Britannia 3

SX 034670. Work concentrated on the E half of the fort and proceeded in "Richmond style" with strip trenches and selective wider investigation. A clay and turf rampart with single ditch encloses 0.887ha. The SE angle tower, a 6-post structure, had been dismantled on evacuation. The S and E gates were dual-carriageway structures without flanking towers. The principia was very compact because space was short; nonetheless, accommodation in the commander's house was of high standard. Two barrack blocks were investigated in some detail; some cavalry are evidenced and the garrison could have been a 500 mixed cohort, although a mixed auxiliary-legionary detachment cannot be ruled out. Finds indicate a Neronian origin and evacuation at about AD 80. Appended reports treat coins, small metal finds including part of an iron-studded belt or military apron, samian, coarse and native wares, glass, flints, slags (silver and iron) and local ore resources.

There is no compulsion to assume that Vespasian left Britain in AD 44 to attend Claudius's triumph and receive ornamenta triumphalia, and some evidence to suggest he was still in Britain in 47. Neither Suetonius nor Dio implies that all who received such ornamenta followed Claudius in his triumph. Other recipients elsewhere continued in office and did not necessarily participate in the triumphs of their commanders-in-chief. Xiphilinus's epitome of Dio refers to an incident in Britain in 47 involving Vespasian, but mistakenly includes Titus; this implies Dio had some account of Vespasian in Britain iater than 44. Vespasian's campaign as described by Suetonius must have taken up a longer period than 43-44. B D

The function of the Wall, the order of building of the forts on the Wall with the implications of portal-blocking, a summary of a scheme for the building of the Wall, and the evidence for destructions of the Wall (AD 197, 296 and 367) are the constituent parts of this paper. The emphasis is on the Wall as a barrier and a check on civilian movement; turrets are primarily for observation, not signalling; milecastle gateways for civilians rather than troops. There is no support from Roman military practice, and no evidence for rolling up the enemy against the Wall. Placement of forts astride the Wall is not for defence but for freedom of movement of the garrisons; however the concomitant provision of six portals north of the Wall proved to be over-lavish, and while this explains some early blocking, there was also later blocking of fort portals. Hooley-Breeze (69/530) and Breeze-Dobson (70/674) schemes for the Wall are summarised. Questions of how destruction can be caused and enemy action identified are discussed, and evidence from milecastles, turrets and forts is analysed. B D

The Iron Age hoards of ironwork are concentrated in SW England, whereas the Roman examples have two main centres, the Tyne-Forth area in late 1st/mid-2nd century, and SE England in 4th century. Examples are of two kinds, burials (occasionally in hillforts) or deposits in watery places. They probably represent votive offerings, beginning in the SW Iron Age with currency bar hoards and mixed hoards, spreading to E Anglia and Kent by the Roman Conquest and soon ceasing. The practice reappeared in the N British Roman military sites, and had a resurgence in the late Roman period in SE England, by then confined to deep pits and wells. Smiths' hoards can be ruled out in view of the absence of scrap metal and blacksmith's tools.

Since 1955 various methods of re-assembling fallen plaster have been explored and are here summarised, with the hope that the basic corpus of designs so far revealed will, with subsequent additions, make possible comparative and stylistic studies. Plaster has been treated from Verulamium, Cirencester, Catterick, Leicester, Hemel Hempstead, York, Southwell and Winterton; and from Brantingham, where a mosaic floor and accompanying wall-plaster appear to share the same theme. A T

The following chronology is proposed for Vortigern: born c 365, came to power (? as Roman vicarius) late 426, welcomed the Saxons 430, rebelled against by Ambrosius and Guitolinus (Battle of Guoloph) 438, final retreat to the ?Pelagian Demetae soon after. His inability to cope with the Kentish troubles could thus be due to his advanced age.