tho' the Arch that covered the Building, had been overlaid with square flat Stones, groov'd into one another, as many such are found in the Rubbish. And by the Appearance of the upper side of the Arch, it seems not to have been made to resist Water, so much as to confine the Heat. The Walls [of rooms] A & B were lined with Tubes of burnt Clay, with Apertures for the Transmission of the Heat for warming the Bagnio. The Building had now been uncover'd for two Years, inclosed only with a wooden Rail, & is likely soon to be totally demolish'd, unless preserved by a Stone Wall; an Expence imprudent in him to engage in, having already expended a considerable Sum in clearing away the Earth & Rubbish, & inclosing it with a Rail, a Door & Lock. There are many useful details in this account, both on the workings of the bath-house, and its subsequent fate (cf. below p. 190). The architect Freebairn had by this time accepted that the building was a bath-house and progressed some considerable way towards correctly appreciating the purpose of the voussoirs. The engraving itself (FIG. 13), sent on by Paton, was bound up with the Minutes. It offers a unique insight into the state of the remains in 1778 (below, p. 197).37 On 15 July 1779 Paton reported that a businessman friend, newly settled in Glasgow, intended shortly to give him a full account of the site. '[T]he female figure is preserved carefully in a Gentleman's house in that neighbourhood, he [Paton's friend] has never viewed it, but intends and then will send me a draught of it - he has promised to procure a Copy of the Engraving, one Mr.
35 Noted also in Gough1786,vol. 1, Introd. thatFreebairn had 'discovered two Romanforts p. viii, wherehe reports not hitherto noticedin the countryfromDuntocher in the versionof his letterminutedat the but Freebairn, Westward'; with suchprecision. Antiquaries (see above),did not locatethe fortsgeographically
36
Footnote here: 'done at Glasgow'. 37 The view was 'engraven at Glasgow', but my own enquiries into the identity of the artist and engraver have been so
farinconclusive. TheFoulisPressat GlasgowUniversity seems mostlikely.
A ROMAN BATH-HOUSEAT DUNTOCHER ON THE ANTONINE WALL
189
Gillies took it or caused engrave it, since that time the plate is lodged with Mr. Professor Anderson' (Adv.Mss.29.5.7 (iii), fol. 34).38 Paton several times regretted that he had no further information to impart, not having heard from Freebairn,and in a letter of 23 October 1779, from him to Gough, the reason was made clear (Adv.Mss.29.5.7 (iii), fol. 68): 'Only t'other day I had the disagreeable informationthat some more than a month ago my acquaintanceMr Freebairndied in the Island of Isla (I believe). This shockt me not a little and the more so, his circumstances not in the most agreeable state.39This frustratesall my hopes of procuring any furtheraccounts of the DuntocherAntiquities, or what Observations he may have left behind him, as all his papers are sealed up.' But Paton was able to report that his friend in Glasgow had at his request already taken some sketches, and made a plan of the fort and the course of the Wall. This friend too would try to get 'a few impressions of the Plate engraved at Glasgow which is in Professor Anderson's hands' (Adv.Mss.29.5.7 (iii), fol. 68). In a letter of 11 November 1779 Paton asked again about the box of pottery which he said belonged to Mr Gillies, a gentleman in that neighbourhood, who was anxious to recover it; Gillies, it seems, had also asked for copies of the sketches and of Gough's plates, to stimulate the interest of adjacent landowners (Adv.Mss.29.5.7 (iii), fol. 72; cf. 29.5.6 (i), fol. 223).40 By 24 July Paton had heard from his Glasgow friend, that 'the sordid proprietoror Tennantof that Spot, has actually or will shortly overturn the whole of that place into arable or pasture ground, and as long as he possesses it, is determined that no further excavations shall be made there' (Adv.Mss.29.5.7 (iii), fol. 112). By 28 July Paton had discovered that 'Professor Anderson has taken into his Charge all the late Accounts of the Duntocher discoveries, which he is to arrange for E. Buchan,41and means to have them presented to our Scots' Society'; this was much to Paton's annoyance because he was denied access to them (Adv.Mss.29.5.7 (iii), fol. 158; cf. fol. 171).42 In January 1783 Paton was still expecting an account of the Duntocher discoveries to appear in 'the new Archaeologia';43 but there is a note on his letter in Gough's handwriting: 'waited for fuller acc[oun]t' (Adv.Mss.29.5.7 (iii), fol. 209). The discovery of a similar 'Sudatory' at Inveresk near Edinburgh in January 1783 rekindled Paton's interest;he hoped that discoveries there might help elucidate the workings of the Duntocher building (Adv.Mss.29.5.7 (iii), fols 209, 213, 226f., 230; cf. Adv.Mss.29.5.6 (ii), fol. 21). Paton also saw some advantage in opening searches elsewhere along the Wall, unless the sites were already destroyed 'thro' the ignorance of day Labourers and want of attentive superiors. I firmly believe numbers of them have been destroyed; amonst them must have perished tessellated pavements more particularlyabout Falkirk'(Adv.Mss.29.5.7 (iii), fol. 227).44 In 1789 Gough included an account of these events in his edition of Camden's Britannia, suitably
38 For John Gillies and his role in these events, see below, p. 195. Gillies is very probably the 'Gentleman' referred to.
39 Some years earlier Freebairnhad evidently over-reached himself financially in his mining interests on Islay (Smith 1895, 462-7; Ramsay 1890, 71, 73, 78f., 86). 40 Before locating the reference to Gillies, I had supposed that the box and its contents constituted 'item 21, sundry pieces of Roman earthenware', sold at an auction of Paton's effects in Edinburgh, 1811 (Doig 1956, 119); I now see that these pieces, whose current whereabouts are unknown, probably derived from excavations at Inveresk in 1783 (cf. Adv.Mss. 26.5.7 (ii), fol. 209; below, p. 190). 41 The 11th Earl of Buchan, first President of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. 42 I have been unable to locate any reference to such a donation in the Society of Antiquaries Communications Book of the period, or in its Minute Books. Similarly no relevant papers seem to survive in the Andersonian Library,University of Strathclyde. 43 Presumably vol. VI which appeared in 1782. 44 His correspondent Mr Aitcheson was Minister of Falkirk 1757-87. The reference could be to some (otherwise unattested) discoveries at Camelon in his Parish.
190
LAWRENCEKEPPIE
acknowledging the work of Freebairn and incorporating as plates the sketches sent on to him by Paton, as well as drawings of the pottery.45Some changes had by this time been made to the original sketches, partly to incorporatethe more complete ground-plan of the site later sent on by Paton's friend, with resulting alterations to the explanatory captions: A.7, 'the late discoveries' reported in Freebairn's 'hints' (above, p. 185), was omitted, but A.2 was retained, wrongly identifying the bathhouse plan as 'the fort'. Gough then turned to describing the finds, presumably again drawing upon Freebairn's letters. 'On prosecuting these discoveries three years after, there were found several beautiful fragments of pottery, which being laid before the Society of Antiquaries of London, drawings were made of them by Mr. Basire engraved in Plate xxvii' (here FIG.22).46 He continues: 'Mr. Charles Freebairn, to whose diligent researches we are indebted for the above particulars,had some other pieces with different ornamentsas medallions, etc. made of the same materials, a piece of lead as if cut from a bar or pig, weighing three or four pounds, covered with a thick coat of ceruse or rust of lead, and two pieces of white glass, which seems to have been cast as plate glass, as one side shows the surface of glass in the plate as the air leaves it, the other the mould or surface it has been poured upon. The two pieces may contain about six square inches and are about 3/32 parts of an inch thick and towards one of the corners a little more.' We know of other visitors to the excavations while they were in progress or soon after. Gough quotes a letter to the Edinburgh-basedantiquaryAdam de Cardonnel,dated 2 April 1783, from James Wedderburnof Inveresk near Edinburgh,on whose land a bath-house had recently been revealed:47 'Very considerable ruins were discovered three [sic] years ago at Killpatrick near Dumbartonat the west end of Hadrian's[!] wall. The bricks in very great quantity,and all imported.Samples are at the College at Glasgow. I have preserved large specimens of the cement, terrace, bricks, earthen ware etc., at my house in Inveresk.'48Other visitors were the eminent London physician Dr John Coakley Lettsom (Soc. Ant. Lond. Minute Book vol. XV, p. 25ff.), and (very probably) the landscape painter Joseph Farington R.A., who had been engaged by the bookseller John Knox (above, p. 179) to prepareviews of Scotland for a planned work, and was travelling in the area with Knox in September 1788.49 On a second visit in 1792, Farington, apparently at the request of Lord Henry Dundas of Castlecary,prepareda watercolour of the 'Roman Bridge' at Duntocher, which formed the basis of a splendid plate in Roy's MilitaryAntiquities (FIG.10);5obut I have (unsurprisinglyperhaps) found no watercolour or engraving by Faringtonof the bath-house remains.
LATER HISTORY OF THE SITE
The excavation remained open to the elements, and the removal of its stonework by the local
45 Gough 1789, 362 with pl. xxvi. On Basire, see Wedmore 1885; Evans 1956, 129. These engravings form the basis of a pottery report by Dr Peter Webster (below, p. 212). 47 Gough 1789, vol. 3, 310. See de Cardonnel 1822, referring to Wedderburn'srole in retaining some samples of the bricks and opus signinum found at Inveresk. De Cardonnel had also taken part in early work at Carpow (Gough 1789,
46
48 Gough here inaccurately refers to de Cardonnel as 'of the Custom-house' (Paton's place of work); the information came through Paton, who first alerted Gough to the discoveries at Inveresk on 25 January 1783 (Adv.Mss.29.5.7 (iii), fol. 209; cf. fols 213, 227, 230). Finds at Inveresk House were believed to have subsequently gone to Craigflower House, near Torryburn,Fife (Moir 1860, 10ff.); but I have been unable to trace them. 49 Farington 1788-92; Ruddick and Turner 1977; Garlick and Macintyre 1978, xiff. For Knox's activities as a philanthropist, see Stronach 1892; Bruce 1893, 39. 50 Roy 1793, pl. xxxvii with Macdonald 1917, 213f. Basire estimated the cost of engraving at Sixteen Guineas (Soc.Ant.London, Council Minute Book, vol. III, April 16, 1793).
311).
191
populace, hinted at in Freebairn'sfinal letter, seems likely to have continued apace.51In September 1825, the Rev. John Skinner,of Camertonin Somerset, in the course of an east-west peregrinationof the Antonine Wall,52reported:'Towardsthe South West [of Golden Hill], now planted with Fir trees, a man past the middle of life pointed out to me the lines of the station towards the bottom of the hill above the bridge, which he remembered having been levelled [below, p. 208]: he also showed me the spot where a vaulted passage he said, had been discovered twenty or thirty years ago, made of Roman bricks: in confirmationof his testimony I picked up several fragments at the spot; also some pieces of flue tiles; probably it was the hypocaust of a Roman residence: he moreover said, some stones with inscriptionshad been found, and sent to Glasgow' (BL Add.Mss. 33686, fol. 76). Skinner drew two sketches (FIGS 6-7) of Golden Hill, from the west, which markedthe remains and indicated the location of various cottages and manufactories in the vicinity, in which stones robbed from the bath-house were perhapsbuilt up (BL Add. Mss. 33686, figs 391, 393 = fols 78, 80). In 1844 Robert Stuartwas able, presumably on a visit to Duntocher, to question the 'Boy' who had descended into the hypocaust basement nearly 70 years earlier.53But his account was misleading:
FIG.6.
The Rev. John Skinner's sketch of Golden Hill from the west, September 1825. (Reproduced by permission of The British Library,London (Add.Mss. 33686, fol. 78))
51 For subsequent notices, see Davidson 1793, 238 fn. (drawing on Knox 1785); Chapman 1812, 212; 1818, 289. 52 See Keppie forthcoming. 53 Stuart 1845, 299; 1852, 302 fn.
192
LAWRENCEKEPPIE
FIG. 7.
The Rev. John Skinner's sketch of Golden Hill from west of the Duntocher Burn, September 1825. (Reproducedby permission of The British Library,London (Add.Mss. 33686, fol. 80))
the old man (then aged 95)54 described three interconnecting circular chambers about 10 feet in diameter and 4V2 feet deep, floored in stone and roofed in brick; Stuart offered a line-illustration (FIG.8; cf. below, p. 192).55 It is difficult to know how many of the details offered in the text are to be trusted: they included 'a neatly executed groove on either side [of the flues in the hypocaust basement] for the admission of a sliding panel, by means of which the communication between
FIG. 8. Duntocher bath-house as drawn by Robert Stuart, based on later testimony by 'the Boy' (Stuart 1845, 299).
54 A simple mathematical calculation reveals that the 'Boy' was aged 26 at the time of the excavation, assuming his advanced age in 1844 to be accurately reported. Paton describes him as 'a little boy' (Adv.Mss.29.5.7 (ii), fol. 106), Stuart (1845, 299) and Bruce (1893, 45) as a 'young man'. 55 Stuart 1845, 299 with his pl. viii, 2-4.
193
them might be cut off', in fact very probably a reference to voussoirs, whose purpose had been misunderstood, and 'an earthenjar, found standing in a niche of the wall, and containing a female figure, about six inches in height, formed of reddish clay'. The clay figure calls to mind a Venus figurine, but may refer to the stone gurget.56'A few grains of wheat were likewise picked up.' An additional detail is a drain running through the building.57 Stuart then proceeded to describe the sudatorium reported by Gough as a separate discovery.58 He did not offer any description of the site in his own day. At much the same time, the local Minister recorded the state of the remains: 'Now there is nothing to mark the excavation, but a small sinking in the surface above where the cavity was situated.'59 Visitors to Duntocher up to the mid-nineteenth century reported Roman stonework built into various structures in the village, especially the miller's cottage (below, p. 210).60 The latter was demolished c. 1850, and a Roman altar rescued.61 Other buildings mentioned by antiquaries, including the substantial modern factories sketched by Skinner in 1825, soon disappeared.62The 'Roman Bridge', which early antiquaries and longstanding local tradition accepted as ancient,63 but which was probably of late medieval date, was widened in 1772,64 perhaps in part at least to accommodate additional traffic from adjacent industrial enterprises (FIGS 9-10). To what extent it once incorporatedRoman masonry from the bath-house or other adjacent buildings cannot now be ascertained. The so-called 'Roman' bridge crossed (and still crosses) the Duntocher Burn at an oblique angle, all but on the probableline of the Wall itself. Though we remain somewhat uncertainhow the frontier line was carried across the various water barrierson the Forth-Clyde line,65 the present bridge at Duntocheris on an inappropriate alignment to have carriedeither the Wall or the Military Way across the Burn. By the mid-nineteenthcentury a cottage known as the 'sentry house' stood at the south end of the bridge, angled back into the hillside, and probably on the site of the earlier cottage; its construction may have caused damage to the adjacentbath-houseremains. In 1921 a WarMemorialwas built close
56 However, in Stuart's account, the 'image' found by him in the subterraneanrecess had the appearance of a dancing figure. 'It went afterwards by the name of "Dancing Mall"[sic], and was "casting about" the village a long time, as an object of amusement to the children. This fine intelligent old man also found in one of the recesses, some bones of animals, and, in particular,the tusks, apparently of boars' (Stuart 1852, 302 fn.; below, p. 212). 57 Stuart 1845, 299 fn.; Bruce 1893, 46. Below, p. 203. Such a drain could have exited from thefrigidarium, hot or cold baths, or one of the heated rooms. 58 Gough himself (1789, 362) refers to two buildings; cf. Stuart 1845, 299 fn.; Bruce 1893, 39-45. 59 Barclay 1845, 22 who mentions 'two circular chambers'. 60 cf. Maitland 1757, vol. 1, 182; Stuart 1852, 300; Macdonald 1854, 271. 61 Stuart 1852, 300 fn.; RIB 2201 = Keppie and Arnold 1984, no. 153 = Keppie 1998, 108 no. 42. The altar, initially 'discovered by Archibald Bulloch, son of the old miller of Duntocher 1829 [i.e. John Bulloch]', was subsequently 'put up on the eaves of his father's antique cottage' (Stuart 1852, 300 fn.). 62 By 1836, when Duntocher Trinity Parish Church was erected nearby. One or more quernstones were found during construction of the church (Barclay 1845, 22; Macdonald 1934, 331 fn. 4; see n. 61). 63 Horsley 1732, 165. CurrentOS maps still apply the designation 'Roman bridge'. 64 At the expense of Lord Blantyre, as recorded on a stone tablet erected nearby, whose text reflected and thereby perpetuated the tradition, by ascribing its initial construction to Antoninus Pius. A watercolour painting by General William Roy, probably made when he traversed the Wall in 1755 (Willetts 2000, MS 480), shows the bridge before 9). For a sepia-wash version of the same view, perhaps also by Roy, see BL Kings Mss. 458; Macdonald widening (FIG. 1917, pl. at p. 172. This painting is of particular interest as it depicts the mill, north of the bridge, two houses opposite, and a further cottage, set at an angle, south of the bridge (cf. FIG.10); one of these was presumably the miller's. A bridge here is shown on Hermann Moll's map of Dunbartonshire dated to before 1732, carrying the main road from Dumbarton to Glasgow. 65 Robertson 1974; Hanson and Maxwell 1983, 85; Bailey 1996.
194
LAWRENCEKEPPIE
FIG. 9.
'Roman bridge', Duntocher.Water-colourby Major General William Roy, 1755. (Reproducedby permission of the Society ofAntiquaries of London (MS 480))
the site of the 'sentry house', by now demolished, and further landscaping behind it is likely (FIG. 11). The hilltop had become a public parkby 1934.66 The area suffered bomb damage in March 1941, the due to its proximity to Clydebank,after which the 'Roman Bridge' was promptlyreconstructed;67 nearby church was eventually rebuilt.68 In 1911 Sir George Macdonald offered an invaluable assessment of the evidence known to him about the excavations at Duntocher in 1775-78.69 However, seeking to draw together all the available pieces of evidence, he proposed linking the 'Goth' who according to John Knox had erased part of the fort itself on the summit (above, p. 181) with Charles Freebairn,who was thus unjustly damned. Exploration of the fort in the later eighteenth century is known only from Knox's account, and goes unmentioned in the Gough-Paton correspondence. Knox does not provide an exact date for this event, but says that the erasure was 'lately' done, which I suppose here could mean in the period 1779-85, after Freebairn's death. It can more plausibly be laid at another door, that of
Macdonald 1934, 332; OS Dunbartonshire Sheet xxiii.6 (1937 edn). 67 As recorded in an addendum to Lord Blantyre's tablet, which is now set into the bridge parapet. During repairs in 1943, 'some of the under-structurewas revealed' (letter of local resident Robert Dick, to Anne S. Robertson, 1/9/43, now in the HunterianMuseum); perhaps this belonged to the pre-1772 bridge-structure.The WarMemorial too suffered a direct hit, and was replaced in 1951 by a new monument on the same site. 68 Hood 1986, 11; 1988, 100. Records of bombs dropped in the area are held by the National Archives of Scotland; aerial photographs showing bomb-craters are held by RCAHMS. 69 Macdonald 1911, 156-60; cf. Macdonald 1934, 329-32.
66
195
FIG.
10.
'Roman Bridge', Duntocher.Engraving after water-colour by Joseph Farington, 1792. (Reproducedfrom William Roy, Military Antiquities of the Romans in Britain (London, 1793), pl. xxxvii)
merchantJohn Gillies who held land at nearby Dalnotter.70 Among his business interests Gillies was a partnerin the Dalnotter Iron Company, whose partnershad purchased much land in the Duntocher area, including some part of the farm at Easter Milton (which then included Golden Hill) for their premises and to build houses for their workers.71This may account for Gillies' claim to ownership and thus perhaps identifiable of the pottery (above, p. 189). Gillies was manager of the Ironworks,72 with the 'clerk or overseer of an iron manufactoryin that neighbourhood', identified by Knox as the 'Goth' responsible for the damage. Gillies had shown a special interest in the work at the bath-house (above, p. 189); it was Gillies who commissioned the invaluable engraving we have today. Perhaps he maintained the interest later, but this time allegedly to the detriment of the fort remains, if we accept Knox's (sole) account of events.
70 Jones 1787, 44 lists 'John Gillies, Dalnotter'; Jones 1789, 25 has 'John Gills, merchant at Dalnotter, occasionally to be found at the Black Bull Inn [Glasgow]'. In 1790 Gillies complained to the Committee of the Forth and Clyde Navigation Company about damage to roads on his property at Dalnotter, the result of construction work on the nearby canal; he asked that fences be erected (SRO BR/FCN/1/36, p. 4; cf. 1/12, p. 148). 71 Bruce 1893, 253, 267-8; Thomson 1956. 72 Thomson 1856, 11.
196
LAWRENCEKEPPIE
FIG.11. The site of the bath-house, with the WarMemorial in the foreground and DuntocherTrinity Parish Churchto the right, c. 1930-35. (Reproducedby permission of WestDunbartonshire Council, Clydebank Central Library,;neg. no. A201)
Duntocher Burn
bath-house
DUNTOCHER
0o -50m
FIG.
12.
Duntocher fort and bath-house. (Drawn by L. Keppie)
A ROMAN BATH-HOUSEAT DUNTOCHER ON THE ANTONINE WALL TOWARDS A DESCRIPTION AND INTERPRETATIONOF THE EXCAVATEDREMAINS
197
As illustrated in the hitherto unpublished engraving (FIG.13), and as described in Freebairn's letter of March 1779, the building consisted of three connecting rooms ranged in a line, which for the purpose of the following assessment will be here identified as a frigidarium, a tepidarium, and a caldarium, with a furnace lying at the south end of the building.73From the 'Boy's' description of his descent into the hypocaust basement,74it can be concluded that the caldarium was the first room to be cleared, and that it was in its basement that animal bones were discovered; perhaps they were deposited there from the room above when its floor collapsed. Though there are some contradictions and inconsistencies in the contemporaryaccounts (it has to be rememberedthat neither Gough nor Paton ever visited the site), we could tentatively deduce that the caldarium was initially discovered by the agricultural workers; their activities were halted by Knox, and then renewed very soon afterwards by the Glasgow professors (who were on site by August 1775), in association with Freebairn.Subsequent activity over the winter months, and in 1777-78, was financed by Freebairn,
FIG.
13. Engraving of the bath-house at Duntocher, 1778, by unknown artist. (Reproducedby permission of Society of Antiquaries of London (MinuteBook XVI))
73 The main axis of the bath-house is described here as north-south. 74 Gough 1789, pl. xxvi.B.
198
LAWRENCEKEPPIE
FIG.14. Published version of sketches of Golden Hill, Duntocher, 1775-77, showing (A) fort and bath-house; (B) Wall, fort and bridge. (Reproduced from Gough 1789, pl. xxvi)
whose hired workmen cleared other rooms. The role of the professors goes unmentionedin Gough's account.Knox, writingin 1785, seems to imply thatthe stone gurget(FIG. 3) was carriedoff forthwithto Glasgow, but Paton'stestimony indicatesthat it actuallyremainedin the locality for some time (above, p. 188). Its presence at Glasgow University is not otherwise recordedbefore 1845 (below, p. 210). Gough's accompanying plate (1789, pl. xxvi; here figs 14-15) shows: (A) the bath-house fully
199
FIG.
15. Published version of sketches of Golden Hill, Duntocher, 1775-77, showing (C) section through hypocaust; (D) side-view of 'Roman bridge' crossing Duntocher Burn; (E) walling between caldarium and tepidarium(see p. 197). (Reproducedfrom Gough 1789, pl. xxvi)
excavated, in relation to the Burn and other features on the hill above; (B) the excavated site in relation to the Antonine Wall and the fort;75(C) a section through the hypocaust; (D) the bridge; and (E) a section looking north, on the line of the wall dividing the caldarium from the tepidarium.
75 I am most grateful to Mr R. Goodburn who made the invaluable observation that Gough had incorporatedinto this illustration the east-west section through the bath-house (= E), misrepresented in this sketch as a 'plan' of the bath-house remains.
200
LAWRENCEKEPPIE
FIG.
16.
Originals of Gough 1789, pl. xxvi, C and E (Gough Maps 40, fol. 8). (Reproducedby permission of The Bodleian Library, University of Oxford)
The survival of two original sketches of the bath-house and also of preliminary versions of the published plate among the Gough Papers held at the Bodleian Library,Oxford (in Gough Maps 38 and 40), allows us to go some way towards linking these to the drawings sent by Paton at various times between 1775 and 1779, and to chart Gough's progress towards publication. The ground plan of the building (A) is perhaps that preparedby Freebairnand sent to Gough in December 1778. We know that C was exhibited to the Antiquaries on 14 March 1776 (above, p. 185). The originals of C and E, set side by side on a single sheet of paper (FIG.16), show the hypocaust and the section across the building (Gough Maps 40, fol. 8), the latter with annotations in Paton's handwriting: 'surface of the ground before opened up' (above) and 'appearance of the [vacat] when first seen by Mr Charles Freebairnin the year 177 [vacat] in the Roman camp at Duntocher' (below). The engraving commissioned by Gillies and sent on by Paton to Gough in April 1779 goes unmentioned. It seems likely that Paton's warning of its inaccuracies caused Gough to ignore what was in fact an invaluable image of the excavation site. However potentially inexact in its proportions and details, the unpublished engraving (which offers both an oblique view and a ground plan of the building as excavated) forms a useful starting point in any assessment. Overall the excavated bathhouse measured, according to the scale helpfully provided, 52 feet (15.8 m) north-south by 19 feet (5.8 m) east-west, externally. It was entered from the west. If there was an apodyterium, it is not shown. The door from the frigidarium to the tepidarium lay two-thirds of the way across the room, but access from the tepidariumto the caldarium was placed centrally. Two flues set into the dividing wall between the two heated rooms, below the floor, allowed hot air to flow northwards from the furnacevia the caldarium to the tepidarium.Set into the east wall of the caldarium was a semicircular hot bath. It is difficult to suppose that it intrudedinto the caldarium in the way depicted by Freebairn. The semicircular south end of the caldarium presumably also housed a bath, heated from a furnace room of which only the stoke-hole passage was cleared. The 'buttress'that intrudes improbably into the caldarium can best be seen as the remnantof a cross-wall supporting(or demarcating)hot-water tanks, as at Bearsden, Balmuildy, and elsewhere.
201
Certainly,when we come to compare Gough's published drawing of the complete building (1789, pl. xxvi.A; FIG. 14) with the unpublished engraving (FIG.13), several of the details are different: for example, three apparently hypocausted rooms are shown by Gough (contradicting Freebairn's written report to Paton), but not a frigidarium. The apsidal bath on the east side of the building is surely misplaced; the internal partition walls do not correspond, as might be expected, with the external buttresses. One difficulty in assessing Gough's 1789 published plan of the bath-house is its small scale. On FIG. 20, No. 12A it has been enlarged to match the reportedwidth of the building (not its length) and the thickness of the walls.76 It will be remembered that the unpublished engraving was rejected for publication because of inaccuracy. Certainly the ground plan offers a more exact reflection of the shape and size of each room than does the 'view'. Yet Freebairn'spencilled corrections are few, and his written testimony might suggest only minor inaccuracies. The published plan too is quite recognisable as a bath-house, and correctly proportioned. Measured from the hitherto unpublished engraving, the frigidarium measured internally 15 feet (4.57 m) east-west by 9 feet (2.74 m) north-south; the tepidariummeasured 15 feet (4.57 m) square and the caldarium measured 15 feet (4.57 m) east-west by 21 feet (6.3 m) north-south.77The walls were uniformly 2 feet (0.61 m) wide and the buttresses 4 feet (1.22 m) long. Only a single phase of occupation is depicted, except that a north-south wall at the south end of the building could indicate a later narrowing of the stoke-hole, unless it represents a retaining wall against the sharp slope, or supporteda water-tank.We can see that the eastern (uphill) wall survived higher than the western (downhill) wall, as would be expected given the natural westwards fall of the ground hereabouts. By the time that the engraving was prepared,parts of the opus signinum floors were already lost, as was a high proportionof the underlyinghypocaust stacks. Details, including the improbablycurving internalwall of the hot bath, the box-flues on one wall of the tepidarium, and the buttresses, were addedto the view in pencil, probablyby Freebairn,and later inked over. There must presumablyhave been such box-flues attachedto the other walls of this room, and in the caldarium. Freebairn'swritten account reported'Tubes of burntClay' as lining the walls of his Rooms A and B (above, p. 188). The newspaperaccount read by Gough (Adv. Mss. 29.5.6 (i), fol. 87; above, p. 184) included mention of 'small boxes made of brick', a likely reference to box-flues. Though the engraving shows the rooms clear of debris, we could easily imagine that the site was not so tidy or neatly excavated in reality. We are thus remarkablywell provided with illustrative material of the work, given the date of the excavation. Neither the ground plan published by Gough nor the unpublished engraving derives directly from Freebairn, who (unsurprisingly perhaps) does not seem to have kept any detailed record, but we must be grateful for his 'short hints'. The complete excavation of a building was rare at this date. There was, it seems, no laconicum, or indeed cold bath.78At Duntocher there is no obvious constraint imposed by the location or the topography, except that it would have been laborious to add any rooms on the upslope side of the building; the proximity of the Antonine Wall precludedany extension northwards.
76 An alternative interpretationof the rooms could be that the engraving in fact shows a hot bath, a caldarium, and two tepidaria; but if we were to suppose that the northernmostroom at Duntocher was originally heated, the hypocaust system was entirely lost. Freebairn states that the floor of this room (evidently dug to a deeper level, perhaps in search of a heating system) was, unlike the other two, 'on the solid ground' (above, p. 184). The interpretation offered here - a very small frigidarium and the absence of a cold plunge bath - matches the arrangement (and size) of rooms at Castlecary, Cadder, Balmuildy, and (less certainly) Bar Hill (cf. below, p. 205). 77 If the 'buttress' projecting into the caldarium was in fact a remnant of an east-west partition wall, then the caldarium itself would have measured 15 by 15 feet internally, the same as the tepidarium. The first room found was said to be 'square'. 78 Cf. at Cadder (Clarke 1933, 54f.). At Balmuildy the frigidarium was perhaps subdivided later to provide a cold plunge bath (Miller 1922, 43). There was no trace of such a bath at Bar Hill (Keppie 1986, 58ff.); later it seems that a laconicum was inserted into the frigidarium space.
202
LAWRENCEKEPPIE
As to constructional details, we know that the floors of the heated rooms had a covering of opus signinum; the hypocaust stacks were of brick (in a system quite sophisticated compared to other Antonine Wall bath-houses);heat was led up the walls in terracottabox-flues; the building was roofed with voussoirs doubtless supportingan inner and outer layer of large tiles (for which see Freebairn's 'hints', above, p. 186). No mention is made of any stone slabs which must originally have paved the frigidarium. The recovery of glass establishes the likely presence of windows (below, p. 212). The discovery by Freebairnof coal 'among the Ashes of the Fire which heated their Sudatories' may indicate the fuel employed (below, p. 211).
THE 1978 EXCAVATION
In 1977 it was proposed by Professor Anne Robertson, with the support of the local authority,then Clydebank District Council, as part of a project already underway, which centred on exposing for permanentpublic view the rampartof the fortlet on the hill above (see FIG.17), to lay out a 'Roman garden', botanical expertise being provided by Dr Alastair A.R. Henderson, then of the Department of Humanity,University of Glasgow. A site adjacent to the WarMemorial, on the north-west side of the hill, was chosen. When work began in July 1978 on preparing and levelling the ground, under
FIG. 17. Aerial view of Golden Hill, Duntocher, May 1977, from the north-west, showing stone base of fortletrampart,newly re-excavated. The bath-house site lies towards the bottom right. (Photo: courtesy of the late Professor G.D.B. Jones)
203
Burn
lom
War Memorial
Q
walling
drain
drain trench 1978
Q
" 0
__
2Church
-2m
FIG.
18.
Excavation of the bath-house site, 1978. (A) plan of the trench (after A.A.R. Henderson); (B) location of the trench. (Drawn by L. Keppie)
the supervision of Dr Henderson and Mr Jack Brogan, then Chief Librarianof Clydebank District Council, it quickly became apparentthat the position chosen was archaeologically sensitive, and the site was backfilled within a few days. An area of 6.7 m (22 ft) north-south by 6 m (20 ft) east-west had been opened by Council employees, who also cleared round the stonework which the digging had revealed. It was clear that the trench had accidentally uncovered part of the bath-house; many fragments of hypocaust bricks and box-flues were recovered (see below, p. 215). Essentially the 1978 excavation (see FIG. 18) revealed a north-south wall c. 1.25 m (4 ft) wide, which survived up to three courses high, with facing stones best preserved on its west side; no part of the site was cleared to the underlying natural clay. Approaching this wall from the east, and evidently passing below it and running to the west, was a curving drain edged with large cobbles and topped by some capstones. The drain was 0.25 m wide; no depth was recorded. The excavators reported a dark sticky clay-like lining. One face of the wall had a coating of smeared red daub; reddish clay was visible between the facing stones. Dr Hendersonrapidly drew the structuralremains;no visual record of the excavation appearsto survive. A brief report appeared in Discovery and Excavation in Scotland 1978.79 The 'Roman garden' was subsequently sited on the north-easternflank of the hill. It is difficult now to pinpoint the 1978 excavation site; one of the reference points used in measurementno longer survives. FIG.18 represents a best guess. The centre-point of the excavation appearsto lie c. 10 m east of the 'ancient monument' symbol on modern OS maps (for which see FIG. 1). Given the measurements now known for the building, its southern end presumably lies (or lay) within the grounds of the adjacentTrinity Parish Church. It is presumedhere that the stonework found in 1978 constituted the western wall of the bath-house
79 Brogan and Henderson 1978; cf. Goodburn 1979, 278. Both excavators died young. The NMRS has copies of correspondence between Dr Henderson and Historic Scotland's predecessor body, together with the site-plan, as does the HunterianMuseum which also holds correspondence between Dr Henderson and Professor Robertson.
204
LAWRENCEKEPPIE
building, and the draincould be equated with that reportedby Stuart(above, p. 193). It is impossible accurately to place this walling on the plan of the original excavation. However, as a result of this work, we can now state that the bath-house at Duntocher lay some 150 m north-west of the fort, and quite close to the Duntocher Burn, which is likely to have provided its principal water supply. The bath-house lay immediately south of the Antonine Wall itself, at right angles to it (FIG.12). The building had by 1978 been robbed of stonework almost to the bottom of the hypocaust basements.
GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY
In March 2001 a geophysical (resistivity) survey of the site was undertakenunder the supervision of Dr R.E. Jones of the Department of Archaeology, University of Glasgow, in an effort to locate the remains of the bath-house more precisely, and confirm its general alignment.80The survey yielded only imperfect and tentative results. The 1978 excavation and the 2001 geophysical survey may indicate that the stonework of the bath-house walls does not now survive well, perhaps reflecting Charles Freebairn'stestimony in 1779 that it was already being removed as construction materialby the villagers, and wartime bombing.
DISCUSSION
Along the line of the Antonine Wall, bath-house buildings have been identified at or near ten forts; in some cases there were two such structures,one inside and the other outside the fort.81However, our knowledge of them is far from complete. Many were excavated in the early decades of the twentieth century: only the newer discoveries at KemperAvenue (Falkirk) and Bearsden have been comprehensively explored in more recent times.82The bath-house at Bar Hill, originally explored in 1902-05, was re-excavated in 1978.83We cannot always be sure that excavation in fact revealed the entiretyof the structures.The external bath-houseat Old Kilpatrickwas destroyed, all but unrecorded, during the construction of the Forth and Clyde Canal, in 1790;84 the internal bath-house at Cadder was lost to quarryingc. 1940.85Box-flue fragments have been recovered during field-walking west of Inveravon fort close to the River Avon,86in farmlandto the east of the fort at Carriden,87 within the fort at Kirkintilloch,88 and from a drain exiting into an external ditch at the incompletely known fort at Falkirk.89 Such finds should betoken the presence of a hypocausted building at each of these
80 The survey was undertakenby Daniela Cortinovis, Jason Jeandron,and Daniel Langhammer,then M.Phil. students. 81 Bailey 1994. The 'large baths' at Mumrills are a perplexing structure. Evidently constructed overlying a demolished wing of the praetorium, they were later incorporated into it (Macdonald and Curie 1929, 464 with fig. 51 where its buttresses are clearly seen; Macdonald 1934, 202ff.). These baths fit well into the size-range of other such structures along the Antonine Wall. Macdonald argued that the baths were resited here from an annexe to the east, but offered no good evidence for such a sequence (Macdonald and Curle 1929, 501; Macdonald 1934, 205). 82 Keppie and Murray 1981; Breeze 1984, 54. 83 For the latter, see Keppie 1986; Keppie 2002. 84 Soc.Ant.Scot. MS 626; Miller 1928, 32; Macdonald 1934, 333. 85 The external bath-house at Cadder is also usually considered lost to quarrying, but present-day surface contours may leave the matter in some doubt. 86 Discovery and Excavation in Scotland 1973, 59; 1975, 61; Dunwell and Ralston 1995, 523. 87 Discovery and Excavation in Scotland 1974, 69. 88 Robertson 1964, 185. Notice also the 'altars without inscriptions' reported at Kirkintilloch by Professor John Anderson (1771, fol. 25), which could have been stone hypocaust pillars. 89 Bailey 1991. The heated building excavated at Kemper Avenue, Falkirk, in 1980 (Keppie and Murray 1981) has been interpreted as the external bath-house of Falkirk fort, which lies 450 m to the west (Bailey 1994, 304), but it is difficult to be certain of its purpose. Macdonald proposed that the bath-house at Westerwood lay immediately behind the north rampart,west of the north gate (1933, 280); cf now Keppie and Breeze 1981, 241; Keppie 1995, 85.
205
sites, most probably (though not inevitably) a bath-house.90No evidence, structuralor artefactual, for a bath-house is yet available for Auchendavy or Castlehill,91 or at the presumed fort-sites at Seabegs and Kinneil. In 1937 a voussoir was found in Bridgeness, perhaps deriving from the fort at Carriden, 1.3 km to the east.92 The bath-houses on the Antonine Wall (FIGS 19-20) were, for the most part, simple structures,with the essential components often confined to heated and unheated rooms in a single range, generally known today as the Reihentyp(i.e. 'row-type').93 Sometimes the apodyteriumandfrigidarium were separate rooms of substantialproportions;at other sites they are seemingly modest compartments, and perhapscombined (cf. above, p. 201, with n. 78). Only occasionally are more complex structures reported, as at Balmuildy (external) and Camelon (Buildings xvii and xviii, which are included for comparative purposes on FIG.20, Nos 14-15).94 Several of the internal bath-houses were set in the narrow space between the fort rampartand the intervallum street (at Westerwood, Balmuildy, the layout was thus constrained Castlecary, Bar Hill, and possibly Old Kilpatrick; cf. Strageath95); the location (cf. above, p. 201). by On comparing site-plans, it quickly becomes apparent that many of the bath-houses were constructedto a fairly standardsize, but with considerable variation in constructionaltechniques and materials, perhaps indicating a number of different building-squads. The transverse measurement of the arched roofs was regularly 16-18 ft (5-5.6 m) externally, and the length of the frigidariumcaldarium range several times reportedat 68-70 ft (20.7-21.3 m).96 Most external bath-houses lay within the fort annexe, and many had an accessible water supply within easy distance. A few lay further away: Duntocher (150 m), Falkirk (450 m, if the Kemper Avenue site is to be associated with the fort in the Pleasance), Castlehill (430 m, if there was a bathhouse adjacent to the Peel Burn). There is no direct equation on the Antonine Wall between the size of a fort and the size of its bathhouse, or between the size of the bath-house and the notional strength of the garrison, its presumed principal users. For example, the external bath-house at Rough Castle is roughly the same size as the internal('men's') bath-house at Mumrills, though the latter fort is six and a half times the size of the former,and likely to have had a garrisonof up to 600 men, whereas hardly more than 100 could have been accommodated at Rough Castle.97 Geoff Bailey has arguedthat the internalbath-houses at Antonine Wall forts were built early in the sequence of occupation, with the external bath-houses serving as replacements after the laying out of the fort-annexes.98Certainlyseveral of the internal structuresseem to have gone out of use during
