Brochs and the Empire

The impact of Rome on Iron Age Scotland as seen in the Leckie broch excavations

Euan W. MacKie

• Publisher: Archaeopress
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN: 9781784914400
• eBook ISBN: 9781784914417
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Archaeology
• Index: Social Sciences

The excavation of the Leckie Iron Age broch in Stirlingshire, Scotland, took place during the 1970's after the author had been asked to organise the work by a local archaeological society. At that stage the author did not consider – despite its location – that the site might vividly reflect the expansion of the Roman Empire into southern Scotland in the late first century AD. For various reasons the final report was not written until about thirty years after the fieldwork finished and by then the quality and significance of the Roman finds was much better understood, thanks to the analysis of them by experts. Many of them seemed like gifts to the broch chief, despite the clear evidence of the violent destruction of the broch at a later date. The Roman author Tacitus gave a detailed account of Governor Agricola's campaigns in southern Scotland and pointed out that he sometimes tried to make friends with local chiefs before invading their territories, to avoid un-necessary casualties. This also applied to the first Roman naval excursion up the west coast and explains the evidence from Dun Ardtreck, Skye, excavated in the 1960's. This site was also destroyed later and this could reflect the later hostile voyage of the navy after the battle of Mons Graupius which occurred after a few years of campaigning. Thus Rome's accounts can allow one to understand the history of some native sites much more vividly.

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• LIST OF FIGURES
• INTRODUCTION
• Part 1. The impact of Rome on Iron Age Scotland
• Fig 1.1 Map of Roman roads and forts of the Flavian (late first century) period in southern and central Scotland. The Antonine wall did not exist at that time, and the main temporary frontier was the line of forts along the south-east edge of the highland
• Fig 1.2 Picture of the Roman bronze patera found recently in the Craig Hill broch in Perthshire. It is reproduced here with the permission of Prof. Stephen Driscoll, who is head of the Glasgow University project carrying out the excavation concerned.
• Fig 1.3 Map of the Forth valley in the middle of the second century, showing the Antonine wall and Roman and Iron Age sites, i cluding Leckie broch. Drawn by Alan Braby.
• Fig 1.4 Photograph and drawings of fragments of clay daub, from a screen of wooden wattling, which has been baked hard by a fi e inside the broch. The photographed one came from the destruction level (159.BM) as did most of the others.
• Fig 1.5 A photograph and a drawing of a Roman iron point from a crossbow arrow, found inside the broch in the destruction level.
• Fig 1.6 Large granite pebble (found on a sandstone site) weighting 13lbs. At one stage it must have been extremely hot and, when water was thrown on it, cracks appeared on one side. It was found in the broch destruction level and could be a flaming missil
• Fig 1.7 Drawings of two kinds of Roman ballistae – artillery catapults based on the principle of crossbows; the bottom one shoots a long arrow and the top one hurls stone missiles with a sling. These crossbow types are thought by experts to be the only on
• Fig 1.10 View of Tirefuar broch on Lismore island, seen from the sea loch on its south-eastern side. The site produced a Roman bronze brooch in its construction level, exactly like that from Kildalloig in Kintyre, which suggests that an element of Agricol
• Fig 1.8 A typical view of the shore of the west coast of Scotland, near Mallaig, opposite Skye. Roman galleys rowing north would have seen this kind of scene nearly all the way up the west coast.
