The Fleets on the Northern Frontier of the Roman Empire from the 1 st to 3rd century Christoph Rummel, MA MA (Cantab) Thesis submitted to the University of Nottingham for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy January 2008 Volume I Text and Bibliography ABSTRACT Ancient sources consistently identify a strong naval element to Roman military activity along the northern frontier from the earliest occupation campaigns to Late Antiquity. This element is formed by four established provincial fleets, the CLASSES BRITANNICA , GERMANICA , PANNONICA and MOESICA . The current understanding of these units, however, is disproportionate to their importance and some current interpretations are in urgent need of revision in view of new archaeological and epigraphic data relevant to the fleets. This study identifies and analyses the main theories and problems in the study of naval activity on the northern frontier on the basis of concrete archaeological and epigraphic evidence. In order to establish a reliable foundation for further research, every site on the northern frontier identified as a fleet base in current research is studied in detail to identify fleet related evidence. These surveys, one for each of the provincial fleets based on the northern frontier, constitute the four main chapters of the thesis. The evidence for each fleet is summarised independently at the end of each chapter to revise current understanding of the respective fleet. The concluding chapter draws on all four of these summaries and reassesses the current understanding of naval power on the northern frontier of the Roman Empire from the 1 st -3rd century, highlighting several misconceptions that exist in current scholarship. As such, the study illustrates that there is substantially less evidence for the provincial fleets than is currently being assumed, while the evidence at hand is not being utilized to its full potential. It is shown that literary evidence for naval activity must be treated with far greater care than hitherto anticipated and that a number of difficulties in our understanding of Roman naval activity on the northern frontier are caused by a serious misinterpretation of the term classis . Although the “regular” fleets were evidently far smaller than currently believed and had a far more limited range of operations than assumed, the naval element in Roman military activity on the northern frontier was far more substantial than these four established classes : there is clear evidence not only for the use of ad hoc fleets, created and often requisitioned for specific military campaigns, but also that naval arms were maintained by both legions and auxiliary units. These detachments played a significant role in the control and safeguarding of the Empire’s northern frontier – probably more so than the established fleets, the CLASSES BRITANNICA , GERMANICA , PANNONICA and MOESICA . ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are a number of people who have provided advice, help, encouragement and all sorts of other forms of support during my research over the past years. Particular thanks, however, are due to Prof. Andrew Poulter at the University of Nottingham for encouraging this project in the first place, as well as for alleviating various last minute panics and crises and the provision of numerous lunches. My gratitude also goes to the Römisch-Germanische Zentralmuseum at Mainz for allowing me access to their unrivalled resources and for funding this research for a year by the provision of a research scholarship. In particular, I am indebted to Dr Manuela Struck for mentioning my name in the right places and to Dr Barbara Pferdehirt, not only for encouraging me to go to Mainz, but also for her help and advice during my year at that institute. The same applies to all the friends and colleagues at Mainz, who are too many to be listed here. The Institut für Vor- und Frühgeschichte und Provinzialrömische Archäologie at the University of Munich, and Prof. Michael Mackensen in particular, provided me with a workspace and access to all their research facilities for over a year, for which I am extremely grateful. Again, the colleagues and friends who assisted my research by endless discussions over numerous cups of coffee are too many to be listed, but Dr Sebastian Gairhos, Dr Markus Gschwind, Mr Stefan Reuter and Dr Florian Schimmer deserve particular mention. My sincerest gratitude, however, must go to my parents for their unwavering support over many years, as well as endless hours of encouragement. Without their help and belief I could never have hoped to complete this work. Finally, I must thank Ms Meike Weber who put up with me throughout my research, and without whose input this work, and its final stages in particular, would