Archaeology Notes

Event ID 715723

Category Descriptive Accounts

Type Archaeology Notes

Permalink http://canmore.org.uk/event/715723

NT36NW 34 centred 32026 66822

See also NT36NW 72.

(Name: NT 3213 6681) ROMAN CAMP (R) (site of)

OS 6" map (1968)

A large Roman temporary camp at Eskbank, identified in 1962, has a N side of 1360', but only some 600' of the E and W sides have been seen. The crop-mark of the ditch is clearly visible for the whole of the N side, except for some 200' of the centre where a belt of trees and market gardens intervenes. The N gate must, therefore, lie in this belt. The average dimensions of the shorter sides of the 63-acre camps is 1350', and these sides always have a central gate. However, St Boswells I and Pathhead I, some 53 acres in extent, both have their shorter sides not far different from this. Eskbank can hardly be grouped with Pathhead, only 4 3/4 miles distant, so it may well belong to the 63-acre series, but it cannot be assigned with certainty until the length is established.

J K St Joseph 1965; 1969

Excavations were carried out prior to the construction of a housing estate. An area 20.0m by 50.0m was stripped to reveal an intersection of the ditches of two temporary camps and the entrance complex of one of these camps. A section cut across the point where the ditches met revaled that the later camp was the one without the tutulus. The ditch of the earlier camp was 2.2m wide by 1.2m deep. No pottery or other material of Roman date was found. An unsuccessful attempt was made to locate on the ground the pit alignment which cuts obliquely across the field in which the camps are sited.

V Maxfield 1972

The sites of these camps are now covered by modern development.

Visited by OS (SFS) 16 April 1975

Excavation by CFA in advance of road building within the defences of the camp, revealed features of prehistoric, Roman, post-Medieval and modern date. The camp ditch of the W side was up to 3.5m wide and 1.7m deep, V-shaped in profile, with a squared channel at its base; there was no trace of an associated rampart. The E defensive ditch could not be located on the expected alignment, despite extensive trenching; it may never have been dug. Two large pits, which yielded burnt cereal grains and charcoal, may have been cooking-pits, or ovens, but it is not yet clear that they need be of Roman origin.

L J F Keppie 1996.