We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 November 2011
In January 1985 the Glamorgan-Gwent Archaeological Trust was alerted through its Planning Control system to the fact that planning permission was being sought for the erection of infill housing in the garden of ‘Sandygate’, Cold Bath Road, Caerleon SS 337907 (FIG. I). The area formed part of Barrack Blocks IX and X in the Prysg series and had been descfteduled after Nash-Williams's excavations in the 1920s. However, as it appeared that these excavations had left much of the archaeology intact, the Trust recommended to Newport Borough Council that planning permission be refused on archaeological grounds. At the same time, the possibility of rescheduling the area was explored with Cadw: Welsh Historic Monuments; but because of the small size of the area involved rescheduling proved to be impossible. This left the fate of the area in the hands of the Borough Council, and whilst the Planning Committee was not prepared to refuse permission, it agreed to write a condition of excavation into the planning consent. No money was forthcoming to finance the work, but as a Manpower Services Commission Community Programme scheme was already being operated by the Trust to carry out rescue excavations in Caerleon, personnel from this scheme were able to carry out the necessary work.
1 Nash-Williams, V.E., ‘The Roman legionary fortress at Caerleon in Monmouthshire. Report on the excavations carried out in the Prysg Field: Part I’, Arch. Camb. lxxxvi (1931), 99–157Google Scholar; ‘Part II - The finds’. Arch. Camb. Ixxxvii (1932), 48–104Google Scholar; ‘Part III - The finds of pottery’. Arch. Camb. lxxxvii (1932). 265–349: subsequently quoted as Prysg I, II and IIIGoogle Scholar.
2 See in particular the research design for Myrtle Cottage (Fox, A., ‘The legionary fortress at Caerleon. Monmouthsire: Excavations in Myrtle Cottage Orchard 1939’. Arch. Camb. xcv (1940), 101–51. subsequently quoted as Myrtle Cottage)Google Scholar.
3 G.C. Boon, Isca: the Roman legionary fortress at Caerleon, Mon (1972), 14, 116-18.
4 D.R. Evans and V.M. Metcalf, The ‘Roman Gales’ site in the fortress of the Second Augustan Legion at Caerleon, Gwent (forthcoming), subsequently quoted as Roman Gates.
5 Britannia xviii (1987), 307Google Scholar.
6 Site north is used throughout. The grid was aligned on approximately the same axis as the via praetoria, and the north gate of the fortress taken to be the porla decumana.
7 Prysg I. 153.
8 J. Casey, in lilt.
9 ct. Roman Gates. 22-5. where it is suggested that there may have been some structural modification to Phase I earthfasl timber version of Barrack Block A.
10 Nash-Williams's general plan records the east wall of Room 8 (004) as being represented by the foundation only. This is inaccurate.
11 See Prysg I, 136.
12 It should perhaps be noted that in Barracks I (‘pre-stone phase’) and III–IV (stone phases) the mortar floors recorded by Nash-Williams were all in the corresponding position, though not in Block VII nor. apparently, in Block VIII (Prysg I, 45. 48. 49. 52. 55 and fig. 44. p. 59).
13 I am grateful to Mr R. Caple for suggesting this model, based on his experience in building just after the war ‘when virtually no machinery was available, but there was ample human labour’ (in litt.).
14 But was not well enough preserved to allow for reconstruction.
15 In contrast with what seems to have been the normal practice in other forts and fortresses (see Davison, D.P., The barracks of the Roman army from the 1st to the yd centuries AD. BAR S472 (1989), 219)Google Scholar.
16 Myrtle Cottage. 108. 115, 120.
17 Threipland, L. Murray, ‘Excavations at Caerleon, 1966: barracks in the north corner’. Arch. Camb. cxvi (1967), 42 (subsequently quoted as Croft)Google Scholar.
18 Roman Gates (report forthcoming, 177).
19 Prysg I. 136.
20 The problems of mortar survival at Caerleon have not previously been considered in any detail: the acidic nature of the soil in many areas has led to total degradation and loss of the lime component in some mixes of mortar. This can be demonstrated in the canabae at Mill Street (report forthcoming) where, in the masonry buildings excavated on the site of Cambria House, floors of opus signinum were represented only by the crushed tile component; and the mortar of the walls was represented by a thick layer of sand above the foundations, apparently having migrated downwards leaving the gaps between the stones to be filled by loam. Within the fortress similar observations were made by Mrs Murray Threipland at the Croft where, in Period 2, some of the floors were of ‘cement, now disintegrated, and recognised as a sandy level’ (Croft, 42).
21 Only one through stone was noted in any of the walls (004). adjacent to the gap interpreted as a possible doorway.
22 R. Caple, in lilt.
23 ‘Roman mortar … did not always attain a high standard in Britain. Now and again it was a little better than a mixture of earth and lime and the latter has sometimes been removed by the solvent action of the moisture of the soil, leaving an earthy residue which has misled observers into thinking that puddled earth was used for mortar’ (J. Ward, Romano-British buildings and earthworks (1911). 256); see also M.E. Blake, Ancient Roman construction in Italy from the prehistoric period to Augustus (1947 and 1968). 309.
