DOCSLIB.ORG

Hadrian's Wall and Military Infrastructure in Britannia During the Second and Early Third Centuries

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

The End of Empire: Hadrian’s Wall and Military Infrastructure in Britannia During the Second and Early Third Centuries. Hadrian’s wall did not exist in isolation. Throughout the second and early third centuries the wall was part of a greater entity both across the Empire and in Britannia. Assessing the wall in Britannia independently of the supporting infrastructure is a key mistake made by many academics. The wall must be assessed as it was: part of a greater system. Nonetheless there is still a major problem that confronts any study of military infrastructure in Britannia: the sparsity of Roman literary material. Texts are a miniscule part of the corpus of material evidence and therefore, a variety of other sources must be utilised. By triangulating corroborating data from the numismatic, archaeological and epigraphic evidence the frontier can be reconstructed. Ultimately it will demonstrate how the military infrastructure in Britannia served not as a defensive barrier, but as a platform that allowed the army to operate effectively on both sides of the frontier. These operations ultimately served as a way for Emperors to gain military legitimacy, either by direct or indirect action, as expressed in various examples of imperial propaganda. Most early reconstructions present the wall as a defensive fortification. Arguably, the most prominent was Eric Birley’s model.1 Many of his reconstructions are, however, based on questionable evidence. For example, he often depicts the wall and other fortifications featuring crenels. 2 The evidence for this coming from niche sources such as the depiction of the wall on the Rudge cup, which features heavily in Birley’s Research.3 This cup depicts the wall with crenels clearly visible.4 However, this may well be an artistic trope used to clearly identify that the object being depicted is a wall rather than as an accurate representation of what the wall looked like. Assumptions based on circumstantial evidence has plagued study of the wall, as Breeze puts early academics: “only solved the problems they had defined”.5 One major factor that affected earlier reconstructions was Mommsen’s theory that the wall was built in response to Legio VIIII Hispana being destroyed north of the wall.6 This theory was unfounded, being based on questionable sources such as a letter by Fronto that vaguely references a massacre by the Britons that occurred decades before under Hadrian which was then taken alongside a single line in the Historia Augusta and that the last known inscription referring to the legion in Britannia dates to 108 AD.7 This theory was later derailed by the discovery of a tegula stamped ‘LEG VIIII’ in Nijmegen that suggested the legion was moved to the Netherlands.8 Ironically, after this new evidence 1 Birley, E (1961). 270 2 Birley, E (1961). Fig. 32 3 Birley, E (1961). 196, 203, 208, 211, 266 4 Moore, C (1978). 321; See also Rudge Cup Replica 5 Breeze, D (2018). 6 Mommsen, T (1856); For English translation see Campbell, D (2010). 7 Fronto, On the Parthian War 2; Historia Augusta, Hadrian 5.2; Figure 1 8 Wright, R (1978). was discovered Birley himself acknowledged that Legio VIIII was not destroyed in Britannia, but nonetheless stuck by his original interpretation that the wall was a primarily defensive structure based on the insubstantial evidence that the Romans were struggling in Britannia.9 However, evidence from the Vindolanda Tablets suggests that the region immediately south of the wall was relatively stable. One tablet makes clear that the woman writing expects her friend’s attendance to a birthday party.10 This itself could only be the case if the region was stable as otherwise the risks incurred by travel would be too severe for such a benign reason. This stability contradicts the idea that Northern England was a region under regular attack put forward in defensive reconstructions. Instead the evidence would point to far more violence happening north of the wall. Research by Hodgson based on excavations of farmsteads has shown that following the walls construction, farming communities that inhabited the area north of the wall for a millennium suddenly disappear. 