Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T13:42:13.505Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Roman Fortlet at Barburgh Mill, Dumfriesshire*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2011

David J. Breeze
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Complete excavation in 1971 confirmed the Roman date and provided a complete plan of the fortlet at Barburgh Mill (NX 903884) which measured 29·50 m by 28·50 m within its single ditch and turf rampart. The entrance was defended by a gate of six timbers probably surmounted by a tower. It contained two timber buildings in plan appropriate for an infantry century. A latrine lay in one corner of the fortlet and two possible hearths between the two buildings. The fortlet was surrounded on the north and east by an outer rampart and ditch and the resulting enclosure subdivided by a medial ditch. The entrance of the outer enclosure was undefended. There was only one structural phase represented at the site and the pottery suggests a date in the Antonine I period, c. 142-58. When the site was abandoned the buildings were probably burnt, the rampart slighted and broken and surplus pottery dumped in the ditches.

Type
Articles
Information
Britannia , Volume 5 , November 1974 , pp. 130 - 162
Copyright
Copyright © David J. Breeze 1974. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Joseph, J. K. St., Trans. Dumfriesshire Gall. Natur. Hist. Antiq. Soc. xxiv (1946), 156–8Google Scholar, and in Miller, S. N. (ed.), The Roman Occupation of South-Western Scotland (Glasgow, 1952), 123.Google Scholar

2 JRS xli (1951), 59.Google Scholar

3 J. Clarke, ‘Milton (Tassiesholm)’, in S. N. Miller, op. cit. (note 1), 104-10; Fox, A. and Ravenhill, W. L. D., ‘Early Roman outposts on the North Devon coast. Old Burrow and Martinhoe’, Proc. Devon Archaeol. Soc. xxiv (1966), 15 and 7Google Scholar.

4 Richmond, I. A. and Mclntyre, J., ‘The Agricolan fort at Fendoch’, Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot. lxxiii (1938-1939), 115–21Google Scholar; A. Fox and W. L. D. Ravenhill, op. cit. (note 3), 9-10; Cichorius, Die. Reliefs der Traianssäule. Taf. 99 and 100; Hobley, B., ‘The Lunt’, Current Archaeology, xxiv (January 1971), 16–21Google Scholar.

5 A. Fox and W. L. D. Ravenhill, op. cit. (note 3), 7 and 15. Nearer to Barburgh Mill, Raeburnfoot is also a possible parallel: Robertson, A. S., Trans. Dumfriesshire Gall. Natur. Hist. Antiq. Soc. xxxix (1960-1961), 24 ffGoogle Scholar.

6 Hartley, B. R., Britannia iii (1972), 36–9Google Scholar; Gillam, J. P., in Detsicas, A. (ed.), Current Research in Romano British Coarse Pottery (London, 1973), 55–6Google Scholar.

7 P. Dura, 100 and 101.

8 P. Dura, 82 i 4.

9 P. Dura, 100 i 2, xxxiii 28, xxi 6; 101 xxvii 1.

10 P. Dura, 100 xxxi 26.

11 P. Dura, 100 xxxix 16.

12 Pliny, , Letters, x, 20.Google Scholar BM Papyrus 2851 (P. Hunt), ii, 17-40: for text and commentary see JRS xlviii (1958), 102 ffGoogle Scholar, and (with revisions) R. O. Fink, Roman Military Records on Papyrus (1971), 217 ff.

13 E.g. P. Dura, 100 xv 3 = 101 xxx 15, 100 xxxvl =101 xxxv 4, 100 xl 17=101 xl 24. 100 xxxviii 4 = 101 xxxviii 12.

14 CIL xvi 48, 69, 174.

15 AE 1961, 173; CIL xvi 94, 101, 183.

16 CIL xvi 55, 179, 180; AE 1961, 173; CIL xvi 181, 182.

17 E. Birley, ‘Alae and Cohortes Milliariae’, in Corolla Memoriae Erich Swoboda Dedicata (1967), 61.

18 JRS lvi (1966), 218, no. 5Google Scholar; E. Birley, op. cit. (note 17), 61.

19 Epigraphische Studien iv (1969), 109Google Scholar.

20 CIL iii 7449.

21 AE 1922, 54.

22 CIL iii 6627 ( = ILS 2483).

23 CIL viii 2532 and 18042 ( = ILS 2487). The cohort was changed annually.

24 CIL x 5829 ( = ILS 2726).

25 Jarrett, M. G., Archaeol. Camb. 113 (1964), 55; RIB 334.Google Scholar

26 S. N. Miller, op. cit. (note 1), 220, for the suggestion that Crawford may have served as a ‘parent fort’ and that the detachments must have been absent on a long-term basis.

27 Birley, E. and Richmond, I. A., Trans. Dumfriesshire Gall. Natur. Hist. Antiq. Soc. xxii (1938-1940), 160.Google Scholar Although the garrison is presumed to be an ala quingenaria, a mixed unit, possibly a cohors milliaria equitala cannot be ruled out.

28 Breeze, D. J. and Dobson, B.. Arch. Ael. 4 xlvii (1969), 27.Google Scholar

29 I would like to thank Mr. G. S. Maxwell for supplying me with this information. See now Maxwell, G. S., ‘The Excavations at the Roman Fort at Crawford, Lanarkshire’, Proc. Soc. Ant. Scotland civ (1971-1972)Google Scholar, (forthcoming).

30 A. S. Robertson, op. cit. (note 5), 32-6.

31 A. S. Robertson, op. cit. (note 5), 46.

32 A. Fox and W. L. D. Ravenhill, op. cit. (note 3), 13-21.

33 ORL A. I. Strecke 2, 78 ff; Taf. 11, 13.

34 Jorns, W. and Meier-Arendt, W., Saalburg Jahrbuch xxiv (1967), 14–32.Google Scholar

35 Smith, D. J., ‘The Centenaria of Tripoli tania and their antecedents’, Libya in History (Benghazi, 1972), 299–308Google Scholar; IRT 880.

36 I cannot, however, accept Dr. Smith's argument that some of the milecastles on Hadrian's Wall ‘could without difficulty have accommodated a century’. I have argued elsewhere, following Richmond, that the maximum garrison was only 32 and many milecastles held appreciably less; cf. Britannia iii (1972), 188–9.Google Scholar

37 BM Papyrus 2851 (P. Hunt) i 26 and BGU 696 14. In the first pridianum the number of cavalry was almost correct at 119, though there only appear to have been 417 infantry; in the second the cavalry were overstrength at 145, but the infantry again below strength at 363. Cf. R. W. Davies, op. cit. (note 19), 110-1 for the theoretical strength of this type of unit: 480 infantry and 120 (or 128) cavalry. For an alternative view cf. E. Birley, op. cit. (note 17), 54-5.

38 J. Clarke, ‘Durisdeer’, in S. N. Miller, op. cit. (note 1), 126.

39 J. Clarke, ‘Milton (Tassiesholm)’, in S. N. Miller, op. cit. (note 1), 106.

40 Sites such as Carronbridge and Dalmekethar, of uncertain size and/or date, have been excluded from this discussion. For details of the above sites see S. N. Miller, op. cit. (note 1), passim, and for Wandel see Discovery and Excavation in Scotland 1966, 47.

41 I would like to thank Dr. Robertson for discussing this with me in advance of publication.

42 RIB 2093, 2097.

43 A. S. Robertson, op. cit. (note 5), 48.

44 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot. xlv (1961-1962), 217–18.Google Scholar

45 E. Birley and I. A. Richmond, op. cit. (note 27), 158; Birley, E. and Gillam, J. P., Trans. Dumfriesshire Gall. Natur. Hist. Antiq. Soc. xxiv (1945-1946), 68–78Google Scholar; J. P. Gillam, ibid, xxviii (1949-50), 196-8.

46 J. Clarke, ‘Durisdeer’, in S. N. Miller, op. cit. (note 1), 126.

47 J. Clarke, ‘Milton (Tassiesholm)’, in S. N. Miller, op. cit. (note 1), 106-7.

48 Wheeler, R. E. M., The Stanwick Fortifications (Oxford, 1954), fig. 12.Google Scholar

49 Corder, P. and Kirk, J. L., A Roman Villa at Langton, near Malton, East Yorkshire (York, 1932), 31–3.Google Scholar

50 Yorks. Archaeol.J. xxx (1930), 157, fig. 1.Google Scholar

51 Ibid., 164, fig. 2.

52 Yorks. Archaeol. J. xli (1963-1966), 687 ff.Google Scholar

53 Arch. Ael. 4 xxxviii (1959), 265, fig. 13.Google Scholar

54 Hogg, A. H. A., ‘The Votadini’, in Grimes, W. F. (ed.), Aspects of Archaeology in Britain and Beyond (London, 1951), 214 ff. Appendix I, no. 7.Google Scholar