Bath-house at Antonin Wall

7/27/2019 Bath-house at Antonin Wall

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bath-house-at-antonin-wall 1/47

A Roman Bath-House at Duntocher on the Antonine Wall

Author(s): Lawrence KeppieReviewed work(s):Source: Britannia, Vol. 35 (2004), pp. 179-224Published 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 [email protected].

.

Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend

access to Britannia.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sprs

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4128626?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


http://www.jstor.org/stable/4128626?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sprs



A R o m a n Bath-house a t Duntocher o n

t h e Antonine W a l l

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. Site-

drawings were made and some finds sent for identification to the Society of Antiquaries ofLondon. 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Gough's and other contemporary accounts, and upon unpublished material, especially the voluminous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 bythe 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 extremityof this wall, at Duntocher, a countryman,in digging a trench uponthe 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 subterraneousbuilding, from

which they dug out a cart load of excellent tiles. Being then, 1775, upon my returnfrom the

Highlands,and hearingof the circumstance,I repaired mmediatelyto the place, and by threats

andpromisesputa stopto all furtherproceedings,in thehope that some public spiritedgentlemenwould 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. Thelesser ones composed several rows of pillars, which formed a labyrinthof passages, of about

18 inches high, and the same in width; the largesttiles being laid over these pillars, served as a

roof to supportthe earthon the surface,which was two feet deep, andhad been plowed throughtime 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 Gough1789,362,plsxxvi-xxvii.2 Knox 1785,611-12.

? Worldcopyright reserved. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies 2004

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.64 on Thu, 22 Nov 2012 10:54:44 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions







180 LAWRENCEKEPPIE

Ig•LO 0 50m

War memorial

( s i t e b a t h - h o u s e )

visible Wall base

Church \Quern(s) / \ \ \

O.S. cone

found

1836 / / / \ \ \

// \ \flagpole

'Military Way' \ \found 1891

SX \

Sottery kilns

f o u n d 1 9 7 7

DuntocherHouse

foun 197\\ '

FIG.1. GoldenHill,Duntocher: ntonineWallandRomanort,afterRobertson,howing hesite of the bath-houseand he location f otherdiscoveries.DrawnbyL.Keppie)

strowedwith the bones and teeth of animals, and a sooty kind of earth;in the bath was placedthe figure of a woman cut in stone, which, with a set of the tiles, and other curiosities found inthis place, is depositedin the university.

On the summitof the hill stood the Roman fort or castella, of which Mr. Gordonhath given








AROMANBATH-HOUSETDUNTOCHERNTHEANTONINEWALL 181

6060

65

70

bath-house 80

fort

0 200 m

FIG. . Contourplan. (Drawn by L. Keppie, based on OS data C CrownCopyrightOrdnanceSurvey.All rights reserved)

a drawing.3The foundationwas lately erased by a clerk, or overseer of an iron manufactoryin

thatneighbourhood,who was, however, disappointedin his expectationof finding treasure. The

same Goth expressed a strongdesire to erase a fine remainof the Romanwall, which is carried

along the base of the hill, buthe hathnot succeeded in his wishes, and it rests with the family of

Blantyre,to preventsuchpracticesin future,upongroundsof 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,5for 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 foundclogging 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

3 Gordon 726,pl.xvi. Forearlydescriptionsf thefort,see Sibbald1707, 29;Gordon1726, 51;Horsley1732,154withfig.;Maitland 757, 182;Anderson 771,fol. 22;Pennant 774,140;Roy 1793,158,pl.xxxv;Bruce1893,38ff.;andmorerecentlyMacdonald 911, 155ff.;1934,328-32; Robertson 957;Swan1999,431ff.

4 Pennant 774,vol. 1, 140.5 Thewords of these erections' readdedbyKnox.6 Knox ived at Richmond,Surrey 1785, vi), wherehe is recordedn 1780 as owninga housein 'TheVineyard';

presumablye removedhe inscribedtonesand he tileshimself(cf. below,p. 210).








182 LAWRENCEKEPPIE

some later,alternativeuse of the structures(below, p. 211). The 'figure of a woman cut in stone' is

easily equatedwith the statuette of a nymphwith a centralperforation,evidently a gurget,preservedin the HunterianMuseum (FIG.3);7but the other items carried off to Glasgow have disappeared.

Wemay

now turn to theunpublished correspondence

betweenGeorge

Paton andRichardGough,and the resulting reports made by Gough to the Society of Antiquariesof London. George Paton

FIG. 3. Gurgetin the form of a female figure, found 1775 in or near the Hot Bath.

(HunterianMuseum,Universityof Glasgow)

7 Below, p. 209. For the identification see Macdonald 1911, 158; 1934, 330 with note 2.








A ROMAN BATH-HOUSEAT DUNTOCHERON THEANTONINEWALL 183

FIG. . 'MrGeorgePatonof theCustom-house',sketch

by John Brown, 1779-80. (Reproducedbypermissionof the Trusteesof the National Museumsof Scotland)

FIG. . RichardGough:sketchby unknownhandmade at the sale

of the Duchess of Portland'scollection, April 1786. (Reproducedby 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 spentmost of his long working life as a clerk in the Customs House in nearby Leith (FIG.4).8 His chiefinterests were literary,andhe was a compulsive buyerof rarebooks, thoughhis means were alwaysmodest and his finances often in a poor state.9He 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 Antiquariesof London (1771-97), editor of two

successive, much enlargededitions of Camden's Britannia(published 1789 and 1806), and authorof

manyotherworks

(FIG.5).11In the 1770s he was

collectinginformationfor inclusion in what was to

be the 1789 edition of the Britannia. The two men had met in Edinburgh n 1771 when Gough was

touringScotland;thereafterthey kept up a sometimes almost daily correspondence,down to 1804,

8 Fora 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 retiredfrom his post in

1801, at the age of 80.9 Doig 1956. The traveller ThomasPennant 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 correspondencearepreservedin the National Library,Edinburgh NLS Adv.Mss.29.5.6, 7). The lettersare originalson both sides of the correspondence,and were acquiredby the Advocates Library,Edinburgh,in

1827.Their correspondence about the bath-house opened on 1 August 1775, when Gough wrote toPatonasking for details about discoveries at Duntocher,of which he had read a 'confused' accountin '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 Patonreplied saying he too had seen a newspaperaccount

(Adv.Mss.29.5.7 (ii), fol. 39),13 and promised to write to 'a Friend or two in Greenock', to get a

properdescriptionandsketches. The following day he was able to report(from someone he had met

in Edinburgh) hat 'the Proprietorof the groundwhere the western Discoveries were made belongsto a Gentlemanwho was long ago solicited to open a Search,but did resist the projecttill some of the

Glasgow University,eagerto know what was hid there,pushtthe breakingGround'(Adv.Mss.29.5.7

(ii), fol. 40).14 On 2 Septemberhe advised Gough that a friend would contact 'the Clergyman of

the Place, the only properPerson to make Returnsthereto [i.e. supply the necessary information]'

(Adv.Mss.29.5.7 (ii), fol. 42).15 On 21 SeptemberPaton was still awaiting information,but hopedto get details, presumablyabout the dimensions and location of the building, 'as soon as the Fields

areclearedof the Cropt'(Adv.Mss.29.5.7 (ii), fols 48-49). Again on 25 November he apologised for

lack of further nformation;since, rathersurprisinglyperhaps,'the Fields at Kirkpatrick .. not beingclearof the grain', therewas nothingto be communicated.He hoped to get details duringthe winter

(Adv.Mss.29.5.7 (ii), fol. 66). 'In the mean time am assuredthat Mr.Knox Bookseller London, was

on the spot, carriedaway 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 atthe 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 Burnnot far distant from the Camp

and late Discoveries. It is founded on Rock, the declivity whereof below favours the currencyof theWaterwhen 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-basedarchitect'7and later a lead-mine owner on the island of Islay, who entertainedthe traveller ThomasPennantin his house at Freeportnear PortArisaig on Islay in 1772.18It is unclear how Freebairn

heard of the work in progress;it may have been throughPaton, since Freebairnwas often residentin

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 EdinburghAdvertiser, 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 partof Severus's wall, commonly called

Graham'sdyke.

It isconsiderably

below the surface of theground,

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, therewere found a quantityof largeteeth

and bones; the teeth look fresh, which, with partof 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

EasterMilton 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 CharlesFreebairn'slineage, see also Adv.Mss.29.5.6 (i), fol. 212; 29.5.7 (iii), fol. 72.








AROMANBATH-HOUSETDUNTOCHERN THEANTONINEWALL 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 senton

byPaton to

Gough,are

preserved amongthe 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 RomanWall

(commonly called Graham'sDyke) to Old Kirkpatrickand about two miles distant.

1. is the Roman Wall2. the Fort3. the Roman militaryway, which is regularlypaved with Stones4. the Romanbridge5. the presentroad from Glasgow to Dunbarton6. the Burn of Dalnotter7. 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 Commentatorson Roman Antiquities.These also might have served for Sudatories,but the principalUse has been for Granariesto

which purpose they are admirably adapted[note by Gough: 2. Ye wall. 3. Ye Rom. road. 4 yebridge.5 ye burn]

The Area [of Building (words inserted by Gough)] C is exactly 21 feet square, the floorwhereof is supportedby 144 SquarePillars of Brick;the 9 undermostof which [theword 'bricks'

was here substitutedby Gough for 'of which'] are 8 Inches squareandthe uppermost21 inches,the next 3 are graduallyless as appearsin this Sketch [see FIGS15C, 16]:20 hey are very littlemore than 2 inches thick of the finest Mould & colour, their arraces21and corners as sharpasthe day they came fromthe Kiln, of a beautifullpale red, smooth surface and it does not appearthatthey have been beddedwith Lime nor was it necessary they should as they would not be so

easily heated if they had.

Upon the uppermostBrick is laid a Stratumof Lime 5 inches thick mixed with white Quartsaboutthe size of Horse beans of an even and smooth Surface.

2. One of these Areas that has been but thinly covered with Earthhas been broken down long

ago, and the Earthspreadover it andploughed for time immemorial,but in trenchingthe GroundSummer 1775 for Potatoes22 some of the Stones and Bricks were discovered, when some

Workmanwere employed to remove the Earthand found one of these Areas broken down, the

Bricks lying amongstthe Rubish,severalhundredsof which were collected. In furtherremoving

away the Earthetc, one side of anotherSquarewas discovered in the Wall of which were two

19 SeeScottishBookTrades ndex on-lineresourcehostedbyNationalLibrary f Scotland), .v.20 At this point, in the resulting Minutes of the Society of Antiquaries of London (below, p. 186), a sketch is offered at

the foot of thepage,laterprinted s Gough1789,pl. xxvi.C;reproduced y Stuart1845,pl. viii.3.21 Presumablye intendshere hepluralof 'arris', hesharp ornerbetween wo surfaces.22 Paton's ettersrefer o a 'crop'and grain' above,p. 184).








186 LAWRENCEEPPIE

Apertures3 Incheshighby 15 wide,into whicha Boy with a Candlewas sent,who sawanAreasimilar o this,supportednthesameway&by the Assistanceof theLightcouldbe seenthe samePillars;he saidtherewasjust such otheropeningsas those he crept ntoin theWallbeforehim,oroppositeheEntry, s alsointhe Wallon hisright,which s thatnear heHill,but

hewouldnotventure urtherhan hefirstArea.It is certainherearemoreof them,whichcannotbe discoveredill a furtherExcavation e

made.SomeAnimalsBoneswere found heresupposedo havebelonged o Swine or WildBoars

thathad akenabode hereafter he Romans.TheTuskswerevery large.23Thereare somehewn Stoneswith doubleGrooves n themwhicharesupposedo haveonce

formedhe sidesof the DoorsbetwixtoneGranaryndanother,ndwere shutupby largeTylesthatrun n thesegrooves o separateheCorn.

