¹ I.D. Caruana, The Roman Forts at Carlisle: Excavations at Annetwell Street, 1973–84 (forthcoming); M.R. McCarthy, Roman Waterlogged Remains and Later Features at Castle Street, Carlisle: Excavations 1981–2, C.W.A.A.S. Res. Ser. No. 5 (1991). The main text report gives a summary of the excavation: the full report appears in microfiche and is available separately in four hardcopy fascicules. Interim reports on the forts appear in Current Archaeology 101 (1986), 172–7 and C.M. Daniels (ed.), Handbook to the Eleventh Pilgrimage of Hadrian's Wall (1989), 24–31.Google Scholar

² Report in preparation.

³ Ferguson, R.S., ‘On a massive timber platform of early date uncovered at Carlisle: and on sundry relics found in connection therewith’, Trans. Cumb. West. Antiq. Arch. Soc. O.S. xii (1893), 344–64Google Scholar; Charlesworth, D., ‘Roman Carlisle’, Arch. Journ. cxxxv (1978), 115–37.Google Scholar

⁴ Britannia xix (1988), 438.Google Scholar

⁵ B.R. Hartley and B.M. Dickinson, ‘The samian’, in J. Wacher and A. McWhirr, Cirencester Excavations I. Early Roman Occupation at Cirencester (1982), 133–42.

⁶ Pitts, L. and Joseph, J.K. St, Inchtuthil: The Roman Legionary Fortress, Britannia Monograph 6 (1985), 180.Google Scholar

⁷ Hartley, B.R., ‘The samian ware’, in Frere, S.S., Verulamium Excavations I, Rep. Res. Comm. Soc. Antiq. XXVIII (1972), D72–3.Google Scholar

⁸ Atkinson, D., ‘A hoard of samian ware from Pompeii’, JRS iv (1914), No. 10.Google Scholar

⁹ R. Knorr, Terra-Sigillata-Gefässe des ersten Jahrhunderts mit Töpfernamen (1952), Taf. 19A.

¹⁰ R. Knorr, Töpfer und Fabriken verzierter Terra-Sigillata des ersten Jahrhunderts (1919), Taf.28A.

¹¹ ibid., Taf.28B, D.

¹² Dannell, G.B., ‘The samian pottery’, in Cunliffe, B., Excavations at Fishbourne, 1961–1969, Rep. Res. Comm. Soc. Antiq. XXVII (1971), No. 61.Google Scholar

¹³ Carlisle Museum Ace. TH 1892.107: May, T. and Hope, L.E., ‘Catalogue of the Roman pottery in the museum, Tullie House, Carlisle’, Trans. Cumb. West. Antiq. Arch. Soc.¹ xvii (1917), pl.II, 13.Google Scholar

¹⁴ ibid., 12.

¹⁵ R. Knorr, Die Terra-Sigillata-Gefässe von Aislingen (1912), Taf.IX, 1.

¹⁶ Atkinson, op. cit. (note 8), No. 36.

¹⁷ Knorr, op. cit. (note 10), Taf.68A.

¹⁸ ibid., Taf.74A.

¹⁹ E. Birley, ‘The figured samian ware’, in Richmond, I. A., ‘Excavations at the Roman fort of Newstead’, PSAS lxxic (1952), fig. 6, 4.Google Scholar

²⁰ G. Simpson, ‘Ribchester Roman fort: its historical outline supplemented by the decorated samian pottery’, in B.J.N. Edwards and P.V. Webster, Ribchester Excavations. Part 1 (1985), fig. 3, 16, which also has the larger bird.

²¹ Atkinson, op. cit. (note 8), No. 57.

²² Knorr, R., ‘Ein cannstatter Sigillata-Gefäss des Töpfers Sabinus und eine rottweiler Schüssel des Sasmonos’, Fundberichte aus Schwaben xvii (1909), Taf.IV, 1 where the signature is read as Sasmonos.Google Scholar

²³ Atkinson, op. cit. (note 8), No. 72.

