66 SOME FEATURES OF ROMAN FORTS 



home we have the results of the excavations at Hard 

 Knott,^^ and of Mr. Garstang's work at Brough^^ and 

 Eihchester.^'' As illustrations of later work we may men- 

 tion the Roman Coast Fortresses of Kent.^^ A comparison 

 of these plans with one another, and with the plans of the 

 continental examples of similar works, shows that while 

 certain features are common to all, it would be rash to 

 predict in the case of any fort not fully excavated, what 

 would be the lie of the buildings and the character of the 

 interior arrangements. 



Let us consider for a moment the points in which the 

 plans are almost invariably similar. It is not uninterest- 

 ing to reflect that, roughly speaking, these forts were laid 

 out, as far as their general features are concerned, mainly 

 on the same lines and by the same methods as were the 

 camps of the younger Scipio Africanus in his campaign 

 against Carthage. Of course, that is not meant to imply 

 for a moment that the names applied to the various parts 

 were identical in the two cases. We should perhaps be 

 nearer the truth if we said that in their general features 

 the forts resembled the temporary legionaiy camps occu- 

 pied by Agricola in his campaigns in Britain. Whether 

 excavation will ever throw light on these temporary camps 

 remains to be seen. General E,oy devoted a whole chap- 

 ter ^^ in his famous work to an account of Agricola's camps 

 in Scotland, but his theories were not verified by excava- 

 tion. Perhaps a fuller examination of the large camp at 

 Inchtuthill, in Perthshire, partly excavated in 1901,2° may 



15. Trans. Ant. Soc. Cumb. and West., xii. 



16. Proc. Derb. Arch. Soc, 1904. 



17. Garstang : Roman Bibchester (Preston : Toulmin). 



18. Arch. Cant, and Fox in Arch. Jour., 1896. 



19. Milit. Antiq. of Brit., ch. ii. 



20. Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot., xxxvi., p. 182, seq. 