11 Most likely being wiped out by the Romans.12 This adds credibility to the wall being an offensive tool, thus explaining the numerous offensives launched from the wall. 13 Even Emperors who did not have any direct involvement such as Commodus or Antoninus Pius nonetheless benefited from military action in the provinces, appropriating the achievements of their legates in either campaigning north of the wall or putting down rebellions.14 This clearly changes the narrative of the frontier from one of defence to offense. It is not just in the historical context that the defensive model falls apart. The design of the wall simply does not make sense from a purely defensive viewpoint. The milecastles for example, were small fortlets placed across the entire length of the wall at mile intervals and would have been almost useless as defensive structures. There is no evidence of protruding watchtowers or wall slits leaving any observers heavily exposed. Furthermore, Breeze estimates that they would only have been large enough to support a single contubernium of 8 soldiers based on the size of the living quarters, making it a fair assessment.15 Therefore, if any significant force attacked the wall then this garrison would be quickly overwhelmed. Even if reinforcements arrived quickly another issue with the wall would emerge: its narrow breadth. Even at its widest the wall was no more than 10 feet with some areas being as narrow as 6 feet.16 This meant that even at its widest point Roman soldiers bearing Pilum would struggle to stand more than one deep. Even speculated additional defences such as crenels, this narrowness would have heavily hindered reinforcement of the wall if under assault. 17 This also assumes a wall-walk even existed with some academics such as Bidwell suggesting it may not have.18 Either way, it is telling that in 180 AD, 9 Birley, E (1971). 10 Tab. Vindol. 291 11 Hodgson, N (2017). 12 Ibid 13 RIB 2034; Cassius Dio, LXXVII 11-13; HA, Septimius Severus 18.2, Antonius Pius 5.4 14 HA, Antonius Pius 5.3-4, Commodus 6.1-3; Dio, LXXIII 8.1 15 Breeze, D (2007). 40 16 Breeze, D (2007). 39; Birley, E (1961). 81-89; For visual reconstructions see Crow, J (1991). 54 17 Ibid 18 Bidwell, P (2008) the only time a major force attacked the wall in this period, the wall was breached. 19 In contrast Hadrian’s Limes Arabicus forwent a wall entirely. Instead this frontier used a series of forts alongside the natural barrier of the Arabian desert, allowing them to last until the fifth century in a far more active frontier.20 This contrast highlights the poor defensive capability of the wall and the numerous shortcomings that emerge when it is assessed as a purely defensive structure. Consequentially, theories surrounding military infrastructure in Britannia have moved away from a purely defensive reconstruction. Mann argues that the wall was an ‘accidental frontier’, built where the Roman Army’s impetus ran out.21 This however, is extremely simplistic and ignores key principles highlighted in research by Breeze and Poulter such as the particular use of the topography and the close proximity to the pre-existing Stanegate.22 It is also known from an inscription that the wall’s construction was ordered directly by Hadrian meaning, when taken with the specific nature of its design, it was not there by chance.23 A more interesting argument based on this premise of a non-defensive design is the customs barrier model. Archaeological findings have found Roman commodities in Scotland and various inscriptions that suggests trading ventures north of the wall.24 Though, while it is true that trade did occur between Britannia and Caledonia, this argument does not properly explain the function of the wall. This model is based heavily on evidence from areas such as the Danube and North Africa.25 This is a flawed comparison as these areas were far more active than the fringe province of Britannia. Caledonia was sparsely populated meaning the flow of goods would be minimal when compared to other border regions. Additionally, this model does not take the military infrastructure throughout the rest of the province into account. If the wall is to be assessed with accuracy, then it must be examined how it existed: part of a greater network. The 3 legionary garrisons were all located adjacently to upland areas in York, Chester and on the Welsh border.26 Based on findings at multiple sites there were also numerous auxiliary cohorts and alae units located across Britannia, mainly focused between the legionary bases at York, Chester and the Wall itself.27 These bases were all located on or near fertile flatland areas, allowing the production of grain or barley helping solve the logistical challenge of supplying the bases. 28 By having many smaller bases rather than a few large camps supply chains became far more efficient as the need for supplies was spread, meaning more could be source locally rather than being inefficiently transported from across 19 Dio, LXXIII 8.1 20 Fisher, G (2004); Parker, S. (1988); Bowersock, G (1976) 21 Mann, J (1990a); Mann, J (1990b) 22 Breeze, D., Dobson, B (2000). 26; Breeze, D (2007). 36; Poulter, J (2010). 23 RIB 1637 24 Macinnes, L (1989); Roberston, A (1983); RIB 2059; RIB 2182 25 Breeze, D., Dobson, B (2000). 149; Breeze, D (2011). 76, 84, 200-203; Cherry, D (1998). 59-66 26 Breeze, D (2007). 22; Riley, B (2015).
Recommended publications
  • 7 the Roman Empire