²⁴ B.M. Dickinson and B.R. Hartley, ‘Samian pottery’, in Martin, E., ‘Burgh: Iron Age and Roman Enclosure’, East Anglian Arch. 40 (1988), fig. 18, S121.Google Scholar

²⁵ E. Gose, Gefässtypen der römischen Keramik im Rheinland (1950), Nos 526–9.

²⁶ K. Greene, ‘The pottery from Usk’, in A. Detsicas (ed.), Current Research in Romano-British Coarse Pottery, CBA Res. Rep. No. 10 (1973), fig. 2.29.

²⁷ L. Hird, ‘Coarse pottery’, in Caruana, op. cit. (note 1)

²⁸ ibid.

²⁹ Tomlin, R.S.O., ‘The Roman ‘carrot’ amphora and its Egyptian provenance’, Journ. Egyptian Arch. lxxviii (1992, forthcoming).Google Scholar

³⁰ Theophrastus, Historia Plantarum II.6, 10 (trans. A. Hort (Loeb Classical Library)); Täckholm, V. and Drar, M., Flora of Egypt II (1950), 273–96.Google Scholar

³¹ C. Préaux, Les Ostraca grecs de la collection Charles-Edwin Wilbur au Musée de Brooklyn (1935), 106–8, No. 76.

³² Reusch, W., ‘Kleine, spitzkonische Amphoren : ein Beitrag zur römischen Schwerkeramik’, Saalburg Jahrbuch xxvii (1970), 54–62.Google Scholar

³³ M.L. Shackley, Archaeological Sediments: a Survey of Analytical Methods (1975), 57–9.

³⁴ Material quoted without a further reference being cited is unpublished.

³⁵ Price, J. in McCarthy, M.R., A Roman, Anglican and Medieval Site at Blackfriars St., Carlisle, Cumb. West. Antiq. Arch. Soc. Res. Ser. 4(1990), 163. H.E.M. Cool and J. Price in McCarthy, op. cit. (note 1), Fasicule 2, 165.Google Scholar

³⁶ C. Isings, Roman Glass from Dated Finds (1957), Form 3; H.E.M. Cool and J. Price, The Roman Glass from Excavations at Colchester, 1971–85, Colchester Arch. Rep. (forthcoming), Nos 1–184.

³⁷ Isings, op. cit. (note 36), Form 31; see also note 50.

³⁸ Cool and Price, op. cit. (note 36), Nos 385–93.

³⁹ Isings, op. cit. (note 36), Form 12; Cool and Price, op. cit. (note 36), Nos 279–331.

⁴⁰ Isings, op. cit. (note 36), Form 52; Cool and Price, op. cit. (note 36), Nos 871–954.

⁴¹ Isings, op. cit. (note 36), Forms 50 and 51; Cool and Price, op. cit. (note 36), Nos 1834–2239.

⁴² Charlesworth, D., ‘Roman glass from Northern Britain’, Arch. Ael.⁴ xxxvii (1959), 166, fig. 22.1.Google Scholar

⁴³ Bushe-Fox, J.P., Third Report on the Excavations of the Roman Fort at Richborough, Kent, Rep. Res. Comm. Soc. Antiq. x (1932), 85 No. 61, pl.XV.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Price, J. in Gentry, A., Ivens, J., and McClean, H., ‘Excavations at Lincoln Road, London Borough of Enfield, November 1974–March 1976’, Trans. London Middx. Arch. Soc. xxviii (1977), 155.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Isings, op. cit. (note 36), Form 8; Cool and Price, op. cit. (note 36), Nos 1210–42.

⁴⁶ J. Price in Pitts and St Joseph, op. cit. (note 6), 305, fig. 93.2.

⁴⁷ Cool and Price, op. cit. (note 36), Nos 258–272.

⁴⁸ Price, op. cit. (note 35), 166 MF2 66 No. 009.

⁴⁹ J. Price in G.D.B. Jones, Roman Manchester (1974), 131 No. 79, fig. 48.

⁵⁰ Isings, C., ‘Glass from the canabae legionis at Nijmegen’, Bericht Rijksdienst Oudheidkund. Bodemonderzoek xxx (1980), 281–1, 294–1, 324, 328, 330–1; L. Berger, ‘Neufund eines Glasbechers der Form Isings 31’, Jahresbericht der Gesellschaft pro Vindonissa (1981), 23–8.Google Scholar

⁵¹ D.B. Harden, H. Hellenkemper, K. Painter and D. Whitehouse, Glass of the Caesars (1987), No. 79.

⁵² L. Berger, Römische Gläser aus Vindonissa (1960), 52–4, Taf.8. 129–38.

⁵³ Charlesworth, D. in Frere, S.S., Verulamium Excavations III (1984), 150, 29, fig. 61.15.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Dr G. Webster's excavations.

⁵⁵ Information from Dr J. Price.

⁵⁶ Cool and Price, op. cit. (note 36), No. 263.

⁵⁷ Hull, M.R., Roman Colchester, Rep. Res. Comm. Soc. Antiq. XX (1958), 154.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Leon, H.J., ‘Sulphur for broken glass’, Trans. and Proc. American Philological Soc. lxxii (1941), 233–6.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Price, op. cit. (note 35), 164.

⁶⁰ T.G. Padley, ‘The wooden objects’, in McCarthy, op. cit. (note 1), Fascicule 3, 210–11.

⁶¹ Britannia xxii (1991), 299–300, No. 24.Google Scholar

⁶² ‘The Twentieth Legion at Wroxeter and Carlisle in the first century: the epigraphic evidence’, 141–59.

⁶³ I.D. Caruana and E.R.T. Allnutt, ‘Wooden objects’, in Caruana, op. cit. (note 1), D198–216, fig. 281.

⁶⁴ Wild, J.P., ‘Wooden tent-pegs from the Roman fort at Melandra Castle, Glossop, Derbys’, Antiq. Journ. liv (1974), 302.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ J. Curle, A Roman Frontier Post and its People: The Fort of Newstead in the Parish of Melrose (1911), 310.

⁶⁶ One peg is published as a tent peg, but it is not a characteristic tent-peg shape, having a symmetrical head, and there is no reason to believe the attribution: Padley, op. cit. (note 60), 221, No. 829, fig. 198.

⁶⁷ See note 63.

⁶⁸ Caruana and Allnutt, op. cit. (note 63), D220–6, fig. 284.

⁶⁹ ibid., D189, fig. 280.

⁷⁰ ibid., D127–148, figs 272–3.

⁷¹ ibid., D76, fig. 264.

⁷² Coles, J.M., Heal, S.V.E., and Orme, B.J., ‘The use and character of wood in prehistoric Britain and Ireland’, PPS (1978), 44, 1–45Google Scholar; Bulleid, A. and Gray, H. St. George, The Glastonbury Lake Village (1917), 345, X80.Google Scholar

⁷³ ibid., 345.

⁷⁴ Sayce, R.U., ‘Canoes, coffins and cooking troughs’, PSAS lxxix (1945), 108–10.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ De Bello Gallico V. 41.

⁷⁶ The repertoire of Roman seam and hem stitching is illustrated and discussed elsewhere by the author: S. Winterbottom, ‘The sheet leather objects’, in McCarthy, op. cit. (note 1), Fascicule 3, 245–51, figs 220–1.

⁷⁷ Driel-Murray, C. van, ‘New light on old tents’, Journ. Roman Military Equipment Studies i (1990), 109–37.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Winterbottom, op. cit. (note 76), 301, fig. 262.

⁷⁹ One corner panel from inside the Flavian fort still had a knotted thong threaded through the eyelet: S. Winterbottom, ‘Leather’, in Caruana, op. cit. (note 1), C31. A corner appliqué from Vindolanda is similar.

