Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-lpg2g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T22:22:20.664Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Palaeobotanical Evidence from Mollins

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2011

W. E. Boyd
W. E. Boyd
Affiliation:
Department of Botany, University of Glasgow
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Roman fort at Mollins lies at about 75 m above sea level, on the south bank of the Luggie Water, a major tributary of the River Kelvin (FIG. I). The site (National Grid reference NS 714 719) lies on the side of a small ridge, and faces northwards over gently undulating ground. The substratum is glacial till and, although the site is moderately well drained, under natural conditions the broad flood plain of the Luggie Water, which borders onto the northern edge of the fort, would have been formerly very poorly drained.

The archaeological site comprises a Roman fort which was probably built and later deliberately demolished during the Agricolan campaigns around a.d. 80 to 90.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Britannia , Volume 16 , November 1985, pp. 37 - 48
Copyright
Copyright © W. E. Boyd 1985. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 Hanson, W. S. and Maxwell, G. S., Britannia xi (1980), 43–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 W. S. Hanson, pers. comm.

3 W. E. Boyd, ‘Environmental change and Iron Age land management in the area of the Antonine Wall, central Scotland: a summary’, Glasgow Arch. Journ. forthcoming; idem, ‘Palaeobotanical report on the samples from the archaeological excavations of the Roman fort at Bar Hill, on the Antonine Wall’, Glasgow Arch. Journ. forthcoming.

4 Faegri, K. and Iversen, J., Textbook of pollen analysis (1975).Google Scholar

5 op. cit. (note 4).

6 Moore, P. D. and Webb, J. A., An illustrated guide to pollen analysis (1978).Google Scholar

7 Godwin, H., The history of the British flora (1956).Google Scholar

8 Körber-Grohne, U., ‘Bestimmungsschlüssel für subfossile Juncus-samen und Gramineen-fruchte’, Probleme der Kustenforschung in sudlichen Nordseegebiet vii (1964).Google Scholar

9 Smith, A. J. E., The moss flora of Britain and Ireland (1978).Google Scholar

10 Jane, F. W., The structure of wood (1970), 392.Google Scholar

11 Dimbleby, G. W., ‘Soil pollen distribution in relation to organic layers’, Soil organic matter. Rep. no. 3 Welsh soils discussion group (1962), 49–51Google Scholar; Dimbleby, G. W. and Evans, J. G., Journ. Arch. Science i (1974), 117–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 Dimbleby, G. W., Journ. Soil Science xii (1961), 1–11; idem, op. cit. (note 11); idem, Proc. R. Soc. B., 161, (1965), 355–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13 G. W. Dimbleby and J. G. Evans, op. cit. (note 11); Keatinge, T. H., Boreas xii (1983), 1–12.Google Scholar

14 McVean, D. N. and Ratcliffe, D. A., Plant communities of the Scottish Highlands. Monographs of the Nature Conservancy (1962)Google Scholar; Birks, H. J. B. in Shotton, F. W. (ed.), British Quaternary Studies: recent advances (1977), 119–35.Google Scholar

15 Pollen of Corylus avellana and Myrica gale, two unrelated species, is very similar, and their separate identification is unreliable (Edwards, K. J., Pollen Spores xxiii (1981), 205–18). For this reason, the pollen is referred to as ‘Coryloid’. This, of course, poses many problems, largely because Coryloid pollen is a very common component in the British fossil pollen flora, and also because both species are widespread. They have, however, different ecological requirements and on ecological grounds it is considered that Corylus is probably represented at Mollins. However, the text references to ‘possibly Corylus’ reflect the uncertainty.Google Scholar

16 Scottish Arch. Forum xii (1980), 93–113.Google Scholar

17 Boyd, unpub. data.

18 cf. Turner, J., Proc. R. Soc. London, B, 161 (1965), 348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19 Tinsley, H. M. and Smith, R. T., New Phytol. lxxiii (1974), 547–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20 cf. Boyd, W. E., ‘Prehistoric hedges: Roman Iron Age hedges from Bar Hill,’ Scottish Arch. Review iii (1984), 32–4.Google Scholar

21 Boyd, W. E. in Fieller, N. J. R., Gilbertson, D. D. and Ralph, N. C. A. (eds.), Palaeoenvironmental investigation: research design, methods and interpretation, B.A.R. (1984); idem, op. cit. (note 3).Google Scholar

22 ibid.

23 D. E. Robinson, Report on samples submitted for botanical analysis from the excavation of the Roman fort at Croy Hill, Central Region (unpub.)

24 Newell, P. J., Britannia xiv (1983), 227–43.Google Scholar

25 C. A. and J. H. Dickson, Report on the plant remains from the archaeological excavations at Bearsden Roman fort (forthcoming).

26 Richmond, I. A., Arch. Ael.4 xiii (1935), 170–98Google Scholar; Arch. Ael.4 xiv (1937), 129–50Google Scholar; Simpson, F. G. and Richmond, I. A., Arch. Ael.4 xix (1941), 1–43Google Scholar; Roberts, B. K. et al. , in Birks, H. J. B. and West, R. G. (eds.), Quaternary Plant Ecology (1973), 207–21Google Scholar; Bartley, D. D. et al. . New Phytol. lxxvii (1976), 437–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Donaldson, A. M. and Turner, J., Journ. Biogeogr. iv (1977), 25–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Balaam, N., Britannia ix (1978), 19–57Google Scholar; Chambers, C., New Phytol. lxxx (1978), 273–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Davies, G. and Turner, J., New Phytol. lxxxii (1979), 783–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Turner, J., Journ. Arch. Science vi (1979), 285–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar