The Roman Fort(s) on Castlehill, Bearsden

Transcription

1 The Roman Fort(s) on Castlehill, Bearsden LJF Keppie, MA, MPhil, DPhil The summit of Castlehill on the W outskirts of Bearsden, with its distinctive circle of beech trees, is a familiar and landmark. Visible to the S far conspicuous beyond the Clyde, and E along the Kelvin Valley of central Scotland for 20 miles or more, it attains a height of almost 120 m (400 ft) above sea level. That Castlehill was the site of a Roman fort, one of the garrison posts along the line of the Antonine Wall, has for long been common knowledge, though today all but the faintest vestiges have disappeared. No excavation has ever been undertaken on the hill, but two distance slabs, an altar and a column capital derive from the site (Macdonald 1934, 326), and over the years fragments of Roman pottery recovered from the roots of fallen trees have confirmed an occupation in the Antonine period (Robertson 1979, 85). The earliest antiquarian report of a Roman site on the hill is by Sir Robert Sibbald whose informant, Dr Christopher Irvine, noted a 'fort' at Castle-Hill (1707, 30). Irvine's description of the site as a 'fort' rather than a 'great fort' indicates that what he saw was of relatively size; small Irvine's peregrination of the Wall belongs about Shortly after 1700 the architect and antiquarian Alexander Edward, in a marginal note beside his drawing of a distance slab lately found at 'Castletoun', reports it as a location 'wher ther was a Tour upon the South side of the Roman Wall 100 foots... and upon a greet hight'.(1) The next visitor, Alexander Gordon, noted that 'the Vestiges of another Castellum, or Fort, upon the Wall' were to be seen on 'a rising Ground, called the Castle-Hill' (1726, 52). His. accompanying drawing shows a square enclosure with rounded corners, defended by single ditch, lying a a little way S of the Antonine Wall itself. The dimensions of the site are given as some 70 'paces' square. The site was next visited, after no long interval, by John Horsley, who comments on the wide views obtainable from the hilltop (1732, 165). Horsley's sketch shows the site enclosed within a rampart and a single ditch; in his general map of the Wall line, Castlehill is equated in size that the to nearby Duntocher. He reports ramparts were marked in his time by thorn bushes, and that the Military Way passed by the site on its S side. Horsley's account was sharply criticised by William Maitland, who gives the dimensions of the fort as about 90 yds length in and 50 yds in breadth, and goes on to point out that 'the spot enclosed with trees and thorn bushes (ie Horsley's fortsite) is only a part of the said fort, about 50 feet square, which is manifest by the remains of the ditches on the south side of the said enclosure' (1757, 181). General William Roy, whose Military Antiquities of the Romans in Britain was published posthumously in 1793, but the drawings for which were completed in the mid 1750's, records a rectangular enclosure (1793, pi. xxxv) c.60 m N-S by c.100 m E-W, within a single ditch (pi. 1). The NW quadrant of the fort is shown as a raised plateau c.30 m square. This was evidently the enclosure described by Horsley. 'But the Castle-hill is before us circular top crowned with that chaplet of trees whose slender stems have usurped the place of the ancient Valla, and whose its 80

2 Plate 1. Fort at Castlehill in the mid 18th century. Fr om W Roy, Military Antiquities of the Romans in Britain Plate xxxv. (Photograph by T Graham, Photographic Unit, University of Glasgow). 81 (1793),

3 lengthening shadows stretch over the withered sward still as the 'ghostly memories' of departed time. Leaving the little ravine at the Peel, a short ascent conducts the visitor to the summit, where, having made his way through this sylvan belt, he finds himself within a circular area, perfectly free of wood, excepting towards the centre, where one solitary tree rises before him, as if it had stept forth from among the ranks of its surrounding comrades, and now took its turn of duty as warder of the ground'. This account of the site in the mid 19th century by Robert Stuart could hardly be bettered for its evocative language, but contributes little to an improved knowledge of the archaeology of the fort (1845, 302). Little remained visible in Stuart's day, and he was happy, on the authority of Horsley and Roy, to place it in the 'third or lowest class' of forts. That Castlehill was the presumed site of a Roman 'station' on the Antonine Wall is noted on the First Edition of Ordnance Survey sheets for the area, where the circle of trees is duly shown. For a long time it was supposed that the trees themselves provided an accurate guide to the location of the fort, and this view was endorsed by Sir George Macdonald in his standard discussion (1934, 326). It was not until the middle of this century that aerial reconnaissance, by Professor J K St Joseph, provided a more accurate picture (1951, 61). One of his photographs taken Plate 2. Castlehill from the S, Ditches defending the fort can be seen in the field SE of the circle of trees. (Cambridge University Collection: copyright reserved). 82

