184 report — 1859. 



The peculiarity in the arrangement of these works, to which both Gordon and Roy 

 refer, consists in this, that the great camp, estimated by Roy as capable of holding 

 28,800 men, has been constructed in such, a way that its ramparts cross not only the 

 area of the more distant camp, described as capable of holding upwards of 12,000 men, 

 but also the area of the procestrium of the fort itself. 



Roy says, "From the manner in which the north intrenchment of the camp inter- 

 sects the west rampart of the great one, it seems to have been a subsequent work." 

 And again, "One thing, indeed, is very remarkable and difficult to be accounted 

 for, namely, that the Romans did not level that part of the intrenchment of the great 

 camp included within the area of the little one, and which, according to appearances, 

 they must have found so troublesome, even from its obliquity, as to have deranged 

 entirely the interior order and regularity of their encampment." And then he goes 

 on to say, " Perhaps, after the separation of the army, this division might be obliged 

 to march in a hurry, without having had time to do it." 



It will be observed that Roy supposes that the smaller camp was last constructed; 

 but he says nothing about the larger camp, including a portion of the procestrium of 

 the fort. 



According to the view which I take of the subject, I am led to believe that the 

 larger camp was last constructed ; and my reasons for dissenting from Roy's views are 

 these : — 



Gordon rightly describes tire works of the fort as consisting of five ditches and six 

 ramparts ; it is in fact seen that the works of the fort consisted of five parallel ramparts 

 and ditches, and that there is beyond these, and not parallel to them, and surrounding 

 only two sides of the north-east angle of the fort, a sixth rampart; and I have no 

 hesitation in pronouncing that sixth rampart to be the work of an attack against the 

 fort, and not a work of defence. 



Caesar, in describing his attack upon a British fort, says, " Milites, aggere ad muni- 

 tiones adjecto, locum ceperunt;" and we know the Caledonians over and over again 

 attacked the Roman forts ; and I have no doubt that the so-called sixth rampart 

 is the agger or mound, which was in those days the universal mode of attack upon a 

 fort, and which was thrown up by the besiegers without forming a ditch, to command 

 and flank the works of defence. 



" The very unusual manner " in which the works are described as arranged at 

 Ardoch, arises from the circumstance that the several writers I have quoted did not 

 observe the fact, that we have at Ardoch not only Roman works of defence, but the 

 works of a besieging army of the Caledonians upon it, a fact which gives a still greater 

 degree of interest to this already very celebrated place. With this view of the sub- 

 ject, the peculiar manner in which the great camps are arranged becomes intelligible. 

 The small camp may indeed have been one of the Roman marching camps ; but I can- 

 not conceive how any one could suppose that the great irregular camp which crosses 

 both the smaller camp and the procestrium of the fort could be a Roman work : it is 

 obviously the camp of the besieging army, constructed after the taking of the proces- 

 trium. That this great irregular camp was not a Roman camp, must also be obvious 

 to those who read the accounts of the symmetrical manner in which the Romans 

 always constructed their camps, and the proportions they gave them ; nor could it be 

 admitted as probable that the Romans would constmct a camp and leave for a single 

 night the ramparts of another camp and the procestrium, which irregularly cut up its 

 interior space, and which would, as Roy says, have " deranged entirely the interior 

 order and regularity of their encampment." To the Caledonians this irregularity 

 would probably be of little importance, their chief object being to draw their camp as 

 near to the fort as possible. That the fort at Ardoch was one of those constructed 

 a.d. 84, at intervals, on commanding points, by Agricola, for the subjugation of the 

 country, is I think clearly established; and this station was certainly maintained as a 

 Roman station for three centuries afterwards. The attack upon it was therefore probably 

 made in the middle of the fourth century, at the period of the decline of the Roman 

 power in Britain. 



From the circumstance of our finding the great rampart of the attack still standing, 

 there cannot be a doubt that the fort was taken ; for if the Romans had been able 

 to resist the attack, their first care would have teen to have removed the rampart and 

 restored the procestrium. It is 133 years since Gordon described this fort as "the 



