The Biglands milefortlet, the first known site of the Cumberland coast defences, lies 5,500 feet beyond the terminal fort at the western end of Hadrian's Wall at Bowness-on-Solway. It survives as a low but prominent grassy mound (FIG. I), situated some 60 m from the edge of the salt marsh and with views which command the Cardurnock peninsula, the Solway estuary and the mountains of Galloway. Its height above the level of the highest tides is 4–5 m, the subsoil consisting of the bedded sands and shingle of a raised beach. The most prominent feature both from the air and on the ground is the silted ditch of the fortlet; it encloses an area which is subrectangular in plan, measuring c. 40 by 50 m. Only the southern end of the fortlet, where there are the farm buildings of Biglands House, lies concealed. There is no obvious sign of a break in the ditch and it was thus assumed that this was a ‘long-axis’ fortlet, orientated north-south, with a rear entrance as at Cardurnock. The air photographs also showed traces of a palisade revetting the rampart which, as was demonstrated by trial-trenching in 1954, was built up of marsh silt; but no structures were recovered in these excavations, and there was only a thin scatter of second-century pottery.

During post glacial times relative land- and sea-levels have changed continuously but inconsistently, for reasons which are complex and numerous. Relevant studies can be found ‘among the works of astronomers, geophysicists, geologists, geomor-phologists, hydrographers, oceanographers, climatologists, biologists, archaeologists, historians, land surveyors, civil engineers’ and even ‘etc’. Further investigations ‘to identify and quantify the processes of sea-level change by producing detailed local histories that can be analysed and correlated’ have been undertaken by geographers: their approach involves the radiocarbon analysis of organic samples, but the difficulties encountered in fixing the exact position of these, determining the actual tidal level which they represent and assessing the errors associated with the dating method are recognised. It might, therefore, be expected that archaeological evidence from the Roman period, to which remains of major structures erected at locations on coasts and estuaries can be assigned with some certainty from the associated epigraphic, numismatic or ceramic finds, would make an important contribution to studies on sea-level changes. The findings, however, have often been ignored or repudiated, especially when they conflict with the deductions offered by researchers in other disciplines.

A small re-excavation of part of this villa has removed some apparent discrepancies in the evidence for the structural development of the buildings, and taken in conjunction with the published material has made a new and more detailed interpretation possible. The results of the excavation are summarized in the text on pp. 227-8, and the deductions as to the history of the villa on pp. 236-7.

Small finds in copper alloy with their maker's stamp allow study of their production and distribution — sometimes far flung across all the provinces of the Roman Empire — comparable to potters' stamps on terra sigillata or other pottery. Since stamped finds indicate their provenance from the same workshop and, above all, their production in the same period, it is possible to assess the arrangements for marketing by means of trading connections, the demand for certain goods, and their circulation due to the movements of the Roman army or private individuals. Vessels in copper alloy, brooches, and strigils are well recorded objects in this respect. However, study of small finds other than these is more difficult, as re-use of metals or imitation should also be considered, if scientific or typological methods are to be applied to explore either the components of the alloy or the shape of the implements. Dating too can be deceptive, as is demonstrated by objects which were sometimes in use for decades or even centuries.

This summary report is intended to keep readers abreast of the more recent work on the Solway frontier; and at the same time to discredit many of the highly subjective views and unsupported assertions published by R. L. Bellhouse in the previous volume of this journal, and also to present a summary of the current programme being undertaken along the Solway Frontier. The number of errors in Bellhouse's article may be judged from his failure to cite the primary publication of the Bowness-Cardurnock linear defences, of which he appears unaware. Many of the points do not warrant substantive comment here and are accordingly relegated to a footnote. It is more important to present a positive survey of the current results, even if this is only in summary form pending eventual publication of a book on the Solway Frontier.

Recent waterfront excavations on the Pudding Lane site in the City of London exposed a timber structure to the south of, and earlier than, a late first-century quay. This provisional report describes the structure and its context, and summarizes evidence for and against its identification as a pier-base for an early bridge across the Thames.

Recent years have seen excavation at two points on the perimeter of the Roman temporary camp at Dunning. The first excavation, in spring 1988, adjacent to the known northern entrance to the camp, was conducted by Dr Lawrence Keppie of the Hunterian Museum, on behalf of Historic Scotland, in advance of pipe-laying by British Gas Scotland. In autumn 1992 excavation of the western entrance to the Roman camp was directed by Andrew Dunwell of the Centre for Field Archaeology, in advance of a housing development by A. & J. Stephen (Builders) Ltd of Perth. The projects were funded by Historic Scotland and A. & J. Stephen (Builders) Ltd respectively.

The context numbering for 1983 follows on from the 1982 excavations. Feature numbers quoted and shown on plans and sections are those used on site. However, for the convenience of this report the actual buildings are renumbered (1–11) and either retain the number given in the previous report (Vol. xiv), or follow on.

Following the reporting of the excavations at this site in the previous issue of Britannia (Vol. xiv), adjacent plots of land were purchased by the developers and incorporated into the new housing estate, the enlarged area comprising a broad swathe of land south of Nos. 108-114 Wood Lane End (FIG. I ) and, in particular, part of the garden of No. 104 which covered much of Building I. Most of the additional land lay outside the protected area but scheduled monument consent was required for construction over the garden of No. 104. This was granted by the DOE provided that the Roman building known to lie there remained undisturbed within the gardens of the new houses. However, during top-soil clearance the south-west side of Building I was accidentally exposed and it became apparent that its plan was not that previously assumed on the evidence of trial-trenching and geophysical survey carried out in 1966-7 and 1982 respectively. In addition, following the stripping of top-soil elsewhere, traces of other Roman buildings and features were discovered. Although development had already begun, the architect and builders were most co-operative in allowing excavation to take place; the excavations were carried out by the DOE's Central Excavation Unit between August and October 1983.

During 1981 a large quantity of Roman brick and tile was recovered from excavations at Pudding Lane/118-127 Lower Thames Street, London. Examination of this material revealed a small assemblage of roofing-tile characterised by the presence of red or brown moulding-sand, and unusual rounded tegula flanges. All were made using calcareous clays quite unlike that used for the majority of Roman tile in London. As tile from further sites in London was recorded, more roofing-tile made in the same, or similar, clay types was discovered. From the mid-1980s work outside London has revealed other sites in southern England with tiles made with the same distinctive clay types. They are located over an extremely wide geographical area ranging from Devon in the west to London in the east. Movement of tile from the as yet unidentified tilery was almost certainly by ship along the south coast. The dating of these distinctive tiles is still problematic, although there is now considerable evidence for their use in the late Roman period.