90 Tiles might also indicate a hypocausted range or bathing establishment within the commandant's house, as at Mumrills. 91 However, one might consider whether the stonework noticed by antiquaries beside the Peel Glen Burn, 430 m west of Castlehill, in fact represented a bath-house, ratherthan a 'small fort'; see Gordon 1726, 52; Roy 1793, 158; Macdonald 1934, 172, 350. Diamond-broached stonework had been observed in houses on the east side of the Peel Burn (Horsley 1732, 165; Maitland 1757, 182). 92 Macdonald 1937, 383-6. 93 See especially Macdonald 1931, 280ff.; 1934, 68-72; Daniels 1959, 90; Nash-Williams 1969, 166-72; Wilson 1980, 62ff.; Johnson 1983, 194; Bidwell 1997, 78ff. On Hadrianic bath-houses, see also Gillam, Jobey and Welsby 1993 1ff., 24f. On military bath-houses in general, see Nielsen 1990, 76ff. (but Antonine Wall bath-houses are not featured); Rook 1992. 94 Building xviii could have been part of a mansio (Black 1995, 53f. with fig. 47a). 95 Frere and Wilkes 1989, 98f. 96 Rough Castle, Bar Hill, Balmuildy (internal and external), Bearsden. Cf. at Cramond(Holmes 2003) and Elginhaugh (Hanson and Yeoman 1988, 7). As reported in Macdonald 1932, 267, repeated in Macdonald 1934, 267, the dimensions of the bath-house at Croy (given as 67 by 12 feet) do not match the published drawings which suggest 67 by 21 feet. Castlecary is larger than the 'norm', though here we are largely dependent on Roy's plan of 1769. Only Duntocher, Cadder, 19-20, Nos 2, 8, 12). and perhaps Kemper Avenue (Falkirk) are smaller than this norm (see FIGS 97 FIG.19, Nos 1, 3; Hanson and Maxwell 1983, 152ff. with tab. 8.1. 98 Bailey 1994, 303.
206
LAWRENCEKEPPIE
-J
32
R-2
II
20 m
FIG. 19. Bath-houses on the Antonine Wall. Comparativeplans (1) from Mumrills to Cadder: 1. Mumrills; 2. Kemper Avenue, Falkirk;3. Rough Castle; 4. Castlecary; 5. Westerwood; 6. Croy Hill; 7. Bar Hill; 8. Cadder (internal). All bathhouses are shown with the furnace-roomat left and unheated room(s) at right. Scale 1:200. (Drawn by L. Keppie)
207
"
Ir
''
low---
IL i`--`l---
...
'
_]
9
I LAI I
~L T-Ua''
~.-.1
10
11
12a
LJ
I.__
ri
rit
k-
a -_~
L--I1
13 _ .
12b
SU
14
20 m
FIG. 20. Bath-houses on the Antonine Wall. Comparativeplans (2) from Balmuildy to Old Kilpatrick, with plans of the buildings at nearby Camelon: 9. Balmuildy (internal); 10. Balmuildy (external); 11. Bearsden; 12a. Duntocher (from Gough 1789); 12b. Duntocher (from unpublished engraving); 13. Old Kilpatrick, latrine(?); 14. Camelon Building xviii; 15. Camelon, Building xvii. All bath-houses are shown with the furnace-roomat left and unheated room(s) at right. Scale 1:200. (Drawn by L. Keppie)
208
LAWRENCEKEPPIE
occupation of the forts, in some cases perhaps well before their ends.99 By the time that the bathhouse at Balmuildy was moved to the annexe, the only space available overlay the fort ditches; the external bath-house at Cadderwas placed in what must have been the eastern edge of an annexe, or beyond its defences. Many of the annexe bath-houses are no largerthan those they arejudged to have replaced, so it was not the added needs of a civilian population of vicani which promptedthe move. Perhapsit was a desire (or need) to remove the internal bath-houses from their positions adjacent to the fort defences.'00 Only in the case of Balmuildy does the external bath-house offer more space, an increase of c. 50 per cent. At least four out of the six 'primary forts' on the Wall possessed an internal bath-house. Within the annexe at Bearsden, a well-built square structure, strengthened by internal and external buttresses and probably orientated north-south (and therefore aligned on the fort's east rampart),has been interpretedas the heated part of a proto-bath-house, soon replaced.'0o At Old Kilpatrick, it has been suggested that the 'latrine-block' behind the ramparton the south-east side, which was much larger than other such buildings known on the Antonine Wall, might be reinterpretedas a bath-house, given its similarity in size to some other bath-house structures.102 The Antonine Wall bath-houses are smaller and simpler than their Hadrian's Wall equivalents,103 even where military units were, it can be argued, transferredfrom one frontier to the other, which could argue for the smallness of the garrisons actually resident in the Antonine Wall forts. Duntocher is the smallest known fort on the Antonine Wall, with a likely garrison of not more than 100 men, very probably fewer. Although the fort possessed a bath-house smaller than the suggested 'norm' (above, p. 205), the building was equal in size to, or even larger than, several others on the Forth-Clyde frontier line. At the smaller forts, such as Rough Castle and Duntocher, it is hard to imagine that bath-houses were originally accommodated internally; in both of these cases the external bath-house was probably the only such structure. Robertson's excavations of 1947-51 at Duntocher yielded a complete hypocaust brick (below, p. 219) from the annexe west of the fort.'04 I suspect that it may be a stray from the known bath-house beside the Duntocher Burn, perhaps the result of robbing in 1775 or later, ratherthan evidence of a second such structure. Robertson's excavations at Duntocher in 1947-51 revealed the outlines of the fort, a fortlet on its western side, and a western annexe.105The fortlet was exposed again in 1976-77 (FIG.17).106 The possibility of a larger annexe enclosing the bath-house was not considered by Robertson,107 but Gough's plate xxvi.B (here FIG.14) may show the defences of such an annexe extending to the John Knox in 1785 referred to 'a fine remain of the Roman wall, which west, towards the Burn.108 is carriedalong the base of the hill' (above, p. 181), here presumed to be its south-western slope.109 Two of the Rev. John Skinner's drawings of 1825 seem to show a rampart(described by him as '10 feet high') in this position (here FIGS 6-7),110 in addition to the Military Way which we know
The excavator argued that at Balmuildy both bath-houses were in use contemporaneously (Miller 1922, 52). 100 The laconicum attached to the internal bath-house at Balmuildy blocked the line of the intervallum street (Miller 1922, 45). 101 Breeze 1984, 54. 102 Bailey 1994, 304, drawing upon Miller 1928, 28. The structure is included, for ease of comparison, on FIG.21. 103 For Hadrianic bath-house plans and dimensions, see Gillam, Jobey and Welsby 1993, 5. 104 Robertson 1957, 73f. Another fragment came from post-excavation backfilling at the oven area; there were also small fragments of box-flue tiles. 105 Robertson 1957. 106 Robertson 2001, 116. The excavation archive is now in the Hunterian Museum. 107 A careful inspection was however made of the ditch-system at the south-west corner of the site (Robertson 1957, 65), where the three ditches defending the annexe's southern side appeared to merge. o10s Gough 1789, pl. xxvi.A and B. Cf. Macdonald 1934, 331.
99 109 Knox 1785, 611. 110 BL Add. Mss. 33686, figs 391, 393 = fols 78, 80.
209
followed this general route."'IThe results of Robertson's excavations could allow at least one of the However, ditches defending the fort on its south side to extend westwards to the Duntocher Burn.112 the much larger annexe postulated here would have constituted an extremely elongated feature. Of all the buildings of a Roman fort on the northern frontiers in Britain, the bath-houses early attracted the attention of antiquaries. Bath-houses (often described as 'Sudatories') had been uncovered at Netherby in 1732,113 at Castlecary on the Antonine Wall in 1768-70 (FIG.19 No. 4),114 and at Inveresk east of Edinburghin 1783.115Initially there was some confusion over the purpose of such buildings, as at Duntocher.But by the nineteenth centurytheir function was fully appreciated.116 It is to be hoped that the Duntocher bath-house will now take its proper place in the study of such structuresboth along the Antonine Wall and in a wider context.
THE FINDS FINDS RECORDED BEFORE 1775
Coins are reported as found at Duntocher from the early eighteenth century onwards,11" but it is impossible to determine whether any derived from the site of the bath-house. The inscribed stone supposedly reading Nero (above p. 181) was known by 1723 (below, p. 210).
FINDS MADE IN 1775
Finds reported in the contemporary sources came into the possession of Mr Sellars (vintner at Dalnotter), Mr Gillies (merchant, Dalnotter House), James Wedderburn(landowner at Inveresk), John Knox (bookseller, London), and very probably John Bulloch (miller at Duntocher), as well as Charles Freebairnhimself, in addition to the professors at Glasgow University. Of the various items, only the stone gurget now survives, to my knowledge. 1. Stone: (a) Gurget in local buff sandstone (FIG.3), in the form of a female figure holding a pierced oval shell.118From the contemporaryaccounts the gurget could well have been found in one piece; by Found close to the Hot Bath, on the east side of the caldarium 1845 it was broken into three parts.119 in the early catalogue of the Roman collection at Glasgow included it is not (above, p. 188),
I Macdonald 1934, 177. A stretch of the Military Way was found when the Manse of Duntocher Trinity Parish Church l was built in 1891 (Bruce 1893, 29; Hood 1986, 9), but its alignment is not reported. The discovery is contemporary with (and perhaps informed by) the work of the Glasgow Archaeological Society's Antonine Wall Committee. 112 Robertson 1957, fig. 23 with p. 65. Pottery kilns investigated in 1977 by Newall (1998, 25) are too far south to fall within such an annexe (see FIG.1). 113 Gough 1789, 195 with pl. xii; Roy 1793, 197 with pl. xlvi; Birley 1961, 229; Daniels 1978, 313. 114 Nimmo 1777, 6; Roy 1793, 161 with pl. xxxix (drawn by Roy himself in 1769). The ground plan reminded Roy of Palladio's work (1793, 161; cf. Anderson in Roy 1793, 200f.; Keppie 1998, 28). By 1900, this building, like the Duntocher bath-house, had been seriously denuded of stonework (Christison et al. 1903, 314ff. with fig. 22). 115 De Cardonell 1822; Moir 1860; Bishop 2002, 13, 88f. Part of a hypocausted building had already been reported at Inveresk in the sixteenth century: 'Dyvers short pillers sette upright upon the grounde covered with tyle stones, large and thynck, turning into divers angles, and certayne places lyke unto chymnes to awoide smoke" (RCAHMS 1929, 91); cf. Stuart 1845, 157 pl. iv.3 for a sketch of a box-flue from Inveresk. For early reports of an opus signinum floor at Cramond, see RCAHMS 1929, 39; for subterraneanvaults at Camelon, Sibbald 1707, 33f; cf. Maitland 1757, 206. 116 For nineteenth-century interest in Roman bath-houses, often from a public health standpoint, see Haughton 1861; Wollaston 1864. 117 Gordon 1726, 52; Horsley 1732, 195; Macdonald 1918, 226. 118 Keppie and Arnold 1984, 55, no. 151; Keppie 1998, 123 no. 66. 119 See Stuart 1845, 357, pl. xv.3.
210
LAWRENCEKEPPIE
University,120 though other, less remarkablesculpture is illustrated;nor was it noted in an account of the antiquities preserved at the University's HunterianMuseum a few years after it opened.121The but he does not associate it with Duntocher. gurget is first mentioned by Stuart,122 (b) Voussoirs: 'some hewn Stones with double Grooves in them' (above, p. 186); 'square flat Stones, groov'd into one another' (above, p. 188). None now appears to survive. Currentlynone is visible in any of the nearby stone walls and dykes. (c) Inscriptions: two inscribed stones are referred to in the context of the bath-house excavation. One was claimed to bear the letters NERO and the other the letters LVCIVS. Both, we are told, were carried off to Richmond in Surrey in 1775 (above, p. 181). Their present whereabouts are unknown. The 'Nero' stone is, to my knowledge, first mentioned by Alexander Gordon in a letterto his patron Sir John Clerk of Penicuik dated 19 September 1723: 'You will have them [various inscribed stones] for little more than a trifle, viz. the Nero at Duntocher which the miller would not take a farthing for but absolutely promised to give it when asked for in my name' (SRO GD 18/5023/3/1). Subsequently Clerk's tenant farmer, Richard Burn, was despatched to collect the various stones promised: '... then I went to Kil[syt]h and found ther the two Stons left at Maxwels but [the] other at duntocher mill was not come that Length. I mised balie Starkbeing at Glasgow, and Left a Leter for him with Yor landledir [sic] his Stepmother who favours that you shall have the ston ... I left a shill to be given for the carray of the Ston that comes from Duntocher to bring it to my house and I have two heir qch shall be sent when the Rest comes here or sooner if you pleas' (SRO GD 18 5024/1, dated 28 September 1723). The stone was evidently built into the mill or the miller's house (in fact the latter,see Horsley's report below). Gordon's wording could imply that the 'Nero' stone was, unlike others, already known to Clerk and himself, but I have found no earlier testimony. Strangely it goes unmentionedin Gordon'sItinerariumSeptentrionale.123 At any rate we know that it remained walled up at Duntocher.What is presumably the same stone is again reportedby Horsley during his visit in 1727-28: 'In the dwelling house at this place [Duntocher] is a stone with some letters upon it, which I know not what to make of'.124 Horsley's sketch shows the letters OERO or OFRO (FIG.21).125 Maitlandis more cautious: 'Out of this fort divers Roman stones have been dug, some of which, with defaced and unintelligible inscriptions, are erected in the walls of the miller's house and gardens at Duntocher'.126 The text is next referredto by Pennant, as observed in 1772 at Duntocher during his second tour of Scotland: 'The houses in the village appearto have been formed out of the ruins, for many stones are smoothed on the side; and on one are the letters N.E.R.O, very legible.'"27Rather
FIG. 21. The 'Nero' stone. (Reproduced from Horsley 1732, pl. (Scotland) ILA)
University of Glasgow 1792. 121 Laskey 1813, 76-7. 122 1845, 357, fig. 15.3. 123 Gordon 1726, 51f. 124 Horsley 1732, 195; for the date, see Keppie 1998,15f. 125 Horsley 1732, pl. (Scotland) IIa. 126 Maitland 1757, vol. 1, 182. 127 Pennant 1774, vol. 1, 140 (above, p. 181). The stone is mentioned by Dr John Coakley Lettsom, reporting on a visit to Duntocher in 1775-76, but whether he actually saw it there is quite unclear (Soc.Ant.Lond. Minute Book XV, p. 28). Cf. now Tomlin 2003, 381.
120
211