    7 the Roman Empire

    Eli J. S. Weaverdyck 7 The Roman Empire I Introduction The Roman Empire was one of the largest and longest lasting of all the empires in the ancient world.1 At its height, it controlled the entire coast of the Mediterranean and vast continental hinterlands, including most of western Europe and Great Brit- ain, the Balkans, all of Asia Minor, the Near East as far as the Euphrates (and be- yond, briefly), and northern Africa as far south as the Sahara. The Mediterranean, known to the Romans as mare nostrum(‘our sea’), formed the core. The Mediterranean basin is characterized by extreme variability across both space and time. Geologically, the area is a large subduction zone between the African and European tectonic plates. This not only produces volcanic and seismic activity, it also means that the most commonly encountered bedrock is uplifted limestone, which is easily eroded by water. Much of the coastline is mountainous with deep river valleys. This rugged topography means that even broadly similar climatic conditions can pro- duce drastically dissimilar microclimates within very short distances. In addition, strong interannual variability in precipitation means that local food shortages were an endemic feature of Mediterranean agriculture. In combination, this temporal and spatial variability meant that risk-buffering mechanisms including diversification, storage, and distribution of goods played an important role in ancient Mediterranean survival strategies. Connectivity has always characterized the Mediterranean.2 While geography encouraged mobility, the empire accelerated that tendency, inducing the transfer of people, goods, and ideas on a scale never seen before.3 This mobility, combined with increased demand and the efforts of the imperial govern- ment to mobilize specific products, led to the rise of broad regional specializations, particularly in staple foods and precious metals.4 The results of this increased con- It has also been the subject of more scholarship than any other empire treated in this volume.
  • Ross Burns Justinian's Fortifications East of Antioch

    Ross Burns Justinian's Fortifications East of Antioch

    Ross Burns Justinian’s Fortifications East of Antioch Almost fifty years ago, Dillemann put the issues starkly – fortifications were a useless distraction: The Notitia Dignatatum, at the beginning of the 5th Century, only speaks of units, generally cavalry, with their bases. In [Procopius’] Buildings, the only issues are fortified positions with no mention of units. Defence policy has reached sclerosis. Previously, positions were surrounded by walls of light construction, like enclosures, which attracted Procopius’ disapproval. For good reasons Justinian’s predecessors judged it useless to raise solid ramparts; it was a nonsense to condemn cavalry to defend them. The latter only had to be given shelter from the blows of marauders and pillagers; they did not imagine they had to withstand a siege.1 Is it true, as Dillemann has argued, that Justinian put too much faith in fortresses and not enough in manpower and élan? As a corrective, we have Liebeschuetz’s observation that while fortresses did not in themselves amount to an impermeable physical barrier, they prevented permanent occupation of territory by an enemy. In the sixth century there was no way in which the Persians could be prevented from penetrating into the Empire. The only way to check an invasion was by means of a field army strong enough to defeat or at least to threaten the invading force. Fortified cities provided no kind of barrier and most of them could be captured easily. Nevertheless, they too had an important function. They provided shelter for the inhabitants, their corn and their animals. They also provided bases for Roman armies operating in the neighbourhood…[The Persians] could not remain in permanent occupation while the cities were not in their hands.2 It is well recognised that no line of fortresses can operate as an effective line of defence in its own right.3 Nevertheless, the distribution of forts could mark out the extent of territory a state sought to control for most purposes.
  • Rimska Fortifikacijska Arhitektura