No judgement an be formedof the thicknessof the Wallthat inclosesthese Areasonly it

appearso have been builtof free StoneandLime,manyhewn Stoneshave beentakenoutoftheArea hat s brokendown.

[Itwould be very acceptableo know how these Areaswere rooffedand(thesewords alldeletedby Gough)]the place certainlydeservesa furtherExamination,which is proposed

this Summerf a sufficientSubscriptionan be obtainedo defray he necessaryChargeandExpence.

Febry1776

Thereare many valuable details in this account. In particular,dimensions are given for one of the

rooms, mention is made of the opus signinumflooring,and referenceto grooved stones which should

presumablybe identifiedas voussoirs from the archedroofing of the bath-house.The 'Boy' (below,

p. 191) who descended into the hypocaust basement can be identified as John Bulloch, son of the

then miller at Duntocher.24The workmenwere presumablyhiredby Freebairn.On 14 March 1776 Gough reported,ratherinexactly, 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, n forming the junction between the Forth and the Clyde', a discovery which he

says 'formed no impropersupplement'to his own paperon the four Romanaltars 'found in the samepursuit'.25He refers here to antiquities discovered during the constructionof the Forth and ClydeCanal in 1771.26 Gough correctlyinterprets he remainsas of a bath-house rather hangranaries.He

does not mentionFreebairnor Patonby 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

'furthersearches', which Gough later communicated to the Antiquaries on 17 June 1779 (below,

p. 187). On 25 July 1778 Patonreportedthat 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,27had been instrumental

in securing for the University Roman material found along the Antonine Wall at Auchendavy,Castlecary, and Cadder,duringthe construction of the Forth and Clyde Canal in 1771-1773;28 he

23 Forthesebones,seebelow,p. 211;cf. Gough1789, 362, Stuart,1852,302.24 Stuart1852,302 fn.25 Gough1773.26 Someconfusionhasarisen: hediscoveryof the bath-house t Duntocherwas unconnectedwith the constructionf

theForthandClydeCanalwhichpassed wo kms to thesouthof thevillage.27 Butt1996,1-24.28 Roy 1793,200-4; Keppie1998,25-30.








A ROMANBATH-HOUSETDUNTOCHERN THEANTONINEWALL 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 unsurprisingthat he is mentioned here;

presumablyhe was among the professors from Glasgow who undertookor oversaw the excavation

at Duntocher in 1775.30On 28 December 1778 Gough commented: 'The sketch from Mr. Freebairnis the same which

I had engraved for the Vth volume of Archaeologia,31and 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 January1779 Gough asked

Patonif he could borrowthe pottery(not previously mentionedin any surviving correspondenceand

presumablyfound duringthe 1777-78 phase of work), for it to be engraved as a companionto the

sketch.A little before 13 FebruaryFreebairnhad been in town (i.e. Edinburgh),and showed Paton

the pottery;the remainsat Duntocherwere more extensive than hithertobelieved (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

Sudatoryengravenat Glasgow, which Mr.Freebairnsent me last day [hereFIG.13], alongst with the

Box containingthe fragmentsof the Romanpotterydug up there'(Adv.Mss.29.5.7 (iii), fol. 9). Paton

also sent back Gough's 'plate of DuntocherCamp,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 confirmedthat he had sent two plates, one already

engraved at London and correctedby Freebairn(below, p. 198), the other done by an acquaintanceat Glasgow who visited the site (Adv.Mss.29.5.7 (iii), fol. 11). On 7 April Gough commented that

the Duntocherbath-housewas 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 AprilPatontold 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 Antiquariesdates to 17 June 1779, in which

Gough communicated to it a letter from Freebairnto Paton, dated 18 May 1778, written from

Freeport,Islay (Minute Book XVI, pp. 330-5):

Thepurport f Mr. Freebairn'setter s to informhis Friend i.e. Paton], hat,as soon as hecan leaveIslay,hewill reassume is Enquiriesnto theRomanStations,andAntiquities,romDuntocherWestwards,s faras the mostminuteVestigescan leadhim.To investigatewhichan exactSurveyof theNorthernBanksof the Clyde, expressing heElevations,Depressions,and Natureof the Soils, withthe Practicabilityf makingsuch andsuchWorks,whichtheyare constrainedo vary,accordingo theGroundshatoccur n theirprogress, itherof Forts,orRoads,Potteries,or otherWorks. t is somewhat ingular,he says,thatthe RomanWritersshouldbe so silentonthearticleof Coal,asto leave us indoubtof theirknowledgeof suchanusefulFossil;32whenatDuntocherheymusthaveseenit both n the Freestone ndLimestone

Quarries.He found t,he says, among heAshes of theFirewhichheated heirSudatoriesseebelow,p. 209].Afterspeaking f his earlyPropensityo thepursuit f Antiquities, e goes on

to saythathe has beenable,withgreatprobability,o pointoutthe Fieldof BattlebetweenGalgacus& Agricola,& consequentlyhe GrampianHills;33neitherof which has yet been

fully ascertained.He has even discovered wo RomanFortsthat had neverbeen noticedbyothers.34

29 Anderson 1771; 1773.30 Regrettablyhereseemsto beno mention f thisevent n therecordsof theUniversity.31 This volume was published in 1779.32 Thiscomment eflectsFreebairn'susiness nterestsnmining.33 Unfortunatelyhe does not identify the site.

34 Theres no meansof establishingheidentityof these sites.








188 LAWRENCEEPPIE

The Minutes next report Freebairn's researches and observations on a recently discovered prehistoricburial,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 Fragmentsof 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 Fragmentsof Bowls, with elegant bas Relievoesof Centaurs,Dolphins, &c, of a fine redClay 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 greatCuriosity, & wch may determine a long subsisting Debate amongst Antiquarians.There wasanotherpiece of the same size found in the Rubbish; together with a Lump of Lead, of abt 5lb Weight, which appearedas cut off from a large Mass. With these was also sent an engravedView 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 [hereFIG.13].36The Floors of the two Areas, marked A& B, are supported by Brick Pillars, the third Area was on the solid Ground. The PartmarkedC seems to have been a wet Bath, & was separatedfrom B by a thin Wall, lined with a Cementfit for holding Water.Near it was found the Figure of a Nymph, having her Body perforatedat

the Navel for the Admission of a WaterPipe. Her Neck, Bosom and Hair have some Elegancein the Design, & Justness in the Proportions, tho' but rudely executed, in Freestone. Thereseem to have been no Flues for the conducting of Fire. The whole Building has been arch'dwith 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 stronglytogether. The Side of the Building next the Hill was supportedby the Earth;which is higherthanthe Wall;& the opposite Side, where this naturalSupportwas wanting, was strengthenedby 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 intoone another, as many such are found in the Rubbish. And by the Appearance of the upperside of the Arch, it seems not to have been made to resist Water,so much as to confine theHeat. The Walls [of rooms] A & B were lined with Tubes of burnt Clay, with Apertures forthe 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 imprudentin him to engage in, having alreadyexpended 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 buildingwas a bath-house and progressed some considerable way towards correctly appreciating the purposeof 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).37On 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 andthen 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. . viii, wherehereportshatFreebairnad'discovered wo Roman ortsnot hithertonoticed n thecountryromDuntocherWestward';utFreebairn,n the versionof his letterminutedat theAntiquariessee above),didnot locate hefortsgeographically ithsuchprecision.

36 Footnote here: 'done at Glasgow'.37 The view was 'engraven at Glasgow', but my own enquiries into the identity of the artist and engraverhave been so

far nconclusive.The FoulisPressatGlasgowUniversityeems most ikely.








A ROMANBATH-HOUSEAT DUNTOCHERON THE ANTONINEWALL 189

Gillies took it or caused engrave it, since thattime the plate is lodged with Mr. ProfessorAnderson'

(Adv.Mss.29.5.7 (iii), fol. 34).38Paton several times regrettedthat 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 madeclear

(Adv.Mss.29.5.7 (iii), fol. 68): 'Only t'other day I had the disagreeableinformationthat some more

thana monthago my acquaintanceMrFreebairndied in the Islandof Isla (I believe). This shockt me

not a little andthe more so, his circumstancesnot in the most agreeablestate.39This frustratesall my

hopes of procuringany furtheraccounts of the DuntocherAntiquities, or what Observationshe mayhave left behind him, as all his papersare sealed up.' But Patonwas able to reportthathis friend in

Glasgow had at his requestalreadytaken 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 Glasgowwhich is in ProfessorAnderson'shands' (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 thatneighbourhood,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 Patonhad heardfrom his Glasgow friend, that 'the sordid proprietoror Tennantof that Spot, has actuallyor 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 Duntocherdiscoveries, which he is to arrangefor E. Buchan,41and means

to have them presentedto 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).42In January 1783 Paton was

still expecting an account of the Duntocherdiscoveries to appearin '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 Edinburghin January 1783 rekindled

Paton's interest;he hoped that discoveries theremight help elucidate the workings of the Duntocherbuilding (Adv.Mss.29.5.7 (iii), fols 209, 213, 226f., 230; cf. Adv.Mss.29.5.6 (ii), fol. 21). Patonalso

saw some advantage in opening searches elsewhere along the Wall, unless the sites were already

destroyed 'thro' the ignorance of day Labourersand want of attentive superiors. I firmly believe

numbersof them have been destroyed;amonst them must have perishedtessellatedpavementsmore

particularlyaboutFalkirk'(Adv.Mss.29.5.7 (iii), fol. 227).44In 1789 Gough included an accountof these events in his edition of Camden'sBritannia, 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 currentwhereabouts are unknown, probably derived from excavations at Inveresk in 1783 (cf.

Adv.Mss. 26.5.7 (ii), fol. 209; below, p. 190).41 The 11thEarl 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 Presumablyvol. VI which appearedin 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 Freebairnand incorporatingas plates the sketches sent on to him byPaton,as well as drawingsof the pottery.45Some changeshadby this time been made to the originalsketches, partlyto incorporatethe more complete ground-planof the site later sent on by Paton's

friend, with resulting alterationsto the explanatory captions:A.7, 'the late discoveries' reportedinFreebairn's 'hints' (above, p. 185), was omitted,but A.2 was retained,wrongly identifying the bath-house 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 fragmentsof pottery,which being laid before the Society of Antiquariesof London, drawings were made ofthem by Mr. Basire engraved in Plate xxvii' (here FIG.22).46He continues: 'Mr.CharlesFreebairn,to whose diligent researches we are indebted for the above particulars,had some other pieces withdifferentornaments as medallions, etc. made of the same materials,a piece of lead as if cut from abarorpig, weighing three or fourpounds, covered with a thick coat of ceruse orrust of lead, and two

pieces of white glass, which seems to have been cast as plate glass, as one side shows the surfaceof

glass in the plate as the air leaves it, the other themould or surface it has been pouredupon. The two

pieces may containabout six squareinches and are about 3/32 partsof an inch thick andtowardsoneof the corners a little more.'We know of other visitors to the excavations while they were in progress or soon after. Gough

quotesa letter to the Edinburgh-based ntiquaryAdam de Cardonnel,dated 2 April 1783, from JamesWedderburn f Inveresk near Edinburgh,on whose landa bath-house had recently been revealed:47

'Veryconsiderable ruins were discovered three [sic] years ago at KillpatricknearDumbartonat thewest end of Hadrian's[!] wall. The bricks in very great quantity,and all imported.Samples areat the

College at Glasgow. I have preserved large specimens of the cement, terrace, bricks, earthen ware

etc., at my house in Inveresk.'48Othervisitors were the eminent Londonphysician Dr JohnCoakleyLettsom(Soc. Ant. Lond. Minute Book vol. XV, p. 25ff.), and (very probably)the landscapepainterJoseph Farington R.A., who had been engaged by the bookseller John Knox (above, p. 179) to

prepareviews of Scotland for aplannedwork,and was travellingin the area with Knox in September

1788.49On a second visit in 1792, Farington,apparentlyat the request of Lord Henry Dundas ofCastlecary,prepareda watercolourof the 'Roman Bridge'at Duntocher,which formed the basis of a

splendid plate in Roy's MilitaryAntiquities(FIG.10);5obut I have (unsurprisinglyperhaps)found nowatercolour or engraving by Faringtonof the bath-house remains.