surprisingly,since Knox claimed to have removed it to Richmond in 1775, the stone was reported again by Robert Chapman in his early nineteenth-centuryguides to Glasgow and environs; but the wording is borrowed from Pennant, and may not be an independent record.128 The 'Lucius' stone is known only from Knox. We could wonder whether it was discovered at the time of the excavation of the bath-house, but it goes unmentioned by the other contemporary observers. With the apparent loss of both stones, we can make no very definitive statements on how they should be interpreted.We do not know whether they were intact and the inscriptions complete. A link to the emperorNero (reigned A.D.54-68) was never seriously entertained.129 Horsley was perplexed; he wondered whether 'the first letter be the Gothic V, as in the inscription at Boroughbridge in and so the word be Vero'. Gough's verdict, influenced by Pennant,131 was that 'it is Yorkshire;130 more like the stone at Kirkby Over Carr,or perhaps the name of Nero'.132 Emil Htibner,followed by R.P.Wright,joint editor of RIB (where Horsley's drawingis reproduced), Thus Htibner interpretedthe text as 7FRO, i.e. centuria Fro[ntini], 'the century of Frontinus'.133 divined a building block, inscribed with a record of constructionwork by a century of Roman troops, headed by a centurionFrontinus.Such texts are known at several Roman military sites in Britain, and especially on Hadrian'sWall.134 Clearly there was an inclination at the time to read both inscriptions as recording familiar Roman names. They were interpreted in the 1770s as proper names in the nominative case, but we can wonder whether NERO was the end of a word in the dative or ablative or indeed whether LVCIVS, if correctly read, might be split to read (e.g.) ... ]luci v(otum) case;135 If a centurial record, the 'Nero' stone would belong to a masonry s(olvit), indicative of an altar.136 building, perhaps the bath-house, or a building on the hill above, or even the presumedbridge. Little more can usefully be said at the present time. 2. Coal: 'Among the Ashes of the Fire which heated their Sudatories' (above, p. 187), presumably the furnace area at the south end of the building. Coal has been found at a numberof Antonine Wall forts,137 but not, to my knowledge, in or associated with a bath-house.138 3. Bone: 'Some Animals Bones were found there supposed to have belonged to Swine or Wild Boars that had taken abode there after the Romans. The Tusks were very large' (above, p. 186). Cf. at and Inveresk.140 Bothwellhaugh139
128 Chapman 1812, 212; 1818, 289. 129 Only Lettsom in 1776 hints at an early Roman occupation of the area suggested by this stone (Soc.Ant.Lond. Minute Book XV, p. 28). 130 RIB 709 (Aldborough). 131 See Adv.Mss.29.5.6 (i), fol. 116. 132 1789, 359; 1806, pl. 1.10 (at p. 61). 133 Ephemeris Epigraphica III (1877), 138 no. 115; R.P. Wright ad RIB 2202. 134 Breeze and Dobson 2000, 72ff. 135 Horsley had already suggested VERO, and we might consider SEVERO. 136 R.S.O. Tomlin, noting this stone in a recent volume of Britannia, suggested that the word 'Lucius' could be a cognomen, given that a praenomen would normally be abbreviated to the single letter L (Britannia 34 (2003), 371 no. 13). Given the discrepancy between Horsley's drawing and Pennant's apparently confident reading of the 'Nero' stone, we need to remain flexible as to the true reading here, not even excluding a reference to the procuratorQ. Lusius Sabinianus, twice attested at Inveresk (Birley 1981, 294). 137 Robertson 1942, 122 (Mumrills); cf. more generally, Webster 1955; Adams, Bradburn and Boon 1965; Dearne and Branigan 1995; Smith 1997; Frere 1999, 291. 138cf. Webster 1955; Rook 1992, 26. Fragments of coal were located during excavation by F. Newall of kilns west of Duntocher fort in 1977 (finds list at Hunterian Museum), but not certainly from a Roman context. Note coal found in the bath-house at Red House, Corbridge (Daniels 1959, 167). 139 Keppie 1981, 67f. 140 De Cardonnel 1822, 161.
212
LAWRENCEKEPPIE
4. Cereals: 'A few grains of wheat were likewise picked up' (above, p. 193). Cf. at Westerwood141 and at Castlecary.142 5. Lead: 'A Lump of Lead, of ab[ou]t 5 lb Weight, which appeared as cut off from a large Mass' (above, p. 188); 'a piece of lead as if cut from a bar or pig, weighing three or four pounds, covered with a thick coat of ceruse or rust of lead' (Gough,143presumably from personal inspection in London; cf. No. 6 below). 6. Glass: 'A piece of Plate Glass, which he [Freebairn]considers as a great Curiosity, & which may determine a long subsisting Debate amongst Antiquarians.There was anotherpiece of the same size found in the Rubbish' (above, p. 188); 'Two pieces of white glass, which seems to have been cast as plate glass, as one side shows the surface of glass in the plate as the air leaves it, the other the mould or surface it has been poured upon. The two pieces may contain about six square inches and are about 3/32 parts of an inch thick and towards one of the corners a little more'.144Presumably window glass. 7. Clay: (a) Tiles and bricks: 'The tiles were of 7 different sizes, the smallest being 7,145 and the largest 21 inches square. They were from 2 to 3 inches in thickness, of a reddish colour, and in perfect sound condition' (Knox, above, p. 179); 'These pillars are said to be 8 inches square at their base; but their Capitals, graduallyprojecting, increase to 21 inches, thereby distinct Arches underneath,& a regular connected surface at the Top' (Soc. Antiq. London Minute Book XIV, p. 355); 'the nine undermost bricks are eight inches square, and the uppermost 21 inches; the next three are generally less, as appears in this sketch [here FIG.15.C]; they are very little more than two inches thick, of the finest mould and colour; their arracesand corners as sharpas the day they came from the kiln, of a beautiful pale red smooth surface' (Freebairn,above, p. 185). (b) 'The middle part of a Priapus,of unglaz'd Clay' (above, p. 188).146 (c) 'Dancing Mall': 12 inches high, made of reddish clay, it had 'the appearance of a dancing figure'.147 To be equated with (b) above? 8. Pottery By Peter Webster The pottery from the 1775 excavations, known only from a description and illustrations in Gough's 1789 edition of Camden's Britannia,148the result of their earlier exhibition before the Society of Antiquaries of London, presents an interesting problem in identification. The pieces illustrated (FIG. 22) are to the high artistic standardwhich one would expect of the engraver, James Basire, but it is clear that both he and Gough were more familiar with classical than with provincial Roman art. It is certain that a degree of interpretationwent into the drawings (and presumably also the engravings) as into all such work. The problem facing us is to try to get back to the appearanceof the originals
141 Macdonald 1934, 256. 142 Nimmo 1777, 7. For a discussion of such evidence, see Macdonald 1934, 453; Dickson and Dickson 2000, 122,
240.
143 Gough 1789, 362. 144 Gough 1789, 362. 145 This size matches the single complete brick found in Robertson's 1947-51 excavations (above, p. 208), and is a
regular size found on Romano-British sites. 146 For Priapus, see Johns and Henig 1991. RIB 2106 (Birrens) is the only epigraphic attestation of the cult in Britain. 147 Stuart 1852, 302 fn. 148 1789, 362 with pl. xxvii.
( .,.:; ,'.?L ',
It
...t.
?. '. --..
iC
. . .
:,
: .Sf;
'
1I
.'. . . . I l .. . .iii
,Ssi
....
_?t .. .~ ~~ ~~~~, -.
'. -'.
..
...
'....
FIG.
22.
Pottery from the bath-house, exhibited at the Society of Antiquariesof London, 1778. Engravedby James Ba from Gough 1789, pl. xxvii) (Reproduced
214
LAWRENCEKEPPIE
without access to the sherds themselves. The result is bound to be more speculative than is normal for pottery reports. It is a tribute to both Gough and Basire that so much can be made of these pieces. Of the five illustrations, two are of decorated samian bowls, two of mortaria,with the fifth illustration being a detail of the stamp on one of the mortars.In the report below, we have retained the numbering used by Gough and, where relevant, have included his text. (a) Samian ware 'Figs. 1 and 2 are parts of two paterae of fine red clay, ... the glazing or varnish on both sides being perfectly fresh'.149The description by Gough is a good one for Gaulish samian ware which is certainly what we have here. The reasonable state of preservation may be noted, as can the red and, therefore, unburnt, character of the pottery, a contrast to much samian from Antonine Wall deposits. 1. Form 37, described by Gough as being 'in perfect preservation'. The piece shows panel decoration probably from a design in which wide and narrowpanels repeat around the vessel. Both contain decorative elements which appear in the work of the Central Gaulish potter Cinnamus. The largerpanel shows a centaurwith flowing hair. This is 0.732,150 although the Basire version betrays greater artistic merit than the original. In the field are what appear to be feathers on the engraving but are probably the leaves of a ratherstylised acanthus spray only partially impressed in the original mould (as Rogers 1999, pl. 28, 7). The narrow panel contains a roped festoon suspended from astragali above small circles and a helmeted warrior. Gough describes the figure as being 'armed with sword and shield'. The sword is far from clear on the engraving, but this is probably 0.1059 which appears, for instance, on the signed Cinnamus bowl, Rogers 1999, pl. 32, 49. The festoon may be Rogers 1974, F78 (perhaps as Stanfield and Simpson 1958, pl. 157, 6). The detail within the festoon is more difficult to determine. Gough gives us no clue and one suspects gave none to his illustrator;a possibility is the upward-facingmask seen in Stanfield and Simpson 1958, pl. 159, 23. The ovolo-border presents a particularproblem. The tongue has been interpretedas having a tridentlike end. Although common on South Gaulish samian this is not a CentralGaulish feature. The most which matches this in size. The wedge-shaped terminal of the likely ovolo is no. 3 of Cinnamus,151 Cinnamus ovolo might have given rise to the interpretationengraved. If this is the case, then a date in the period c. A.D. 150-170 is likely for our piece. 2. Form 37. The decoration is described by Gough as 'female or gowned figures in rounds with dolphins between them in the same style but in worse condition [than No. 1 above]'. The condition appearsto have defeated Basire who portraysthe figures rathersketchily and shrouds the upper part of the bowl in deep shadow. The result is a piece which it is difficult to elucidate in the absence of the original. The decoration appears to consist of large double-borderedmedallions with a smaller single-borderedmedallion within, probablyoverstamping,and certainly enclosing, Gough's 'gowned figures'. One of the figures appearsto have been placed in a supine ratherthan upright position.The large medallions are evenly spaced around the vessel. Between them are a small ?double-bordered medallion over a small dolphin. The general arrangementmight suit an East Gaulish piece, although none of the figure types seems to match those from that area. The sketchy nature of the 'gowned figure' makes it difficult to ascribe, but there is a markedsimilarity to 0.939 which is used by, among The small dolphin could be the right-facing pair of the leftothers, Secundus I of Central Gaul.152 facing 0.2401 also used by Secundus who was working c. A.D. 150-170. The ascription seems a
149 Gough 1789, 362 pl. xxvii.1-2;
FIG.21.
150 cf. Stanfield and Simpson 1958, pl. 163, 73. 151 Stanfield and Simpson 1958, fig. 47. 152 cf. Rogers 1999, pl. 108, 4, for the figure and ibid., 2 for use of the multiple medallions.
215
reasonable one, but can only be a suggestion when the detail of the piece clearly eluded both Gough and his engraver. (b) Mortaria 3-4. Described by Gough as being in 'white clay' and bearing the stamp BRUSC.F.153Gough, no doubt thinking of Roman building inscriptions, translates the F asfilius, butfecit would be more likely in this context. However, this is almost certainly a stamp of the potter Bruscius of MancetterHartshill and may well be from the same die as a stamp found in Verulamium and discussed by and interpreted,on the basis of a range of impressions, as BRVSC or BRVSCI. The K.F. Hartley,154 Verulamium stamp shows an additional small panelled border to the right of the lettering, which could well be what Gough and Basire interpretedas the letter F. Other stamps by the same potter are Bruscius is accorded an early/mid-Antonine date, mainly on known from Mumrills and Cramond.155 the evidence of Scottish finds. 5. Spout. Gough describes it only as the 'ansa or ear of anotherearthenvessel', which is insufficient to show even if it is from a different vessel from Nos 3-4.156 In summary,a reassessment of the Duntocher pottery confirms its Antonine date. At least two of the three or four vessels illustratedare by makers whose work is well known on Antonine Wall sites. One cannot really ask for a great deal more from pieces recorded in the eighteenth century.157
FINDS MADE IN 1978158
1. Clay (a) Box-flues and hypocaustpilae By G.B. Bailey 1. Box-flues General The 700 or more box-flue tile fragments recovered from Duntocher in 1978 are generally small, the largest being only 0.14 m long. They are slightly abradedand there are few pieces that join. These features indicate that the material is derived from a re-worked deposit such as a cultivation soil. Of the fragments43 per cent have key marks, suggesting that there was little or no preferentialrecovery at the time of the archaeological excavation. The presence of side-vents shows that the box-flue tiles completely lined the walls and did not merely form isolated vertical channels or chimneys. To line a single wall takes a large amount of tile; the amount collected must be seen as a small sample. The sherd fabric has variable qualities. Some sherds are well-fired and have a metallic ring, whilst others are relatively soft and produce a dull thud. The former are dark red, but the majority are reddish-buff in colour with a slightly redder core. However, the fabric of all the material is fairly uniform and the ranges in colour and hardness may be merely the result of different temperatures within the kiln or clamp. Box-flue tiles generally have a large amount of grog in them for strength, essential for their
153 Gough 1789, pl. xxvii.3-4. Cf. Stuart 1845, pl. viii.4; Wilson 1851, 402; CIL VII 1334.18; Macdonald 1934, 331 Robertson 1957, 5. 154 In Frere 1972, 373-4, no. 14. 155 See Steer 1961, fig. 9, 1 and p. 110 for a list of known examples including our Duntocher stamp. 156 Gough 1789, pl. xxvii.5. In fact Freebairn's letter, as reported to the Antiquaries in June 1779, indicates that two such vessels were exhibited to Fellows (above, p. 188). 157 'Some other pieces with different ornaments as medallions &c made of the same materials' (Gough 1789, 362), clearly identifiable as decorated samian, were not included among the pottery fragments sent south in 1778-79. 158 Brogan and Henderson 1978 (carbon copy of typescript at Hunterian Museum): 'Quantities of hypocaust and flue tiles and ... some Roman pottery (three sherds of amphora, one of decorated terra sigillata)'. The details were unfortunately edited out of the entry published in Discovery and Excavation in Scotland.
216
LAWRENCEKEPPIE