• Fig 1.9 A Roman bronze brooch found during the excavation of the Iron Age dun Kildalloig, close to Campbeltown Bay at the southern end of the Kintyre peninsula. The Bay looks like a probable temporary resting place for Agricola’s fleet on its journey up t
• Fig. 1.12 The cliff-top situation of Dun Ardtreck must have been very obvious to any ship coming into Loch Bracadale. The view from the sea shows two volunteers at the edge of the cliff brandishing ranging poles and pretending to be hostile tribesmen. Tha
• Fig. 1.13 General plan of Dun Ardtreck and the surrounding ground, including the beach landing place. The D-shaped fort, or semibroch, has an outer wall with a wide gateway. Vertical rock faces are marked with shading. It is obvious that the fort was buil
• Fig. 1.14 Drawing and photograph of a typical Vaul ware vase, found in the destruction layer inside Dun Ardtreck. The fierceness of the fire which raged inside the dun is shown by the fact that the sherd has been reheated to such an extent that its surfac
• Fig. 1.15 The fused iron door handle found inside the dun’s entrance passage, at the foot of a door-check. The ring is made like a rope, of several smaller cords made of iron wire. A flat strip of iron is bent round it and was attached to the door by two
• Fig. 1.17 Reconstruction drawing of the Roman pot of Severn Valley ware nine sherds of which were found in the ramp which was added to the outer end of the entrance passage after the burning and destruction of the semibroch, when it was used again as a ro
• PART 2. BACKGROUND TO THE EXCAVATIONS
• Fig. 2.0 Map of the brochs of southern Scotland. Those shown on the western islands (the southern part of the Atlantic province) are there simply because they exist. They do not count as part of the southern Mainland group
• Fig. 2.1 Map of Forth Valley, showing Leckie and some neighbouring Iron Age sites. The shaded area enclosed by contour 20 defi es the distribution of the vanished peat bog – now marked by flat fields. The bog is shown on a map of the area by General Roy i
• Fig. 2.2 Map of the general situation of the site: the broch stands on a sandstone promontory cut by the two streams which comine to form the Leckie Burn which runs to the river Forth across Blairdrummond Moss, a relic of the old peat bog. Drawn by Alan
• 2.3 Contour plan of the site made before excavations started, showing the visible external wall faces. The early Victorian paths are shown. The positions of the external trenches are marked, as are two of the major internal ones, which defined the section
• 2.4. Two sketch cross sections – prepared by Dr Ian Orkney and based on accurate measurements – of the Leckie rock promontory in 1970. They show how there are naturally defensive declivities on three sides of the Iron Age structures – on its eastern and w
• 2.5 Map of the site with the basic structural sequence and with the finds recording grid system marked. As with national grid eferences on Ordnance Survey maps the site grid references begin with the 3m square concerned which is defined by the lettered l
• 2.6. 1970 Photograph of the west side of the promontory, towards the north end. A vast amount of debris must have fallen over he cliff edge when the broch was destroyed, thus concealing the vertical rock face, which is still visible above the rock shelte
• 2.7. 1970 photograph of the north-west end of the sandstone promontory; the rock carvings and the external midden are further ound to the left.
• PART 3: THE BASIC STRATIGRAPHY OF THE SITE
• _GoBack
• Fig. 3.1 Simple cross section of the site from north (right end) to south, showing the relationship between the walls and the underlying rock and also the depth of the deposits accumulated after the broch had been built.
• Fig. 3.2 View of the inner face of the broch wall on the north side, looking east. The original masonry rises to about three quarters of the height of the ranging pole; the rough ledge at that point is formed by rougher masonry which was evidently added t
• Fig. 3.4 View of an early stage in the excavation of the broch stairway, showing two of the massive lintels which were dislodged in Iron Age times to fall on rubble already on the steps below. The lintel at the bottom left has clearly been dragged away fr
• Fig. 3.5 View of the latest large stone hearth inside the broch/roundhouse; it is thought to have been built by the newcomers o the site who wanted to built a promontory fort to resist Roman incursions into southern Scotland at the start of the 3rd centu
• Fig. 3.6 View of the outer face of the promontory fort wall; the lack of much debris in front of it implies that it was never inished. The long stone to the right of the tree trunk may be another massive lintel dragged over from the broch stair.
• Fig. 3.7 Drawing of the inner face of the broch/roundhouse wall. The difference between the stump of the broch masonry (lower drawing, right end) and that of the roundhouse built on it is fairly clear. The inner face on the south side (upper) may be a lat
• Fig. 3.8 Detailed sections through the deposits drawn along line L, from south (top left) to north (bottom right). The middle section is across the broch interior and the other two are against the outer wall faces on north and south. In the former layer 3
• Fig. 3.10 View of the west end of the outer face of the promontory fort wall. The unfinished outer face (of large blocks) is above the plank (which is at the level of the modern path) and below the plank are the stone foundations for the west end of the m
• Fig. 3.9 Top two: section drawings of the north face (running E-W) of the interior deposits along line 40. On the right is the junction with the foundations of the broch wall, showing how it was founded on a rubbly layer on rock with a thin turf line on i
• Fig. 3.11 Sections through the midden deposits against the base of the broch outer face on the north side. Layers 2 and 3 are he later and earlier midden deposits. The two horizontal line marks indicate the Site Datum 4.0m below its actual level. Drawing
• Fig. 3.13 View of the massive lintels tipped down on to a pile of rubble which had already accumulated on the steps.