    Rimska Fortifikacijska Arhitektura

    Sveučilište J. J. Strossmayera u Osijeku Filozofski fakultet Diplomski studij: Filozofija – povijest Josip Paulić Rimska fortifikacijska arhitektura Diplomski rad Mentorica: doc. dr. sc. Jasna Šimić Osijek, 2012. 1. Sažetak Najvažniji i temeljni element rimske fortifikacijske arhitekture svakako je vojni grad – castrum. Rimljani su bili narod vojnika, kolonizatora i osvjača, pa je rimski građanin u vojnoj obavezi bio veći dio svog života. Iz tih razloga ustroj i izgled vojnog logora pokazuje toliko zajedničkih elemenata s civilnim naseljima. Zidine grada Rima predstavljaju najreprezentativniji primjer gradske fortifikacijske arhitekture u cijelom Carstvu. Murus Servii Tulii (Servijev zid) sagrađen je u ranom 4. st. pr. n. e., a učinkovito je štitio grad do druge polovine 3. st. kad je izgrađen Murus Aurelianus (271.– 275.), zid opsega 19 km koji ipak nije spasio Rim od Alarikove pljačke i razaranja (410.), kao i one kasnije vandalske (455.). U vrijeme Republike rimski castrum (prema Polibiju) ima pravilan pravokutni, gotovo kvadratan oblik; limitiran je i orijentiran na isti način kao i grad te je omeđen jarkom i zidom. Na svakoj strani logora nalaze se jedna vrata. Istočna vrata Porta praetoria i zapadna Porta decumana povezana su decumanom (via praetoria), dok su sjeverna Porta principalis sinistra i južna vrata Porta principalis dextra spojena s via principalis (cardo). Orijentacija glavnih ulica ovisila je o položaju i usmjerenosti logora. Na križanju glavnih osi logora nalazio se praetorium – središte vojne uprave. U vojnom logoru ulica cardo (via principalis) ima veće značenje od decumana. Neki autori smatraju kako osnovne zametke rimskog urbs quadratisa treba tražiti upravo u vojnom logoru. Vojni grad – castrum - slijedi etruščansko iskustvo i kristalizira nekoliko značajnih ideja i praktičnih postavki iz političke i vojne sfere.
  • Roman Warfare and Fortification

    Roman Warfare and Fortification

    Roman Warfare and Fortification Oxford Handbooks Online Roman Warfare and Fortification Gwyn Davies The Oxford Handbook of Engineering and Technology in the Classical World Edited by John Peter Oleson Print Publication Date: Dec 2009 Subject: Classical Studies, Ancient Roman History, Material Culture Studies Online Publication Date: Sep 2012 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199734856.013.0028 Abstract and Keywords This article concentrates on the role of technology in improving the operational capabilities of the Roman state. It reviews the organizational and weapon system developments that enabled Roman armies to engage their enemies with confidence in the field, alongside the evolution of fortification schemes that enabled economies of force, which were essential to imperial security. Roman weapons and equipment include the spear, sword, missiles, artillery, shields, helmets, and body armor. Although the Roman army was often on the attack and made use of complex siege technology, it was also highly skilled in the preparation of defensive fortifications. The Romans diligently applied themselves to the arts of war. Their successful mastery of battlefield techniques and their adoption, where appropriate, of equipment and technologies first introduced by their opponents allowed Roman armies to sustain the state over several hundreds of years of challenge and change. Keywords: Roman armies, Roman warfare, Roman fortification, spear, sword, missiles, artillery, shields, helmets, body armor Warfare and the Romans A message relayed to the Roman people by Romulus after his translation to the heavens, stands as an unambiguous endorsement of Roman military prowess. “Tell the Romans that it is the gods' will that my Rome shall be the capital of the world; therefore let them cultivate the arts of war and let them know and teach their children that no human force can resist Roman arms” (Livy 1.16.7).
  • Arab Tribesmen and Desert Frontiers in Late Antique Syria*