function. The inclusions in the Duntocher material are mostly in the range of 1-2 mm in length, the two principal types being white quartz and dark red flecks of previously fired clay. There are some quartzpebbles up to 10 mm in size, but these are few. Size and vents (FIG.23.1) There are several examples of sherds that contain the complete depth of the box-flue tile, having broken at the weak corners. These are consistently 0.1 m deep externally. The width of the box tiles was only obtained in one example where it was possible to join two sherds with keying on their external faces. This gave a width of 0.15 m. Due to the broken and abradednature of the collection, it was not possible to reconstruct the height. The surviving vent sides indicate that these were 0.1 m long. Assuming that these occupied a third of the height, this gives a total height of 0.3 m, a not unreasonablefigure proportionally. The thickness of the walls of the box-flues is relatively consistent at 20 mm. This is comparablewith tiles from other Wall sites such as Mumrills, Rough Castle, and Castlecary,but considerably less than the massive examples from Camelon. The side vents are cut centrally,with only 25 mm of clay left to either side. They have straightsides and a straightbase, but appearto have possessed a curved top. Mode of manufacture(FIG. 23.2-6) The following method of manufacture can be pieced together from the intrinsic evidence of the The even thickness shows sherds.As is normal, the flue tiles were produced from flat slabs of clay.159 that these slabs were formed in shallow rectangularwooden moulds, levelled off by drawing a stick across the top. However, the drag lines that usually occur as the stick drags the surface inclusions along are absent on the finished productas this face became the interiorone, which was modified by the next stage in the process. The frame of the mould was removed and the two ends of the clay slab were cut to a tapered chamfer. Lateral indentations were then made at the points were the corners were to be shaped. This was done with a forming-block- a rectangularpiece of wood slightly larger than the interior of the finished box tile. The first of the lateral grooves was made only 20-40 mm from the end of the slab. A corner of the wooden block was firmly pressed into the clay in a rolling action leaving rounded corners to a V-shaped channel. Then the block was rolled over the surface and the next groove formed at the second corner of the block. The imprint of the wood grain can still be seen on the interior surfaces of the box tiles at Duntocher. The clay slab had to be leatherhard for the next step. It was laid on one of the long ends and deftly folded into the box shape. The external corners thus produced were rounded, but the internal ones were neatly folded into a slightly hollowed right-angle. The ends of the slab were designed to overlap just enough to form a lap join close to one of the corners. However, because the ends had been tapered,the joint was essentially a variant scarfjoint. A secondary forming-block, basically a rectangularwooden stick, was inserted into the jointed corner of the flue tile. Pressure could then be applied along the length of the join to weld the ends together. Externallythis resulted in considerable surface deformationrunningthe length of the tile and left the imprints of numerous finger-marksand an occasional palm-mark. Internally it created a secondary ridge at the corner. The joint itself was smoothed off on the outside and is rarely visible, whereas internally it invariably appearsas a wrinkle. Next the vents were cut using a sharpimplement. They could not have been cut before the box was created as they would have weakened the clay slab too much and the inside of the vents protrude beyond the area where the secondary formerhad been placed. The knife-cuts left smooth faces on the sides of the vent holes. Where the cuts do not meet exactly, particularlyat the lower corers, it can be seen that this implementhad a narrowblade and was probablythe same one used to key the surface
159 McWhirr and Viner 1978, 362.
217
100
150
scarf join
secondary corner side pushed back pressure corner originalvent
FIG.23. Box-flue tiles. 1. Reconstructeddimensions of the box-flue tile showing over-all patternproduced by combing; 2. Rolling the forming-block over the surface to produce corner indentations;3. The modified clay slab; 4. Sectional view of the folded box tile; 5. Secondary forming-block in place; 6. A typical corner of the flue tile where the joint occurs; vent edges then finished off. (Drawn by G.B. Bailey)
218
LAWRENCEKEPPIE
later.The two vertical cuts seem to have been made first, then the horizontalone at the base. The threesided wedge of clay createdwas then pulled outwardsand finally the top was cut out in a curve, freeing the piece. One resultof this sequence was to leave the edges of the vent with a slight chamferoutwards. The knife was used to flattenthese out, making the vent edges thickerthan the rest of the tile. During this process the tiles had been stood on end and a few examples show that the lower edge curled under the strain. This was probably due to the clay still having too much moisture in it. Occasionally this necessitated trimming the edge with the knife and removing the surplus material that had curled outwards. Finally, the key lines were incised into the front face. There are two distinct types at Duntocher - single lines produced with a narrow blade, such as a knife, and parallel grooves produced by a blunter multi-toothed implement such as a comb. In both instances, the channel edges are doubled over because the clay was still very plastic. The knife lines are representedby only 31 sherds (not all from the same tile face), whereas there are 286 sherds bearing comb marks. The knife was used to make diagonal lines across the face, which were then crossed diagonally to finish with a lattice patterncovering the whole face. Several combs were evidently in use, one of which had seven teeth, anotherfive teeth. The ends of the combs were irregular.Some teeth created V-shaped channels, whilst others were rectangular.Length and width of the tines also differed. The seven-pronged comb had its two end tines slightly shorterthan the central five. Whichever comb was used, the overall pattern created was much the same. The first stroke went from bottom left to the top just to the right of the centre. This was crossed by a line from the bottom right to just left of the centre- giving what approximatesto an invertedV. Three horizontal (actually most rise a little from left to right) bands were then added. This is an inefficient way to key the surface as it leaves some areas with no lines at all and others heavily scored. It probably representsthe personal design or 'signature' of the man responsible. It is not known whether or not the back face was also keyed, as it is not possible to piece the fragments together into a complete circuit. Of the pieces that can definitely be identified as flue tiles, 317 had keying and 292 were plain, which suggests that two sides were indeed keyed and two were plain. The keying does not extend to the sides. After this the tile was taken to a drying area.Again this handling left fingerprintsall over the tiles, flattening some of the keyed lines. The obvious way to hold the box tile would be to place the lower edge in the palm of the hand with the fingers inside and the thumb outside. Indeed, one sherd has four such finger-markson the inside. Discussion Flue tiles are designed to be hidden when in use and consequently lack the fine finish of pottery. This utilitarianapproachmeans that productionscars are readily observed. As function took priority over form, it was possible to manufacturea useable product in a variety of ways and so the artisans developedtheirown peculiarsystems. These should allow us to differentiatethe work of the individuals concernedand this is the reason for providing so much detail above on the mode of production. At Duntocher the tiles exhibit a number of features not seen at other Wall sites and some that are different in characterfrom those at other sites. The clay at Duntocher was unusually plastic when it was worked, hence the degradationof the keying lines, the sagging of the base, the treatmentof the vent edges and the odd raised fingerprint(where the clay has stuck to the finger as it was lifted off). The internalcornergrooves are different from those at Mumrills, which are finger finished, and those at Castlecary,which are squarer.At Duntocherthe tops of the vents are rounded;at Mumrills they are pointed, though rounded examples occur elsewhere.160 The lattice keying occurs at most sites (though not at Castlecary, which may be the result of
160 Bailey and Gray forthcoming.
219
preferential collecting). The banded and inverted V-comb pattern is restricted to Duntocher and is comparable with the use of alternate vertical bands of wavy and straight lines at Castlecary. Similarly, Camelon is the only site to produce examples with wavy lines on the interior. The dominant 'signature' at Duntocher is the banded and inverted V-comb pattern on a medium hard fabric with plenty of finger-marks.There are just a few sherds in a harder fabric bearing the lattice pattern. It is possible that they were made side-by-side by fellow workers. However, they may not be contemporaryand the lattice-patternedvariety may representan alteration,extension, or repairto the bath-house.161 Furtherstudy of collections is requiredto define the signatures of makers at other sites along the Antonine Wall. A preliminary survey has shown that each site has its own peculiarities and that only at Mumrills and Rough Castle do the same production characteristics coincide. It would therefore seem possible that each fort produced its own tiles, as it often did its pottery. Had itinerant tile makers been involved, it would have been only the fabric and not the techniques that would have differed. The lack of standardisationis further emphasised by the occasional use of stone slabs to create the flue cavity in bath-houses at places such as Bearsden and KemperAvenue in Falkirk. This raises the possibility that the bath-houses, like other major fort buildings, were built by auxiliaries. We know, for example, that the principia at Rough Castle was built by the Sixth Cohort of Nervians (RIB 2145). Indeed, there is a well-known example of a tile kiln in the annexe of the auxiliary fort at which was used by This was a substantialkiln, similar to that at Mumrills,163 Gellygaer in Wales.162 the unit to make mortaria as well as roof tiles over an extended period 2. Hypocaustpilae Only small fragments of brick/pila tile were recovered from Duntocher in 1978 (in contrastto 1775). From these it is not possible to determine their length or breadth,the longest surviving piece being only 21 cm. Two thicknesses are represented. Most pieces are 55 mm thick, but one fragment is significantly less at 45 mm. (b) Opus signinum and plaster 1. Fragmentof opus signinum (120 x 140 x 50 mm), containing poorly sorted, mixed coarse gravel (perhaps deriving from the adjacent Burn), vein quartz, and many tile fragments. The surface shows considerable wear, perhaps the result of deliberate abrading and grinding at the time of the constructionof the bath-house (information from Dr J.W. Faithfull). 2. Fragmentof plaster (Roman?) (140 x 120 x 50 mm), with small pebble inclusions. 2. Pottery By P.V. Webster 1. Form 37, a small Central Gaulish bowl. The surviving fragment shows a basal guideline below partsof panel decorationdivided by bead rows with rosette terminals.The whole is somewhat abraded with some furtherdamage to the surface at the lower right. The panel decoration is as follows (from left to right): (a) wreathed medallion, possibly Rogers 1974, E16, containing an unidentified type; (b) a narrowpanel containing the lower part of the Victory 0.819A; (c) a double-borderedmedallion over a damaged figure which is probably the stag 0. 1704. The medallion and Victory both appear in work ascribed to Cinnamus and Pugnus, but the latter does not appearto have used the stag. A date c. A.D. 150-170 seems likely.
161 Production of flue tiles was episodic, in order to coincide with construction demands; different artisans would be involved on each occasion. Brodribb (1987, 109) has suggested that lattice-incised designs are earlier than comb patterns, but this sequence tends to be site-specific.
162 Ward 1913.
163 Macdonald 1915, 123-8 with his figs 9-10, pls II-III.
220
KEPPIE LAWRENCE
2. Two joining fragments of neck from an amphoraof Dressel form 20, the globular South Spanish olive oil amphora.The rim is of Martin-Kilcherform 29 of mid-second-century A.D. date.164 General comments on the ceramicfinds Although not ruling out Flavian occupation somewhere in the vicinity, Anne Robertson made it clear that the finds from the 1947-51 excavations belonged wholly to the Antonine period.165Looking back at her published material after almost fifty years, one inevitably sees many vessels about which more could now be said, but the chronological inferences remain the same. The finds made in the eighteenth century and in 1978 merely reinforce this view. Neither of the latter are of course numerous, but nevertheless the eighteenth-century samian finds, in particular,add significantly to the sum of decoratedware from the site and it is ironical that one can say more about them than the decorated assemblage from 1947-51. Nor should the significance of the occurrence of one of the fairly small numberof mortariastamped by Bruscius be overlooked. On a site where 'the harvest of finds was meagre in the extreme',166one should be thankful for the observations of the eighteenthcentury antiquariesand their illustrator.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am glad here of the opportunityto thank Dr P.V. Webster (University of Wales, Cardiff) and Mr G.B. Bailey (Falkirk Museums) for their valuable contributions, and the following for helping to identify unpublished documents and responding to my enquiries: Elizabeth Bell, Mrs Fionna Ashmore (Society of Antiquaries of Scotland), Jane Baxter (Local Studies Librarian,Borough of Richmond upon Thames), David Bird (Surrey Archaeological Society), Morag Cross, the Rev. David Donaldson (Trinity Parish Church, Duntocher), Simon Eccles and Jennifer Rose (Glasgow Museums), Ross Eudall, George Fairfull-Smith, Alexander Fairweather (Allan MurrayArchitects,Edinburgh),Dr John Faithfull(HunterianMuseum), lain Fraser(NMRS), Dr M. Henig (Instituteof Archaeology,Oxford), Sam Gibson and David Carson(ClydebankHistorical Society), Mr N.M.McQ. Holmes and Mr F. Hunter (National Museums of Scotland), John Hood (formerly Chief Librarian,Clydebank District), Dr R.E. Jones (Departmentof Archaeology, University of Glasgow), Irene Miller (Museum of Islay
Dr J.P.Wild(University of Manchester); Dr Newall,Dr R.S.O.Tomlin (Wolfson Life),Frank College,Oxford), of Scotland, I.G. Brownandcolleagues (National Division),Pat Malcolmandcolleagues Library Manuscripts Nurseand D. Morgan Central AdrianJames,Bernard Evans(Societyof Antiquaries of (Clydebank Library),