• Fig. 3.14 View of the deposits in the stairway entrance passage, looking towards the broch interior; one of the fallen lintels is at the bottom left. One of the passage lintels was still in position, though slightly dislodged (at top of pole). A mass of r
• Fig. 3.15 Reconstruction by Alan Braby of the three main phases in the history of the broch stairway, as deduced from the sequences of layers in and near it. The top drawing shows what the tower broch stair was probably like (based on better preserved s a
• Fig. 3.16 View of the remaining steps of the upper part of the first flight of the broch intra-mural stair, with the tipped massive lintels in the foreground, covering the lower part. The steps have been damaged at some stage, probably when the promontory
• Fig. 3.17 Plan of the broch interior at the level of the first primary floor – a deposit of pale sand spread to provide an eve floor, below the broch hearth. The post-holes seem to be a mixture of evidence of scaffolding used during the broch constructio
• Fig. 3.18 View of the interior of the broch excavated to that level.
• Fig. 3.19 Cross sections of some of the post-holes and pits dug into the primary sandy floor layer in approximately the northe n half and into subsoil and rock in the southern half. The originals showing layers inside the holes could not be found. Drawing
• Fig. 3.21 Plans of the stone hearths found in a sequence near the centres of the broch and the roundhouse. No. 1 is the burnt area of bedrock (probably used while the broch was being constructed), no. 2 is the broch hearth, no. 3 that of the roundhouse, n
• Fig. 3.22 View of the badly damaged broch kerbed hearth (no. 2, From Phase 3b), showing clear signs of being battered by falling stones and trampled on when the broch was being demolished.
• Fig. 3.23 View of the first fireplace on the bedrock, probably used while the broch was being constructed and before the interior was levelled off with pale sandy soil. A little of the broch hearth remains in the upper part of the photograph.
• Fig. 3.24 Another view of the latest, square, massive hearth– from Phase 5, showing the heavy rubble which had crashed down on top of it and the relatively small amount of deposits as a whole on top of it; a small hearth was placed on it at some stage.
• Fig. 3.25 Histogram of the radii of the central courts of fifty-one brochs (Leckie is not included). The lower one shows the adii in metres so the diameters range from about 6m to 14m (the one of about 18m at the right end is Edinshall in Berwickshire wh
• Fig. 3.26 Plan of the inner wallface of two brochs. Dun Telve (right) is a good example of an exactly circular one (the ‘x’ marks are the points measured from a theodolite near the centre). Leckie by contrast is nowhere near an exact circle, probably beca
• Fig. 3.27 Chart of the eighteen new radiocarbon dates obtained recently for the occupation Phases of Leckie, thanks to a grant from what was then Historic Scotland. Each date is represented by a horizontal line representing the time span, with its centre
• Fig. 3.28 Chart showing the relationship of datable Roman pottery and glass to the various Phases of occupation at Leckie. The squares represent individual Small Finds. The apparently early sample of Rouletted ware is unlikely to belong to that Phase. Dra
• Fig. 3.29 Diagram of the various stratigraphical sequences associated with Leckie broch, integrated together to show the site Phases. ‘U/X’ means unexcavated. The arrangement of the broch construction layers is intended to show that the layer of sandy soi
• PART 4 OCCUPATION PHASES AND DAILY LIFE
• Fig. 4.1. The rock carvings. Top, view of rock carvings on N end of promontory, in about 1970. Bottom: Morris’s drawings of the carvings – “LECKIE - the NW slab’s nearly horizontal top. INSET (larger scale): the ‘sun burst’, just below ‘X’, on a near-vert
• Fig. 4.2 Drawing of the cross section of deposits under the rock shelter on the west side of the promontory. The charcoal laye suggests that it was inhabited for a short period (indicated by the lack of finds) before the construction of the broch, indica
• Fig. 4.3: An early drawing showing the post- and stake-holes in what was then thought to be the subsoil. It consisted only of pale sandy soil under the black earth of the broch floor and was then assumed to be pre-broch. It is now clear that it was spread
• (a) Numerical order. 1 – a broken penannular fibula (83.BH): 2 – a ring-headed pin (512.DQ): 3 –a spiral penannular brooch (620.DY): 4 – a plain finger-ring (909.GG): 5 – bronze fragment (911.GG): 6 – a small nail (844.FZ): 7- a small tack (910.GG): 8 - o
• (b) Arranged by Phase. Phase 2: no. 2 (512), no. 6 (844), no. 8 (783) & no. 18 (595). Phase 2/3a: no. 4 (909), no. 5 (911), no. 7 (910) & no. 15 (890). Phase 3b: no. 1 (83), no. 3 (620), no. 10 (141), no. 12 (423), no. 13 (74), no. 14 (529), no. 17 (104)
• Fig. 4.4: Bronze artefacts (1). Scale 1:2.
