48 THE EXCAVATIONS 



whicii lias been scabbled with a mason's pick (or some 

 such tool), completely surrounded the fort. In all these 

 details the work corresponds exactly with the facing of 

 the Wall of Hadrian,^^ though anyone who has seen both 

 will at once notice that the stones at Melandra are 

 larger and better dressed than those on the Wall.^^ 

 Behind this excellent facing, which it will be seen 

 has entirely disappeared in places, is now found 

 an accumulation of stones, and beyond this a bank 

 of pure marly clay, free from stones. At one place, 

 near the east gate, the backing seems to have remained 

 undisturbed, and there, though there is no inner facing, 

 the inner part of the wall seems to have been roughly 

 coursed. The whole question is whether the loose stones 

 (which are seen falling outwards in other places where the 

 facing has been uncovered) once formed a roughly coursed 

 rubble backing, making with the ashlar facing a wall 

 about five feet thick which would serve as a revetment to 

 the clay bank. For the sake of clearness, the argiiments 

 which follow are numbered. 



1. The rubble wall shows no sign of an inner facing. 

 An inner facing, however, is not necessary in the case of 

 a revetment, and as a matter of fact, does not appear to 

 exist in the revetment walls of the German Kastelle.^* 

 Even at Hard Knott, where there was no bank, and where 

 the outer facing is "of good hammer-dressed stones,'" 

 Mr. Dymond reports the inner face as " far inferior to the 

 outer" and "as poor as possible." ^^ 



52. Cf. Bruce. Handbook to the Eoman Wall, 4th edition, 1895, pp. 

 34—37. 



53. This was one of the points noticed by Mr. Haverfield. 



54. My only authority for this statement is Dr. D. Christison's report 

 on the Castlecary excavations. Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., 1903, p. 10. Mr. 

 Haverfield tells me that (according to Hettner) the Saalhurg wall Avas 

 faced on both sides, 



55. Proc. Cumh. and Westm. Arch. Soc, p. 393. 