    Arab Tribesmen and Desert Frontiers in Late Antique Syria*

    Chapter 16 Arab Tribesmen and Desert Frontiers in Late Antique Syria* This chapter traces the development of the strategy employed by the Late Roman government to guard the Empire’s long frontier, which ran from Palestine to Mesopotamia along the edge of the Arabian desert, and focuses on the government’s increasing reliance on Arab allies settled within the fron- tier. The guardians of the eastern frontier faced difficulties not encountered in the West precisely because the frontier they had to police and defend was a desert frontier, and one that was annually crossed and re-crossed by transhu- mant nomads.1 Barbarian federates also came to play an extremely prominent role in the West, and it will be shown that the history of Arab groups allied to the Eastern Empire has quite a lot in common with that of Germanic federates in the service of the Western Empire, and that inadequate sources have pre- sented modern historians of the Germanic and of the Arab allies with similar difficulties. Diocletian’s Fortification of the Eastern Frontier2 Diocletian reorganized and strengthened the defences of the eastern prov- inces of the Empire after the crisis of the third century, which had seen Persian invasions, and the astonishing episode of the temporary conquest of much of the Near East by the client state of Palmyra. Diocletian’s reforms were in accord with Roman military traditions. He greatly increased the size of the regular army. He raised many new units3 and stationed them along the edge of the empire. The boundary of the territory under direct imperial control was now marked by a road running along the edge of the desert from the Red Sea to the * This article was previously published in Journal of Late Antiquity (forthcoming).
  • XXIII. Limes Congress 2015

    XXIII. Limes Congress 2015

    XXIII. Limes Congress 2015 Abstracts of Lectures and Posters List of Participants Abstracts of Lectures Inhalt Fawzi Abudanah, Via Nova Traiana between Petra and Ayn al-Qana in Arabia Petraea .................... 10 Cristina-Georgeta Alexandrescu, Not just stone: Building materials used for the fortifications in the area of Troesmis (Turcoaia, Tulcea County, RO) and its territorium (second to fourth century AD) ... 11 Cristina Georgeta Alexandrescu, Signaling in the army ...................................................................... 11 Ignacio Arce, Severan Castra, Tetrarchic Quadriburgia, Ghassanid Diyarat: Patterns of Transformation of Limes Arabicus Forts during Late Antiquity ............................................................ 12 Martina Back, Brick fabrication ............................................................................................................ 14 Gereon Balle/Markus Scholz. The monumental building beside the fort of the ala II Flavia milliaria in Aquileia/Heidenheim – Public baths or administrative building of the provincial government? (Raetia) .............................................................................................................................................................. 14 Thomas Becker/Ayla Jung, Unusual building structures in the vicus of Inheiden (Germania Superior) .............................................................................................................................................................. 15 Thomas Becker, Der Pfeilerbau im
  • THE STRATEGIC DEFENSE of the ROMAN ORIENT a Thesis

    THE STRATEGIC DEFENSE of the ROMAN ORIENT a Thesis

    CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE THE NISIBIS WAR (337-363 CE) THE STRATEGIC DEFENSE OF THE ROMAN ORIENT A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of Master of Arts in History By John Scott Harrel, MG (Ret.) December 2012 © 2012 John Scott Harrel ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii The thesis of John Scott Harrel is approved: ____________________________ _____________ Dr. Donal O’Sullivan Date ____________________________ _____________ Dr. Joyce L. Broussard Date ____________________________ _____________ Dr. Frank L. Vatai, Chair Date California State University, Northridge iii Dedication To the men and women of the California Army National Guard and the 40th Infantry Division, who in the twenty-first century, have marched, fought and died in the footsteps of the legions I & II Parthia, Joviani and Herculiani. iv Table of Contents Copy Right ii Signature Page iii Dedication iv List of Maps vi List of Illustrations vii Abstract viii Chapter 1: The Nisibis War (337-363): Thesis, Sources, and Methodology. 1 Chapter 2: Background of The Nisibis War. 15 Chapter 3: The Military Aspects of the Geography Climate and 24 Weather of the Roman Orient. Chapter 4: The Mid-4th Century Roman Army and the Strategic 34 Defense of the East. Chapter 5: The Persian Army and the Strategic Offense. 60 Chapter 6: Active Defense, 337-350. 69 Chapter 7: Stalemate, 251-358 78 Chapter 8: Passive Defense, 358-361 86 Chapter 9: Strategic Offense, 362-363 100 Chapter 10: Conclusion 126 Bibliography 130 v List of Maps 1. King Shapur’s Saracen Wars 324-335 18 2. Nisibis War Theater of Operations 25 3.
  • L'esercito, in Seguito Alla Politica Di Espansione Imperialistica