• (a) in numerical order. 1 fragment of rim of Roman cast bowl – (305.DB): 2 – fragment of sheet with possible rim folded over (405.DF): 3 – fragment of decorated and perforated sheet (167.BT): 4 – corroded sheet with the heads of two nails still in positio
• (b) in order of Phase. Phase 2: no. 2 (572). Phase 3b: no. 1 (305), no. 3 (167), no. 4 (639a), no. 5 (642), no. 7 (123), no. 9 (787) & no. 10 (109). Phase 3c: no. 6 (370). Phase 4b: no. 2 (405). Incomplete: nos. 11-20 not marked on the A4 copy.
• Fig. 4.5: Bronze artefacts (2). Scale 1:2.
• (a) In numerical order. 1 – Chain brooch with enamelled ornament on the two pins (636.DU): 2- complete penannular brooch (554.DS): 3 – Romano-British bronze brooch with enamelled ornament on top (90.BH): 4 – ring-headed pin with small ring (570.DP): 5 – c
• (b) In order of Phase. Phase 3a or 3c: no. 2 (554). Phase 3c: no. 1 (636), no. 3 (90), no. 4 (570), no. 5 (367), no. 6 (612), no. 7 (174), no. 8 (211), no. 9 (847), no. 10 (501), no. 11 (772), no. 12 (482) & no. 13 (211.
• Fig. 4.6: Bronze artefacts (3). Scale 1:2.
• (a) In numerical order. 1– piece of sheet bent into S-shape (19.AJ): 2 – two pieces of pin or rod (217.CT): 3 – curved flat fragment, perhaps part of a ring (282.CT): 4 – narrow strip (249.CT): 5 – U-shaped flat strip with nails in place at the ends (38a.
• (b) In order of Phase. Phase 3b: no. 3 (early3b) (282), no. 11 (65) & no. 14 (61a). Phase 3c: no. 1 (19), , no. 2 (317), no. 4 (244) & no 8 (438), Phase 4b: no. 5 (38a), no. 6 (38c), no. 7 (340), no. 9 (46), no. 10 (15), no. 12 (329), no. 13 (251), no. 15
• Fig. 4.7 Bronze objects 4: . Scale 1:2
• (a) in numerical order. 1. Rod with wooden handle (868.GE): 2 - nail (784.FG): 3 – ring (unknown): 4 – small chisel with tang (302.DB): 5 – bar with square section (153.BH): 6 – nail (622.DY): 7 – nail (303.DB): 8 – nail (328.DE): 9 – nail (296.DB): 10 –
• (b) In order of Phase. Phase 2: no. 1 (868), no. 2 (784), no. 3 (595) & no. 10 (283). Phase 3b: no. 4 (302), no. 5 (153), no. 6 (622), no. 7 (303), no. 8 (328), no. 9 (296), no. 12 (359), no. 13 (300), no. 14 (124), no. 16 (299), no. 18 (734), no. 19 (80)
• Fig 4.8 Iron Objects 1: . Scale 1:2.
• (a) In numerical order. 1 – possible heavy ring-headed pin (737.FD): 2 – rod bent into a hook (799.FM): 3 – slim tanged blade (214b.CT): 4 – bent nail (354.DK): 5 – possible blade (514.DP): 6 – bent nail (374c.DK): 7 – nail (232.CT): 8 – nail (13.CC): 9
• (b) In order of Phase. Phase 3a: no. 10 (276), Phase 3b: no. 9 (389) & no. 18 (209), Phase 3c: no. 1 (737), no. 2 (799), no. 3 (244b), no. 4 (354), no. 5 (514), no.6 (374c), no. 7 (232), no. 8 (183), no. 11 (745), no. 12 (215), no. 13 (411a), no. 14 (841)
• Fig. 4.9 Iron Objects 2: . Scale 1:2.