LATERHISTORY 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.46 On Basire, see Wedmore 1885; Evans 1956, 129. These engravings form the basis of a pottery report by Dr PeterWebster(below, p. 212).

47 Gough 1789, vol. 3, 310. See de Cardonnel 1822, referring to Wedderburn'srole in retaining some samples of thebricks and opus signinum found at Inveresk. De Cardonnel had also taken part in early work at Carpow (Gough 1789,311).

48 Gough here inaccurately refers to de Cardonnel as 'of the Custom-house' (Paton's place of work); the informationcame throughPaton, who first alerted Gough to the discoveries at Inveresk on 25 January1783 (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, nearTorryburn,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).








A ROMAN BATH-HOUSEATDUNTOCHERON THEANTONINEWALL 191

populace, hinted at in Freebairn's inal letter,seems likely to have continued apace.51In September1825, the Rev. JohnSkinner,of Camerton n Somerset,in the course of an east-west peregrinationofthe AntonineWall,52 eported: Towardsthe South West [of Golden Hill], now plantedwith Firtrees,a man

pastthe middle of life

pointedout to me the lines of the stationtowards the bottom of the hill

above the bridge, which he rememberedhaving been levelled [below, p. 208]: he also showed methe spot where a vaultedpassage he said, had been discovered twenty or thirty years ago, made ofRomanbricks:in confirmationof his testimony I picked up several fragmentsat the spot;also some

pieces of flue tiles; probably it was the hypocaust of a Roman residence: he moreover said, somestones with inscriptionshad been found, andsent to Glasgow' (BLAdd.Mss. 33686, fol. 76). Skinnerdrew two sketches (FIGS-7) of Golden Hill, fromthe west, which markedthe remainsandindicatedthe location of various cottages and manufactoriesin the vicinity, in which stones robbedfrom thebath-housewere perhapsbuilt up (BL Add. Mss. 33686, figs 391, 393 = fols 78, 80).

In 1844 Robert Stuartwas able, presumablyon a visit to Duntocher,to question the 'Boy' who haddescended into the hypocaust basement nearly 70 years earlier.53But his account was misleading:

FIG.6. The Rev. JohnSkinner's sketch of Golden Hill from the west, September1825. (Reproduced by permission ofThe BritishLibrary,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 Stuart1845, 299; 1852, 302 fn.








192 LAWRENCEKEPPIE

FIG.7. The Rev. JohnSkinner'ssketch of Golden Hill from west of the DuntocherBurn, September1825.

(Reproduced by permission of The BritishLibrary,London (Add.Mss. 33686, fol. 80))

the old man (then aged 95)54described three interconnecting circular chambers about 10 feet indiameter and 4V2feet deep, floored in stone and roofed in brick; Stuartoffered a line-illustration

(FIG.8; cf. below, p. 192).55It is difficult to know how many of the details offered in the text areto be trusted:they included 'a neatly executed groove on either side [of the flues in the hypocaustbasement] for the admission of a sliding panel, by means of which the communication between

FIG. 8. Duntocher bath-houseas drawnby RobertStuart,based on latertestimony by 'the Boy' (Stuart1845, 299).

54 A simple mathematical calculation reveals that the 'Boy' was aged 26 at the time of the excavation, assuming hisadvancedage in 1844 to be accuratelyreported.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.








A ROMAN BATH-HOUSEAT DUNTOCHER ON THEANTONINE WALL 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 throughthe building.57Stuartthen proceeded to describe the

sudatorium reportedby Gough as a separate discovery.58He 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.'59Visitors to Duntocher up to the mid-nineteenth century reported Roman stonework built into

various structuresin 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 substantialmodern 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 1772,64perhaps in part at least toaccommodate additional traffic from adjacentindustrialenterprises(FIGS -10). To what extent it

once incorporatedRoman masonryfrom the bath-house or other adjacent buildings cannot now be

ascertained.The so-called 'Roman'bridge crossed (and still crosses) the DuntocherBurn at an oblique angle,

all buton the probable ine of the Wallitself. Thoughwe remainsomewhat uncertainhow the frontier

line was carriedacross the various water barriers on the Forth-Clyde line,65the present bridge at

Duntocher s on an inappropriate lignmentto have carriedeitherthe Wall or the MilitaryWayacross

the Burn.

By the mid-nineteenthcenturya cottage known as the 'sentryhouse' stood at the south end of the

bridge, angled back into the hillside, and probablyon the site of the earliercottage; its construction

mayhavecauseddamageto the adjacentbath-houseremains.In 1921 a WarMemorialwas built close

56 However, in Stuart'saccount, the 'image' found by him in the subterraneanrecess had the appearanceof a dancing

figure. 'It went afterwardsby the name of "Dancing Mall"[sic], and was "casting about" the village a long time, as an

object of amusementto the children. This fine intelligent old man also found in one of the recesses, some bones of animals,

and, in particular, he tusks, apparentlyof boars' (Stuart 1852, 302 fn.; below, p. 212).57 Stuart1845, 299 fn.; Bruce 1893, 46. Below, p. 203. Such a drain could have exited fromthefrigidarium, 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 Stuart1852, 300 fn.; RIB 2201 = Keppie andArnold 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 upon the eaves of his father's antique cottage' (Stuart 1852, 300 fn.).

62 By 1836, when Duntocher Trinity Parish Churchwas erected nearby.One or more quernstones were found duringconstructionof the church(Barclay 1845, 22; Macdonald 1934, 331 fn. 4; see n. 61).

63 Horsley 1732, 165. Current OS 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

widening (FIG. ). For a sepia-wash version of the same view, perhaps also by Roy, see BL Kings Mss. 458; Macdonald

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 furthercottage, 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 HermannMoll'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 MajorGeneralWilliam Roy, 1755. (Reproducedbypermission ofthe Society ofAntiquaries of London (MS 480))

the site of the 'sentry house', by now demolished, and furtherlandscapingbehind it is likely (FIG.11).The hilltop had become a public parkby 1934.66 The areasuffered bombdamage in March 1941,due to its proximityto Clydebank,after which the 'RomanBridge'was promptlyreconstructed;67he

nearbychurchwas eventuallyrebuilt.68In 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 theavailablepieces of evidence, he proposed linkingthe 'Goth'who accordingto JohnKnox had erased

partof the fort itself on the summit (above, p. 181) with CharlesFreebairn,who was thus unjustlydamned.Explorationof the fort in the latereighteenthcentury is known only from Knox's account,and goes unmentioned in the Gough-Paton correspondence. Knox does not provide an exact datefor this event, but says that the erasure was

'lately'done, which I

supposehere could mean in

the period 1779-85, after Freebairn's death. It can more plausibly be laid at anotherdoor, that of

66 Macdonald 1934, 332; OS Dunbartonshire Sheet xxiii.6 (1937 edn).67 As recorded in an addendumto 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, nowin the HunterianMuseum); perhapsthis 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 droppedin the area are held by the National Archives of Scotland;

aerial photographs showing bomb-cratersare held by RCAHMS.69 Macdonald 1911, 156-60; cf. Macdonald 1934, 329-32.









FIG. 10. 'RomanBridge',

Duntocher.Engraving

afterwater-colourby Joseph Farington,

1792.(Reproducedrom

William

Roy, MilitaryAntiquities of the Romans in Britain (London,1793), pl. xxxvii)

merchantJohn Gillies who held landat nearbyDalnotter.70Among his business interestsGillies was

a partner n the Dalnotter IronCompany,whose partnershadpurchasedmuch land in the Duntocher

area, including some partof the farm at EasterMilton (which then included Golden Hill) for their

premises and to build houses for their workers.71This may account for Gillies' claim to ownershipof the pottery(above, p. 189). Gillies was managerof the Ironworks,72 ndthus perhapsidentifiable

with the 'clerk or overseer of an ironmanufactory n thatneighbourhood', identifiedby Knox as the

'Goth'responsiblefor the damage. Gillies had shown a special interestin the work at the bath-house

(above, p. 189); it was Gillies who commissioned the invaluable engravingwe have today. Perhaps

he maintained the interest later,but this time allegedly to the detrimentof the fort remains, if weaccept Knox's (sole) account of events.

70 Jones 1787, 44 lists 'John Gillies, Dalnotter'; Jones 1789, 25 has 'John Gills, merchantat Dalnotter,occasionally to

be found atthe Black Bull Inn [Glasgow]'. In 1790 Gillies complained to the Committee of the ForthandClyde Navigation

Companyaboutdamageto roads on his propertyat Dalnotter,the result of construction work on the nearbycanal; 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 War Memorial in the foregroundand DuntocherTrinityParish Churchto the

right,c. 1930-35. (Reproducedby permission of WestDunbartonshireCouncil, ClydebankCentralLibrary,;neg. no. A201)

DuntocherBurn

bath-house

DUNTOCHER 0o50m

FIG. 12. Duntocher fort and bath-house.(Drawn byL. Keppie)








A ROMAN BATH-HOUSEATDUNTOCHERON THEANTONINE WALL 197

TOWARDSA DESCRIPTION AND INTERPRETATIONOF THE EXCAVATEDREMAINS

As illustratedin the hithertounpublished engraving (FIG.13), and as described in Freebairn'sletterof 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 acaldarium,with a furnace lying at the south end of the building.73From the 'Boy's' description ofhis descent into the hypocaustbasement,74t can be concluded thatthe caldariumwas the firstroomto be cleared, andthat it was in its basement thatanimal bones were discovered;perhaps they were

depositedthere fromthe room above when its floor collapsed. Thoughthere are some contradictionsand inconsistencies in the contemporaryaccounts (it has to be rememberedthatneither Gough norPatonever visited the site), we could tentativelydeduce thatthe caldariumwas initially discovered

by the agriculturalworkers; their activities were halted by Knox, and then renewed very soonafterwards by the Glasgow professors (who were on site by August 1775), in association withFreebairn.Subsequentactivity over the winter months, and in 1777-78, was financedby Freebairn,

FIG. 13. Engravingof the bath-houseat Duntocher,1778, by unknown artist. (Reproducedby permission of Society ofAntiquariesof 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 rom Gough 1789, pl. xxvi)

whose hired workmen cleared other rooms. The role of the professors goes unmentioned n Gough'saccount.Knox,writing n 1785, seemsto implythatthe stonegurget FIG. ) was carriedoff forthwith o

Glasgow,butPaton'stestimonyindicatesthat it actuallyremained n the locality for some time (above,p. 188).Itspresenceat Glasgow Universityis not otherwise recordedbefore 1845 (below,p. 210).

Gough's accompanying plate (1789, pl. xxvi; here figs 14-15) shows: (A) the bath-house fully








A ROMAN BATH-HOUSEATDUNTOCHERON THE ANTONINE WALL 199

FIG. 15. Published version of sketches of Golden Hill, Duntocher, 1775-77, showing (C) section through hypocaust;(D) side-view of 'Romanbridge'crossing DuntocherBurn;(E) walling between caldarium and tepidarium(see p.