    L'esercito, in Seguito Alla Politica Di Espansione Imperialistica

    Annali della facoltà di Scienze della formazione Università degli studi di Catania 10 (2011), pp. 59-76 ISSN 2038-1328 / EISSN 2039-4934 doi: 10.4420/unict-asdf.10.2011.4 OSSERVAZIONI SUI TABULARIA MILITARI di Mela Albana L’esercito, in seguito alla politica di espansione imperialistica intrapresa da Roma, subì una radicale trasformazione strutturale e logistica che lo portò da mi - lizia cittadina ad esercito professionale, supportato da una efficiente burocrazia. L’espletamento delle numerose incombenze, richieste dalla complessa organizza - zione della macchina militare, implicò la presenza di personale sempre più specia - lizzato per soddisfare le esigenze dei vari officia , dove l’ingente quantità di docu - menti prodotti dovevano essere tramessi, raccolti ed archiviati; così, ad esempio, lo stato maggiore di ogni unità potè contare su un considerevole numero di sot - tufficiali addetti a compiti di segretaria, di contabilità, di archivio e di scrittura 1. Numerose testimonianze archeologiche, epigrafiche e papiracee attestano l’esistenza di tabularia per i singoli corpi della burocrazia legionaria e ausiliaria. È opinione diffusa che i tabularia della legione fossero almeno tre (il tabu - larium legionis , il tabularium principis e quello degli stratores )2, ma il loro nu - mero rimane ancora incerto: infatti a Lambaesis, quando venne rinvenuto il ta - bularium principis , si credette che nella legione ve ne fosse solo uno, ben pre - sto però gli scavi portarono alla luce un secondo archivio, il tabularium legio - nis , che si confermò essere l’ufficio più importante della legione 3. 1 M. Philonenko, Le collège des “officiales tabularii legionis” dans le camp de Lambèse , in «RAf», 69 (1928), p.
  • ROMAN FRONTIER STUDIES 2009 Proceedings of the XXI International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies (Limes Congress) Held at Newcastle Upon Tyne in August 2009

    ROMAN FRONTIER STUDIES 2009 Proceedings of the XXI International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies (Limes Congress) Held at Newcastle Upon Tyne in August 2009

    Copyrighted Material - No unauthorized reproduction in any medium ROMAN FRONTIER STUDIES 2009 Proceedings of the XXI International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies (Limes Congress) held at Newcastle upon Tyne in August 2009 edited by Nick Hodgson, Paul Bidwell and Judith Schachtmann Archaeopress Roman Archaeology 25 Copyrighted Material - No unauthorized reproduction in any medium Archaeopress Publishing Ltd Gordon House 276 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 7ED www.archaeopress.com ISBN 978 1 78491 590 2 ISBN 978 1 78491 591 9 (e-Pdf) © Archaeopress and the authors 2017 Front cover illustration: The reconstructed south-west gate, South Shields Roman Fort, Great Britain Back cover illustrations: The site of the Roman bridge (Pons Aelius) across the river Tyne at Newcastle; inscription (RIB 1322) found in the Tyne at Newcastle, recording the transfer of legionary detachments between Britain and Germany, c. 158 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owners. Printed in England by Oxuniprint, Oxford This book is available direct from Archaeopress or from our website www.archaeopress.com Copyrighted Material - No unauthorized reproduction in any medium Contents Foreword ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ix Introduction �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������xi

