Glasgow Bridge

Its ditch and rounded NE angle are visible on the RAF air photograph (F21/82/RAF/1236: 0171).

1955 CUCAP aerial survey

There are no visible surface remains of this fortlet, the site of which lies in a pasture field.

Under crop; no surface traces remain.

Visited by OS (D S) 18 January 1957.

Visited 1973.

Glasgow Bridge, Fortlet NS 636 731 NS67SW 21

This fortlet, which was first identified from crop marks, abuts the S side of the Antonine Wall about 390m ESE of Easter Cadder farmhouse. It appears to measure about 20m square internally.

RCAHMS 1982

(RCAHMS 1978, p. 134, No. 257; Keppie and Walker 1981)

The Antonine Ditch has been clearly detected by both survey techniques; the magnetic response is generally uniform across the site while the resistance anomalies vary, depending on localised natural factors. Evidence for the Rampart is more tentative and intermittent, though at their most coherent, the magnetic responses suggest a partially intact base constructed of highly magnetic cobbles. The Military Way remains elusive; though a few faint trends have been identified which might represent the line of the road, natural and modern agricultural factors make this interpretation highly inconclusive. The ditches of the fortlet appear in both datasets but no obvious internal features have been detected. No anomalies that can be obviously attributed to postulated Rampart towers have been identified; the nature of these features makes them very difficult to detect by either technique, thus an absence of geophysical evidence cannot prove or disprove their presence along the Antonine Wall.

OASIS ID: gsbprosp1-43972

A series of geophysical survey techniques were employed to identify and accurately locate the Antonine Wall, any traces of the Military Way and the fortlet at Glasgow Bridge and to identify any other features which might be associated with the fortlet or the Wall. In particular it was hoped that a large scale magnetic survey across an uninterrupted stretch might prove useful in assessing whether towers/turrets were present along the line of the Rampart. The workforms part of a continuing programme of research commissioned by Historic Scotland, as part of their proposal to promote the Antonine Wall to World Heritage Status.

The Antonine Ditch has been clearly detected by both survey techniques; the magnetic response is generally uniform across the site while the resistance anomalies vary, depending on localised natural factors. Evidence for the Rampart is more tentative and intermittent, though at their most coherent, the magnetic responses suggest a partially intact base constructed of highly magnetic cobbles. The Military Way remains elusive; though a few faint trends have been identified which might represent the line of the road, natural and modern agricultural factors make this interpretation highly inconclusive. The ditches of the fortlet appear in both datasets but no obvious internal features have been detected. No anomalies that can be obviously attributed to postulated Rampart towers have been identified; the nature of these features makes them very difficult to detect by either technique, thus an absence of geophysical evidence cannot prove or disprove their presence along the Antonine Wall.

OASIS ID: gsbprosp1-43972.

The study area was surveyed twice with the gradiometer: in the first data set (Area 1) the traverses run perpendicular to the Wall, in the second (Area 2) they are aligned parallel with it. The results show only a marginal change in definition of the Ditch, but a slightly greater impact on the

Rampart, with Area 1 producing the more coherent responses. Anomalies perpendicular to the wall were better defined in Area 2. By processing the Area 2 data it has been possible to remove the visually prevalent Ditch and Rampart anomalies and isolate a few smaller scale non-linear responses. However, assessing the archaeological significance of these responses remains problematic due to the naturally high magnetic background and the usefulness of this approach in identifying postulated towers is unproven.

Responses from modern cultivation visually dominate the resistance data. Sections of Rampart appear as relatively well defined high resistance anomalies while the Ditch has produced only intermittent and somewhat ill defined high resistance bands. It appears that the high ground and relatively good drainage has enhanced the ploughing trend while reducing the moisture contrast between the Ditch fill and the surrounding soil. Overall, however, the resistance survey has added little to the assessment of the site.

C. Stephens

The study area was surveyed twice with the gradiometer: in the first data set (Area 1) the traverses run perpendicular to the Wall, in the second (Area 2) they are aligned parallel with it. The results show only a marginal change in definition of the Ditch, but a slightly greater impact on the

Rampart, with Area 1 producing the more coherent responses. Anomalies perpendicular to the wall were better defined in Area 2. By processing the Area 2 data it has been possible to remove the visually prevalent Ditch and Rampart anomalies and isolate a few smaller scale non-linear responses. However, assessing the archaeological significance of these responses remains problematic due to the naturally high magnetic background and the usefulness of this approach in identifying postulated towers is unproven.

Responses from modern cultivation visually dominate the resistance data. Sections of Rampart appear as relatively well defined high resistance anomalies while the Ditch has produced only intermittent and somewhat ill defined high resistance bands. It appears that the high ground and relatively good drainage has enhanced the ploughing trend while reducing the moisture contrast between the Ditch fill and the surrounding soil. Overall, however, the resistance survey has added little to the assessment of the site.

C. Stephens

A 1:25000 scale map of the Antonine Wall was published by RCAHMS in 2008. The map shows the course of the Antonine Wall on a modern map base, including areas where the Wall is in public ownership or care and can be visited. The data had been collated as part of the project to prepare maps for the World Heritage Site nomination bid.