• (a) In numerical order. 1 – spiked ring, possibly from a Roman rotary quern (210.CR): 2 – bucket handle (710.EW): 3 – steel knife blade (270.CR): 4 – blade point (247.CW): 5 – penannular ring (412.CW): 6 – ring segment (219.CR): 7 – needle (198.CH): 8 – t
• (b) In order of Phase. Phase 3b: no. 1 (368) & no. 3 (270), Phase 3c: no. 2 (710), no. 5 (412), no. 6 (219) & no. 7 (198), Phase 4b: no. 4 (247), no 8 (789), no. 9 (807) & no. 10 (330). Phase 5:
• Fig. 4.10 Iron Objects 3: . Scale 1:2.
• (a) In numerical order. 1 – chisel with long tang (324.DE): 2 – spade (731.FE): 3 – sheep shears (701.EZ): 4 – Roman implement like a spear (238.CU): 5 – blade (248.CT): 6 – hub-rings (37.AW): 7 - flat bar (204.CP): 8- flat bar (386.DK): 9- tanged knife (
• (b) In order of Phases. Phase uncertain: no. 1 (324); Phase 3b: no 8 (386). Phase 3c: no. 2 (731), no. 3 (701), no. 4 (238), no. 5 (248) & no. 9 (230). Phase 4b: no. 6 (37) (end of phase) & no. 7 (204).
• Fig. 4.11 Iron Objects 4: . Scale 0:0.
• (a) In numerical order. 1 – sword blade put it in (640.DL): 2. oval object (528.DL): 3 – tip of blade (567.DL): 4 – fine pointed blade or graving tool (537.DP): 5 – socketed hammer (840.FT): 6 – piece of chariot wheel tyre (614.DL).
• (b) In order of Phases. Phase 3b: no. 1 (640 – missing), no. 2 (528), no. 3 (567), no. 5 (840) & no. 6 (614), start of phase. Phase 3c: no. 4 (537).
• Fig. 4.12 Iron Objects 5: . Scale 1:2.
• (a) In numerical order. 1 – small, cup-shaped object (809.FT): 2 – small bun-shaped, a weight? (741.FG): 3 – another (728.FC): 4 – another, perforated (779.FL): 5 – probable whorl (25.AJ): 6 – two lumps (833.FM & 858.GE): 7 – probable whorl (16a.AH): 8 –
• (b) In order of Phases. Phase 2: Phase 3a or 3b: no. 10 (34), Phase 3b: no. 1 (809), no. 2 (741), no. 3 (728), no. 9 (811), no. 11 (447) & no. 13 (351: Phase 3c: no. 4 (779), no. 5 (25), no. 6 (833) & no 12 (454); Phase 4b: no. 7 (16a); Unknown. No. 8.
• Fig. 4.13 Lead objects. Scale 0:0
• (a) In numerical order. Illus. 4.13: stone artefacts (1). Nos. 12 & 13 at 1:2. 1 – seven pale sandstone counters (821.FW): – small disc or counter (421.DK): 3 – finely made whorl (759.FL): 4 – small ring (606.DX): 5 – counter with short handle (54.FF):
• (b) In order of Phases. Phase 2: no. 2 (421), Phase 3a: Phase 3b: no. 1(821) & no. 8 (396), Phase 3c: no. 3 (759), no. 4 (606), no. 5 (754), no. 6 (576), no. 7 (862), no. 9 (801), no.10 (778), no. 11(506), no. 12 (510), no.13 (497) & no. 14 (26).
• Fig. 4.14 Stone objects 1. Scale 0:0.
• (a) In numerical order. 1 – perforated oval stone slab with notches (107.BH): 2 – oval flat pebble with probable beginnings of a hole (unknown): 3 – fragment of whetstone (149.BM): 4 – broken probable loom-weight (160.BH): 5 – another (475.DO): 6- anothe
• (b) In order of Phases. Phase 3b: no. 1 (107), no. 3 (149), no. 4 (160), no. 5 (475), no. 6 (410), no. 7 (100), no. 8 (121), no. 10 (629) & no. 11 (110); Phase 3c: no. 9 (320) & no. 12 (312); Phase 4b: no. 2 (33).