  • Oleum Non Perdidit

    antiqua_47_layout_def5_Antiqua_Umschlag 15.06.2010 15:01 Seite 1 7 4 a u q i t n A Oleum nOn per did it r e h c l i K - n i t r a M e i n a f e t S r ü f t f i r h c s t s e F Festschrift für Stefanie Martin-Kilcher zu ihrem 65. Geburtstag t i d i d r e p n o n m u e l ISBN 978-3-908006-39-8 o Antiqua 47 antiqua_47_layout_def5_Antiqua_Inhalt 15.06.2010 14:50 Seite 1 Christa Ebnöther/Regula Schatzmann (Hrsg.) oleum non perdidit Festschrift für Stefanie Martin-Kilcher zu ihrem 65. Geburtstag antiqua_47_layout_def5_Antiqua_Inhalt 15.06.2010 14:50 Seite 2 Veröffentlichung der AntiquA 47 Archäologie Schweiz Publication d’Archéologie Suisse Pubblicazione d’Archeologia Svizzera Publication of Swiss Archaeology antiqua_47_layout_def5_Antiqua_Inhalt 15.06.2010 14:50 Seite 3 oleum non perdidit Festschrift für Stefanie Martin-Kilcher zu ihrem 65. Geburtstag Christa Ebnöther/Regula Schatzmann (Hrsg.) antiqua_47_layout_def5_Antiqua_Inhalt 15.06.2010 14:50 Seite 4 Publiziert mit Unterstützung durch: Association Pro Aventico, Avenches Arbeitsgemeinschaft für die provinzial-römische Forschung in der Schweiz, Basel Archäologie Schweiz, Basel UniBern Forschungsstiftung, Bern Freiwillige Akademische Gesellschaft, Basel Gesellschaft Pro Vindonissa, Brugg Kantonsarchäologie Zürich Kulturförderung Kanton Graubünden, Chur Stiftung Pro Augusta Raurica, Augst Vindonissa-Professur, Universität Basel Redaktion: Christa Ebnöther, Regula Schatzmann Gestaltung: Philippe Müller Produktionslayout: Edition arcHart, Daniel Hartmann, Muri AG Druck: Reinhardt Druck AG, Basel Umschlagbild: Kopflampe aus Trier, Alle Rechte der Vervielfältigung, der Fotokopie und des auszugsweisen 2. Hälfte 1. Jh. n.Chr.

  • ROMAN FRONTIER STUDIES 2009 Proceedings of the XXI International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies (Limes Congress) Held at Newcastle Upon Tyne in August 2009

    ROMAN FRONTIER STUDIES 2009 Proceedings of the XXI International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies (Limes Congress) held at Newcastle upon Tyne in August 2009 edited by Nick Hodgson, Paul Bidwell and Judith Schachtman Archaeopress Roman Archaeology Contents Foreword ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ix Introduction �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������xi A Record of the Congress ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������xii Acknowledgements �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������xv Attendees �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������xvi Women and Families in the Roman Army Session organisers: Carol van Driel-Murray, Martina Meyr, Colin Wells Women, the Military and patria potestas in Roman Britain ������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 3 Lindsay Allason-Jones Beyond von Petrikovits – artefact distribution and socio-spatial practices in the Roman military ��������������� 9 Penelope Allison Some thoughts about the archaeological legacy of soldiers’ families in the countryside of the
  • Aelia Capitolina – Roman Jerusalem and the Military Camp of the X Legion “Fretensis"

    Aelia Capitolina – Roman Jerusalem and the Military Camp of the X Legion “Fretensis"

    Uniwersystet Łódźki Instytut Archeologii „Aelia Capitolina – Roman Jerusalem and the military camp of the X Legion “Fretensis". Tomasz Janczewski Praca napisana pod kierwonictwem pani Prof. dr hab. Ilona Skupińska-Lovset Łódź 2016 Contents Bibliography: .............................................................................................................................. 3 List of Ilustrations: ................................................................................................................... 13 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 15 History of research ............................................................................................................... 18 History of Roman occupation in the east. Chronological and geographical borders. ........ 24 Chapter I ................................................................................................................................... 33 Roman Jerusalem- Aelia Capitolina ......................................................................................... 33 The History of Aelia Capitolina ........................................................................................... 33 Hadrian. The founding of Aelia Capitolina and the reasons for the Bar Kocha revolt ... 38 The Founding of Aelia Capitolina ........................................................................................ 40 Christianity and Aelia .........................................................................................................