197). (Reproduced rom Gough 1789, pl. xxvi)

excavated, in relation to the Burn and other features on the hill above; (B) the excavated site inrelationto the AntonineWallandthe fort;75C) a section throughthe 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. Goodburnwho made the invaluable observationthat Gough had incorporated nto thisillustration the east-west section throughthe bath-house (= E), misrepresentedin this sketch as a 'plan' of the bath-houseremains.








200 LAWRENCEKEPPIE

FIG. 16. Originalsof Gough 1789, pl. xxvi, C andE (Gough Maps 40, fol. 8). (Reproducedbypermission of TheBodleian Library,University of Oxford)

The survival of two original sketches of the bath-house and also of preliminaryversions of thepublished plate among the Gough Papersheld at the Bodleian Library,Oxford (in Gough Maps 38and 40), allows us to go some way towards linking these to the drawings sent by Paton at varioustimes between 1775 and 1779, and to chartGough's progress towardspublication.The groundplan

of the building (A) is perhapsthatpreparedby Freebairnand sent to Gough in December 1778. Weknow thatC was exhibited to the Antiquarieson 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 hypocaustand the section across the building (Gough Maps 40, fol. 8), the latterwith annotationsin Paton'shandwriting: 'surface of the ground before opened up' (above) and 'appearance of the [vacat]when first seen by Mr CharlesFreebairn n 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 goesunmentioned. It seems likely thatPaton's warningof its inaccuraciescaused Gough to ignore whatwas in fact an invaluableimage of the excavation site. However potentially inexact in its proportionsand details, the unpublishedengraving(which offers both an oblique view and a groundplan of thebuilding as excavated) forms a useful starting point in any assessment. Overall the excavated bath-

house measured,accordingto 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 notshown. The door from thefrigidarium to the tepidariumlay two-thirdsof the way across the room,but access fromthe tepidarium o the caldariumwas placed centrally.Twoflues set into the dividingwall between the two heated rooms, below the floor, allowed hot air to flow northwardsfrom thefurnacevia the caldariumto the tepidarium.Set intothe eastwall of the caldariumwas a semicircularhotbath. It is difficult to supposethat it intruded nto the caldarium in the way depictedby Freebairn.The semicircularsouth end of the caldariumpresumablyalso housed a bath, heated from a furnaceroom of which only the stoke-hole passage was cleared.The 'buttress' that intrudesimprobablyintothe caldarium can best be seen as the remnantof a cross-wall supporting(or demarcating)hot-watertanks,as at Bearsden,Balmuildy,andelsewhere.








A ROMAN BATH-HOUSEATDUNTOCHERON THE ANTONINE WALL 201

Certainly,when we come to compareGough's published drawingof 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 (contradictingFreebairn's

written reportto

Paton), but nota

frigidarium.The

apsidal bathon

the east side of the buildingis surely misplaced; the internalpartitionwalls do not correspond,as might be expected, with theexternal buttresses. One difficulty in assessing Gough's 1789 published plan of the bath-houseis itssmall scale. On FIG. 0, No. 12A it has been enlargedto match the reportedwidth of the building (notits length)and the thickness of the walls.76

It will be rememberedthat the unpublished engraving was rejected for publication because of

inaccuracy.Certainlythe ground plan offers a more exact reflection of the shape and size of eachroom than does the 'view'. Yet Freebairn'spencilled correctionsare few, and his writtentestimonymight suggest only minor inaccuracies. The publishedplan too is quite recognisable as abath-house,andcorrectly proportioned.

Measured from the hithertounpublished engraving, thefrigidarium 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 wallswere uniformly2 feet (0.61 m) wide and the buttresses4 feet (1.22 m) long. Only a single phase of

occupationis depicted,except thata north-south wall at the south end of the building could indicatea laternarrowingof the stoke-hole, unless it representsa retainingwall againstthe sharpslope, 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 groundhereabouts.

By the time that the engravingwas prepared,partsof the opus signinumfloors were alreadylost, aswas a high proportionof the underlyinghypocauststacks. Details, includingthe improbablycurvinginternal wall of the hot bath, the box-flues on one wall of the tepidarium,and the buttresses,wereadded to the view in pencil, probablyby Freebairn,and laterinkedover. Theremustpresumablyhavebeen such box-flues attached o the otherwalls of this room,and in the caldarium.Freebairn'swrittenaccountreported Tubes of burntClay' as lining the walls of his Rooms A andB (above, p. 188). The

newspaperaccount readby Gough (Adv. Mss. 29.5.6 (i), fol. 87; above, p. 184) included mention of'small boxes made of brick', a likely referenceto box-flues. Thoughthe engravingshows the roomsclear of debris,we could easily imaginethat the site was not so tidy or neatly excavated in reality.

We are thus remarkablywell providedwith illustrativematerialof the work, given the date of theexcavation. Neither the ground plan published by Gough nor the unpublished engraving derives

directly from Freebairn,who (unsurprisinglyperhaps) does not seem to have kept any detailed

record, but we must be grateful for his 'short hints'. The complete excavation of a building wasrare at this date. There was, it seems, no laconicum, or indeed cold bath.78At Duntocher there isno obvious constraint imposed by the location or the topography,except that it would have beenlaboriousto add any rooms on the upslope side of the building; the proximityof 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 systemwas entirely lost. Freebairn states that the floor of this room (evidently dug to a deeper level, perhapsin search of a heatingsystem) was, unlike the other two, 'on the solid ground' (above, p. 184). The interpretationoffered 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 thecaldarium itself would have measured 15 by 15 feet internally,the same as the tepidarium.The first room found was saidto 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 alaconicum was inserted into thefrigidarium space.








202 LAWRENCEKEPPIE

As to constructionaldetails, we know that the floors of the heated rooms had a covering of opussigninum; the hypocaust stacks were of brick (in a system quite sophisticated compared to otherAntonine Wallbath-houses);heatwas led upthe walls in terracottabox-flues;the buildingwas roofedwith

voussoirs doubtless supportingan innerandouter layer of largetiles (for which see Freebairn's'hints', above, p. 186). No mention is made of any stone slabs which must originally have pavedthefrigidarium. The recovery of glass establishes the likely presence of windows (below, p. 212).The discovery by Freebairnof coal 'among theAshes of the Fire which heatedtheir Sudatories'mayindicatethe fuel employed (below, p. 211).

THE 1978 EXCAVATION

In 1977 it was proposed by Professor Anne Robertson,with the supportof the local authority, henClydebankDistrict Council, as part of a project alreadyunderway,which centred on exposing forpermanentpublic view the rampartof the fortlet on the hill above (see FIG.17), to lay out a 'Romangarden', botanicalexpertise

being providedbyDrAlastairA.R.

Henderson,then of the

Departmentof Humanity,University of Glasgow. A site adjacentto the WarMemorial,on the north-westside ofthe hill, was chosen. When work began in July 1978 on preparingand levelling the ground, under

FIG. 17. Aerial view of Golden Hill, Duntocher,May 1977, from the north-west, showing stone base of fortlet-rampart,newly re-excavated. The bath-house site lies towards the bottom right. (Photo: courtesyof the late Professor

G.D.B.Jones)








A ROMANBATH-HOUSEATDUNTOCHERON THE ANTONINE WALL 203

Burn 0 lom

War Memorial

Q• drain

draintrench 1978

walling

"

Q

--

__ 2Church

02m

FIG. 18. Excavation of the bath-housesite, 1978. (A) plan of the trench(afterA.A.R. Henderson);(B) location of thetrench.(Drawn by L. Keppie)

the supervision of Dr Hendersonand Mr Jack Brogan, then Chief Librarianof ClydebankDistrict

Council, it quickly became apparent hat the position chosen was archaeologicallysensitive, andthesite was backfilledwithin 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 thatthe trenchhad accidentally uncoveredpartof the bath-house;many fragmentsof hypocaust bricksand 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 preservedon its west side; no partof the site was clearedto the underlyingnatural

clay. Approachingthis wall from the east, and evidently passing below it and runningto the west,was a curving drainedged with large cobbles and topped by some capstones. The drainwas 0.25

m wide; no depthwas recorded.The excavators reporteda darksticky clay-like lining. One face ofthe wall had a coating of smearedred daub;reddishclay was visible between the facing stones. DrHendersonrapidlydrewthe structural emains;no visual recordof the excavation appears o survive.A brief report appearedin Discovery and Excavation in Scotland 1978.79 The 'Roman garden'was

subsequentlysited on the

north-easternlankof the hill.

It is difficult now to pinpoint the 1978 excavation site; one of the reference points used inmeasurementno longer survives. FIG.18 representsa best guess. The centre-pointof the excavation

appears o lie c. 10 m east of the 'ancientmonument'symbol on modern OS maps (for which see FIG.

1). Given the measurementsnow known for the building, its southern end presumablylies (or lay)within the groundsof the adjacentTrinityParish Church.

It is presumedherethat the stonework foundin 1978 constitutedthe western wall of the bath-house

79 Brogan and Henderson 1978; cf. Goodburn 1979, 278. Both excavators died young. The NMRS has copies of

correspondencebetween Dr Hendersonand Historic Scotland's predecessor body, together with the site-plan, as does theHunterian Museum which also holds correspondencebetween Dr Henderson and Professor Robertson.








204 LAWRENCEKEPPIE

building, and the draincould be equatedwith thatreportedby Stuart(above, p. 193). It is impossibleaccurately 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 DuntocherBurn, which is likely to have provided its principalwater supply.The bath-houselay immediatelysouth of the AntonineWall itself, at rightangles to it (FIG.12). The

building hadby 1978 been robbed of stonework almost to the bottom of the hypocaustbasements.

GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY

In March2001 a geophysical (resistivity) survey of the site was undertakenunderthe supervisionofDr R.E. Jones of the Departmentof Archaeology, University of Glasgow, in an effort to locate theremains of the bath-housemore precisely, and confirm its general alignment.80The survey yieldedonly imperfect and tentative results. The 1978 excavation and the 2001 geophysical survey mayindicate that the stonework of the bath-house walls does not now survive well, perhaps reflectingCharles Freebairn's estimony in 1779 that it was already being removed as construction material

bythe villagers, and wartimebombing.

DISCUSSION

Along the line of the Antonine Wall, bath-housebuildings have been identified at or nearten 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 thetwentiethcentury: only the newer discoveries at KemperAvenue (Falkirk)and Bearsden have been

comprehensively exploredin more recent times.82The bath-houseat Bar Hill, originally explored in

1902-05, was re-excavated in 1978.83We cannot always be sure thatexcavation in fact revealed the

entiretyof the structures.Theexternal bath-house atOld Kilpatrickwas destroyed,all butunrecorded,

duringthe construction of the Forthand Clyde Canal, in 1790;84 the internalbath-houseat Cadderwas lost to quarryingc. 1940.85 Box-flue fragmentshave been recovered duringfield-walking westof Inveravon fort close to the River Avon,86 n farmlandto the east of the fort at Carriden,87withinthe fort at Kirkintilloch,88 nd from a drainexiting into an external ditch at the incompletely knownfort at Falkirk.89Such finds should betokenthe presence of a hypocausted building at each of these

80 The survey was undertakenby Daniela Cortinovis, JasonJeandron,and Daniel Langhammer,hen M.Phil. students.

81 Bailey 1994. The 'large baths' at Mumrillsare a perplexing structure.Evidently constructedoverlying a demolished

wing of the praetorium, they were later incorporated into it (Macdonald and Curie 1929, 464 with fig. 51 where itsbuttresses are clearly seen; Macdonald 1934, 202ff.). These bathsfit well into the size-range of other such structuresalongthe Antonine Wall. Macdonald argued that the baths were resited here from an annexe to the east, but offered no goodevidence 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 Cadderis also usually considered lost to quarrying,butpresent-daysurface 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 JohnAnderson (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) hasbeen interpretedas the external bath-house of Falkirk fort, which lies 450 m to the west (Bailey 1994, 304), but it isdifficult to be certain of its purpose. Macdonald proposed that the bath-house at Westerwood lay immediately behind thenorthrampart,west of the northgate (1933, 280); cf now Keppie and Breeze 1981, 241; Keppie 1995, 85.








