Bearsden has long figured large in the literature of the Antonine Wall and Roman Frontier Studies and therefore the appearance of the final report has been much anticipated and is to be greatly welcomed. Breeze and his fellow authors are to be congratulated on a volume that, despite the numerous occasions that various elements of the data from the site have been discussed following the completion of the excavations in 1982, makes a significant contribution to our understanding of Roman Scotland, the Roman army and wider questions. Similar praise is due to the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland who, as usual, have produced a volume to the highest production standards.

It is difficult to overstate the importance of the Bearsden excavations and the material derived from them and this significance comes through clearly in the report. The complexity recognised in the single, tightly-dated phase of occupation demonstrates evolving thinking on the part of the Roman military over a short period of time. During construction there was a major change to the original (Bearsden 1) plan of the site that involved the subdivision of the defended enclosure into a fort and an eastern annexe (Bearsden 2) and the partial demolition and re-planning of the bath-house, along with the, possibly later, addition of a hot dry room. The re-planning also resulted in other apparent anomalies, including a lack of causeways opposite the presumed locations of the north and south gateways of Bearsden 2.

A notable strength of the monograph is the close engagement of the lead illustrator, Michael J. Moore, in the interpretative process and discussion during post-excavation has allowed alternative views of aspects of the site to be offered, such as the appearance of the headquarters building (illustrations 21.5 and 21.6). Moore's contribution also includes figures illustrating practical considerations of the functioning of cavalry forts not previously evaluated, including the quantities of water, grain and hay required to maintain a pony for a day and the estimated compliment of 70 ponies for a week (illustration 21.17) and similarly the quantities of resulting waste (illustration 21.18). Both volumes raise issues with respect to the use of open space within forts and, potentially also, the function of annexes at cavalry forts.

Having mentioned Moore's contribution it is perhaps appropriate to acknowledge the high quality of the illustrations throughout the monograph, in keeping with the production standards that we have come to expect from volumes produced through the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. Somewhat more problematic is the reuse of plans from the monograph in the Archaeopress volume, apparently without amendment. The consequent reduction in scale, while generally allowing the drawn elements of the illustrations to be seen, does mean that the labelling on figures may be difficult for some readers less familiar with the types of features being illustrated.

Bearsden has provided the largest assemblage of pottery from a fort on the Antonine Wall to date, but in contrast some of the assemblages, such as glass and querns, are limited in size. Despite this the discussion provides many insights, not only with respect to Bearsden, but also the Antonine Wall, cavalry forts and Roman military life more generally. Early in the analysis phase the importance of the plant remains was recognised and the results of work on them by the late Camilla Dixon rapidly established Bearsden as a key site in any consideration of the Roman military diet. Other work published for the first time in the full report can only further confirm the importance of not only the structural evidence, but also the material culture and environmental assemblages along with the interpretations that flow from them.

It is difficult to be critical of the monograph. The few obvious errors, such as ‘Keppie 2009’ in the text (348), when there are Keppie's 2009 (a and b) in the bibliography, do not really serve to detract from the readability and authority of the work (and the correct reference is cited six lines later!).

The Archaeopress volume is not simply a digest of the monograph, but rather seeks, and succeeds, in explaining the archaeological process and the constraints under which the excavations and report production were undertaken: ‘thereby, hopefully, aiding understanding of archaeological endeavour’ (2). Without pretending it to be a substitute for the full report for anyone interested in the detail of any aspect of the site, the resulting volume is highly readable and wide-ranging. Interestingly it allowed the author and illustrator to correct points of detail, such as in the illustrations of soldiers using the latrine where a sponge is replaced by moss, as suggested in the monograph text, in the respective illustrations (monograph illustration 21.11; Archaeopress fig. 64).

Both volumes more than meet any reasonable expectations and, in the case of the monograph at least, will remain a key resource for decades to come.