⁸⁰ ibid., C31; also L164 in forthcoming report by Winterbottom on leather from the Tullie House extension site. A general discussion of tent roof slopes appears in van Driel-Murray, op. cit. (note 77), 114.

⁸¹ van Driel-Murray, op. cit. (note 77), 116.

⁸² The presence of 8 at such a junction can be explained by the fact that the roof/side wall seam is a ‘special case’, being a junction of major tent sections rather than individual panels.

⁸³ FIG. 15, insets ii and i respectively. The two methods are discussed in more detail in Winterbottom, op. cit. (note 76), 248 and fig. 219.

⁸⁴ cf. van Driel-Murray, op. cit. (note 77), fig. 10: V9. Two further panels from this position have been found at Carlisle and they are also large trapezia with no internal divisions.

⁸⁵ van Driel-Murray, op. cit. (note 77), 114 and fig. 4.

⁸⁶ By contrast, the base of 2 need not have coincided with that of 3, as implied in FIG. 16B.

⁸⁷ Winterbottom, op. cit. (note 79), C56; op. cit. (note 76), 287, No. 1134.

⁸⁸ Ropes running in both directions are shown at the corners of the reconstructed Vindolanda tent: van Driel-Murray, op. cit. (note 77), 119, fig. 6.

⁸⁹ This shows the outside of the tent and the view of the panels is consequently the reverse of that shown elsewhere.

⁹⁰ The width of the tent, assuming six gable panels of 46-47 cm, would be a maximum of nine and a half Roman feet: cf. van Driel-Murray, op. cit. (note 77), 109 on the ‘normal' width of ten feet.

⁹¹ P. Connolly, ‘The Roman saddle' in M. Dawson (ed.), Roman Military Equipment: The Accoutrements of War, BAR Int. Ser. 336 (1987), 7–27.

⁹² A full description of comparative pieces from Carlisle, Valkenburg, and elsewhere can be found in C. van Driel-Murray, ‘The Vindolanda chamfrons and miscellaneous items of leather horse gear’, in C. van Driel-Murray (ed.), Roman Military Equipment: the Sources of Evidence, BAR Int. Ser. 476 (1989), 281–318; and in S. Winterbottom, ‘Saddle covers, chamfrons and possible horse armour from Carlisle’, ibid., 319–36. The Valkenburg facing which 31 resembles is illustrated in the first article: fig. 8, A2.

⁹³ Caruana, op. cit. (note 1), chapter 40.

⁹⁴ Winterbottom, op. cit. (note 92), fig. 2, No. 9. For 34, cf. ibid., Nos 7, 15, 18, figs 2 and 4.

⁹⁵ Driel-Murray, C. van and Gechter, M., Funde aus der Fabrica der Legio I Minervia am Bonner Berg, Rheinische Ausgrabungen 23 (1983), 30–2.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ The largest group, from the Annetwell Street site, is discussed in Winterbottom, op. cit. (note 79), 328–44.

⁹⁷ Waateringe, W. Groenman-van, Romeins Lederwerk uit Valkenburg Z.H., Nederlandse Oudheden 2 (1967), 52–73; van Driel-Murray and Gechter, op. cit. (note 95), 35 and Tafel 6, Nos 119, 120.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Driel-Murray, C. van, ‘A fragmentary shield cover from Caerleon’, in Coulson, J.C. (ed.), Military Equipment and the Identity of Roman Soldiers, BAR Int. Ser. 394 (1988), 51–66.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ I am grateful to C. van Driel-Murray for supplying detailed information about the Vechten finds, which include at least three of the objects.

¹⁰⁰ Size differences of this order are of little significance. One of the Vechten drums is 12 per cent larger than the other. The Carlisle pieces were measured when wet, those from Vechten after drying out. The former shrank by around 5 per cent during conservation.

¹⁰¹ Some seams employed a beading strip but no binding and in these cases thread impressions appear on the flesh side of the pieces joined.