A ROMAN BATH-HOUSEAT DUNTOCHER ON THE ANTONINEWALL 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,91or at the presumed fort-sites at

Seabegs andKinneil. In 1937 a voussoir was found in Bridgeness, perhapsderiving from the fort at

Carriden,1.3 km to the east.92The bath-houseson theAntonineWall(FIGS 9-20) were, for the most part, simple structures,with

the essential components often confined to heated and unheatedrooms in a single range, generallyknown today as the Reihentyp(i.e. 'row-type').93Sometimes the apodyteriumandfrigidarium were

separaterooms of substantialproportions;at other sites they are seemingly modest compartments,andperhapscombined(cf. above, p. 201, with n. 78). Only occasionally are morecomplex 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 narrowspace between the fort rampartand the intervallumstreet (at Westerwood, Balmuildy,

Castlecary,Bar Hill, and possibly Old Kilpatrick;cf. Strageath95);he layout was thus constrained

by the location (cf. above, p. 201).On comparing site-plans, it quickly becomes apparent that many of the bath-houses were

constructed o a fairly standard ize, butwith considerablevariationin constructionaltechniques andmaterials, perhaps indicating a number of different building-squads. The transversemeasurement

of the arched roofs was regularly16-18 ft (5-5.6 m) externally,and the length of thefrigidarium-caldariumrange 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 supplywithin easy distance. A few lay furtheraway: Duntocher (150 m), Falkirk(450 m, if the KemperAvenue site is to be associated with the fort in the Pleasance), Castlehill (430 m, if therewas a bath-

house adjacentto the Peel Burn).There is no directequationon theAntonine Wall between the size of a fort and the size of its bath-

house, or between the size of the bath-houseand the notional strengthof the garrison,its presumed

principalusers. Forexample, the externalbath-houseat RoughCastle is roughlythe same size as the

internal('men's') bath-houseat Mumrills,thoughthe latterfort is six anda half times the size of the

former,andlikely to have hada garrisonof up to 600 men, whereas hardlymorethan 100 could havebeen accommodatedat Rough Castle.97

Geoff Bailey has arguedthat the internalbath-housesat Antonine Wall forts were built early in the

sequence of occupation, with the external bath-houses serving as replacementsafter 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 antiquariesbeside the Peel Glen Burn,430 m west

of Castlehill, in fact representeda bath-house, ratherthan a 'small fort'; see Gordon 1726, 52; Roy 1793, 158; Macdonald

1934, 172, 350. Diamond-broachedstonework 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 Hadrianicbath-houses, see also Gillam, Jobey andWelsby 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 partof a mansio (Black 1995, 53f. with fig. 47a).95 Frereand Wilkes 1989, 98f.96 RoughCastle, BarHill, Balmuildy (internalandexternal), Bearsden. Cf. at Cramond(Holmes 2003) andElginhaugh

(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.

Castlecaryis largerthanthe 'norm', though here we are largely dependenton Roy's plan of 1769. Only Duntocher, Cadder,

and perhapsKemperAvenue (Falkirk)are smaller thanthis norm (see FIGS 9-20, Nos 2, 8, 12).97 FIG. 9, Nos 1, 3; Hanson and Maxwell 1983, 152ff. with tab. 8.1.

98 Bailey 1994, 303.








206 LAWRENCEKEPPIE

-J 32

II

R-2

0 20m

FIG. 19. Bath-houseson the Antonine Wall. Comparativeplans (1) fromMumrillsto Cadder:1. Mumrills;2. KemperAvenue, Falkirk;3. Rough Castle;4. Castlecary;5. Westerwood;6. Croy Hill; 7. Bar Hill; 8. Cadder(internal).All bath-

houses are shown with the furnace-roomat left andunheatedroom(s) at right. Scale 1:200. (Drawn byL. Keppie)








A ROMAN BATH-HOUSEAT DUNTOCHERON THE ANTONINEWALL 207

" I- ''

... '•

r

`--`l---low---

IL

_] LAII

I

9 ~LT-Ua'' ~.-.110

? r

11 12a

ri ritL-I1LJI.__

k-

a _•_~ .

13

12b

SU 14

0 20 m

FIG. 20. Bath-houseson the Antonine Wall.Comparativeplans (2) from Balmuildy to Old Kilpatrick,with plans of

the buildings at nearbyCamelon:9. Balmuildy (internal);10. Balmuildy (external); 11. Bearsden; 12a. Duntocher(from

Gough 1789); 12b. Duntocher(from unpublishedengraving); 13. Old Kilpatrick,latrine(?);14. Camelon Building xviii; 15.

Camelon,Building xvii. All bath-housesare shown with the furnace-roomat left and unheatedroom(s) at right. Scale 1:200.

(Drawn byL. Keppie)








208 LAWRENCEKEPPIE

occupation of the forts, in some cases perhapswell before their ends.99By the time that the bath-house at Balmuildy was moved to the annexe, the only space available overlay the fort ditches; theexternal bath-houseat Cadderwas placed in what must have been the easternedge of an annexe, or

beyond its defences. Manyof the annexe bath-houses are no largerthanthose they arejudged to havereplaced,so it was not the added needs of a civilian populationof vicani which promptedthe move.

Perhaps t was a desire (or need) to remove the internal bath-houses from theirpositions adjacenttothe fort defences.'00Only 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 'primaryforts' on the Wall possessed aninternalbath-house. Within the annexe at Bearsden, a well-built square structure,strengthened byinternaland external buttresses and probablyorientated north-south (and thereforealigned on thefort's east rampart),has been interpretedas the heatedpartof a proto-bath-house,soon replaced.'0oAt Old Kilpatrick,it has been suggested that the 'latrine-block'behind the ramparton the south-east

side, which was much largerthan other such buildings known on the Antonine Wall, might be re-

interpretedas a bath-house,given its similarityin size to some otherbath-housestructures.102The Antonine Wall bath-houses are smaller and simplerthan theirHadrian'sWall equivalents,103

even where militaryunits were, it can be argued,transferredfrom one frontier to the other,whichcould arguefor the smallness of the garrisons actually resident in theAntonine Wall forts.Duntocher is the smallest known fort on the Antonine Wall,with a likely garrisonof not more than

100 men, very probablyfewer.Although the fortpossessed a bath-house smallerthanthe suggested'norm' (above, p. 205), the building was equal in size to, or even larger than, several others onthe Forth-Clydefrontierline. At the smaller forts, such as Rough Castle and Duntocher, it is hardto imagine that bath-houses were originally accommodated internally; in both of these cases theexternal bath-house was probablythe only such structure. Robertson's excavations of 1947-51 atDuntocheryielded a complete hypocaustbrick (below, p. 219) from the annexe west of the fort.'04I suspect that it may be a strayfrom the known bath-house beside the DuntocherBurn,perhapstheresultof robbingin 1775 or later,rather hanevidence of a second such structure.

Robertson's excavations at Duntocherin 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).106The possibility of a larger annexe enclosing the bath-house was not considered by Robertson,107but Gough's plate xxvi.B (here FIG.14) may show the defences of such an annexe extending to the

west, towards the Burn.108 ohn Knox in 1785 referred to 'a fine remainof the Roman wall, whichis carriedalong the base of the hill' (above, p. 181), here presumedto be its south-westernslope.109Two 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 -7),110 in addition to the Military Way which we know

99 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

Balmuildyblocked the line of the intervallum street

(Miller1922, 45).101 Breeze 1984, 54.102 Bailey 1994, 304, drawing upon Miller 1928, 28. The structureis included, for ease of comparison, on FIG.21.103 For Hadrianic bath-houseplans 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 HunterianMuseum.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 appearedto merge.o10sGough 1789, pl. xxvi.A and B. Cf. Macdonald 1934, 331.109 Knox 1785, 611.110 BL Add. Mss. 33686, figs 391, 393 = fols 78, 80.








A ROMAN BATH-HOUSEATDUNTOCHERON THE ANTONINEWALL 209

followed this generalroute."'IThe results of Robertson's excavations could allow at least one of the

ditches defending the fort on its south side to extend westwardsto the DuntocherBurn.112However,the much largerannexe postulatedhere would have constitutedan extremely elongated feature.

Of all the buildings of a Roman fort on the northernfrontiers in Britain, the bath-houses earlyattracted the attention of antiquaries. Bath-houses (often described as 'Sudatories') had been

uncovered at Netherbyin 1732,113 at Castlecaryon theAntonine Wall in 1768-70 (FIG.19 No. 4),114

andat Invereskeast of Edinburgh n 1783.115 nitially therewas some confusion over the purposeof

suchbuildings, as atDuntocher.Butby the nineteenthcenturytheir functionwas fully appreciated.116It is to be hoped that the Duntocherbath-housewill now take its proper place in the study of such

structuresboth along the AntonineWalland in a wider context.

THE FINDS

FINDS RECORDED BEFORE 1775

Coins are reportedas found at Duntocher from the early eighteenth century onwards,11" but it isimpossible to determine whether any derived from the site of the bath-house. The inscribed stone

supposedlyreadingNero (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 probablyJohn Bulloch (miller at Duntocher),as well as

CharlesFreebairnhimself, in additionto the professorsat 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; by1845 it was brokeninto threeparts.119 oundclose to the Hot Bath,on the east side of the caldarium

(above, p. 188), it is not included in the early catalogue of the Roman collection at Glasgow

Il Macdonald 1934, 177. A stretch of the MilitaryWaywas found when the Manse of DuntocherTrinity Parish Church

was built in 1891 (Bruce 1893, 29; Hood 1986, 9), but its alignment is not reported.The discovery is contemporarywith

(and perhapsinformed by) the work of the Glasgow Archaeological Society's Antonine Wall Committee.

112 Robertson 1957, fig. 23 with p. 65. Potterykilns investigated in 1977 by Newall (1998, 25) are too far south to fall

within such an annexe (see FIG. ).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 denudedof 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.

Stuart1845, 157 pl. iv.3 for a sketch of a box-flue from Inveresk. For early reportsof 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 andArnold 1984, 55, no. 151; Keppie 1998, 123 no. 66.119 See Stuart 1845, 357, pl. xv.3.








210 LAWRENCEKEPPIE

University,120houghother,less remarkablesculptureis illustrated;nor was it noted in an accountofthe antiquities preservedat the University's HunterianMuseum a few years after it opened.121The

gurget is firstmentionedby Stuart,122ut he does not associate it with Duntocher.

(b) Voussoirs: 'some hewn Stones with double Grooves in them' (above, p. 186); 'square flatStones, groov'd into one another'(above, p. 188). None now appearsto survive. Currentlynone isvisible in any of the nearbystone walls anddykes.

(c) Inscriptions:two inscribed stones are referredto 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 areunknown.

The 'Nero' stone is, to my knowledge, firstmentionedby AlexanderGordonin a letter to his patronSir John Clerk of Penicuik dated 19 September1723: 'You will have them [variousinscribedstones]for little more than a trifle,viz. the Nero at Duntocherwhich the miller would not take a farthingforbutabsolutely promisedto give it when askedfor in my name' (SRO GD 18/5023/3/1). SubsequentlyClerk'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 duntochermill was not come thatLength. I mised balie Starkbeing at Glasgow, and Left a Leterfor him withYor landledir [sic] his Stepmotherwho favours that you shall have the ston ... I left a shill to be

given for the carrayof the Ston that comes from Duntocher to bring it to my house and I have twoheir qch shall be sent when the Rest comes here or sooner if you pleas' (SRO GD 18 5024/1, dated28 September 1723). The stone was evidently built into the mill or the miller's house (in fact the

latter,see Horsley's reportbelow). Gordon'swording could imply thatthe 'Nero' stone was, unlike

others,alreadyknown to Clerk and himself, but I have found no earliertestimony.Strangelyit goesunmentioned n Gordon'sItinerariumSeptentrionale.123At any rate we know that it remainedwalled

up at Duntocher. Whatis presumablythe same stone is again reportedby Horsley duringhis visit in1727-28: 'In the dwelling house at this place [Duntocher]is a stone with some lettersupon it, whichI know not what to make of'.124Horsley's sketch shows the letters OERO or OFRO (FIG. 1).125

Maitland s morecautious: 'Outof this fortdivers Roman stones have been dug, some of which, withdefaced and unintelligible inscriptions,are erected in the walls of the miller's house and gardensatDuntocher'.126The text is next referred to by Pennant,as observed in 1772 at Duntocherduringhissecond 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)

120 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, reportingon 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.









surprisingly,since Knox claimed to have removed it to Richmond in 1775, the stone was reportedagain by RobertChapmanin his early nineteenth-centuryguides to Glasgow and environs;but the

wording is borrowedfrom Pennant,andmay not be an independentrecord.128The 'Lucius' stone is known

onlyfrom Knox. We could wonder whether it

was discovered atthe time of the excavation of the bath-house, but it goes unmentionedby the other contemporaryobservers.

With the apparentloss of both stones, we can make no very definitive statements on how theyshould be interpreted.We do not know whetherthey were intactand the inscriptions complete. A linkto the emperorNero (reignedA.D.54-68) was never seriously entertained.129Horsley was perplexed;he wondered whether 'the first letter be the Gothic V, as in the inscription at Boroughbridge in

Yorkshire;130nd so the word be Vero'.Gough's verdict, influenced by Pennant,131was that 'it ismore like the stone at KirkbyOver Carr,or perhapsthe name of Nero'.132

EmilHtibner, ollowed by R.P.Wright, oint editorof RIB(whereHorsley'sdrawing s reproduced),interpreted he text as 7FRO, i.e. centuria Fro[ntini], 'the century of Frontinus'.133Thus Htibnerdivined a buildingblock, inscribed with a recordof construction work by a centuryof Romantroops,

headedby a centurionFrontinus.Suchtexts are known at several Romanmilitarysites in Britain,andespecially on Hadrian'sWall.134Clearlythere was an inclination at the time to read both inscriptionsas recording familiar Roman names. They were interpretedin the 1770s as propernames in thenominativecase, but we can wonder whether NERO was the end of a word in the dative or ablative

case;135 r indeed whether LVCIVS, if correctly read, might be split to read (e.g.) ... ]luci v(otum)s(olvit), indicative of an altar.136f a centurialrecord, the 'Nero' stone would belong to a masonrybuilding,perhapsthe bath-house,or a building on the hill above, or even the presumedbridge. Littlemore can usefully be said at the presenttime.

2. Coal: 'Among the Ashes of the Firewhich heated their Sudatories'(above, p. 187), presumablythe furnacearea at the south end of the building. Coal has been found at a number of Antonine Wall

forts,137but not, to my knowledge, in or associated with a bath-house.138

3. Bone: 'Some Animals Bones were found theresupposedto have belonged to Swine or Wild Boarsthat had taken abode there after the Romans. The Tusks were very large' (above, p. 186). Cf. at

Bothwellhaugh139nd Inveresk.140

128 Chapman1812, 212; 1818, 289.129 Only Lettsom in 1776 hints at an early Romanoccupation 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 EphemerisEpigraphica III (1877), 138 no. 115; R.P. Wrightad 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 apraenomen would normally be abbreviated to the single letter L (Britannia 34 (2003), 371 no. 13).Given the discrepancybetween Horsley's drawing and Pennant's apparentlyconfident reading of the 'Nero' stone, we needto remainflexible as to the truereading here, not even excluding a reference to the procuratorQ. Lusius Sabinianus, twiceattested at Inveresk (Birley 1981, 294).

137 Robertson 1942, 122 (Mumrills); cf. more generally, Webster 1955; Adams, Bradburnand Boon 1965; Dearne and

Branigan 1995; Smith 1997; Frere 1999, 291.

138cf. Webster 1955; Rook 1992, 26. Fragmentsof coal were located during excavation by F. Newall of kilns west ofDuntocher fort in 1977 (finds list at HunterianMuseum), but not certainly from a Roman context. Note coal found in thebath-house at Red House, Corbridge (Daniels 1959, 167).

139 Keppie 1981, 67f.140 De Cardonnel 1822, 161.








212 LAWRENCEKEPPIE

4. Cereals: 'A few grainsof wheat were likewise picked up' (above, p. 193). Cf. at Westerwood141and at Castlecary.142

5. Lead: 'A Lump of Lead, of ab[ou]t 5 lb Weight, which appearedas cut off from a large Mass'(above, p. 188); 'a piece of lead as if cut from a baror pig, weighing three or four pounds, coveredwith 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 maydeterminea long subsistingDebate amongstAntiquarians.There was anotherpiece of the same sizefound in the Rubbish' (above, p. 188); 'Two pieces of white glass, which seems to have been castas plate glass, as one side shows the surface of glass in the plate as the air leaves it, the other themould or surface it has been poured upon. The two pieces may contain about six squareinches andare about 3/32 parts of an inch thick and towards one of the corners a little more'.144Presumablywindow glass.

7. Clay:(a) Tiles and bricks: 'The tiles were of 7 different sizes, the smallest being 7,145 andthe largest 21

inches square. They were from 2 to 3 inches in thickness, of a reddish colour, and in perfect soundcondition' (Knox, above, p.179); 'These pillars are said to be 8 inches squareat theirbase; but their

Capitals,graduallyprojecting,increase to 21 inches, therebydistinct Arches underneath,& a regularconnected surfaceat the Top' (Soc. Antiq. London Minute Book XIV, p. 355); 'the nine undermostbricks are eight inches square, and the uppermost21 inches; the next three are generally less, as

appearsin this sketch [hereFIG.15.C]; they are very little more than two inches thick, of the finestmould andcolour;their arracesand corners as sharpas the day they came fromthe kiln, of a beautiful

pale red smooth surface' (Freebairn,above, p. 185).(b) 'The middle partof a Priapus,of unglaz'd Clay' (above, p. 188).146

(c) 'Dancing Mall': 12 inches high, made of reddish clay, it had 'the appearanceof a dancingfigure'.147 To be equatedwith (b) above?

8. Pottery By Peter Webster

The potteryfrom the 1775 excavations, known only from a descriptionand illustrationsin Gough's1789 edition of Camden'sBritannia,148he result of their earlier exhibition before the Society of

Antiquariesof London,presentsan interesting problem in identification. The pieces illustrated(FIG.22) are to the high artisticstandardwhich one would expect of the engraver,James Basire, but it isclearthatboth he and Gough were more familiar with classical thanwith provincialRomanart. It iscertainthat a degree of interpretationwent into the drawings (and presumablyalso the engravings)as into all such work. The problemfacing 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

regularsize 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'-

,

I•t

.Sf•;•

...t. iC--...

'.. . .

:,

1I

,Ssi .. ... . ' . . I l..

. .iii....

. .~~~~~~~,?t-

..'•....

. .-'..••

FIG. 22. Potteryfrom the bath-house,exhibitedat the Society of Antiquariesof London, 1778. Engravedby James Ba

(Reproducedrom Gough1789,pl. xxvii)








214 LAWRENCEKEPPIE

without access to the sherds themselves. The result is bound to be more speculative than is normalfor 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 samianbowls, two of mortaria,with the fifth illustrationbeing adetail of the stampon one of the mortars.In the reportbelow, we have retained the numberingused

by Gough and,where relevant,have included his text.

(a) Samian ware

'Figs. 1 and 2 are parts of two pateraeof fine red clay, ... the glazing or varnish on both sides

being perfectly fresh'.149The descriptionby Gough is a good one for Gaulish samianware whichis 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 probablyfrom a design in which wide and narrowpanels repeat aroundthe vessel. Both

contain decorative elements which appearin the work of the Central Gaulishpotter Cinnamus. Thelargerpanel shows a centaurwith flowing hair.This is 0.732,150 althoughthe Basire version betraysgreaterartistic merit than the original. In the field are what appearto be feathers on the engravingbut areprobablythe leaves of a ratherstylised acanthussprayonly partially impressedin the originalmould (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 'armedwith sword and shield'. The sword is far from clear on the engraving, but this is probably0.1059which appears, for instance, on the signed Cinnamus bowl, Rogers 1999, pl. 32, 49. The festoon

may be Rogers 1974, F78 (perhapsas Stanfield and Simpson 1958, pl. 157, 6). The detail within thefestoon 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-borderpresentsa particularproblem.The tongue has been interpretedas having a trident-

like end. Althoughcommon on South Gaulish samian this is not a CentralGaulish feature. The mostlikely ovolo is no. 3 of Cinnamus,151which matches this in size. The wedge-shaped terminal of theCinnamusovolo might have given rise to the interpretationengraved. If this is the case, then a datein 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 [thanNo. 1 above]'. The condition

appearsto have defeated Basire who portraysthe figures rathersketchily and shroudsthe upperpartof the bowl in deep shadow. The result is a piece which it is difficult to elucidate in the absence ofthe original. The decorationappearsto consist of large double-borderedmedallions with a smaller

single-borderedmedallionwithin, probablyoverstamping,andcertainly enclosing, Gough's 'gownedfigures'. One of the figuresappearsto have been placed in a supine ratherthanupright position.Thelarge medallions are evenly spaced aroundthe vessel. Between them are a small ?double-bordered

medallion over a small dolphin.The general arrangementmight suit an East Gaulishpiece, althoughnone of the figure types seems to match those from that area. The sketchy nature of the 'gownedfigure'makes it difficult to ascribe,butthereis a markedsimilarityto 0.939 which is used by, amongothers, Secundus I of CentralGaul.152The small dolphin could be the right-facing pair of the left-

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.








A ROMANBATH-HOUSEATDUNTOCHERON THE ANTONINE WALL 215

reasonableone, but can only be a suggestion when the detail of the piece clearly eluded both Goughand his engraver.

(b)Mortaria

3-4. Described by Gough as being in 'white clay' and bearing the stamp BRUSC.F.153Gough,no doubtthinkingof Romanbuilding inscriptions, translates the F asfilius, but ecit would be more

likely in this context. However, this is almost certainlya stampof the potterBruscius of Mancetter-

Hartshill and may well be from the same die as a stamp found in Verulamium and discussed byK.F. Hartley,154 nd interpreted,on the basis of a range of impressions, as BRVSC or BRVSCI. The

Verulamiumstamp shows an additional small panelled borderto the right of the lettering, which

could well be what Goughand Basire interpretedas the letterF. Otherstamps by the same potterare

known fromMumrillsand Cramond.155 ruscius is accordedan early/mid-Antoninedate,mainly on

the evidence of Scottishfinds.5. Spout.Goughdescribesit only as the 'ansaorear of anotherearthenvessel', which is insufficient

to show even if it is from a differentvessel fromNos 3-4.156

Insummary,

a reassessmentof the Duntocherpottery

confirms its Antonine date. At least two of

the threeor four vessels illustratedareby makers whose work is well known onAntonineWallsites.

One cannotreally ask for a great deal more frompieces recorded in the eighteenth century.157

FINDS MADE IN 1978158

1. Clay

(a) Box-flues andhypocaustpilae By G.B. Bailey

1. Box-flues

GeneralThe 700 or more box-flue tile fragmentsrecovered from Duntocherin 1978 are generally small, the

largest being only 0.14 m long. They are slightly abradedand there are few pieces thatjoin. Thesefeaturesindicatethatthe material is derived from a re-worked deposit such as a cultivation soil. Of

the fragments43 percent have key marks,suggesting that there was little or no preferentialrecoveryat 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 largeamount of tile; the amount collected must be seen as a small sample.The sherd fabrichas variablequalities. 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-buffin colour with a slightly redder core. However, the fabric of all the material is fairlyuniform and the ranges in colour and hardness may be merely the result of different temperatureswithin the kiln or clamp.

Box-flue tilesgenerally

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; CILVII 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 reportedto 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 HunterianMuseum): 'Quantities of hypocaust and flue

tiles and ... some Romanpottery(three sherdsof amphora,one of decoratedterrasigillata)'. The details were unfortunatelyedited out of the entrypublished in Discovery and Excavation in Scotland.








216 LAWRENCEKEPPIE

function. The inclusions in the Duntochermaterial aremostly in the rangeof 1-2 mm in length, the

two principaltypes being white quartzand 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, havingbrokenat 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 brokenand abradednatureof the collection,it was not possible to reconstructthe height. The surviving vent sides indicate that these were 0.1

m long. Assuming that these occupied a thirdof the height, this gives a total height of 0.3 m, a not

unreasonablefigure proportionally.The thicknessof thewalls of the box-flues is relativelyconsistentat 20 mm.This is comparablewith

tiles fromotherWall sites such as Mumrills,RoughCastle, andCastlecary,but considerablyless than

the massive examples from Camelon.The side vents are cut centrally,with only 25 mm of clay left to

eitherside.They

havestraight

sides andastraight

base, butappear

o havepossessed

a curvedtop.

Mode of manufacture FIG. 3.2-6)The following method of manufacturecan be pieced together from the intrinsic evidence of the

sherds.As is normal,the flue tiles were producedfromflat slabs of clay.159The even thickness shows

that these slabs were formed in shallow rectangularwooden moulds, levelled off by drawinga stick

across the top. However, the drag lines that usually occur as the stick drags the surface inclusions

along are absenton the finishedproductas this face became the interiorone, which was modified bythe next stage in the process.

The frame of the mould was removed and the two ends of the clay slab were cut to a taperedchamfer. Lateral indentationswere then made at the points were the corners were to be shaped.This was done with a forming-block- a rectangularpiece of wood slightly largerthan the interior

of the finished box tile. The first of the lateralgrooves 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 leavingrounded 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 imprintof the wood graincan still be seen on

the interior surfaces of the box tiles at Duntocher.The clay slab hadto be leatherhard for the next step. Itwas laid on one of the long ends and deftly

folded into the box shape. The external cornersthus producedwere rounded,but the internalones

were neatly folded into a slightly hollowed right-angle.The ends of the slab were designed to overlapjust enough to form a lapjoin close to one of the

corners.However, becausethe ends had beentapered,thejoint was essentially a variant scarf oint. A

secondary forming-block,basically a rectangularwooden stick, was insertedinto the jointed corner

of the flue tile. Pressurecould then be appliedalong the length of thejoin to weld the ends together.

Externallythis resultedin considerablesurface deformation

runningthe

lengthof the tile and left the

imprintsof numerousfinger-marksand an occasional palm-mark. Internallyit created a secondary

ridge at the corner.Thejoint itself was smoothed off on the outside and is rarelyvisible, whereas

internallyit invariably appearsas a wrinkle.Next the vents were cutusing a sharp mplement.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

beyondthe area where the secondaryformer had 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 narrowbladeand was probablythe same one used to key the surface

159 McWhirrand Viner 1978, 362.








A ROMAN BATH-HOUSEATDUNTOCHER ON THE ANTONINEWALL 217

100

150

scarf join

)secondarycorner

originalvent

side pushed back

pressure corner

FIG.23. Box-flue tiles. 1. Reconstructeddimensions of the box-flue tile showing over-allpatternproducedby combing;2. Rolling the forming-blockover the surface to producecornerindentations;3. The modified clay slab;4. Sectionalview

of the folded box tile; 5. Secondary forming-blockin place; 6. Atypical corner of the flue tile where thejoint occurs;vent

edges then finished off. (Drawn by G.B.Bailey)








218 LAWRENCEKEPPIE

later.The two verticalcuts seem to have been madefirst,thenthe horizontalone atthe base. The three-

sidedwedge of clay createdwas thenpulledoutwardsandfinallythe topwas cutout in a curve, freeingthepiece. Oneresultof this sequencewas to leave the edges of the ventwith a slightchamferoutwards.

The knife was used to flattentheseout, making

the ventedges

thicker than the restof the tile.

Duringthis process the tiles had been stood on end and a few examples show that the lower edgecurled under the strain. This was probably due to the clay still having too much moisture in it.

Occasionally this necessitated trimmingthe 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 producedwith a narrowblade, such as a knife, and parallel grooves produced by a

bluntermulti-toothedimplement such as a comb. In both instances, the channel edges are doubled

over because the clay was still very plastic. The knife lines arerepresentedby only 31 sherds(not all

from the same tile face), whereas there are 286 sherdsbearingcomb marks.

The knife was used to make diagonal lines across the face, which were then crossed diagonallyto 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 createdV-shapedchannels, whilst others were rectangular.Lengthand width of the tines also differed. The

seven-prongedcomb hadits two endtines slightly shorter han the central five. Whichever comb was

used, the overall patterncreated was much the same. The first stroke went from bottom left to the

top just to the rightof the centre. This was crossed by a line from the bottomright to just left of the

centre- giving whatapproximates o an inverted V.Threehorizontal(actuallymost rise a little from

left to right)bandswere 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 probablyrepresentsthe personaldesign or 'signature'of the manresponsible. It is

not known whetheror 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 identifiedas flue tiles, 317 had

keying and292 were plain,which suggests thattwo sides were indeed keyed and two were plain. The

keying does not extend to the sides.Afterthis the tile was takento a dryingarea.Again this handling left fingerprintsall over the tiles,

flatteningsome 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.

DiscussionFlue tiles are designed to be hidden when in use and consequently lack the fine finish of pottery.This utilitarianapproachmeans thatproductionscars are readily observed. As function took priorityover form, it was possible to manufacturea useable productin a variety of ways and so the artisans

developedtheir ownpeculiarsystems. Theseshould allow us to differentiate he work of the individuals

concernedand this is the reason forprovidingso muchdetailabove on the mode of production.

At Duntocherthe tiles exhibit a number of featuresnot seen at otherWall sites and some that aredifferentin character rom those at other sites. The clay at Duntocherwas 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 raisedfingerprint where the clay has stuck to the fingeras it was lifted off).The internalcornergrooves are different fromthose atMumrills,which arefingerfinished, and those

atCastlecary,which aresquarer.At Duntocherthe tops of the vents arerounded;atMumrillsthey are

pointed, thoughroundedexamples occur elsewhere.160The lattice keying occurs at most sites (though not at Castlecary, which may be the result of

160 Bailey and Gray forthcoming.








A ROMAN BATH-HOUSEATDUNTOCHER ON THEANTONINEWALL 219

preferential collecting). The banded and inverted V-comb pattern is restrictedto Duntocher andis comparablewith the use of alternatevertical bands of wavy and straight lines at Castlecary.Similarly,Camelon is the only site to produceexamples with wavy lines on the interior.

The dominant'signature'

at Duntocheris the banded and inverted V-combpattern

on a mediumhard fabric with plenty of finger-marks.There arejust a few sherds in a harderfabric bearing thelattice pattern.It is possible that they were made side-by-side by fellow workers. However, theymay not be contemporaryand the lattice-patternedvariety may representan alteration,extension, or

repairto the bath-house.161Furtherstudy of collections is requiredto define the signaturesof makers at other sites along the

Antonine Wall.A preliminarysurvey has shown that each site has its own peculiaritiesandthatonlyat Mumrillsand Rough Castle do the same productioncharacteristics coincide. It would thereforeseem possible that each fort produced its own tiles, as it often did its pottery. Had itinerant tilemakers been involved, it would have been only the fabric and not the techniques that would havediffered. The lack of standardisation s furtheremphasised by the occasional use of stone slabs tocreate the flue cavity in bath-housesat places such as Bearsdenand KemperAvenue in Falkirk. This

raises the possibility thatthe bath-houses, like othermajor fort buildings, were built by auxiliaries.We know, for example, that theprincipia at RoughCastle 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 auxiliaryfort at

Gellygaerin Wales.162This was a substantialkiln, similar to that at Mumrills,163which was used bythe unit to make mortaria as well as roof tiles over an extendedperiod

2. HypocaustpilaeOnly small fragmentsof brick/pilatile were recoveredfrom Duntocher in 1978 (in contrast to 1775).From these it is not possible to determinetheir length or breadth,the longest surviving piece beingonly 21 cm. Two thicknesses are represented.Most pieces are 55 mm thick, but one fragment is

significantlyless at 45 mm.

(b) Opus signinum andplaster1. 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 surfaceshows considerable wear, perhapsthe result of deliberateabradingand grinding at the time of theconstructionof the bath-house(informationfrom 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 paneldecorationdividedby bead rows withrosette terminals.The whole is somewhat abradedwith some furtherdamageto the surfaceat the lower right.The panel decoration is as follows (from

left to right): (a) wreathed medallion, possibly Rogers 1974, E16, containing an unidentifiedtype;(b) a narrowpanel containingthe lower partof the Victory0.819A; (c) a double-borderedmedallionover a damagedfigurewhich is probablythe stag 0. 1704. The medallion andVictoryboth appearinwork ascribedto Cinnamus and Pugnus, but the latter does not appearto have used the stag. A date

c. A.D. 150-170 seems likely.