4 in 1947 shows clearly that the trees overlie only the NW quadrant of the fort, which lies chiefly to the E, between the trees and the former farmhouse of Castlehill (pi. 2). Two (or possibly three) ditches defend the fort on its S side; about halfway along the S side there is the hint of a break in the ditch system, presumably for the S gate. The ditches enclosed a rectangle c.130 m (426 ft) E-W by c. 120 m (393 ft) N-S, with an area of 3.5 acres (1.41 hectares). However, the mystery of Castlehill is not thereby solved; to some extent it may be thought to have deepened further. If the apparent break in the S ditches in fact marks the position of a gate, and if that gate lay halfway along the S side of the fort (as would be expected), it is clear that the ditches on the W side, if projected N, do not meet the Antonine Wall at the point where the latter turns sharply to the SW to descend towards the Peel Glen. A gap of m intervenes. In fact the W ditches, visible as a single hollow, can be N towards the followed on the ground Wall. To the W, between the ditch-hollow and the angle of the Wall, there is a small raised plateau, presumably that already noted and depicted by Roy, lying just S of the presumed line of the Wall and Ditch. It has from time to time been suggested, on general topographic grounds, that Castlehill might be the site of a fortlet, one of the small installations erected in advance of the Wall itself, to protect its intended course, as at nearby Duntocher (Robertson 1957, 94). Recently the suggestion has been made that the original blue-print for the Antonine Wall involved only a few forts (6 in all), and an orderly sequence of fortlets set at mile-intervals (Gillam 1976, 51). To date, eight fortlets have been located, and Castlehill would fit easily into their projected sequence 83

5 (Keppie 1980, 107). Castlehill lies just over one Roman mile E of Cleddans fortlet and two miles E of the site on Golden Hill, Duntocher (Keppie and Walker 1981). The purpose of this short note is to suggest that the fortlet which might be looked for on Castlehill has all along been visible, and that it was a fortlet not a fort which was seen by the early antiquaries, Irvine, Edward, Gordon and Horsley. Reference to their descriptions (see above) suggests that what was visible on the hill in the late 17th and early 18th centuries was not a full-size fort but a small enclosure c.30 m square. Irvine places the Castlehill site in his class of small installations, along with the known fortlets at Glasgow Bridge, Seabegs Wood and Watling Lodge. The earliest antiquarian to discern the fort we are familiar with today was William Maitland, often derided as an accurate authority. Maitland's sometimes caustic criticisms of Gordon and Horsley have frequently been given scant attention, but in this instance at least he was correct. Professor St Joseph's photographs now provide confirmation, and may allow us to suppose that there sit on Castlehill not only a fort, but a fortlet too, occupying the true summit of the hill (fig. 1). Comparison with Duntocher would suggest that the fortlet is the earlier of the two sites, but excavation can determine the true only sequence of occupation. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I have to thank Mr Gordon Maxwell for bringing to my notice the testimony of Alexander Edward, and Dr D J Breeze, who read an earlier draft of this paper. Plate 2 is from the collection of the University of Cambridge, and was supplied through the kindness of Professor J K St Joseph; it is reproduced here by permission of the Committee for Aerial Photography of that University. Fig. 1 was prepared by Mr Dennis Gallagher, Hunterian Museum. My thanks go also to Mr J Sime, Scottish Record Office, and to Mr J L Davidson, Ordnance Survey, for discussing detailed points. NOTE 1. From a document in a collection at the Scottish Record Office, Edinburgh; ref. no. GD. 45/ 26/146. Reference is made to it by permission of the Keeper. BIBLIOGRAPHY GlLLAM, JP 1976 'Possible changes in plan during the construction of the Antonine Wall', Scott Archaeol Forum 7 (1975), GORDON, A 1726 Itinerarium Septentrional)-. London. horsley, J 1732 Britannia Romana. London. keppie, LJF 1980 'Mile fortlets on the Antonine Wall?',in Hanson, WSand Keppie, LJ F(eds.), Roman Frontier Studies 1979, Oxford, Keppie, LJF and Walker, J J 1981 'Fortlets on the Antonine Wall at Seabegs Wood, Kinneil and Cleddans', Britannia xii, forthcoming. macdonald, G 1934 The Roman Walt in Scotland. ed. 2, Oxford. maitland, W 1757 The History and Antiquities of Scotland. London. robertson, A S 1957 An Antonine Fort, Golden Hill, Duntocher. Edinburgh & London. robertson, AS 1979 The Antonine Wall, new ed., Glasgow. roy, W 1793 Military Antiquities of the Romans in Britain, London. 'Air Reconnaissance of North St joseph, J K 1951 Britain', J. Roman Stud, xli, Sibbald, R 1707 Historical Inquiries. London. stuart, R 1845 Caledonia Romana. Edinburgh & London. This paper is published with the aid of a grant from the Carnegie Trust of the Universities of Scotland. 84