¹⁰² Driel-Murray, C. van, ‘Romeinse Ledervondsten uit Vechten’, Westerheem xxix (1980), 355, fig. 13, No. 6.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ The double lines all carry a continuous thread impression on the flesh side.

¹⁰⁴ A similar problem of interpretation arises with shield covers, where the repeated evidence for extra pieces at the edges is not supported by any finds of the pieces themselves.

¹⁰⁵ C. van Driel-Murray, pers. comm.

¹⁰⁶ van Driel-Murray, op. cit. (note 102), fig. 13, No. 5.

¹⁰⁷ As well as the normal diagonal impressions running over the edge (flesh side), the stitch-holes on both pieces are connected by a continuous thread impression running parallel to the edge.

¹⁰⁸ cf. Rhodes, M., ‘Leather footwear’, in Jones, D.M., Excavations at Billingsgate Buildings, London and Middx. Arch. Soc. Special Paper 4 (1980), 122–5, figs 68–70.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ A shoe from Vechten and an offcut from Maastricht have identical profiles to 42: W. Groenman-van Waateringe, op. cit. (note 97), figs 52–3.

¹¹⁰ Punched concentric circles appear on a number of sandals from London sites: Rhodes, op. cit. (note 108), 119.

¹¹¹ Henig, M., A Corpus of Roman Engraved Gemstones from British Sites, BAR 8 (2nd edn, 1978), 35, fig. 1.Google Scholar

¹¹² cf. idem, No. 178. M. Maaskant-Kleibrink, Catalogue of the Engraved Gems in the Royal Coin Cabinet, The Hague. The Greek, Roman and Etruscan Collections (1978), Nos 484–5. E. Zwierlein-Diehl, Die antiken Gemmen des Kunsthistorischen Museums in Wien. II (1979), No. 1387.

¹¹³ Henig, op. cit. (note III), Nos 158, 159 and 170, respectively from Rodborough, York and Dolaucothi; J.D. Zienkiewicz, The Legionary Fortress Baths at Caerleon. II. The Finds (1986), 131, No. 16 from Caerleon.

¹¹⁴ Maaskant-Kleibrink, op. cit. (note 112), No. 486; H. Guiraud, Intailles et camées de l'époque romaine en Gaule, 48c Suppl. à Gallia (1988), No. 314. Zwierlein-Diehl, op. cit. (note 112), No. 1389, the last of these accompanied by a hound.

¹¹⁵ cf. R. Robinson, The Armour of Imperial Rome (1975), pl. 272–282.

¹¹⁶ T.G. Padley, ‘The copper-alloy objects’, in McCarthy, op. cit. (note 1), 130, Nos 201–2, fig. 103.

¹¹⁷ Jackson, R., ‘A set of Roman medical instruments from Italy’, Britannia xvii (1986), 157–8.Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ T.G. Padley, in Caruana, op. cit. (note 1), F316.

¹¹⁹ Padley, op. cit. (note 116), 118, Nos 117–21.

¹²⁰ Padley, op. cit. (note 118), F311, F313, F319.

¹²¹ Caruana, op. cit. (note 1), chapter 2.

¹²² See note 4.

¹²³ Caruana in Daniels, op. cit. (note 1), 24–31; Caruana, op. cit. (note 1).

¹²⁴ Hogg, A.H.A., ‘Pen Llystyn: A Roman fort and other remains’, Arch. Journ. cxxv (1969), 106, fig. 2.Google Scholar

¹²⁵ Johnson, S., ‘Excavations at Hayton Roman fort, 1975’, Britannia ix (1978), 77.Google Scholar

¹²⁶ Joseph, J.K. St, ‘Air reconnaissance in Roman Britain, 1973–76’, JRS xlvii (1977), 132, fig. 5.Google Scholar

¹²⁷ Sommer, C.S., The Military Vici in Roman Britain, BAR 129 (1984), 18.Google Scholar

¹²⁸ ibid., fig. 22.