161 Productionof flue tiles was episodic, in order to coincide with construction demands; different artisans would beinvolved 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 LAWRENCEEPPIE

2. Twojoining fragmentsof neck from an amphoraof Dressel form 20, the globular South Spanisholive oil amphora.The rim is of Martin-Kilcher orm 29 of mid-second-centuryA.D. date.164

General commentson the ceramicfindsAlthoughnot rulingout Flavian occupationsomewhere in the vicinity,Anne Robertson made it clearthat the finds from the 1947-51 excavations belonged wholly to the Antonine period.165Lookingback at her published material after almost fifty years, one inevitably sees many vessels aboutwhich more could now be said, but the chronological inferences remain the same. The finds madein the eighteenthcenturyand in 1978 merely reinforce this view. Neither of the latterare of course

numerous,but nevertheless the eighteenth-centurysamian finds, in particular,add significantly tothe sum of decorated ware from the site and it is ironical that one can say more about them than thedecorated assemblage from 1947-51. Nor should the significance of the occurrence of one of the

fairly small number of mortariastamped by Bruscius be overlooked. On a site where 'the harvestoffinds was meagre in the extreme',166one should be thankful for the observations of the eighteenth-centuryantiquariesand their illustrator.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am glad here of the opportunity o 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 unpublisheddocuments and respondingto my enquiries: Elizabeth Bell, Mrs Fionna Ashmore (Society of Antiquariesof

Scotland), Jane Baxter (Local Studies Librarian,Borough of Richmond upon Thames), David Bird (SurreyArchaeological Society), Morag Cross, the Rev. David Donaldson (TrinityParishChurch,Duntocher),SimonEccles and Jennifer Rose (Glasgow Museums), Ross Eudall, George Fairfull-Smith,Alexander Fairweather

(Allan MurrayArchitects,Edinburgh),Dr JohnFaithfull(HunterianMuseum),lain Fraser NMRS), Dr M. Henig(Instituteof Archaeology,Oxford),Sam Gibson and David Carson(ClydebankHistoricalSociety), MrN.M.McQ.Holmes and Mr F. Hunter(National Museumsof Scotland),John Hood (formerlyChief Librarian,Clydebank

District),Dr

R.E.Jones

(Departmentof

Archaeology, Universityof

Glasgow),Irene Miller

(Museumof

IslayLife),FrankNewall,DrR.S.O.Tomlin WolfsonCollege,Oxford),DrJ.P.Wild Universityf Manchester);rI.G.BrownandcolleaguesNationalLibraryf Scotland,Manuscripts ivision),PatMalcolmandcolleagues(Clydebank entralLibrary), drianJames,BernardNurse and D. MorganEvans Societyof AntiquariesfLondon),James McGrathandAnn Sweeney (StrathclydeUniversityArchives and AndersonianLibrary),and staffat the MitchellLibraryGlasgow),Edinburghentral ibrary,nd he BodleianLibraryOxford).

The cost of obtaining illustrative material from the Bodleian Librarywas met by the Jennie S. GordonMemorial Foundation and the cost of obtainingmaterial from the Society of Antiquariesof London and fromthe Scottish National PortraitGalleryby 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,andthe incoming Editor,DrA.S. Esmonde Cleary.For permission to printhere 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 fromthe

Paton-Gough correspondenceI am

gratefulto the Trustees of the National

Libraryof

Scotland,Edinburgh;for permissionto printextractsfrom their Minute Books I am gratefulto the Society of Antiquariesof London.

Acknowledgement of the sources of various illustrations are acknowledged in the captions;all are reproducedwith permission.

HunterianMuseum,University of [email protected]

Thispaper is published with the aid of a grant from Historic Scotland

164PeacockandWilliams1986, 138, fig. 66.165 Robertson 1957, 74-5, 89-90.166 Robertson 1957, 70.








AROMANBATH-HOUSETDUNTOCHER NTHEANTONINEWALL 221

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, H.F., Bradburn, E., and Boon, G.C. 1965: 'Coal from the legionary fortress of Caerleon, Mon-

mouthshire', Geol. Magazine 102, 469-73

Anderson,J. 1771: Of the Roman Wallbetween the Forth & Clyde; and of some Discoveries which have latelybeen made upon it (AndersonianLibrary,University of Strathclyde:Anderson MS 22A, fols 1-52)

Anderson, J. 1773: Supplementarypages to Anderson 1771 (AndersonianLibrary,University of Strathclyde:Anderson MS 22A, fols 93-119)

Badham, S.F. 1987: 'Richard Gough and the flowering of Romantic antiquarianism',ChurchMonuments2,32-43

Bailey, G.B. 1991: 'A Roman fort on the Wall at Falkirk', Calatria [Journalof the Falkirk Local History

Society] 1, 5-17

Bailey, G.B. 1994: 'The provision of fort-annexeson 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 productionat Mumrills', Calatria [Journalof

the Falkirk Local History Society]Barclay, Rev. M. 1845: 'Parish of Old Kilpatrick', in The New Statistical Account of Scotland, vol. 8,

Edinburgh, 15-35Bidwell, P.T. 1997: Roman Forts in Britain, London

Birley, A.R. 1981: The Fasti of RomanBritain, Oxford

Birley, E. 1961: Research on Hadrian 's Wall,Kendal

Bishop, M.C. (ed.) 2002: RomanInveresk, EdinburghBlack, E.W. 1995: Cursus Publicus: the Infrastructureof Governmentin RomanBritain, BAR 241, Oxford

Brabrook,E.W. 1910: 'On the Fellows of the Society of Antiquarieswho 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 AntiquityPresented to Stewart Cruden, Edinburgh,32-68

Breeze, D.J., and Dobson, B. 2000: Hadrian 's Wall(4th edn), Harmondsworth

Brodribb,G. 1987: RomanBrick and Tile, Gloucester

Brogan, J., and Henderson, A.A.R. 1978: 'Duntocher, Roman bathhouse', Discovery and Excavation in

Scotland 1978, Edinburgh,26Bruce, John 1893: History of the Parish of Old or WestKilpatrick,GlasgowButt, J. 1996: John Anderson'sLegacy: The University of Strathclydeand its Antecedents, East Linton

Callender,R.M., and Macaulay,J. 1984: TheAncient Metal Mines of the Isle oflslay, Argyll = British Mining24, 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, GlasgowChristison, D. et al. 1903: 'Excavation of Castlecary fort on the Antonine Vallum', Proc.Soc.Antiq.Scot. 37

(1902-03), 271-346

Clarke, J. 1933: TheRomanFort at Cadder, GlasgowColvin, H. 1995: A Biographical Dictionary of British Architects 1600-1840, New Haven/London

Cooper,T. 1890: 'Richard Gough', Dictionary of National Biography 22, 279-82Daniels, 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., andRalston,I. 1995: 'Excavations at Inveravon on theAntonine Wall, 1991', Proc.Soc.Antiq.Scot.125, 521-76








222 LAWRENCEEPPIE

Evans, J. 1956: A History of the Society ofAntiquaries, London

Farington,J. 1788-92: Notebooks and Pencil Drawings of a Tour n Scotland (EdinburghCentralLibrary)Frere, S.S. 1972: VerulamiumExcavations, vol. I, ReportResearch Committee Society of AntiquariesLondon

28, London

Frere, S.S. 1999: Britannia: a History of Roman Britain (Folio Society edn), LondonFrere, S.S., and Wilkes, J.J. 1989: Strageath: Excavations within the Roman Fort 1973-86, Britannia

monograph9, London

Garlick, K., and Macintyre,A. (eds) 1978: TheDiary of Joseph Farington, vol. 1, New Haven/London

Gillam, J.P., Jobey, I.M., and Welsby, D.A. 1993: The RomanBath-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: ItinerariumSeptentrionale, 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 Monumentsin 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, LondonHanson, W.S., and Maxwell, G.S. 1983: Rome'sNorth WestFrontier: the Antonine Wall,EdinburghHanson, W.S., andYeoman, P. 1988: Elginhaugh, a RomanFort and its Environs, Edinburgh

Haughton,E. 1861: On the Remains ofAncient Roman Baths in England, London/LiverpoolHenderson,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,

EdinburghHood, J. 1984: More Duntocher and Hardgate in Pictures, ClydebankHood, J. 1986: History of Duntocher TrinityParish Church 1836-1986, ClydebankHood, J. 1988: TheHistory of Clydebank,Carnforth

Horsley, J. 1732: Britannia Romana, London

Johns, C., and Henig, M. 1991: 'A statuette of a herm of Priapusfrom 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 Companion or the Year1787, GlasgowJones, N. 1789: Jones 'Directory, or Useful Pocket Companion or the Year1789, Glasgow

Jupp,C.N. 1994: TheHistory of Islay: from Earliest Timesto 1848, Islay

Kay, J. 1837: A Series of Original Portraits and CaricatureEtchings, Edinburgh

Keppie, L.J.F. 1981: 'Excavation of a Roman bathhouse at Bothwellhaugh, Lanarkshire, 1975-76', GlasgowArchaeol. 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', GlasgowArchaeol. J. 19 (1994-95), 83-99

Keppie, L.J.F. 1998: Roman Inscribed and Sculptured Stones in the Hunterian Museum, University of

Glasgow, BritanniaMonograph 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

Keppie, L.J.F., and Murray, J.F. 1981: 'A Roman hypocausted building at Falkirk', Proc.Soc.Antiq.Scot. 111,248-62

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








A ROMANBATH-HOUSETDUNTOCHER NTHEANTONINEWALL 223

Knox, J. 1785: A Viewof the British Empire, more especially Scotland (3rd edn), London

Laskey, J. 1813: A General Account of the Hunterian Museum, Glasgow, GlasgowMacdonald,G. 1911: TheRoman Wall n Scotland, GlasgowMacdonald, 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 "MilitaryAntiquities 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 Wall n 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,GlasgowMcWhirr,A., and Viner, D. 1978: 'The production and distribution of tiles in Roman Britain with particular

reference to the Cirencesterregion', Britannia 9, 359-77

Maitland,W. 1757: TheHistory andAntiquities of Scotland, vol. 1, London

Miller, S.N. 1922: The RomanFort at Balmuildy, GlasgowMiller, S.N. 1928: The Roman Fort at Old Kilpatrick, GlasgowMoir, D.M. 1860: TheRomanAntiquities of Inveresk, EdinburghNash-Williams, V.E. 1969: TheRomanFrontier in Wales(rev. by M.G. Jarrett),Cardiff

Newall, F. 1998: 'The Roman fort on Whitemoss Farm,Bishopton, Renfrewshire.Part2', Scottish Naturalist

110, 13-43

Nielsen, I. 1990: Thermaeet Balnea: the Architecture and Cultural History of RomanPublic Baths, Aarhus

Nimmo, W. 1777: A General History of Stirlingshire, Edinburgh0. see Oswald 1936-37

Oswald, F. 1936-7: Index of Figure Typeson TerraSigillata, 'Samian Ware',Supplement to Annals ofArch.& Anth., Liverpool

Peacock, D.P.S., and Williams, D.F. 1986: Amphoraeand the RomanEconomy, London

Pennant, T. 1774: A Tour n Scotland and Voyageto the Hebrides MDCCLXXII,Chester

Ramsay, L. 1890: The Stent Book and Acts of the Balliary of Islay 1718-1843, IslayRCAHMS 1929: Inventory of Monumentsand Constructions in the Counties of Midlothianand WestLothian,

EdinburghRobertson,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/LondonRobertson,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),RomanFrontier 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, ParisRogers, G. 1999: Poteries sigillees de la Gaule Centrale. II. Les potiers, 2 vols, Lezoux

Rook, T. 1992: RomanBaths in Britain, Princes Risborough

Roy, W. 1793: TheMilitaryAntiquities 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, EdinburghSibbald, R. 1707: Historical Inquiries, EdinburghSmellie, W. 1782:Account of theInstitution 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

correspondenceof Mr Charles Freebairn and others, October 1770', in TheBook oflslay, Islay, 426-67








224 LAWRENCE EPPIE

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, IslayStronach,G. 1892: 'John Knox', in Dictionary of National Biography 31, 329-30

Stuart,R. 1845: Caledonia Romana, EdinburghStuart,R. 1852: Caledonia Romana (2nd edn, rev. by J. Thomson), Edinburgh/LondonSwan, 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,

EdinburghTomlin, 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, GlasgowWard,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, 358-60Willetts, P.J. 2000: Catalogue of Manuscripts in the Society of Antiquaries of London, WoodbridgeWilson, D. 1851: TheArchaeology and Prehistoric Annals of Scotland, EdinburghWilson, R.J.A. 1980: RomanForts, London

Wollaston, R. 1864: A ShortDescription of the ThermaeRomano-Britannicae, London

Bath-house at Antonin Wall

Documents

Transcript of Bath-house at Antonin Wall