• Fig. 4.15 Stone objects 2. Scale 0:0. Nos. 11 and 12 at 1:2.
• (a) In numerical order. 1 - Circular palette (212.CS): 2 – strike-a-light pebble (585.DP): 3 – lump of chipped quartz (829.FT): 4 – rectangular palette (180a.BY): 5 – whorl (29.AN): 6 - grooved whorl (44.BD): 7 – counter (713.EW): 8 – whorl (170.BU): 9 –
• (b) In order of Phases. Phase 3b: no. 8 (170); Phase 3c: no. 1 (212), no. 2 (585) & no. 3 (829); Phase 4b: no. 4 (180a), no. 5 (29), no. 6 (44), no. 7 (713), no. 9 (794), no. 10 (35), no. 11 (765), no. 12 (808) & no. 13 (52).
• Fig. 4.16 Stone objects 3. Scale 0:0. No. 13 at 1:2.
• (a) In numerical order.. 1 – possible loom weight (381.DF): 2 – oval loom weight (39.AZ): 3 – loom weight (415.DF): 4, 5, & 7 – loom weights (409.DF, 180b.BY, 443.CW & 763.FN): 8 & 9 – fragments of rotary querns (695.EQ & 798.EQ).
• (b) In order of Phases. Phase 3b: no. 9 (798); Phase 3c: no. 6 (443); Phase 4b: no. 1 (481), no. 2 (39), no. 3 (415), no. 4 (409), no. 5 (180b), no. 7 (763) & no. 8 (695).
• Fig. 4.17 Stone objects 4. Scale 0:0. Nos. 8 and 9 at 1:2
• (a) In numerical order. 1 – part of a rotary quern with handle socket (874.GJ): 2 – half an unfinished loom weight (683.EK): 3 – decorated whorl (901.GS): 4 – small counter (116.BJ): 5 – whorl (686.EP): 6 & 7 - sandstone counters (744.FG & 851.GE): 8 – qu
• (b) In order of Phases. Phase 2: no. 1 (874), no. 2 (399), no. 5 (686), no. 7 (851) & no. 8 (144); Phase 2 or 3a: no. 3 (901) & no. 4 (116); Phase 3b: no. 6 (744) (start of phase), no. 9 (119), no.10 (655), no. 11 (815), no. 12 (125), no. 13 (835) (early
• Fig. 4.18 Stone objects 5. Scale O:O. Nos. 1 & 2 at 1:2 (check size of 2).
• (a) In numerical order. 5 – Roman Samian ware bowl rim (769.FG): 6 – rim sherd of Roman coarse ware (369.DE): 7 – crucible ragment (732.FC): 8 – broken thick crucible (729.FF): 9 – pottery disc (152.BH): 10 – decorated wall sherd of Samian ware (61.BH):
• (a) In numerical order. Pottery (1). Nos. 5 ad 6 at 1:2. 1 – sherd of native pottery (623.DY): 2, 3 & 4 – fragments of crucible rims, the third one decorated (513.DQ, 520.DQ & 864.GE):
• (b) In order of Phases. Phase 2: no. 2 (513), no. 3 (520), no. 4 (864). Phase 3b: no. 1 (623), Phase 3c: no. 9 (352).
• (b) In order of Phases. Phase 2: no. 5 (769); Phase 3b: no. 7 (732), no. 8 (729), no. 13 (627); Phase 3c: no. 6 (369), no. 11 (179), no. 12 (752a), no. 13 (428, 556 & 610). Phase 4b: no. 10 (161).
• Fig. 4.19 (1) Native sherds & crucibles. Scale 1:2.
• Fig. 4.19 (2) Roman pottery 1. Scale 1:2.
• (a) In numerical order. 8 – ring-base of Roman glass vessel (672.ED): 9 - sherd of decorated Samian ware (887.AJ): 10 – ano her (207.CS): 11 - another (693.ET): 12 – another, rim sherd (5.AD): 13 - another, wall sherd (278.CR): 14 – another (706.ET): 15 –
• (a) In numerical order. Pottery (2). 1 – half a crucible (553.DO): 2 – piece of decorated crucible with a lug (761.FO): 3 – lump with depression (814.FM): 4 – base of small wheel-made pot (718.FE): 5 – rim sherd of Roman coarse ware (82b.BH): 6 – sherd (u
• (b) In order of Phase. Phase 3b: no. 13 (278), no. 15 (241), Phase 3c: no. 8 (672) (this is actually glass), no. 9 (887), no. 10 (207), no. 14 (706), Phase 4b: no. 11 (693), no. 12 (5), no. 16 (195).