24 I owe this suggestion to Mr Caple.
25 Prysg II, 49, 55, 57, 58.
26 G.C. Boon, Laterarium Iscanum: The antefixes, brick and tile stamps of the Second Augustan Legion (1984), 23, 26. 30, 33.
27 cf. Roman Gates. 31.
28 Prvsa I. 136.
29 See Roman Gates.
30 J.K. Knight, Caerleon Roman Fortress (1988), 14.
31 Boon, op. cit. (note 26). 116-8.
32 Davison, op. cit. (note 15). 224-7.
33 Packer, J.E., ‘The insulae of imperial Ostia’, Mem. Amer. Acad. Rome xxxi (1971), 57-8. 61, 63–5Google Scholar.
34 Prysg III.
35 Prysg I, 156.
36 Simpson, G., ‘Caerleon and the Roman forts in Wales in the second century A.D.: Part1-Caerleonan northern Wales’, Arch. Camb. cxi (1962), 105–7Google Scholar.
37 G.C. Boon, Isca: The Roman legionary fortress at Caerleon, Mon. (1972), 116.
38 Pers. comm. J.D. Zienkiewicz.
39 J. Casey, in litt.
40 J.D. Zienkiewicz, The legionary fortress baths at Caerleon. Vol II: The finds (1986).
41 Roman Gates.
42 Myrtle Cottage, 119-22.
43 Boon, G.C., ‘“Legionary” ware at Caerleon?’ Arch. Camb. cxv (1966), 45–66Google Scholar.
44 In Zienkiewicz, op. cit. (note 40), 55-6.
45 Prysg I, 131-3.
46 Prysg I, fig. 46.
47 See R.E.M. and T.V. Wheeler, Archaenlogia lxxviii (1928). 111–218; Boon, op. cit. (note 26). 32-4.
48 Myrtle Cottage. 142.
49 Crummy, N., The Roman small finds from excavations in Colchester 1941-9. Colchester Arch. Rep. 2 (1983). 93Google Scholar.
50 See now M.C. Bishop and J.N. Dore, Corbridge: Excavations of the Roman fort and town, 1947-80 (1988). 248.
51 Tyres, P., ‘The poppy-head beakers of Britain and their relationship to the barbotine decorated vessels of the Rhineland and Switzerland’, in Arthur, P. and Marsh, G. (eds). Early fine wares in Roman Britain BAR 43 (1977), 61–109Google Scholar.
52 cf. Crummy, op. cit. (note 49). 93-4.
53 J.D. Zienkiewicz in Antiq. Journ. forthcoming. At the time of writing, the piece remains the property of Mr L. Hill who kindly loaned it to the National Museum of Wales for display at the Roman Legionary Museum at Caerleon.
54 Metallic compositions confirmed by XRF analysis, courtesy of Dr M. Pollard.
55 For the iconography of the trophy, and its association with Victory in Greek and Roman art. see Picard, G.C., Les trophées romaines Bib des Écoles Francaise d'Athènes et de Rome, fasc 187 (1957)Google Scholar. and Woelcke, K., ‘Beitrage zur Geschichte des Tropaions’. Bonner Jahrb. cxx (1911). 127–235Google Scholar.
56 Gnecchi, F., Rivista italiana di numismatica xix (1906). 141Google Scholar.
57 J. Garbsch, Römische Paraderüstung (1978); Victory and trophies commonly appear on the breast of cuirassed statues, see C. Vermeule, Hellenistic and Roman cuirassed statues (1980). but the piece is too large to have served as any part of body-armour.
58 H. Kellner, Der Römische Verwahrfund von Eining (1978). 23 and Taf. 31.
59 Oldenstein, J., ‘Zur Ausrüstung der römischen Auxiliareinheiten’. Bericht der römisch-germanischen Kommission lvii (1976). 216Google Scholar.
60 cf. Allason-Jones, L. and Miket, R., The catalogue of small finds from South Shields Roman fort Soc. Ant. Newcastle-upon-Tyne Monograph 2 (1984), 326 and references, nos 8, 18, 37Google Scholar.
61 D. Charlesworth, ‘Glass (including material from all other Exeter sites excavated between 1971 and 1976)’. in Bidwell, P.T., The Legionary Bath-House and Basilica and Forum at Exeter. Exeter Arch. Rep. 1 (1979). 229Google Scholar.
62 See P. Barford, ‘Metalworking debris’, in Evans, D.R. and Metcalf, V.M., ‘Excavations at 10 Old Market Street. Usk’, Britannia xx (1989), 65Google Scholar.
63 J. Casey, in litt.