have been entirely impossible. CR iii LIST OF CONTENTS Volume I – Text and Bibliography Abstract ii Acknowledgements iii List of Contents iv List of Figures vi Chapter I: Introduction 1 I. I Thesis Outline 2 I. II Traditional Sources of Evidence for Naval Activity in the Roman Period 3 I. III Past Scholarship 12 I. IV Methodology 22 Chapter II: The CLASSIS PANNONICA 28 II. I Introduction 29 II. II Sites 32 II. III Discussion 79 Chapter III: The CLASSIS MOESICA 86 III. I Introduction 87 III. II Sites 90 III. III Discussion 130 Chapter IV: The CLASSIS GERMANICA 139 IV. I Introduction 140 IV.II Sites 144 IV.III Discussion 205 iv LIST OF CONTENTS (ctd.) Chapter V: The CLASSIS BRITANNICA 223 V. I Introduction 224 V.II Sites 227 V.III Discussion 277 Chapter VI : Conclusions 288 Bibliography 302 Volume II – Appendices and Figures Appendices 334 I. CODEX THEODOSIANUS VII, 17.1 335 II. Inscriptions referring to the CLASSIS PANNONICA 336 III. Inscriptions referring to the CLASSIS MOESICA 337 IV. Inscriptions referring to the CLASSIS GERMANICA 339 V. Inscriptions referring to the CLASSIS BRITANNICA 341 VI. Inscriptions referring to more than one Provincial Fleet 343 Figures 344 v LIST OF FIGURES Fig. 1.1: Trajan’s column, scene XXXIII 345 (from Bounegru & Zahariade [1996], p. 50). Fig. 1.2: Trajan’s column, scene XXXVI 345 (from Bounegru & Zahariade [1996], p. 50). Fig. 1.3: Trajan’s column, scene LXXX 345 (from Bounegru & Zahariade [1996], p. 50). Fig. 1.4: LAETITIA AVG antoninianus of Postumus (RIC 73). 346 Fig. 1.5: Denarius of Caracalla (RIC 560). 346 Fig 1.6: VIRTVS AVG QL quinarius of Allectus (RIC 55). 346 Fig 1.7: Provincial spheres of activity of the four fleets on the northern frontier according 347 to current research. Fig. 2.1: Stamped tiles of the CLASSIS PANNONICA from Progar. 347 (from Dimitrevi ć [1996], p. 155). Fig. 2.2: Sites identified as bases of the CLASSIS PANNONICA in current literature. 348 Fig. 2.3: The topography of the three Roman forts at Passau. 348 (after Christlein [1979], p. 97). Fig. 2.4: The ‘Altrip’ style fortification of Boiotro with local river topography. 348 (after Höckmann [1998]) p. 11). Fig 2.5: Ioviacum and the wall identified as a harbour. 349 (after Höckmann [2002], p. 966]). Fig. 2.6: The felix Italia inscription from Carnuntum. 349 (from http://www1.rgzm.de/Navis2/home/FramesE.cfm). Fig. 2.7: The alleged harbour at Brigetio. 350 (after Lırincz, [1975], p. 349). Fig. 2.8: The ‘harbour’ at Brigetio interpreted as a second fort. 350 (after Lırincz, [1975], p. 346). Fig. 2.9: Conjectured plan of Taurunum. 350 (after Dimitrevi ć [1996], p. 145). Fig. 2.10: Original documentation of the Laibach moor Prahm. 350 (after Gaspari [1999], p. 532). Fig. 2.11: Reconstruction of the ship from the Laibach Moor. 351 (after Gaspari [1999], p. 534). Fig. 2.12: Drawing of one of the dugouts from Siscia. 351 (after Juriši ć [1993], p. 69). vi LIST OF FIGURES (ctd.) Fig. 2.13: Plan of Sirmium indicating the area of apparent harbour finds. 351 (after Höckmann [2002], p. 966]). Fig. 2.14: Epigraphic evidence for the CLASSIS PANNONICA . 352 Fig. 2.15: Findspots of tiles stamped by the CLASSIS PANNONICA . 352 Fig. 2.16: Sites with direct (archaeological) evidence of a naval presence. 352 Fig. 2.17: Evaluation of evidence for the CLASSIS PANNONICA . 353 Fig. 3.1: Stamped tiles of the CLASSIS MOESICA from Noviodunum. 353 (based on Bounegru & Zahariade [1996], p. 13; Zahariade et al [1981], p. 257). Fig. 3.2: Sites identified as bases of the CLASSIS MOESICA in current literature. 353 Fig. 3.3 : Overview of remains at Viminacium. 354 (after Mirkovi ć [1999], p. 18). Fig. 3.4: The remains identified as a late Roman fortified landing site. 354 (after Mirkovi ć [1999], p. 19). Fig. 3.5: Photographs provided to argue for a landing site at Česava. 354 (from Petrovi ć [1991a], p. 212). Fig. 3.6: Plan of the ‘landing site’ at Hajdu čka Vodenica. 354 (after Petrovi ć [1991a], p. 212). Fig. 3.7: Plan based on a Marsigli sketch identifying Roman remains in the Danube near Česava. 354 (from Gudea [2001], p. 63). Fig. 3.8: Plan of Drobeta. 355 (after Gudea [2001], p. 82). Fig. 3.9: The ‘river harbour’ at Drobeta. 355 (from Bounegru & Zahariade [1996], p. 83). Fig. 3.10: The Diocletianic/Constantinian fort at Drobeta. 355 (after Southern & Dixon [1996], p. 135). Fig. 3.11: Hypothetical reconstruction of an eroded annexe at Drobeta. 355 (based on Gudea [2001], p. 82). Fig. 3.12: Topographic situation of the forts at Egeta. 356 (after Gudea [2001], p. 88). Fig. 3.13: Remains identified as the harbour of Egeta. 356 (after Petrovi ć [1991a], p. 211). Fig. 3.14: Remains of the harbour at Aquae . 356 (from Petrovi ć [1991b], p. 296). Fig. 3.15: The ship (and an ashlar from the quay) found at Aquae. 356 (from Petrovi ć [1991b], p.