• Fig. 4.20 (1) Native fired clay. Scale: 1:2.
• Fig. 4.20 (2) Roman pottery 2.
• Nos. 4, 8 & 16 at 1:2; the stamp on no. 16 is at X2: no. 8 is glass.
• (a) In numerical order. 1 – fragment of rim of decorated vessel (875.GD: 2 – piece of wall of the same vessel (310.DE): 3 – piece of the base of a square bottle (696.EX): 4 – fragment of a square bottle (766.FM): 5 – fragment of the base of a square bottl
• (b) In order of Phase. . Phase 2: no. 5 (682); Phase 3a/3b no. 13 (511): Phase 3b: no. 1 (875), no. 2 (310), no. 6 uncertain (590), no. 8 (163), no. 9 (485) & no. 11 (67); Phase 3c: no. 4 (766), no. 10 (140) & no. 12 (591); Phase 4b: no. 3 (96) & no. 7 (
• Fig. 4.21 Roman glass. Scale 1:2; no. 11 at X 4.
• (a) In numerical order. Illus. 4.21. Roman and native glass beads. 1 – native spiral bead, yellow inlay (146.BH): 2 – native small yellow bead (54.BA): 3 – tiny white bead (76a.BE); 4 – tiny native blue bead (435.DM); 5 – large blue bead (341.DB): 6 – nat
• (b) In order of Phase. Phase 2: no. 14 (101); Phase 3b: no. 1 (146), no. 3 (76a), no. 4 (435) (start of phase), no. 5 (341), no. 6 (796), no. 10 (657) & no. 12 (early Phase) (301), Phase 3c: no. 7 (158), no. 9 (242), no. 11 (555), no. 13 (39), no. 15 (30
• Fig. 4.22 Glass beads, Roman & native. Scale 1:2. All at X 2. (19 may be X 2)
• (a) In numerical order. Segments of native glass armlets. 1 – small, dark blue with thick yellow covering (78.BH): 2 – small, of pale green glass with blue and yellow stripes (507.DP): 3 – small, of opaque cream glass (228.CT): 4 – segment of blue glass w
• (b) In order of Phase. Phase 2: no. 4 (681) & no. 5 (774); Phase 3b: no. 1 (78); Phase 3c: no. 2 (507), no. 3 (228), no. 6 (545) & no. 8 (20); Phase 4b: no. 7 (187).
• Fig. 4.23 Iron Age bracelets. Scale 1:2. All at 1:1.
• (ii). Jet objects. Phase 3c: no. 14 (208); Phase 4b: no. 15 (307).
• (iii) Wooden objects. Phase 2: no. 3 (540); Phase 3b: no. 2 (349).
• (iv) Iron objects. Phase 3b: no. 1 (383); Phase 4b: no. 4 (712) & no. 8 (317).
• (a) In numerical order. Items of leather, wood, bone and jet. 1 – flat, square iron ‘washer’ (383.DK): 2 – carved carbonized wood fragment (349.DB): 3 – piece of wooden bowl (540.DS): 4 - uncertain (unknown): 5 – four burnt bone awls or needles (77.GX):
• (b) In order of Phases: (i) bone/antler objects. Phase 3b: no. 6 (166), no. 9 (652a), no. 10 (652b) & no. 11 (652c); Phase 3c: no. 5 (773), no. 7 (358) & no. 8 (317); Phase 4b: no. 12 (175) & no. 13 (end of Phase) (32).
• Fig. 4.24 1. Objects of bone/antler, wood, iron and jet. Scale: All at 1:1.
• Fig. 4.25 Reconstruction of rare Roman glass vessels from Leckie, supplied by Dominic Ingemark. No. 1 (on left) is the two ha dled jar (Isings form 15). Top centre is the beaker with an arcaded pattern (Isings form 33). Top right is a colourless cup (Isin
• Fig. 4.26. Drawings and photographs of the small, carved pebble-head (SF 672). The pebble was found on the floor of an excava ed trench at the beginning of the 1977 season, so its place in the site sequence is unknown.
• Bibliography and Appendices
• PART 5