London),James McGrathandAnn Sweeney (StrathclydeUniversityArchives andAndersonianLibrary),and staff The cost of obtaining illustrative material from the Bodleian Library was met by the Jennie S. Gordon Memorial Foundation and the cost of obtaining material from the Society of Antiquaries of London and from the Scottish National PortraitGallery by the HunterianMuseum, University of Glasgow. A draft of the text was read, to my great advantage, by Mr P.T. Bidwell, Professor D.J. Breeze, Mr R. Goodburn,Dr P.V.Webster,and the incoming Editor,Dr A.S. Esmonde Cleary. For permission to print here extracts from the Clerk of Penicuik Muniments, held by National Archives of Scotland, Edinburgh,I am grateful to Sir Robert Clerk of Penicuik, Bt; for permission to print extracts from the Paton-Gough correspondenceI am grateful to the Trustees of the National Libraryof Scotland, Edinburgh; for permission to print extracts from their Minute Books I am grateful to the Society of Antiquaries of London. Acknowledgement of the sources of various illustrations are acknowledged in the captions; all are reproduced with permission.
at theMitchell Central andtheBodleian Library Library (Oxford). (Glasgow), Edinburgh Library,
Hunterian Museum, University of Glasgow Ikeppie@museum.gla.ac.uk Thispaper is published with the aid of a grantfrom Historic Scotland
164 PeacockandWilliams1986, 138, fig. 66.
165 Robertson 1957, 74-5, 89-90. 166 Robertson 1957, 70.
WALL ATDUNTOCHER ONTHEANTONINE A ROMAN BATH-HOUSE BIBLIOGRAPHY
221
Adams, H.F., Bradburn, E., and Boon, G.C. 1965: 'Coal from the legionary fortress of Caerleon, Monmouthshire', Geol. Magazine 102, 469-73 Anderson, J. 1771: Of the Roman Wallbetween the Forth & Clyde; and of some Discoveries which have lately been made upon it (Andersonian Library,University of Strathclyde:Anderson MS 22A, fols 1-52) Anderson, J. 1773: Supplementarypages to Anderson 1771 (Andersonian Library,University of Strathclyde: Anderson MS 22A, fols 93-119) Badham, S.F. 1987: 'Richard Gough and the flowering of Romantic antiquarianism', Church Monuments 2, 32-43 Bailey, G.B. 1991: 'A Roman fort on the Wall at Falkirk', Calatria [Journal of the Falkirk Local History Society] 1, 5-17 Bailey, G.B. 1994: 'The provision of fort-annexes on the Antonine Wall', Proc.Soc.Antiq.Scot. 124, 299-314 Bailey, G.B. 1996: 'Stream crossings on the Antonine Wall', Proc.Soc.Antiq.Scot. 126, 347-69 Bailey, G.B., and Gray, B. forthcoming: 'Roman box-flue tile production at Mumrills', Calatria [Journal of the Falkirk Local History Society] Barclay, Rev. M. 1845: 'Parish of Old Kilpatrick', in The New Statistical Account of Scotland, vol. 8, Edinburgh, 15-35 Bidwell, P.T. 1997: Roman Forts in Britain, London Birley, A.R. 1981: The Fasti of Roman Britain, Oxford Birley, E. 1961: Research on Hadrian 's Wall,Kendal Bishop, M.C. (ed.) 2002: Roman Inveresk, Edinburgh Black, E.W. 1995: Cursus Publicus: the Infrastructure of Government in Roman Britain, BAR 241, Oxford Brabrook, E.W. 1910: 'On the Fellows of the Society of Antiquaries who have held the Office of Director', Archaeologia 62, 59-80 Breeze, D.J. 1984: 'The Roman fort on the Antonine Wall at Bearsden', in D.J. Breeze (ed.), Studies in Scottish Antiquity Presented to Stewart Cruden, Edinburgh, 32-68 Breeze, D.J., and Dobson, B. 2000: Hadrian 's Wall(4th edn), Harmondsworth Brodribb, G. 1987: Roman Brick and Tile, Gloucester Brogan, J., and Henderson, A.A.R. 1978: 'Duntocher, Roman bathhouse', Discovery and Excavation in Scotland 1978, Edinburgh,26 Bruce, John 1893: History of the Parish of Old or WestKilpatrick, Glasgow Butt, J. 1996: John Anderson's Legacy: The University of Strathclyde and its Antecedents, East Linton Callender, R.M., and Macaulay, J. 1984: TheAncient Metal Mines of the Isle oflslay, Argyll = British Mining 24, Sheffield Cardonnel, A. de 1822: 'Description of certain Roman ruins discovered at Inveresk', Archaeologia Scotica 2, 159-67 Chapman, R. 1812: The Picture of Glasgow, or Strangers' Guide, Glasgow Chapman, R. 1818: The Picture of Glasgow, and Strangers' Guide, Glasgow Christison, D. et al. 1903: 'Excavation of Castlecary fort on the Antonine Vallum', Proc.Soc.Antiq.Scot. 37 (1902-03), 271-346 Clarke, J. 1933: The Roman Fort at Cadder, Glasgow Colvin, H. 1995: A Biographical Dictionary of British Architects 1600-1840, New Haven/London Cooper, T. 1890: 'Richard Gough', Dictionary of National Biography 22, 279-82 Daniels, C.M. 1959: 'The Roman bathhouse at Red House, Beaufront, Corbridge', Archaeol. Aeliana4 37, 85-176 Daniels, C.M. 1978: The Handbook to the Roman Wall, by J. Collingwood Bruce (13th edn), Newcastle Davidson, Rev. John 1793: 'Old Kilpatrick', in Sir J. Sinclair (ed.), The Statistical Account of Scotland, vol. 5, Edinburgh, 229-40 Dearne, M.J., and Branigan, K. 1995: 'The use of coal in Roman Britain', Antiq. Journ. 75, 71-105 Dickson, C., and Dickson, J.H. 2000: Plants and People in Ancient Scotland, Stroud Doig, R.P. 1956: George Paton: A Study of his Life and Correspondence, unpub. Ph.D. thesis, St Andrews Doig, R.P. 1957: 'George Paton book collector', Private Libraries Association Quarterly 1.4, 48-51 Dunwell, A., and Ralston, I. 1995: 'Excavations at Inveravon on the Antonine Wall, 1991', Proc.Soc.Antiq.Scot. 125, 521-76
222
LAWRENCE KEPPIE
Evans, J. 1956: A History of the Society ofAntiquaries, London Farington, J. 1788-92: Notebooks and Pencil Drawings of a Tour in Scotland (Edinburgh Central Library) Excavations, vol. I, Report Research Committee Society of Antiquaries London Frere, S.S. 1972: Verulamium 28, London Frere, S.S. 1999: Britannia: a History of Roman Britain (Folio Society edn), London Frere, S.S., and Wilkes, J.J. 1989: Strageath: Excavations within the Roman Fort 1973-86, Britannia monograph 9, London Garlick, K., and Macintyre, A. (eds) 1978: The Diary of Joseph Farington, vol. 1, New Haven/London Gillam, J.P., Jobey, I.M., and Welsby, D.A. 1993: The Roman Bath-house at Bewcastle, Cumbria, Cumb. & West. Antiq. and Archaeol. Society Research Ser. 7, Kendal Goodburn, R. 1979: 'Roman Britain in 1978. Part 1. Sites explored', Britannia 10, 268-338 Gordon, A. 1726: Itinerarium Septentrionale, London Gough, R. 1773: 'Observations on some Roman altars found in August 1771, near Graham's Dyke', Archaeologia 3, 118-24 Gough, R. 1780: British Topography(2nd edn), London Gough, R. 1786: Sepulchral Monuments in Great Britain, vol. 1, London Gough, R. 1789: Britannia, by William Camden (rev. edn), vol. 3, London Gough, R. 1806: Britannia, by William Camden (rev. edn), vol. 4, London Hanson, W.S., and Maxwell, G.S. 1983: Rome's North WestFrontier: the Antonine Wall, Edinburgh Hanson, W.S., and Yeoman, P. 1988: Elginhaugh, a Roman Fort and its Environs, Edinburgh Haughton, E. 1861: On the Remains ofAncient Roman Baths in England, London/Liverpool Henderson, T.F. 1895: 'George Paton', in Dictionary of National Biography 44, 34-5 Holmes, N. (ed. by M. Collard and J. Lawson) 2003: Excavation of Roman Sites at Cramond, Edinburgh, Edinburgh Hood, J. 1984: More Duntocher and Hardgate in Pictures, Clydebank Hood, J. 1986: History of Duntocher TrinityParish Church 1836-1986, Clydebank Hood, J. 1988: The History of Clydebank, Carnforth Horsley, J. 1732: Britannia Romana, London Johns, C., and Henig, M. 1991: 'A statuette of a herm of Priapus from Pakenham, Suffolk', Antiq. Journ. 71, 236-9 Johnson, A. 1983: Roman Forts of the 1st and 2nd Centuries AD in Britain and the German Provinces, London Jones, N. 1787: Jones'Directory, or Useful Pocket Companionfor the Year 1787, Glasgow Jones, N. 1789: Jones 'Directory, or Useful Pocket Companionfor the Year 1789, Glasgow Jupp, C.N. 1994: The History of Islay: from Earliest Times to 1848, Islay Kay, J. 1837: A Series of Original Portraits and Caricature Etchings, Edinburgh Keppie, L.J.F. 1981: 'Excavation of a Roman bathhouse at Bothwellhaugh, Lanarkshire, 1975-76', Glasgow Archaeol. J. 8, 46-94 Keppie, L.J.F. 1986: 'Excavations at the Roman fort on Bar Hill, 1978-82', Glasgow Archaeol. J. 12, 49-81 Keppie, L.J.F. 1995: 'Excavations at the Roman fort of Westerwood on the Antonine Wall', Glasgow Archaeol. J. 19 (1994-95), 83-99 Keppie, L.J.F. 1998: Roman Inscribed and Sculptured Stones in the Hunterian Museum, University of Glasgow, Britannia Monograph 13, London Keppie, L.J.F. 2002: 'New light on excavations at Bar Hill Roman fort on the Antonine Wall, 1902-05', Scot.Archaeol.J. 24.1, 21-48 Keppie, L.J.F. forthcoming: 'A walk along the Antonine Wall in 1825: the travel journal of the Rev. John Skinner', Proc.Soc.Antiq.Scot. Keppie, L.J.F., and Arnold, B.J. 1984: Corpus Signorum Imperii Romani, Great Britain, vol. 1, fasc. 4, Scotland, Oxford Keppie, L.J.F., and Breeze, D.J. 1981: 'Some excavations on the line of the Antonine Wall, 1957-80',
Proc.Soc.Antiq.Scot. 111, 229-47 111, Keppie, L.J.F., and Murray, J.F. 1981: 'A Roman hypocausted building at Falkirk', Proc.Soc.Antiq.Scot. 248-62 Keppie, L.J.F., Bailey, G.B., Dunwell, A.J., McBrien, J.H., and Speller, K. 1995: 'Some excavations on the line of the Antonine Wall 1985-93', Proc.Soc.Antiq.Scot. 125, 601-72
WALL ONTHEANTONINE ATDUNTOCHER BATH-HOUSE A ROMAN
223
Knox, J. 1785: A View of the British Empire, more especially Scotland (3rd edn), London Laskey, J. 1813: A General Account of the Hunterian Museum, Glasgow, Glasgow Macdonald, G. 1911: The Roman Wallin Scotland, Glasgow Macdonald, G. 1915: 'Some recent discoveries on the line of the Antonine Wall', Proc.Soc.Antiq.Scot. 49, 93-118 Macdonald, G. 1917: 'General William Roy and his "Military Antiquities of the Romans in North Britain"', Archaeologia 68 (1916-17), 161-228 Macdonald, G. 1918: 'Roman coins found in Scotland', Proc.Soc.Antiq.Scot. 52 (1917-18), 203-75 Macdonald, G. 1931: 'The bath-house at the fort of Chesters (Cilurnum)', Archaeol.Aeliana4 8, 219-304 Macdonald, G. 1932: 'Notes on the Roman forts at Old Kilpatrick and Croy Hill, and on a relief of Jupiter Dolichenus', Proc.Soc.Antiq.Scot. 66 (1931-32), 219-76 Macdonald, G. 1933: 'Notes on the Roman forts at Rough Castle and Westerwood, with a postscript', Proc.Soc.Antiq.Scot. 67 (1932-33), 243-96 Macdonald, G. 1934: The Roman Wallin Scotland (2nd edn), Oxford Macdonald, G. 1937: 'Miscellanea Romano-Caledonica 1', Proc.Soc.Antiq.Scot. 71, 373-87 Macdonald, G., and Curle, A.O. 1929: 'The Roman fort at Mumrills, near Falkirk', Proc.Soc.Antiq.Scot. 63 (1928-29), 396-575 Macdonald, H. 1854: Rambles around Glasgow: Descriptive, Historical and Traditional, Glasgow McWhirr,A., and Viner, D. 1978: 'The production and distribution of tiles in Roman Britain with particular reference to the Cirencester region', Britannia 9, 359-77 Maitland, W. 1757: The History andAntiquities of Scotland, vol. 1, London Miller, S.N. 1922: The Roman Fort at Balmuildy, Glasgow Miller, S.N. 1928: The Roman Fort at Old Kilpatrick, Glasgow Moir, D.M. 1860: The Roman Antiquities of Inveresk, Edinburgh Nash-Williams, V.E. 1969: The Roman Frontier in Wales (rev. by M.G. Jarrett),Cardiff Newall, F. 1998: 'The Roman fort on Whitemoss Farm, Bishopton, Renfrewshire. Part 2', Scottish Naturalist 110, 13-43 Nielsen, I. 1990: Thermae et Balnea: the Architecture and Cultural History of Roman Public Baths, Aarhus Nimmo, W. 1777: A General History of Stirlingshire, Edinburgh 0. see Oswald 1936-37 Oswald, F. 1936-7: Index of Figure Types on TerraSigillata, 'Samian Ware', Supplement to Annals ofArch. & Anth., Liverpool Peacock, D.P.S., and Williams, D.F. 1986: Amphorae and the Roman Economy, London Pennant, T. 1774: A Tourin Scotland and Voyage to the Hebrides MDCCLXXII,Chester Ramsay, L. 1890: The Stent Book and Acts of the Balliary of Islay 1718-1843, Islay RCAHMS 1929: Inventory of Monumentsand Constructions in the Counties of Midlothian and WestLothian, Edinburgh Robertson, A.S. 1942: 'A Roman oven at Mumrills, Falkirk', Proc.Soc.Antiq.Scot. 76 (1941-42), 119-27 Robertson, A.S. 1957: An Antonine Fort, Golden Hill, Duntocher, Edinburgh/London Robertson, A.S. 1964: 'Miscellanea Romano-Caledonica', Proc.Soc.Antiq.Scot. 97 (1963-64), 180-201 Robertson, A.S. 1974: 'River crossings on the Antonine Wall', in E. Birley, B. Dobson and M. Jarrett(eds), Roman Frontier Studies 1969, Cardiff, 94-101 Robertson, A.S. 2001: The Antonine Wall(5th edn, revised by L.J.F. Keppie), Glasgow Rogers, G. 1974: Poteries sigilldes de la Gaule Centrale, I: les motifs nonfigures, Gallia Suppl. 28, Paris Rogers, G. 1999: Poteries sigillees de la Gaule Centrale. II. Les potiers, 2 vols, Lezoux Rook, T. 1992: Roman Baths in Britain, Princes Risborough Roy, W. 1793: The Military Antiquities of the Romans in Britain, London Ruddick, W., and Turner,M.G. 1977: Joseph Farington: WaterColours and Drawings, Bolton Scott, H. (ed.) 1920: Fasti Ecclesiae Scoticanae, vol. 3, Edinburgh Sibbald, R. 1707: Historical Inquiries, Edinburgh Smellie, W. 1782: Account of the Institution and Progress of the Society ofAntiquaries ofScotland, Edinburgh and London Smith, A.H.V. 1997: 'Provenance of coals from Roman sites in England and Wales', Britannia 28, 297-324 Smith, G.G. 1895: 'Observations on the Island of Islay and mine-works there, collected from the correspondence of Mr Charles Freebairn and others, October 1770', in The Book oflslay, Islay, 426-67
224
LAWRENCE KEPPIE
Stanfield, J.A., and Simpson, G. 1958: Central Gaulish Potters, Oxford (revised as Les potiers de la Gaule Centrale, Revue Archeologiques Sites, Hors-serie no. 37, Gonfaron, 1990) Steer, K.A. 1961: 'Excavations at Mumrills Roman fort, 1958-60', Proc.Soc.Antiq.Scot. 94 (1960-61), 86-132 Storrie, M. 1997: Islay: Biography of an Island, Islay Stronach, G. 1892: 'John Knox', in Dictionary of National Biography 31, 329-30 Stuart, R. 1845: Caledonia Romana, Edinburgh Stuart, R. 1852: Caledonia Romana (2nd edn, rev. by J. Thomson), Edinburgh/London Swan, V.G. 1999: 'The Twentieth Legion and the history of the Antonine Wall reconsidered', Proc.Soc.Antiq.Scot. 129, 399-480 Thomson, G. 1956: 'The Dalnotter ironworks', Scot.Hist.Rev. 35, 10-20 Timperley, L.R. 1976: A Directory of Landownership in Scotland c. 1770, Scottish Record Soc. n.s. 5, Edinburgh Tomlin, R.S.O., and Hassall, M.W.C. 2003: 'Roman Britain in 2002. II. Inscriptions', Britannia 34, 361-82 University of Glasgow 1792: MonumentaRomani Imperii, Glasgow Ward,J. 1913: 'The Roman fort of Gellygaer. Discoveries made in 1913', CardiffNat.Soc. Trans. 46, 1-20 Webster, G. 1955: 'A note on the use of coal in Roman Britain', Antiq.Journ. 35, 199-216 Wedmore, F. 1885: 'James Basire', in Dictionary of National Biography 3, 358-60 Willetts, P.J. 2000: Catalogue of Manuscripts in the Society of Antiquaries of London, Woodbridge Wilson, D. 1851: The Archaeology and Prehistoric Annals of Scotland, Edinburgh Wilson, R.J.A. 1980: Roman Forts, London Wollaston, R. 1864: A Short Description of the Thermae Romano-Britannicae, London