¹²⁹ Caruana, op. cit. (note 1), chapter 40.

¹³⁰ Sommer, op. cit. (note 127), 21, Map 8.

¹³¹ McCarthy, op. cit. (note 1), Fascicule 1, 8.

¹³² Tomlin elsewhere in this volume (p. 154) has offered the attractive suggestion that the settlement date for the repayment of the loan was 7 January 84. A looser dating framework than that proposed here is stratigraphically possible, if the argument that all the finds were thrown in the upper ditch fillings at the same time is rejected. The time-span for the various losses could reasonably extend to several years, say 83–85, but certainly not back before A.D. 77/8 taking account of the tree-ring dates. The tablet, from Phase 4, could have been lost some years after A.D. 84 but there are no other finds dated later than c. 85.

¹³³ Based on Caruana, op. cit. (note 1).

¹³⁴ Based on McCarthy, op. cit. (note 1).

¹³⁵ Padley, op. cit. (note 116), phalera backing-plates (143–6), pieces from helmets (149–52), trimmed offcuts from sheet metal objects (176–86).

¹³⁶ Winterbottom, op. cit. (note 76), fig. 218.

¹³⁷ Tomlin and Padley in McCarthy, op. cit. (note 1), Fascicule 3, Nos 808, 810–13, fig. 189. Contrast the civilian addressees on tablets from the Walbrook: Chapman, H., ‘Letters from Roman London’, London Archaeologist 2.7 (1974), 173–6.Google Scholar

¹³⁸ One important indication of this is the construction of larger sized barracks in Period 3B which are best explained as being for legionaries.

¹³⁹ Britannia xix (1988), 496 No. 31, fig. 6; Tomlin and Padley, op. cit. (note 136), 216, No. 812, fig. 189.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁰ McCarthy, op. cit. (note 1), Fascicule 1, 12–19.

¹⁴¹ It cannot be totally excluded that the ditch was part of the southern defences of the primary annexe, though from its position it would have been to the east (i.e. outside) of the projected line of the ditch in the basement of Tullie House. A deviation in line is entirely possible.

¹⁴² McCarthy, op. cit. (note 1), Fascicule 1, 21–26.

¹⁴³ Ferguson, op. cit. (note 3).

¹⁴⁴ W.H. Manning, ‘The iron objects’, in Pitts and St Joseph, op. cit. (note 6), 292.

¹⁴⁵ An obituary and bibliography of Ferguson's writings is given in Trans. Cumb. West. Antiq. Arch. Soc. O.S. xvi (1900), vii–xx.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁶ The weight of comparative and interpretative superstructure is out of proportion to the observed data: the recording of observations takes only 2.5 pages out 21 pages of text in the 1893 article, with a further 7.5 pages describing finds. One reason – lack of time – for the limited observations is suggested in another paper where the report is given second-hand as the author was busy at the Quarter Sessions when the discoveries were made: Ferguson, R.S., ‘A grave cover of tiles at Carlisle’, Trans. Cumb. West. Antiq. Arch. Soc. O.S. xiii (1895), 251–2. The obituary (see note 144) also mentions illness which might also have limited opportunities for site visits (pp. xi, xix).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁷ Ferguson, R.S., ‘On the remains of a stockade recently found in Carlisle’, Trans. Cumb. West. Antiq. Arch. Soc. O.S. iii (1877), 134–40Google Scholar; Ferguson, R.S., ‘On the remains of a medieval stockade recently found in Carlisle’, Trans. Cumb. West. Antiq. Arch. Soc. O.S. iv (1878), 41–3Google Scholar; Ferguson, R.S. and Hetherington, C., ‘On the remains of a Roman stockade recently found in Carlisle, continued’, Trans. Cumb. West. Antiq. Arch. Soc. O.S. iv (1878), 91–5.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁸ As can be seen from the plan published in Ferguson and Hetherington, op. cit. (note 147), 92.

¹⁴⁹ Charlesworth, op. cit. (note 3), 115–16.