Bath-House at Antonin Wall

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Bath-House at Antonin Wall

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bath-House at Antonin Wall

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Roman Bath-House at Duntocher on the Antonine Wall Author(s): Lawrence Keppie Reviewed work(s): Source: Britannia, Vol.

Bath-house the Antonine

By LAWRENCE KEPPIE With contributions by G.B. Bailey and P.V. Webster

Gough1789, 362, pls xxvi-xxvii. Knox 1785, 611-12.

// 'Military Way' found 1891 \ \

WALL ONTHEANTONINE ATDUNTOCHER A ROMAN BATH-HOUSE

A ROMAN BATH-HOUSEAT DUNTOCHERON THE ANTONINE WALL

ONTHEANTONINE WALL ATDUNTOCHER A ROMAN BATH-HOUSE

WALL ONTHEANTONINE ATDUNTOCHER BATH-HOUSE A ROMAN

29 Anderson 1771; 1773.

31 This volume was published in 1779.

33 Unfortunately he does not identify the site.

the identityof these sites. 34 Thereis no meansof establishing

farinconclusive. TheFoulisPressat GlasgowUniversity seems mostlikely.

A ROMAN BATH-HOUSEAT DUNTOCHER ON THE ANTONINE WALL

A ROMAN BATH-HOUSEAT DUNTOCHERON THE ANTONINE WALL

A ROMAN BATH-HOUSEAT DUNTOCHERON THE ANTONINE WALL

A ROMAN BATH-HOUSEAT DUNTOCHERON THE ANTONINE WALL

Duntocher fort and bath-house. (Drawn by L. Keppie)

A ROMAN BATH-HOUSEAT DUNTOCHERON THE ANTONINE WALL

A ROMAN BATH-HOUSEAT DUNTOCHERON THE ANTONINE WALL

A ROMAN BATH-HOUSEAT DUNTOCHERON THE ANTONINE WALL

A ROMAN BATH-HOUSEAT DUNTOCHER ON THE ANTONINE WALL

A ROMAN BATH-HOUSEAT DUNTOCHERON THE ANTONINE WALL

A ROMAN BATH-HOUSEAT DUNTOCHER ON THE ANTONINE WALL

A ROMAN BATH-HOUSEAT DUNTOCHERON THE ANTONINE WALL

( .,.:; ,'.?L ',

149 Gough 1789, 362 pl. xxvii.1-2;

A ROMAN BATH-HOUSEAT DUNTOCHERON THE ANTONINE WALL

A ROMAN BATH-HOUSEAT DUNTOCHERON THE ANTONINE WALL

A ROMAN BATH-HOUSEAT DUNTOCHERON THE ANTONINE WALL

at theMitchell Central andtheBodleian Library Library (Oxford). (Glasgow), Edinburgh Library,

WALL ATDUNTOCHER ONTHEANTONINE A ROMAN BATH-HOUSE BIBLIOGRAPHY

WALL ONTHEANTONINE ATDUNTOCHER BATH-HOUSE A ROMAN

You might also like